Sitting of 16 June 1997

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

    Staffordshire Regiment
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future role of the Staffordshire regiment; and if he will make a statement. [2040]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The Staffordshire regiment is currently a light infantry battalion employed in the national defence role. The strategic defence review, launched on 28 May, will decide how our armed forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet our nation's interests and commitments. It would be premature to assess the likely outcome of the review before the process is complete.
    Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State to their posts.
    The Minister will recall that in 1991 there were contingency plans to merge the Staffordshire regiment with the Cheshires. As the Staffordshire regiment is one
    2
    of only two county regiments in the British Army, and the morale of soldiers in the Staffordshire regiment will not be helped by the strategic defence review, will the Minister give some added assurance that the regiment, which was founded in Lichfield in 1705 and has an illustrious 300-year history, will have some future under a Labour Government?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I recall the proposals that the Conservative Government made regarding the Staffordshire regiment, which were then reversed after a campaign by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am happy to acknowledge the regiment's long and proud history of service to the Crown which, as the hon. Gentleman said, dates back to 1705. I fully appreciate the sense of regimental identity and the close links that regiments may enjoy with the local community, but the hon. Gentleman—and hon. Members who may ask similar questions in respect of other regiments—will appreciate, as the regiment does, that it would be quite wrong to announce decisions about the outcome of the wide-ranging review before it has even started.
    Mr. Maginnis: In support of what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested, I pay tribute to the Staffordshire regiment, which has served for five of the last 20 years in Northern Ireland with considerable distinction. It lost a man in south Armagh in 1984, and it served again in my constituency more recently. May I suggest to the Minister that it is wrong to keep our security services generally in a state of limbo and that six years after "Options for Change" it is time for consolidation? I implore him to move towards reassuring the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
    Dr. Reid: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to his backing for the Staffordshire regiment, which has served not only in Northern Ireland but in the Gulf war.
    The ultimate purpose of the strategic defence review is to give the clarity of direction and the coherence to our strategy in foreign affairs and defence matters that have

    3
    been singularly lacking throughout the past six or seven years, during which we have had one mini-review after another, regiments have been merged and chopped only to be reinstated and millions have been paid out in redundancy payments only to find that we are now short of soldiers. After a period of chaos and instability, the armed forces are entitled to ask that a new Government give some coherence and clarity, as we shall do with the strategic defence review.

    Trident Missile System
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total cost of the Trident missile system over its remaining operational life. [2041]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Remaining acquisition costs for the Trident system, as at September 1996, stood at just under £1.5 billion. Operating costs will average £200 million per annum over a 30-year in-service life.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that that cost is astronomical and that the money could be much better used on the much needed social infrastructure of this country—health, education and housing—and that nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability will be included in the defence review? Will the Department give a serious answer to the International Court of Justice decision regarding the legality and morality of any state in the world holding nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Spellar: I confirm that the figures that I have given constitute 1 per cent. of the defence budget over the next 30 years. I should also point out that both my hon. Friend and I stood at the last election on a manifesto in which we said very firmly that we would retain Trident.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister clarify his answer? Does it mean that the Labour Government will keep four boats in service throughout the period in question—throughout the operational life of the Trident missile system—and that one boat will be kept permanently on station, so that the full deterrent effectiveness can be maintained?
    Mr. Spellar: The answer is quite straightforward. The fourth boat has already been ordered, and will be delivered. We shall be looking at retaining the minimal deterrent that is necessary to fulfil our obligations.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited the former Yugoslavia to discuss the British contribution to IFOR. [2042]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I visited the former Yugoslavia from 19 to 20 May and had very useful discussions with the multinational stabilisation force and with United Kingdom commanders and troops. I also had meetings with members of the Bosnian presidency and the entity Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Crausby: When my right hon. Friend next meets his American counterpart, will he stress the importance of
    4
    United States participation in European security, and also stress that our common policy on Bosnia should be "in together, out together"?
    Mr. Robertson: When I met the American Secretary of Defence last week, I made it clear that the success of SFOR—the stabilisation force—is down not just to NATO and the NATO countries whose forces are serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but to the other nations involved there, and to Ukraine and Russia, which are partners in this regard. That is part of the considerable success that we have achieved in the area, providing a unique opportunity for previously warring factions to rebuild civic institutions there.
    I have reminded the Americans, and will continue to remind them, that the Dayton peace accords were a substantial triumph for western and, perhaps especially, American diplomacy. We should not rashly throw away the rewards that have been achieved. The main point at present, however, is that the burden of responsibility lies with the Bosnian leadership, which has not done enough. The international community will not be taken for granted. We went in together, we stay in together, we have succeeded together, and if nothing happens on the ground we shall clearly have to leave together as well.
    Mr. Brazier:I welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to their posts, to which I am sure that they will bring considerable energy and imagination. May I none the less urge the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of the answer that he has just given and the answer given earlier by his hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces about the defence review, to remember that the primary purpose of Britain's armed forces is the defence of this country and its vital interests in a very dangerous world? Peacekeeping is an activity, not the principal purpose.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the warm and appropriate welcome that he gave the new Ministers. I know that the point has been well taken on the Opposition Front Bench, however temporary that may be.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: the primary role of our armed forces is the defence of Britain and Britain's interests. However, we also have a wider international responsibility. When I met our troops serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina a few weeks ago, I was proud of them and I was impressed by the job that they are doing on behalf of the international community, along with representatives of that community, in maintaining peace in a part of the world that has scarred Europe for many generations. Together, as an international community, we have provided a rare moment of opportunity for people to dig themselves out of the situation and build a permanent peace.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could the difficult old question of local allowances for our service men in the British Army of the Rhine, who have had to leave their families behind in Fallingbostel or elsewhere, be reconsidered? When they go to Bosnia, they lose the allowances that they had in Germany. Can my right hon. Friend imagine the wry smiles of the men of B squadron of the Scots Dragoon Guards when they learn that the Canadians, with whom

    5
    they are doing manoeuvres, get free telephone calls for as long as they like to Canada, whereas the Scots' telephone calls are financially restricted?
    Mr. Robertson: I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished record of service with that regiment and I was extremely pleased to meet it in Baraci just before he arrived on the scene. His point was made to me there, too. However, the matter is not as uncomplicated as he suggests. Some of the troops from the 34 nations serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina have different allowances and benefit from different regimes, but the allowances paid in Germany are for specific circumstances which are not deemed to relate to service in Bosnia. I listened with great care to the points that were made politely and sensibly by our forces in that part of the world. We shall keep these issues under permanent review.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of necessary and valuable service in Bosnia, men in some units, such as the Queen's Royal Hussars, have spent two and a half of the past five years away from their families? How does he intend to address the problem of overstretch?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am aware of the stresses and strains which face those who serve in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and other parts of the world where British forces are committed, never mind those who serve in the homeland. The problem of overstretch will be seriously addressed in our strategic defence review because it is fundamental to how well and how professionally our forces discharge the roles that we ask them to perform in the world today.
    The strategic defence review is not some ploy by an incoming Government: it is a determined attempt to provide clarity and vision for the future of this country and to ensure that when our troops discharge the obligations that the people want us to place on them they are not hindered by the problems of overstretch that many of them face today.

    Land Mines
    Ms Dari Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking in relation to anti-personnel land mines. [2043]
    Mr. George Robertson: On 21 May we announced that we would ban all trade in anti-personnel land mines involving the United Kingdom—that is, their import, export, transfer and manufacture. We also introduced a complete moratorium on their operational use. We will phase out our stocks of such land mines by 2005 at the latest.
    Ms Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, and I am delighted with his answer. The moratorium on land mines is long overdue. Will the moratorium extend to the JP-233 airfield denial weapon?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome, and I welcome her to the House. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I were able to discharge our clear manifesto commitment so quickly after coming to power. Few people in this country
    6
    could tolerate any longer the continued use in the world of these disgraceful and almost immoral weapons. Our move is designed as a signal and as part of a momentum that we hope will encompass all those involved with such weaponry.
    When I visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, I flew over some of the most stunningly beautiful land in the world. It was impossible to believe that we could not land on it or walk on it. Future generations may not be able to do so either, because of the estimated 3 million land mines that have been spread throughout that country.
    The JP-233 falls within the definition of an anti-personnel land mine under the terms of revised protocol 2 to the United Nations weaponry convention and so is covered by the moratorium that we have announced.
    Mr. Robathan: In a spirit of friendly co-operation I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his team for the entertainment value that they will bring to the Government Front Bench. I certainly agree that we all deplore land mines and I also agree with the moratorium. Does the Secretary of State agree that none of the 3 million anti-personnel mines laid in Bosnia was British? Can he say specifically when an anti-personnel mine was last manufactured in the United Kingdom and when an anti-personnel mine was last exported?
    Mr. Robertson: Anti-personnel mines were used by this country in the Gulf war and in the Falklands conflict. This country adopted a responsible way of doing that with marked minefields, and all the mines were subsequently taken up. The point is not whether we have exported or manufactured anti-personnel land mines in the past, but the fact that there is currently no legal regime to prevent their being manufactured or exported. We shall introduce legislation to achieve that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
    The subject of anti-personnel land mines holds no entertainment value at all: it is a deeply serious subject which has galvanised the United State Congress and many people throughout the world. What we are doing is not a gesture, but part of a worldwide movement to outlaw a particular type of weapon which should have been outlawed a long time ago.

    Merchant Ships
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the availability of British merchant ships for defence purposes. [2044]
    Dr. John Reid: The availability of militarily useful British merchant ships which might be used for defence purposes is kept under regular review as part of our normal planning.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the former Conservative Government's policy meant that in the massive sea operation, Purple Heart, between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government, not one British merchant vessel was engaged or chartered? Likewise, when we shipped troops and machines to Bosnia, not one British

    7
    merchant ship was engaged. The American navy moved the troops and equipment. As a result of the Conservative Government's lack of confidence, our merchant fleet is run down; manpower is reducing, training has almost stopped, and if action is not taken to improve the merchant fleet's facilities and equipment, our future could be in jeopardy. Will the Minister take note of my concerns, which have also been expressed by many others, with a view to strengthening the British merchant fleet?
    Dr. Reid: I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's concerns. I fully understand and share his profound regret at the decline of the British flagged fleet under the last Tory Government. He may be reassured that the Government are committed to working with all concerned to help to develop the industry's economic potential to the full. We are supremely conscious of the value of merchant ships and of seafarers to man them in times of crisis, and I will ensure that my officials enjoy a close and productive relationship with the Chamber of Shipping.
    Mr. Soames: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends to their important jobs and I wish them every success in what I am sure will be an interesting time for them. Does the Minister agree about the extreme importance to the joint rapid deployment force of securing the second lease on a roll-on roll-off ferry? Will he confirm that, despite the defence review, and bearing in mind the importance of the joint rapid deployment force, the Government intend to go ahead with that second lease?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and may I be the first to welcome him to his new role as a shadow? [Interruption.] I have looked forward for some time to saying that. I completely accept the important role of the ro-ro ferry that he mentions in the joint rapid deployment force and in other possible expeditionary ventures of that nature. He will appreciate, however, that it would not be wise—before we have even started a review—to start ring-fencing every issue that is raised by every hon. Member, every regiment and every other item. Nevertheless, I appreciate the important role that the item that he has mentioned plays in our future rapid deployment force.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As a result of the cynical rundown of the British fleet by the Conservative Government, fewer and fewer people go into any kind of merchant fleet training and we cannot operate any fleet, either safely or unsafely, unless we have the personnel. Will my hon. Friend therefore examine the training programmes closely and do his best to expand the number of British youngsters being trained to go to sea?
    Dr. Reid: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who asked the main question on this, I share the regret at the dramatic decline in both shipping and training during the period of the last Conservative Government. We shall obviously have to consider that and the sectors on which we might militarily depend. I mention merely that we should not forget that the Ministry of Defence maintains one of the largest civilian fleets in Europe in the form of 17 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I take this opportunity to pay
    8
    tribute to its important work around the globe and I know that its excellent training and cadetship are highly regarded throughout the shipping industry, but it is small compensation in the face of the decline in other sectors over the past 20 years.

    Defence Review
    Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is being given to defence procurement in the strategic defence review. [2045]
    Mr. George Robertson: The strategic defence review will ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks that we ask of them. The Government are also committed to a strong British defence industry, as a strategic part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort.
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on their appointment. What progress has either he or the Prime Minister made in talks with their German opposite numbers on the European fighter aircraft? The Secretary of State will know that it is important to my constituency not just because of British Aerospace, but because of the number of smaller defence contractors who are dependent on the aircraft going into full production. Does he agree that the aircraft is important for this country's future defence capability and that we want to ensure that the Royal Air Force gets the best equipment possible?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I agree with the points that he has made. We made it clear before the election that we supported the Eurofighter programme and we shall order it according to the conditions and numbers previously announced. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the Eurofighter is not simply about jobs because it will form the primary component of the RAF's fighting capability. Two weeks ago in Bonn, I met the German Defence Minister, Herr Rae, whom I have known for many years. He confirmed that the German Government wanted the Eurofighter and intended, if they could, to go ahead with it. He aimed to get agreement from the German Cabinet's budget meeting on 11 July.
    When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Chancellor Kohl on 6 June, the Chancellor made clear his personal commitment to the Eurofighter programme and his aim to secure the German Government's commitment to the production phase in July within the framework of the draft 1998 federal budget. Those were extremely good signs for the future of the Eurofighter programme and we await with great interest the outcome of the German Government's review.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend, may I persuade him of the great importance to Britain of the future large aircraft project? In my constituency, 2,500 Airbus workers manufactured the wings of the Airbus airliners and would like to manufacture the wings of the future large aircraft. Will he receive a small deputation on the matter, particularly bearing it in mind that the late delivery of the Lockheed C 130J has let down his Department so far?
    Mr. Robertson: Over the 18 years that I occupied the Opposition Front Bench, I never realised how popular one

    9
    could become if one became Secretary of State for Defence: the offers to keep me company in my office every hour of the day or night, to discuss every procurement contract, warm me enormously.
    We do not intend to impose a moratorium on existing contracts as part of our strategic defence review. Business will proceed as normally as possible and projects already under contract will continue. For future contracts, we shall consider major equipment projects according to their individual circumstances and in relation to progress on the review. I shall certainly consider meeting my hon. Friend, but he may find that his best first step in putting his case would be to request a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gilbert, the Minister for Defence Procurement.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues. Does he accept that the Eurofighter project enjoys all-party support—despite the fact that his predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo, entertained the notion of leasing second-hand F16 aircraft for the Royal Air Force, which would undoubtedly have undermined the whole Eurofighter project?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that the defence review will not be a smokescreen behind which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can mount a dawn raid on the defence budget?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his warm welcome. I look forward to working with him and the official Opposition spokesmen in building what will be a genuine consensus on defence. For too long, defence has been a political football. I hope that our strategic defence review will, at long last, bring about the consensus on defence that I believe is wanted by the vast majority of people.
    I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for the Eurofighter project. It should be understood that it is important both for its European symbolism and as a major multinational contract to build a European aircraft to meet European needs.
    I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the strategic defence review will be foreign policy led, based on the priorities that we believe are important for this country in the world as a whole. It will not be predicated on savings in any other budget. We shall look for value for money in everything on which the defence budget is spent—the people expect no less than that—but I repeat that the review will be foreign policy led and not Treasury led.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the defence review is finally under way, how independent will it be of service pressures?
    Mr. Robertson: We shall listen to the views of the services, just as we shall listen to the views of the public. We also intend to take into account the views of the Opposition parties and the views of experts. Through the two seminars that will be organised in July, and through our invitation to the public, we intend to bear in mind as many different views as possible before reaching a considered conclusion. Obviously, the services will contribute their views—as they rightly should.
    10
    I have made it clear to the troops, at every level, that I expect to hear their views as to what they want the outcome to be. I visited the Royal Naval college at Greenwich last week, where the joint senior command course is being held. The services represented there include the civil service as well as the police force. They are carrying out their own strategic defence review, and I have asked for a copy of that to be submitted to me so that I can build it into our considerations.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his team to their important positions. Is it true that there are papers circulating within the Ministry of Defence envisaging spending cuts of £3 billion or more?
    Mr. Robertson: If there are, they are probably left over from the last Administration. On a more conciliatory note, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. After 18 years in opposition, I know how he feels. After 18 years, he might have half a chance of getting it right.
    I know of no papers suggesting budget cuts. We shall put the foreign policy priorities of this country first and then give a sense of clarity and direction to our forces as to how their roles can be properly and economically carried out for the future of our country.
    Mr. Radice: I welcome my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to their new positions.
    May I say that, as a former officer in Her Majesty's Coldstream Guards, I am absolutely confident that the defence strategic review is a good idea? I am also confident that Her Majesty's defence is in good hands.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend—who is one of my oldest friends in politics—for his kind and generous remarks. On Saturday, the Guards regiments performed Trooping the Colour with their customary skill and professionalism, as I am sure that the public noticed.
    I also thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the strategic defence review. Despite a few grudging remarks from one or two small quarters, the idea for such a review was welcomed by people from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament right across to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), Mr. David Hart and Mr. Douglas Hurd. They all support the idea that the United Kingdom should examine both our defence needs in an international context and how to marry our military resources to those needs. I hope that we can maintain that broad consensus of welcome until the exercise is completed.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence the continuation of which procurement programmes will be under consideration in the strategic defence review. [2046]
    Mr. George Robertson: There will be no moratorium, and business will proceed as normally as possible. Decisions on major equipment programmes not yet under contract will be considered on their individual circumstances and in relation to progress with the review. Projects already under contract will continue.
    Mr. Spring: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the crucial importance of advanced and effective

    11
    anti-armour weaponry in modern warfare. Therefore, will he assure the House that, in any strategic review, the Brimstone programme will not be put in jeopardy?
    Mr. Robertson: We shall examine all procurement proposals in the light of the strategic defence review proposals. We shall not have a moratorium and do not believe that there should be a further long period of uncertainty for our armed forces. Avoiding such uncertainty is why we are proceeding quickly with the review, which will report by the end of the year. The time period is sufficiently brief to ensure that there is no further uncertainty for those who, in the past five years, have experienced maximum uncertainty, but is also sufficiently ambitious to ensure that the right decisions are made.
    Mr. Cohen: In the procurement programme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do not purchase any more "use it or lose it" weaponry—which is weaponry that has to be used in an early strike?
    Mr. Robertson: We shall look at all the procurement projects proposed by the military that are considered to be in the interests of the country's defence. The strategic defence review will examine some future proposals, but it will not affect current procurement decisions.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman and the tone of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), may I ask him to agree that nothing is more corrosive of morale than uncertainty? Will he give a firm undertaking that, when the review is complete, there will be no further attempt to examine or cut down the armed forces during the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Robertson: It would be foolish and rash for any Government to say that, irrespective of circumstances, nothing will be re-examined. We are conducting a major strategic review, and, as the hon. Gentleman will have registered, it has been welcomed by a wide cross-section of opinion, including senior members of the Conservative party. The review offers an opportunity for everyone to become involved in the process of reaching a considered decision. Clearly, however, we shall have to bear in mind any changed external circumstances and ensure that our armed forces are ready for any future threats that might develop.

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to establish a defence diversification agency. [2047]
    Mr. Spellar: The Government will be making proposals in the autumn on how best to give effect to the objectives for defence diversification as outlined in our manifesto. They will include how best to harness the contribution of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to those objectives.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister agree that the success of any defence diversification agency would depend on
    12
    the defence industry extending its expertise to civilian industry? Would that not help British industry to take advantage of commercial opportunities in future?
    Mr. Spellar: Very much so. The objective of defence diversification is to widen the contribution made by the UK defence industrial base to Britain's economic performance by diversifying some of its technological processes and manufacturing skills into new markets and to ensure better co-ordination between Government Departments on issues such as regional policy, training and business planning in order to develop a positive strategy for industrial regeneration. However, we also have to stress that it is not a one-way street: the Ministry of Defence and the forces would also benefit from having a broader, more resilient supplier base for the future.
    Mr. Burns: Is the Minister aware that my constituency has paid a very high price for the peace dividend because of our reliance on defence-related industries and that, only last week, there were 535 redundancies at GEC Marconi Communications? Given that such companies have, over the past eight years or so, actively and positively sought to broaden their manufacturing base by diversifying, what practical help can be given in advance of any review because, sadly, redundancies cannot wait until the result of that review?
    Mr. Spellar: I very much take the hon. Gentleman's point and fully understand the difficulties that his constituency has faced, especially in recent weeks as a result of the closures. That is why we would very much welcome approaches from companies and from the hon. Gentleman himself as to means by which we can take the process forward and examine defence diversification. The fact that we are looking at a mechanism being announced in the autumn does not mean that we have to stand still at the moment and ignore sensible proposals made to us. I would greatly welcome such proposals from the hon. Gentleman.

    Service Pensions
    Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the defence review will include a comprehensive review of service pensions. [2048]
    Dr. John Reid: The strategic defence review will deal with many aspects of defence policy, but it is not expected to cover service pensions. The Government will, however, keep personnel issues relating to the armed forces, including pensions, under full consideration.
    Mr. Gray: In that case, will the Minister take urgent steps to examine the case of British prisoners of war from the second world war whose pay, as he will know, was cut by a half from the day they were captured until the day they were released? Will he take that fact into account when he considers their pensions and their widows' pensions?
    Dr. Reid: Although it is not related to service pensions, I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is being considered at present, and I thank him for

    13
    the representations that he has made. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be bringing news of any decision to the House in due course, and in the not too distant future.
    Mr. MacShane: The Minister will be aware of the deplorable indifference of the Conservative party when in government to the problem of war veterans, their pensions and so on. He will also know of the calls from the Labour party when in opposition for a Minister to be responsible for veterans' issues. Can the Minister say which of his distinguished colleagues is the point of contact when we want to take up matters concerning veterans who served, in one way or another, in the armed forces?
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will be aware that many of the issues, including some of those relating to pensions, are under the control and administration of the Department of Social Security. However, he is right to refer to the deplorable record of the last Government and their treatment of personnel issues and of service men and women before, during and after their service to this country. We shall be considering how best to meet the requirement for a veterans' unit in the Ministry of Defence, and I can tell him that the distinguished member of the defence team to whom he referred will be me.

    Nuclear Test Veterans
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the claims of the British nuclear test veterans. [2051]
    Mr. Spellar: Under the provisions of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, a war pension may be awarded in respect of any death or disablement which is due to service in the armed forces. Claims for war pensions have been received from ex-service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests and awards have been made where there is reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the death or disablement is due to service.
    Mr. Rowlands: Are there not many outstanding claims? Is it not true that the United States Government have settled all the claims of men affected by nuclear tests? Could we not follow their example and be rather more generous in responding to the many veterans who have suffered illness consequent on their service?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is right in that the United States has made a decision to pay compensation to the Marshall islanders who were near the tests. It will, no doubt, have taken account of the facts of the specific case, as we are doing in the case of British nuclear test veterans. We are having to work on the basis of scientific evidence and the facts made available to us by the National Radiological Protection Board. We shall continue to work on that. As my hon. Friend will know, in the related issue of workers in Chatham dockyard who were exposed to radiation, we are making major efforts to improve access to records to enable them best to pursue their case and interests.
    Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the Front-Bench Members to their duties in the Ministry of Defence.
    14
    Will serious consideration be given to the ruling on the breach of articles 6 and 8 of the convention? Will it therefore be possible for the Government to ensure that more veterans who were subjected to nuclear testing have access to their own war records, which always seems to be a problem for those individuals? As it was ruled that there appeared to be a lack of candour from the last Government, can we have candour from this Government and, I hope, action for those people?
    Mr. Spellar: Many of the records on the atmospheric nuclear tests have already been released to the public and, as the hon. Lady knows, veterans have drawn on those records in making their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Other records are currently being reviewed for release. However, some will need to remain classified if they contain details of weapons design, as the release of such information would breach the Government's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. The Government do not accept the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights that lack of access to unspecified contemporary yield and radiation records prevented the veterans from getting a fair hearing before the pensions appeal tribunal.
    Mr. McWilliam: Does my hon. Friend understand that the records that have been released and some that have not were looked at by the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament? Does he realise how conflicting some of the evidence is and will he undertake to revisit that evidence in detail, particularly in respect of the Bikini atoll tests?
    Mr. Spellar: The study that was undertaken by Sir Richard Doll and the National Radiological Protection Board has been widely publicised and subjected to scientific review. We are not aware of any substantial scientific criticisms of that study, but if such criticisms exist, we are prepared to examine them.

    Defence Review
    Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a mission statement for his Department before the defence review. [2052]
    Dr. John Reid: Yes.
    Mr. Simpson: Like my colleagues, I welcome the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to their new positions—Scotland's loss is defence's gain.
    In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State said that the strategic defence review was going to be Foreign Office led; but in the Foreign Office mission statement, which was released after 10 days by the Foreign Secretary, there is barely any mention of security or defence matters. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the exact benchmarks that will be established in the defence mission statement, especially those relating to the size of the defence budget?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but have to tell him that my right hon. Friend did not say that the review would be Foreign Office led—he said that it would be foreign policy led. The aim of the Ministry of Defence is to provide the defence capabilities needed to ensure the security and defence of the United Kingdom and

    15
    our dependent territories and to help discharge our international responsibilities by supporting the Government's foreign policy objectives and contributing to wider international peace and security. We intend to issue shortly revised aims and objectives for my Department in the form of a mission statement.
    Mr. Miller: In such a mission statement, will my hon. Friend consider including some of the activities of Her Majesty's forces that are less understood by the public? I am thinking particularly of the Royal Navy, where our forces are engaged in anti-drugs activities and support Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Dr. Reid: I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend, who I know has been a great supporter of the forces. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I recommend to all hon. Members who have not yet completed it, including, I understand, the Opposition Front-Bench team. As for the mission statement, we shall certainly look not only at our basic aims—defending our country, and its dependent territories' freedoms and interests, and discharging our international responsibilities—but at the wider themes outlined by my right hon. Friend. the Secretary of State for Defence. Those themes involve caring for our people, contributing to our community, and establishing good communications in order to ensure the widest participation in, and support for, our defence policies and priorities.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Private Contractors
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment the commission has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the Comptroller and Auditor General to evaluate whether private suppliers of services purchased by public authorities are meeting the terms of their contracts and providing value for money. [2030]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission regularly meets to assess the adequacy of the resources available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Resources required to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of services purchased by public authorities and provided by private suppliers are included in the estimates, but are not assessed separately. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not, however, have a guaranteed right of access to the records of contractors where the activities of Government Departments are contracted out. The then Chairman of the commission and I recommended to the previous Administration that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have such access and I hope that we can achieve that aim under the present Administration.
    Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission for his useful response. Will he consider the position of passenger rail services which,
    16
    as a result of privatisation, now attract a much larger public subsidy than when they were run by British Rail? Does the Chairman agree that the audit trail is inevitably much more complicated when one has to follow it through to contractors? Does he also agree that access to private rail operators' records is necessary if the Government are to ensure that value for money is achieved as a result of that increased public subsidy?
    Mr. Sheldon: There is unquestionably a need for greater access. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have access to contracted-out functions. In addition, he does not have the same rights of access to final recipients of European Union funds in the United Kingdom, although the European Court of Auditors does. That is a gap, and I shall continue to press for Government action to fill it.
    Mr. Rowe: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, whose chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee has been long and distinguished.
    I also welcome this opportunity to place on record for the first time in this Parliament that, as a Conservative Member, I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is a big gap in the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers. The capacity to follow public money and its effectiveness further than is currently the case is an indispensable part of an effective Public Accounts Committee and of the Comptroller and Auditor General's function. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make every effort to urge the new Administration to take that on board.
    Mr. Sheldon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks.
    There was unanimity in the Public Accounts Committee on the need to follow public money into some areas where private contractors are involved. As the hon. Gentleman said, we shall have to make progress on that issue.

    Role of the Commission
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions he has had with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the role of the Public Accounts Commission. [2031]
    Mr. Sheldon: Since becoming Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I have not yet had discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The role of the Commission is set out in legislation, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has been a Treasury Minister. He has been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for 14 years, and he has worked closely with the National Audit Office throughout that time. Does he agree that there is no better organization—no more independent organization—capable of carrying out a review of the nation's finances, especially with a view to establishing what the nation's liabilities are?
    Mr. Sheldon: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said about the National Audit Office. Its standing has

    17
    undoubtedly grown during the past several years, and the people and accountants involved in it have the highest reputation in the country. However, in preparing their forecasts of the public finances, they will review the assumptions adopted for economic growth, unemployment and interest rates and the conventions used for projecting proceeds from privatisation and from those measures that are called spend to save. I believe that the reputation of the National Audit Office will be fully vindicated by the report that we shall shortly receive.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Accounts (Surplus)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what factors underlie the surplus of £1.9 million in the accounts published in the Church Commission Report 1996. [2032]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Bell: May I assure the House that the thunder that is outside at the moment, rattling around the precincts of the House, is nothing to do with my appointment as Second Church Estates Commissioner?
    In answer to my hon. Friend, the £1.9 million figure represents the unconsolidated surplus in the commissioners' own books. The actual consolidated surplus is £9 million.
    Mr. Flynn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as our official conduit to the Almighty, but may I address my remarks to the rather more worldly financial turmoil of the Church of England? Will he meet those organisations that are campaigning for recovery of Church funds through the parishes protection group, who were asking why we have not had the independent investigation that the Social Security Select Committee has asked for into the £1 billion lost fund of the Church of England and the £2.5 billion shortfall in the funds for clergy pensions?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have spent a weekend on the Queen Anne's Bounty and the First Fruits and Tenths, so I am edging my way into the high finance of the Church. Evidence was given to the Social Security Select Committee; the Committee has not raised further issues with the commissioners at this time. Clearly, any further submissions will be looked at and will be taken into account by the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I also extend my welcome to the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his important post.
    When the hon. Gentleman considers that surplus in the recent accounts, will he look at the Pensions Measure 1997, which was passed in the previous Parliament? It will require all dioceses and parishes to pay all future pensions—a move that will place a severe strain on some
    18
    parishes and dioceses and may make some unviable. If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman consult on the subject of whether some of the future pensions in some specific dioceses should be paid from the centre?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Pensions Measure received Royal Assent at Eastertime. The actual surplus figures reflect a programme of cutting expenditure and rebalancing the allocation of assets. The aim is to bring the commissioners' assets and liabilities into a more sustainable balance. On that basis—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree—the commissioners can better preserve their support for the needier dioceses and parishes.

    Relationship with Parliament
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners will review their relationship with, and accountability to, Parliament. [2033]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We should certainly wish to review the role of Parliament in relation to the Church and we should wish to begin with the Question Time which we have available by leave of the Speaker and the leadership of the House. Obviously, it is not enough to have a five-minute question spot in order to deal with all questions regarding the Church.
    Mr. Mackinlay: With the greatest respect to the Church of England and the commissioners, may I invite my hon. Friend to consider that, in a modern democratic Parliament containing—at the very most—a minority of Members who are communicants of the Church of England, it is not sensible or right to have a parliamentary Question Time for this function? Even while the Church remains established, should not the commissioners come to Parliament and have their powers and jurisdiction repatriated to them so that they can make their own statutes? It is not the function of a modern Parliament to have questions answered relating to just one denomination: it is time for a review.
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is making the case for a disestablished Church. That is not a matter for the commissioners. We in this Parliament have to ensure that there is no disestablishment by stealth or by disorganisation. At the moment, Church and Parliament are as one; it would be for others to open any debate on the subject of establishment.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am reminded by a colleague that, when the Welsh Church was disestablished, the money went not to the Church but to the universities. I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his responsibilities. We are grateful to the commissioners for coming to Parliament and talking to the Ecclesiastical Committee. It has proved an advance that the early stages of Church legislation should be considered by Synod rather than going through all stages in this House.

    19
    Perhaps we might have a day's debate in a year or two on general Church issues, when the sort of point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) could be aired. We need to consider not only legislation but a wider review of the work of the Church—which has more to do with Bible than balance sheets.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. The distinction between Bible and balance sheet was no doubt clear in the minds of those who
    20
    wished for my appointment. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that Lloyd George disestablished the Church in Wales. Once it was disestablished, he forgot about it and went on to higher things.
    I hope, during the years leading up to the millennium, for greater Church participation in this Parliament. After all, the millennium is the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Questions to Ministers
3.31 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance, and I draw to the attention of the House what I believe to be the unreasonable withholding of information by the Government and contradictory parliamentary answers given in the Official Report.
Last week, I asked each Department for the numbers and percentages of documents passed to the Public Record Office in 1996. Some Departments replied that producing the information would incur "disproportionate cost". Other Departments, however, produced the information. The wording used in the questions—about what happened in particular cases and to particular documents—was identical to the form of question used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) in the Official Report of 2 July 1990, at column 426. At the time, the Department of Trade and Industry answered each question to within one decimal point; yet the same Department—in the form, this time, of the Minister responsible for consumer affairs—tells us seven years later that to collect the information would incur disproportionate cost.
With the Government not pursuing a freedom of information Bill, many Members of the House are concerned about the withholding of information—and such contradictory answers merely serve to underline their concern. Can you, Madam Speaker, help the House by ensuring that information that is properly requested is provided?
Madam Speaker: I have no responsibility for ministerial answers. I advise the hon. Gentleman, in his own best interests, to pursue the point with the Minister concerned.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee.
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I should be grateful for clarification of the money resolution of the Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading last week. A number of amendments have not been selected and it is not my task to question Madam Speaker's selection, nor would it be correct for me to do so.
However, it has been suggested that the money resolution is tightly drawn and that, as some of the amendments have implications for Government expenditure that go beyond the provisions of the money resolution, they are out of order. If amendments are approved which involve additional financial expenditure by the Government, how do we set about amending the money resolution? It is so tightly drawn that there seems to be no scope for additional expenditure, which is why many perfectly good amendments cannot be selected by Madam Speaker, and are therefore not before us to debate this afternoon.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, which will not be to his pleasure, is that Ministers of the Crown have the initiative on expenditure matters, and it is therefore not possible to extend by amendments the expenditure implied by the Bill.
As a footnote on procedural matters, the Chairman of Ways and Means selects amendments for Committees of the whole House, not Madam Speaker.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Clause 1

    PROHIBITION OF SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS
    3.37 pm
    Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 8, leave out
    'the words "a small calibre-pistol" shall cease to have effect.'
    and insert
    'after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted.'
    The amendment attempts to persuade the Government that the Bill should provide for the retention of .22 small-calibre pistols in special circumstances. The noble Lord Cullen' s report does not suggest that single-shot weapons are a danger to the public. On the contrary, paragraph 9.59 of his report says:
    "While all firearms are by definition lethal an individual shot from a handgun, depending on the distance and calibre, may well be less lethal than a shot from a shot gun or a rifle. However, the multi-shot handgun, whether it is a self-loading pistol or a revolver, has the capacity by reason of its high rate of fire and speed of aim to kill or injure a greater number of people within a given short space of time than would be possible with any other type of firearm which is legally available".
    Lord Cullen constructed his recommendations on that basic premise. He clearly distinguished between self-loading pistols and revolvers that are held for target shooting and "other types of firearms".

    23
    The Bill is meant to deal with circumstances in which a system of control breaks down. In a tragedy like Dunblane, it is argued that too much damage can be done before control can be reimposed. That is not so, however, with a single-shot pistol, which is why Lord Cullen excluded it.
    The speed of reloading of a pistol is relevant to the amendment. Most single-shot pistols require four or even five distinct movements to reload. The pistol must first be broken open, the spent cartridge removed, a new round picked up with the other hand and put into the breech, the breech closed and the trigger set. Only then is the pistol ready to be fired.
    In competition precision shooting, it would take approximately a minute for the shooter to fire each shot. Sixty rounds in the hour is the recognised rate of fire by pistol shot in Olympic competitions.
    Only about 5 per cent. of .22 pistols, and probably a smaller percentage of larger-calibre weapons, are single-shot. They are, however, useful at two ends of the sport—for the beginner, who uses a cheap gun for training, and for the expert, who has specially constructed guns for advanced competition.
    On the question of convertibility from single-shot to multi-shot pistols or repeater, it was argued during the debates on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that existing multi-shot weapons could be converted to single-shot and then reconverted to multi-shot. In France, single-shot .22 pistols are subject to no controls of any kind. One can simply walk into a gun shop or even a supermarket and buy such a weapon, without any questions asked.
    Many of those are revolvers which have had the revolving mechanism removed and the cylinder replaced by one with only a single chamber. Such single-shot pistols could be restored to multi-shot capacity if new parts, including a new cylinder, could be obtained, or if the single-shot cylinder were drilled out. In other cases, self-loading pistols are sold with the magazine removed and the magazine well blanked off.
    The amendment takes account of that extreme scenario, as it does not permit pistols that are derived from a multi-shot design.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: 1 notice that the Minister of State is listening carefully, for which we are grateful. My hon. Friend noted that single-shot pistols are available in France. He may have noticed that I got rather a dusty answer from the Minister when I raised that point in the main debate. The Minister said:
    "The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has a total lack of faith in Customs or any controls on our borders. It is untrue to say that people can wander into this country with guns."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1242.]
    Does my hon. Friend know of any regular checking of motor cars coming in, for example, at Dover, to see whether they carry a pistol?
    Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. The question is best put to the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise. As far as I am aware—this is based only on anecdotal
    24
    evidence—there are no such checks. The apprehension of someone importing such weapons would presumably occur by chance, and that import would merely add to the estimated 2,500 illegal weapons going into circulation in this country every week.
    It must be recognised that most of the weapons about which we should be concerned in any debate about firearms are those in illegal circulation, not those that are legally held by perfectly law-abiding people taking part in a sport in which the United Kingdom is particularly successful.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is my understanding that it is customary for the Department responsible for a Bill to ensure that priority notice questions are answered by 3.30, where they pertain to the debate in Committee on the Floor of the House that day. I have just been speaking to the Message Board staff, and I was told that the Home Office questions which I tabled—Nos. 173, 176, 181, 187, 194 and 205—have not yet even reached the Hallkeeper's Lodge, let alone the Members' Letter Board.
    Can you, Sir Alan, make the necessary order to require that those questions, which were tabled at the first available opportunity, should be answered in time for this afternoon's debate? I remind the Chamber that the Home Secretary made several observations during the Second Reading debate last Wednesday, and today is the earliest opportunity to answer queries arising from those observations. I hope that those answers will be provided by 3.30 this afternoon.
    The Chairman): The hon. Member will know, from his own ministerial experience, that plans sometimes can go awry. He will know also that it is not for the Chair to ensure that such things occur. However, the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am sure that they will try to oblige him if they possibly can in order to assist the proceedings of the Committee.
    Mr. Colvin: To bring the debate back on course—
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Back on target.
    Mr. Colvin: Indeed.
    It might be worth while reminding the Committee of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the existing legislation in the aftermath of the Cullen report. He said:
    "We believe that a distinction needs to be made between high-calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and .22 rimfire handguns, which are largely intended for target shooting. Although Lord Cullen decided against making such a distinction, he sets out in paragraph 9.49 of his report a table that demonstrates that a .22 handgun is some four to six times less powerful than higher-calibre handguns.
    In paragraph 9.44, Lord Cullen points out that the expansion in the use of high-calibre handguns has even made many shooters concerned about the use of such guns as symbols of personal power. In addition, target shooting with .22 handguns has been an Olympic sport since 1896. There will be exceptions for the very few professionals, such as vets, who need handguns outside gun clubs for the humane destruction of animals."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 832–33.]

    25
    That quotation appears in the Library's brief, "Prohibiting Handguns: the Firearms (Amendment) Bill", dated 9 June 1997, which I recommend to those participating in the debate. It is a fair, broad and detailed summary of past and present legislation in that area.
    The Government propose the Bill on the basis of their manifesto commitment to ban all handguns, including .22s. In view of the emotion generated in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy and the highly successful Snowdrop campaign, one can understand why Members of Parliament on the eve of a general election took extremely seriously the points raised during the campaign. I believe that a petition was presented to No. 10 Downing street and to the then Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Labour party manifesto contains a commitment to ban all handguns, and that the present Prime Minister has backed the campaign.
    However, I believe that the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself lets the Government off the hook. I do not believe that they have really thought it through, that the Government have considered seriously the impact of a ban on all .22 calibre pistols. I do not think that they have given careful thought to the possibility of excluding single-fire .22 pistols for competition shooting.
    The debate has been surrounded by much emotion—I think too much. Emotion has clouded many of the speeches in this place—although a majority have opposed not only this Government's proposals but the previous Government's approach to firearms legislation. Therefore, it is important to know what we are talking about when we come to these debates.
    If ever we needed a reason for retaining the Palace of Westminster Shooting Range—which is located in the bowels of the earth, where Guy Fawkes left his gunpowder in hope of blowing the place sky high—it is that.
    On many occasions, I have taken Members down to the Shooting Range. Many of them had never handled a rifle or pistol before. I took them to the range to explain what the sport was all about.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind something that is sometimes forgotten by hon. Members who refer to the Shooting Range. The range is a facility of the staff's social club. It is not a provision made for the benefit of Members. In effect, the range belongs to the staff of the House, many of whom participate in its use.
    Mr. Colvin: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We must not digress, but the club has a wide membership. More of its members are staff than Members or Members of the other place. Some women are members, and it is used by the police.
    My remarks so far can be summed up in one phrase: disasters produce bad law. The Bill is potentially bad law.
    The Government's decision to support a ban was rooted in the highly emotional atmosphere post-Dunblane and before Lord Cullen reported. The general public experienced the same initial reaction. Since then, however, public support for a ban has fallen away. Public opinion now takes a more measured judgment based on Lord Cullen's recommendations. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) certainly
    26
    put on record the evidence that stems from our post bags, which is heavily weighted by those who are opposed to the proposed legislation.
    After a thorough inquiry, Lord Cullen stated in his report:
    "I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified."
    I think that that says it all. A complete ban is a hangover from the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy. It would be unfortunate if it were introduced now, when calmer judgments prevail.
    The 1997 Act has introduced draconian controls. The controls and regulations are more stringent than those that are in place anywhere else in the world. Nothing further will be gained in terms of public security by a complete ban. At the same time, retaining the Act may enable United Kingdom participation in an Olympic sport to survive. The Act should be given the chance to succeed before we go down the path that is set out in the Bill.
    I do not think that there is any convincing evidence that the private and legal ownership of handguns is linked to crime. Almost everyone acknowledges that the proposed Act will do nothing to reduce the illegal ownership of guns that underpins criminal activity. To extend prohibition still further without giving time to assess whether it will have that effect would be an injustice to law-abiding people, in the absence of any compensating benefit to the public.
    Participants in target shooting with handguns are a minority, but they are a minority within a very popular sport. These people are law-abiding, and cause no disturbance to others. The noise involved in the use of .22s is minimal. We are talking of some of the most security-conscious and pro-law-enforcement people.
    There may be occasions when the rights of such people need to be overridden in the interests of security. At the same time, the onus is on the state to show that that is necessary. I believe that in this instance it has manifestly failed to meet that onus. Parliament's role in the defence of individual rights is never more crucial than when minority groups do not command popular and media favour.
    One has also to take into account the fact that shooting is now the fastest growing participative sport in the United Kingdom. It is the second most popular sport after fishing. I should explain just what single-shot pistols do as far as competition shooting is concerned. I refer not to centrefire pistols, which, rightly, are now outlawed, but to rimfire pistols—.22 calibre pistols—which are the subject of the amendment.
    Internationally and domestically, the only competition where a single-shot pistol is required is the 50 m free pistol event, a competition that is shot at Olympic, world, Commonwealth and European championships as well as at national and club level. Domestically, most .22 competitions at national and club level could be shot with .22 pistols without altering the rules, or with just a small variation in timings. Most shooting could be done with .22 single-shots—
    The Chairman: Order. I have taken note of the scope of the hon. Gentleman's speech in introducing his amendment, and he seems to be straying into territory that I might have expected to be covered in the debate on new

    27
    clauses 3 and 4. If excluding the hon. Gentleman from talking about new clauses 3 and 4 might unduly constrict him, and, indeed, other hon. Members who were hoping to contribute, it might be convenient for the Committee if I were to revise my provisional selection of amendments to include these new clauses in this debate so that the discussion is not inhibited. We seem to have already covered part of the ground that I would have expected under the other debate.
    Mr. Colvin: Do I take it that that is your ruling, Sir Alan, or are you offering to extend the scope of the debate to include that, because—
    Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a warning shot.
    Mr. Colvin: Indeed.
    I would far rather confine my remarks more specifically to amendment No. 7 rather than try to extend the scope of the debate. I am sure that other hon. Members, some of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment, will speak on the new clauses that you mentioned, Sir Alan. Could we discuss them later this afternoon?
    The Chairman: It seems that my remarks may have found their target, so if the hon. Gentleman will speak very strictly to the terms of his amendment, my original selection can stand.
    Mr. Colvin: Thank you, Sir Alan. I will confine my remarks to something that is more specific and somewhat more accurate.
    In that connection, I should tell the Committee—this relates specifically to derivation from multi-shot designs to single-shot—that, in order to pass judgment on the amendment, it is important to have general information about what these pistols do, and to have some understanding of what the Olympic disciplines are.
    Free pistol and rapid-fire pistol events require a very specialist pistol indeed. The free pistol is a single-shot pistol with a barrel in excess of 10 in. It has a large wooden grip that is usually made to encircle the shooter's hand. Prices of these pistols—a matter of some significance, because we may discuss compensation later on—vary quite considerably, from £750 for a single-hand free pistol to well over £1,200 for a new, top-of-the-line pistol, which would include the specialist grip.
    These pistols are hardly appropriate for criminal use. They are quite impossible to get into someone's pocket, and they cannot be converted to multi-shot use. As this is the last type of weapon that any criminal would consider using to commit a crime, the national security argument falls.
    To put the amendment into perspective, let us consider the number of shooters involved. The National Small-bore Rifle Association has no precise figures for participation in .22 shooting in competitions and leagues, but I believe that, in the Olympic disciplines, there are currently about 500 shooters in the country; but there are some 20,000 domestic and league shooters, and it is necessary to shoot at that level in order to be selected for international competitions.
    28
    4 pm
    If all that is left is .22 pistol shooting, many centrefire shooters will convert to that type of shooting rather than give up the sport altogether. That is an important point, which has a direct bearing on the question of compensation.
    It has been said many times that, following the ban on large-calibre pistols, shooters would convert to .22 pistols. Hopefully, the Government believe that, following the banning of .22 pistols, they will convert to rifles. There are not many specialist pistol clubs in the country. I believe that there are about 2,100 rifle clubs, and, according to the information that the Home Secretary gave me last week, there are 49 clubs exclusively for pistol shooters—a small percentage of the total.
    The House should consider the amendment carefully. If the Government's proposal is enacted, Britain will be the only country to be banned from international pistol shooting competitions. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, passed by the last Parliament, would at least have allowed our competitors to take part on the international stage in the three .22 calibre events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
    This country has a long and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting, a sport that Britain invented and has dominated for the past 100 years. It is a sporting success story for Britain. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition, our competitors have brought home 23 pistol shooting medals in the .22 calibre events alone.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the House of Commons passed this pernicious and unjust legislation, it would affect not just the people he has rightly mentioned—who have conferred great honour on their sport—but the generations to come who will hope to succeed them? They will have no opportunity to train, and Britain, which has dominated the sport for generations, will cease to play a part in it, to the great disadvantage of our sporting reputation.
    Mr. Colvin: I take my hon. Friend's point. As a former Minister for the Armed Forces, he will know that, in the forces, everyone is trained to handle firearms. The draconian measures proposed by the Government to control firearms will mean that that will be the last time many of those people will handle a firearm, and all the talent that has been so successful in the past will be wasted—unless, of course, they travel abroad and train and shoot there.
    A sport that is one of the original 12 Olympic disciplines deserves the same recognition as more visible sports. It should not be lightly destroyed. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends, and the Committee as a whole, will support the amendment.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I begin by registering my disappointment at not having received from the Minister the responses to points made during last Monday's debate, which I was promised I would receive by today. I remind the Committee that in 1940 Winston Churchill commented that we were not only without an Army, but bereft of people who were able to bear arms. History teaches us that we should not repeat our mistakes.

    29
    I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that, in answer to a query from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the ability of British competitors to train for and participate in the games, he said:
    "I have not ruled that out altogether and if realistic representations are made to me, I shall think about the proposal. But I should require a high degree of convincing before going ahead with it."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
    The simple fact is that we have not heard much cold, clinical logic in the debate, except in my contribution. I say that with suitable modesty.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): What was that word?
    Mr. Cook: It is spelt m-o-d-e-s-t-y.
    One of the points made with some validity by the anti-gun school of thought was that Thomas Watt Hamilton in Dunblane and Michael Ryan before him created a good deal of mayhem not because of their marksmanship and the accuracy with which the rounds were dispensed, but because the guns were multi-shot, and because Hamilton was able to reload. If the guns had not been multi-shot, the damage would not have been as horrendous.
    The amendment is perfectly reasonable, sensible and realistic, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to heed its proposals with care. It refers to specialised, target weapons that are meant for no purpose other than for shooting on a range where the shooter stands 25 m to 50 m away from a piece of cardboard. They are .22 calibre and, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, they have an inordinately long barrel to give the accuracy that is required in target shooting. The stock by which they are held is complex: the hand must fit into it like a glove. They cannot be pulled out of one's pocket, and they are difficult to carry—some of them are almost as long as a billiard cue. They are highly specialised weapons.
    The hon. Member for Romsey said that such weapons can cost up to £1,200. Some international competitors' weapons are worth well in excess of £3,000, because they are custom-designed and built and carry counter-weights according to the strength of the individual using them. That is not the sort of weapon that someone will pick up and use to assassinate people. As I said a few days ago, an assassin will not identify the quarry, select a vantage point, calculate the field of fire, estimate the time of arrival and when to loose off a shot, and then say, "Heavens, I cannot use this because it is a .22 and it is illegal." The whole idea is preposterous.
    I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to keep faith with his undertaking last week to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed by considering this realistic proposal. It relates specifically to the group of people whose rights we choose to defend—the high-grade competitors. The measure would be a stop-gap, because it would cater only for the needs of those who are accustomed to competing. It would be exceedingly difficult for young competitors, or even old ones who are just entering the sport, to gain some recognition, because they would find it difficult to acquire the kind of weapons that we are debating. The amendment would enable competitors with an international reputation and who
    30
    strike fear into only one class of people—those who compete for other nations—to stop those of other nationalities from gaining the prestigious awards that our people are capable of winning.
    Once again, I appeal to the Home Secretary to appreciate the realistic nature of the proposal. I urge him to concede even at this late stage that the amendment is reasonable and rational; it threatens no one and would preserve a corner of this sport for this country.
    Mr. Soames: I warmly endorse the words of the hon. Member for Stockton. North (Mr. Cook), whose stand on this matter the Committee should admire and respect. I especially endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). Perhaps the Home Secretary will detail his reasons for not accepting this simple change. I fear that his reasons will be unsatisfactory, not least because they will be advanced by officials on the ground that they were not invented here. The amendment is a sensible, careful, deliberate, pragmatic attempt to allow Great Britain to remain in her rightful place at the summit of an important sport.
    Many years ago, some of us gave up trying to make Labour appreciate anything to do with the countryside or the importance of the cadet forces and their right to learn to bear arms and train under the most rigorous and strict conditions, in which safety and skill at arms play an important part. We know that the Home Secretary does not have a clue about that, that he does not understand it and that it means nothing to him.
    Britain's shooting sports play a significant part in the life of the broad shooting community. It is quite wrong for pistol shooters to be marked out in this way. Even our sensible and realistic attempt to enable Britain to continue to compete and train people is not to be granted. These people are not madmen who have been granted gun licences simply because one police force failed to do its duty. They will be for ever denied the right to continue to take part in an honourable sport, which they love and which is part of the fabric of this country.
    The Labour party cannot go round just banning things arbitrarily; I understand that a fox hunting Bill is to come before the House. There are endless examples of a high-handed, ignorant approach to such matters, and Conservative Members beg the Home Secretary to consider carefully what justice there is, what point there is in sacrificing something that many people do so well and which gives them such responsibility and respect.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Colvin: The Committee must understand, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with this, that sacrifices are already being made by competition pistol shooters. The rapid-fire pistol competition for the Olympics has already been sacrificed—I do not think that anyone in his wildest dreams is going to try to make the case for retaining that—as has the Olympic sport pistol event for ladies, which involves an automatic .22 pistol, so two out of three .22 events are already being sacrificed to the dogma of the Labour party. We want to try to preserve only the last remaining one—the single-shot event.
    Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful to him for pointing that out so powerfully.

    31
    In my constituency, I am a keen shooter, and a number of gun clubs are deeply unhappy at what the Home Secretary is doing. Many Conservative Members had to swallow hard to support what my old Government did in going further than Cullen, but we did swallow it. However, this is a step too far and I beg the Home Secretary to consider with great care whether it is really worth while, having gone the distance already, to lock out from international sport something that confers great honour on this country's sporting achievement.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I support the amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), and the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and—until he mentioned fox hunting—of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). I wonder whether the Labour party has completely lost sight of the original causes of the desire, which was felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to control the use of handguns. The massacre at Dunblane could not have been carried out with a single-shot .22 pistol—if such a massacre had been started using such a weapon, the murderer could have been stopped and overpowered. When the Labour party opposed our more modest measure, its rhetoric was that it wanted to stop Dunblane happening again so far as it was able to do so. Even Labour Members admitted that no measure was absolutely going to guarantee that there would not be another massacre.
    It is odd, therefore, that the Labour party has not taken that logic into account in proposing its total ban. The extremely small concession that is being sought through the amendment—and it is extremely small—would make it possible to prevent, as far as it is possible ever to prevent, the sort of thing that happened at Dunblane. It would give the public much greater protection and, at the same time, preserve, to a very limited extent, but at least to some extent, a perfectly legitimate sport, which is not only for entertainment, but which tests ability, which maintains our international reputation and which does no harm when lawfully and responsibly practised.
    The inclusion of the words:
    "and is not derived from a multi-shot design"
    obviates the only real practical objection to the amendment, which is that it could be open to abuse. I cannot envisage someone going to such lengths as having a gun converted and then reconverted deliberately to evade the law. If such a person were wholly intent on evading the law, there would be no difficulty in his doing so illegally, rather than going to great lengths to get round a legal provision.
    The amendment asks for only a small concession, but it would bring modest comfort to those who practise a perfectly legitimate sport. The Government's line is authoritarian, similar to their line in many of their other dealings since they came to power. They appear to take no account of law-abiding minorities. They certainly seem to take no account of public opinion, which has substantially shifted since the initial horror of Dunblane.
    I ask the Home Secretary to consider accepting the amendment, even at this late hour. If he will not, will he explain to the Committee what on earth could be the
    32
    danger of creating another Dunblane or Hungerford with a single-shot .22 weapon that cannot be derived from a multi-shot design? The amendment is so very carefully restricted and prescribed that I cannot imagine that any of the dangers that we are seeking to prevent would arise. I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the amendment.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has, extremely succinctly, posed the key question in the debate, so I shall try not to labour it too much, but rather enhance it a little.
    The Home Secretary has been perfectly straightforward in saying that he does not wish to interfere with the rights of minorities further than is necessary in the interests of public safety. We are conscious that we cannot win the votes. However, we can put forward arguments which—and I put this in a non-contentious way—we can share with the Government and hope to persuade them to accept. The amendments that have been tabled contain arguments that deserve the most careful consideration. I believe that the Government could feel able to accept them and so avoid the victory to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred—of which I am happy to acquit the Home Secretary, but which is a danger from some of those who sit behind him. I hope that he will not think that over-offensive to his party; I believe that it is a genuine danger.
    The principle that we are discussing focuses on the question of the single-shot handgun. We have to be careful not to pick around in Lord Cullen's report. Indeed, one could argue almost anything from the report. I think that there was some support for that view in the winding-up arguments on Second Reading.
    The single-shot pistol, which cannot be mechanically changed to become a multi-shot pistol, and which is used for highly specialised competitions, is about as unsuitable for use in a massacre as anything that one could devise. The question—and I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister will focus on this—is not whether a single-shot pistol is lethal, as any pistol, shotgun or rifle is lethal; it is whether there is sufficient danger to the public in permitting the use of single-shot pistols under confined circumstances that they must be banned together with all other pistols.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who tabled amendment No. 7 in a manner that has been carefully argued and proposed by the British Shooting Sports Council and those involved in Olympic and Commonwealth sports—made the case for allowing an exemption for the weapons that we are debating under the amendment. I appreciate, however, that Ministers may wish to consider more carefully one aspect of the amendment, which would allow single-shot pistols to be kept at home.
    There is an argument for saying that such weapons should be confined to clubs, although Lord Cullen's report—which I mentioned earlier in my speech—states that keeping weapons in clubs will not provide absolute security. In this debate, however, we are not questioning whether we can provide absolute security, but considering how to strike a balance. Ministers would be doing everything that they could reasonably be expected to do in

    33
    providing for public safety—I believe that they are going further than is necessary, but in this debate, we are focusing on a specific aspect of the issue—even if they were to permit use of single-shot pistols for purposes of competition and training before competition.
    As my hon. Friends have already eloquently stated, many Olympic and Commonwealth competitions depend on the use of some type of pistol, and those competitions would be facilitated by allowing the use of specialised single-shot pistols. If we passed the amendment, at least .22 calibre competitions could continue, and that is a highly desirable objective. The Government should allow those competitions to continue.
    In urging a balance of argument on the issue, I revert to the point about the ease with which such pistols can be brought into the United Kingdom, because we should not blind ourselves to that part of the argument. Conservative Members are urging that British citizens who are properly licensed and in very closely confined conditions should be able to hold and use specialised single-shot pistols.
    The fact remains, however, that .22 single-shot pistols—which are not particularly suitable for competitions, but perfectly capable of killing people—can be bought across the counter in France. Anyone can drive in and out of the United Kingdom—whether at Dover, Folkestone, Le Havre or Portsmouth—on any of the ordinary sea ferries with such weapons.
    It is no criticism of customs officers—I ask the Minister to prick up his ears—to say that they do not go through cars with a fine-toothed comb. Customs officers allow ordinary English citizens to pass through with nothing more than what was once described as a "Bangemann wave" of a passport. Consequently, if an evil-minded loner were minded to use a .22 pistol—which is unlikely; he would be much more likely to go for one of the many thousands of illegally held heavy-calibre pistols—he could bring it into the United Kingdom with absolute impunity and virtually no prospect of being caught.
    There is a strong argument in principle for passing the amendment, and no significant danger to the public in practice. Conservative Members very much hope that Ministers will sympathetically examine the aspect of the issue dealt with in the amendment.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I should like to reinforce some of the comments made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I should also like to draw attention to the specific consequences for the Olympic movement if the Bill is passed without amendment No. 7.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) rightly talked about the great significance of shooting in the Olympics. Today, however—like many other hon. Members—I received a letter from Mr. Simon Clegg, the general secretary of the British Olympic Association. It states:
    "Whilst the British Olympic Association welcomes tighter firearms control which will ensure that tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane are never repeated we are concerned about the impact that the proposed legislation will have on competitive pistol shooting in this country.
    The legislation, as it stands, will effectively preclude representation by British athletes at future Olympic Games in the three Olympic shooting disciplines concerned. With 135 national federations competing for 20–30 places in each discipline there is a significant level of training and commitment necessary to achieve
    34
    an Olympic quota place. Forcing competitive pistol shooting abroad will kill the sport and with it the necessary depth to ensure international representation at the highest level "
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) rightly stressed the distinguished record of British competitors.
    The amendment—
    Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution and feel that he is debating new clause 3 or 4, not amendment No. 7.
    The Chairman: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been here for the whole debate. I have already tried to gauge the mood of the Committee on this particular matter. My provisional selection separated the two debates, but there appeared to be some element of overlap. I have tried to be as tolerant as I can, but I stress again that if it is convenient to have a separate debate on new clauses 3 and 4, we have to confine this debate as tightly as possible to amendment No. 7.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Sir Alan. Of course, I have been present for the whole debate and heard what you said earlier. I am seeking to reflect not only earlier contributions about the sporting significance of the legislation, but the fact that the amendment is designed to enable competition to continue.
    The Government have to consider carefully the mischief that they are trying to prevent. If the mischief that they are trying to prevent is the repetition of what happened at Hungerford or Dunblane, they must reflect on whether it is necessary to ban single-shot weapons. There is a serious problem if the legislation does not in fact prevent the repetition of similar tragedies, but succeeds only in preventing sporting competition for many law-abiding citizens who present no real risk.
    I draw the Government's attention to what the press has said. Last October, The Sunday Times said:
    "We believe the argument for permitting sporting use of .22 handguns is a strong one".
    This is an extremely important matter in terms of the rights of the minority of citizens who enjoy their sport. Even at this very late stage, it is perfectly possible for the Government to reconsider and decide that in this case the balance comes down in favour of permitting single-shot handguns because they do not pose the same kind of threat. That would enable participants in sport to enjoy their pleasure.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is proper for me to declare an interest at the start of the proceedings. I am a consultant to the British Field Sports Society, but I make it clear that the use of handguns has a very limited application in country sports. Nevertheless, the British Field Sports Society is a member of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella body representing those using handguns for target shooting.
    It is the job of the House to look after the interests of minorities and I believe that the amendment will help to safeguard the interests of a small but nevertheless significant and law-abiding minority—those who practise target shooting to a high level of skill. All sorts of things

    35
    are said during election campaigns and the parading of the Snowdrop petition at the Labour party conference was, no doubt, seen as a useful political stunt, although some of us found the sentimentality surrounsding it a little sickening. I suppose that the Labour party thought that "Ban all handguns" was a nice, simple message, but that "Ban all handguns except .22 single-shot handguns" would be off message and would therefore fall foul of its spin doctors.
    I urge the Government to reconsider their position. The Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the extension of the prohibition of handguns to .22s was to prevent another Dunblane, but how will the Government's refusal to accept our amendment do anything to prevent another Dunblane?
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, single-shot target pistols are singular weapons. Some time ago, I was shown one by a practitioner of the sport and it was a revelation to me. Like many people, I thought that a .22 handgun was a small weapon that could be easily concealed, but in fact the weapon is almost 18 in long—I am told that, if the barrel were a few millimetres longer, it would be categorised as a rifle. It is virtually impossible to hide such a weapon with any part of one's body. The other significant feature of the weapons is the way in which the stock is designed. The stock goes almost around the wrist so that, in a sense, the gun almost becomes part of the hand. The weapon that I saw has an electronic trigger—it is a highly sophisticated weapon—and the loading procedure is extremely complicated and slow. I am told that in Olympic contests the rate of fire is a maximum of 60 rounds in a two-hour period, which shows how slow and difficult loading those weapons is.
    It is nonsense to suggest that someone like Thomas Hamilton would have used such a weapon, but if he had done so, he would have had to have gone into the school at Dunblane with the weapon practically attached to his wrist and with cartridges in his pocket, in which he would have had to scratch around in order to load the weapon between shots. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it would have been a slow process and he could have been easily overpowered at that point.
    We are asking the Government to reconsider and to accept the amendment, which is especially important because it would allow the tradition of Olympic shooting to continue. We now spend millions of pounds of lottery money encouraging participation in sport and we want to do better in international team events. It is therefore perverse that we are going to destroy our ability to participate in one of the oldest Olympic disciplines. As those who read the Sunday newspapers will know, we are forcing people from gun clubs as far north as Aberdeen to go to France to practise. That is fine if one can afford the air fare and the time to go to Dieppe, where I understand some British shooters have registered at a local club, but it is nonsense to force people to do that to practise a skill and a sport that they love. It is illogical for our shooters to have to train with the French—I fear that the Duke of Wellington would be spinning in his grave if he knew.
    36
    The sport of shooting single-shot .22 pistols is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey said, the crème de la crème of the shooting disciplines and we should be able to continue to participate in it. I therefore urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully. It would not be a loss of face for the Government to move away from the position that they hold with almost dogmatic fervour. We have moved sufficiently far away from the tragedy of Dunblane to re-examine the issue in the cold light of day. I should welcome it if we could persuade the Government to row back on their absolute prohibition and allow this valuable sporting discipline to continue.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have come a long way from the position in law when the extremely tragic events of Dunblane took place. The previous Government's Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 outlawed high-calibre pistols. It did not take into account the recommendations contained in Lord Cullen's extremely detailed inquiry that high-calibre and much more dangerous pistols than those mentioned in the amendment should be banned, not only from people's private homes where they had previously been allowed, but from gun clubs. Some of us had strong views on Lord Cullen's recommendations and the amendments to the law proposed in the previous Act.
    However, the Bill goes significantly further than the previous legislation. Under the current law, anyone may possess .22 pistols in his home if he has a firearms certificate. He does not have to hold them in a gun club or use them under supervision, but can use them provided that he has a firearms certificate. Without banning .22 rimfire pistols, we could perfectly reasonably ensure that they had to be held in a gun club—which would have to be properly licensed by the police—and used under proper supervision. We could ensure that someone could hold only one competition pistol. Such measures would enormously reduce the balance of risk.
    Will the Minister of State tell us how many fatalities and how many serious injuries are caused by the relatively safe .22 rimfire single-shot pistols? I believe that the number of fatalities is incredibly small—I doubt whether there are more than a few every year. We should be making better use of our time if we considered that fact in the context of the fatalities caused by illegally held firearms and the part that they play in armed crime.
    However, we have been placed on this ground by the Government through their introduction of the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to think carefully about the lethality of the guns under discussion. During the course of the previous Firearms (Amendment) Bill I entertained a senior police officer to lunch in the House. Our conversation turned to the lethality of such guns. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "I would rather that any of my officers were faced at short range by a high-calibre pistol—not just a .22 pistol—than by a double-barrelled shotgun." Everyone knows that, at short range, a double-barrelled shotgun puts a big hole through a body. A .22 pistol makes a hole of about a quarter of an inch and, unless the bullet happens to hit a vital vessel in the body, it will not kill.
    Mr. Soames: I hope that my hon. Friend will not proceed too far down this road, otherwise we shall find the Labour party banning shotguns.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The thought had occurred to me, but we must put the issues in context and speak out about the realities of life. The Bill's approach to the balance of risk is nonsense.
    How many illegal weapons will be driven underground by the measure? We had that argument during our discussion of the previous Firearms (Amendment) Bill. My guess is that the weapons will flood in from the continent. It will not matter how well firearms are supervised, people will still want to use weapons illegally. Now we have banned high-calibre pistols, it would be far better to encourage this country's law-abiding citizens to switch to relatively low-risk weapons. In that way, those people could continue to enjoy themselves; they would be listed on proper police registers and their weapons would be kept on firearms certificates instead of being driven underground.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Mike Hancock: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, if the legislation is passed, those who legally own guns will be forced to hold the guns illegally in a subversive way? Where would they use the guns? Why would somebody who currently holds a legitimate gun licence and a .22 pistol for target and competition shooting want to hold that gun illegally? Where would he use it?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not live in the real world. If he considered what was happening in the United States and the number of illegally held firearms there, he would know that what I am saying is true. An element in this country would want to use the firearms illegally. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would deplore that, but we must acknowledge the realities of life.
    I appeal to the Minister of State on two grounds. First, on the balance of risk, how lethal are those weapons? Secondly, what is the point of setting up a specialist inquiry only to have politicians second-guess its recommendations? How many more of the numerous inquiries that the Government are setting up will subsequently be second-guessed and their recommendations not accepted? We might as well choose a lord and tell him not to carry out an in-depth inquiry or take all the evidence, but to put a few points on the back of a fag packet: if we like the recommendations, we shall accept them and turn them into law; if we do not like them, we shall not accept them. That seems to be what is happening in the Bill.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I should like to clarify a point that was raised a couple of minutes ago by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He asked whom the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had in mind when he said that someone holding a legal firearms certificate now would want to go underground with his weapon. That will not happen: such a person is a law-abiding custodian of a firearm. The hon. Gentleman misses the point about the danger involved. Many people on the streets already illegally own the weapons to which he refers—they are not necessarily target weapons, but are multi-shot, small weapons that they can carry. The legislation will not touch such people. That is the point.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention as it gives me the
    38
    chance to clarify my remarks. If owning such a weapon remains legal, everyone who wishes to fire pistols in competitions and to keep weapons in a registered firearms armoury has the opportunity to do so. If the Bill makes that illegal, people will no longer have that opportunity. I can foresee circumstances—which will probably not involve current firearms certificate holders—in which some people, possibly younger people, will want to fire pistols illegally and will obtain their weapons on the black market.
    I ask the Minister of State to consider what he is doing today and to see whether it would be possible, in the closely defined circumstances that I have described—using only one weapon in a registered gun club under proper supervision with a proper firearms licence from the police—to accept the amendment, even if it has to be redrawn
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall ask the Government three short questions, in the hope of bringing them round to a different way of thinking.
    I trust that the Government have listened with care, not only to Conservative Members of Parliament, who have spoken with knowledge and passionate interest in the matter, but to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is a consistent advocate of the arguments that he advanced this afternoon. I ask the Government to listen to him with all humility, because he has nothing to gain politically from what he says, and so can argue with the force of principle. I salute him for the stance that he has taken tonight and at other times. His arguments bear listening to. I hope that, by pointing him out, I have done him no damage.
    I confess that, on Second Reading of the Conservative Government's Firearms (Amendment) Bill in November 1996, I refused to support the Government and absented myself so as not to support the Bill. I trust that my remarks will be viewed in that light—I say that breathing down the neck of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary.
    First, I shall ask questions about the philosophy that underlies the Bill, clause 1 and the Government's opposition to amendment No. 7. I hope that I am not too pompous in describing it in those terms. Is it right that the Government's proposal should become law? We have been told about the innocent pastime of competition shooters. There is a shooting club in my constituency, in Kibworth, halfway between Market Harborough and Leicester. As a direct consequence of the Bill, members of that club will see an end to a pastime in which they have engaged for many years. Not one member of the club is the type of person who is likely to commit mayhem by running amok with a pistol—let alone a single-shot pistol, which the amendment is designed to retain in the sport of shooting.
    The membership of clubs such as the one in my constituency is broadly composed of policemen, former policemen and ex-warrant officers from the armed forces—not the type of war comic strip cartoon heroes whom one would expect to run amok with a gun. It is important for the Government to realise that they are taking away from people in that respectable section of society a lawful pastime in which they have engaged innocently for very many years.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) mentioned organisations such as the cadet forces. I believe that the type of people who, were the Bill

    39
    not to become law in the currently proposed form, would have joined, for example, the Kibworth shooting club, would have undergone weapons training in the cadet force even if they did not later join the Regular armed forces. I urge the Government to bear in mind what they are doing and whom they are harming.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point about safety. Does he agree—the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), does not have a clue about this—that, regardless of whether their members have been cadets or members of the armed forces, all those clubs adopt the highest, most rigorous standards of safety in the handling of weapons and ammunition that one could find anywhere, and that that sets the sport apart from almost any other sport that one may watch in this country?
    Mr. Garnier: I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend. I know that from my experience, having visited the club in my constituency. I was told several times by the president, the captain, the secretary, the treasurer and other members of the committee of that club the precise and detailed training and arms drill that all members of that club must undergo before they are even allowed on to the range, let alone allowed to handle a gun with a potentially lethal projectile in it.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to observe that they must behave in that manner and with that type of discipline because it is the only level of safety that they can apply to themselves, so it is in their own interest. The whole sport is one of imposing, inculcating, fostering and improving safety standards.
    Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I wish that the Government would give credit to those people and allow them to use single-shot guns safely. As has been explained several times, a single-shot gun is not the weapon that a maniac will choose if he wants to kill huge numbers of people.
    The second broad question that I want to ask the Government is a question of practice. Will the Bill—and clause 1, which we seek to amend—achieve the intended purpose of preventing the Dunblanes and the Hungerfords? The short answer is, "No, of course it will not." The Government know that it will not but, unfortunately yet understandably, they have become bound up in the emotion that flowed from the terrible events at Dunblane.
    No one would seek to diminish, devalue or denigrate the sincerity of the concern expressed by Ministers and supporters of the Government—and Opposition Members—for the parents and relations of the children who were brutally killed by that madman in Dunblane last summer. However, having studied the Cullen report, having considered the facts of that case, we now know the reasons why Hamilton committed those murders and, regrettably, a repeat of that situation would not be dealt with by this, albeit well-intentioned, clause.
    There were huge numbers of failures, by the police and by the licensing authorities, regarding the culprit in that case. Regrettably, the Bill produced by the Government
    40
    will have no effect on a future Dunblane. It may make the Government feel better, it may make other members of the public who support the general thrust of the Bill feel better, but it will not afford the children of equivalent primary schools throughout the United Kingdom, and parents of those children, any better protection. I suggest to the Committee, therefore, that the Bill and clause 1 will not achieve the intended purpose.
    My final argument to the Government is encapsulated in the question, "Will the clause cause harm?" I hope that I have argued successfully that it will do no good, but will it cause harm? That comes back—
    The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he appears to have moved on to making a speech that would be more suited to the clause stand part debate. I would remind him that we are debating the specific points made in amendment No. 7.
    Mr. Garnier: I understand, Sir Alan, the feeling that you have about the half-completed sentence that I was uttering, but if I complete the sentence, I hope that I may persuade you that I am in order. I do not wish to be impertinent, but those of us who support the amendment are arguing for the retention within the law of single-shot .22 weapons, and I am asking the Government to justify the removal of single-shot .22 pistols from lawful ownership in certain prescribed situations.
    It seems to me—I hope that the Government will answer this in due course—that the question, "Will the Bill, and will this clause, cause harm?" can be answered only in the affirmative unless the clause is amended by means of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
    I mentioned at the outset of my remarks the innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun owners who are about to see a long-practised pastime brought to an end if the Bill passes as the Government propose. That is a harm that the Government should not allow. It is a harm that cannot be compensated for even in money—and no doubt we shall have further discussions later in the Bill's passage about the level of compensation. I would suggest that, on all three of the grounds that I have presented, amendment No. 7 should be considered quietly and calmly by the Government, because I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational response to the points that I have put forward.
    I urge the Government, despite their huge majority, to think a little more calmly and carefully about the effects of what they are doing, and to ask themselves, "Is it right? Will it do good or harm?" I believe that, if they think about those questions, they can reach only one answer in line with their responsibilities as the Government of the whole country, not just of some of its people. If they do that, there is only one conclusion to which they can come which will be in line with their responsibilities as the Government of the whole of this country, not just part of it.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I was happy to hear on Second Reading the Government's assurances that this matter would be considered on its merits. At one point in that debate, when I suggested that there was a philosophical divide between our party and the Government, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) stood up and assured me that there was no question of adopting a high moral stance: it was a question of examining the issues in a practical way.

    41
    Similarly, this moderate and well-reasoned amendment should be considered on the basis of its practical effects. I should be interested to hear the Minister of State explain in due course how the clause can be said to contribute to the safety of anyone, bearing it in mind that those who wish to act unlawfully and violently will still find ways of laying their hands on the necessary instruments.
    5 pm
    Accepting the amendment, on the other hand, would demonstrate Ministers' recognition of the fact that in certain strictly controlled circumstances it should still be possible to conduct a lawful sport. I therefore hope to hear that the Government are prepared to acknowledge that and to consider this practical issue on its merits.
    I have heard it said during the debate that if all .22 weapons were banned, people would still act illegally. It is often maintained in the House that anyone who advances such an argument is condoning illegality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who try to lead law-abiding lives must often obey laws that we think may be wrong. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear me say this, but I am sure he can remember times when he was in opposition when he told the House that certain measures introduced by the Conservative Government were wrong because they risked criminalising otherwise law-abiding people. That, surely, is the point.
    The clause reduces the risks to such an absurdly low level—here I agree with everything the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said—that those who regard the legislation as crass and idiotic will continue to practise their sport in the quarry behind the village. Such people will still be able to purchase .22 single-shot pistols on the black market. Such is the corrupting influence of badly thought out legislation, which criminalises a practice that ought to be kept lawful.
    I for one have always maintained that if a law is passed people must obey it; but we should also consider the consequences of passing the law in the first place. This law will bring about corruption. Some people—not those who currently hold licences—will continue to use these weapons for recreational purposes. They will then be rightly prosecuted and criminalised.
    Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman was not here when the previous legislation was debated, but I wonder whether he would have used the same argument—that multi-shot weapons should not be banned because of the certainty that some people would get hold of them illegally and fire them off in quarries behind their homes. On the hon. Gentleman's logic, it was surely wrong to interfere with handgun possession of any kind.
    Mr. Grieve: That is a perfectly fair point. Had I been here before the election I would have supported Lord Cullen's proposals in toto, but I would have voted against the proposals that came before the House. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and repeat my point about absurdity. My impression is that those who are likely to handle .22 pistols of the single-shot variety will do so exclusively for sporting purposes, not for pernicious Rambo-like reasons. If those people think the law absurd, they will continue to practise their sport—that is the corrupting element. It is what the House, when considering legislation, should try to avoid.
    42
    I note that the Home Secretary has returned to his place. Two onerous aspects of the job of Home Office Ministers are balancing common sense against the desires of their Back Benchers, and protecting those who would otherwise be oppressed. This evening I hope to hear some good news from the Government, but my hopes are not high. Meanwhile I suggest that it is irrational to object to the amendment.
    Mr. Chope: I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously. It is an acid test of their attitude to liberty and the freedom of the individual.
    Are the Government trying to accommodate, as far as possible, the legitimate interests of law-abiding sportsmen within the need for public safety, or are they using public safety as a catch-all justification for an absolutist, populist approach which appeals to the worst elements of the ignorant among our citizens? We know that 80 per cent. of all handguns are already banned. Paragraph 9.101 of the Cullen report says that single-shot pistols probably comprise about 5 per cent. of the total number of licensed weapons. So even with the amendment in place, 95 per cent. of all handguns would be banned.
    The issue is one of assessing the risk. That should involve an examination of two elements in combination: as Cullen said, the chances of harm occurring, and the nature and extent of that harm.
    I am rather alarmed by the Government's emerging attitude. Earlier today, I was waiting for an answer to a written question that I needed at 3.30 pm. I got the answer sooner rather than later as a direct result of the Home Secretary's intervention. I believe that answers are delivered by Departments to the House as early as 3.15 pm; the Home Secretary had confirmation from the Department that the answers were delivered here by that time today, but they did not reach the board until after 4.20 pm. Had it not been for the good offices of the Home Secretary, who had his staff fax copies of my answer to me—for which I am grateful—I would not have had access to it until that time.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the fact that we made arrangements to have his answers faxed to him by the target time. I would gently remind him, however, that some of us who asked the former Government questions over the past 10 years often did not receive our answers until the following day—never mind 3.30 pm.
    Mr. Chope: I am not sure whether two wrongs make a right, but I must make it clear that I can take no responsibility for anything that happened during the last Parliament. One aspect of this matter that has been raised with me is that up to 10 staff in the Messengers Office used to deal with questions and correspondence when they arrived in the afternoon. There are now only two members of staff, which may be one explanation why answers now take much longer to reach Members.
    In written question 194, I asked the Home Secretary whether it was his policy to outlaw the possession and use of black powder pistols. The Minister of State answered that black powder pistols were
    "synonymous with a muzzle-loading gun as defined in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government have no plans at present to prohibit the possession of such weapons. The Firearms

    43
    (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which is presently before Parliament, deals only with the prohibition of small-calibre pistols. However, we shall keep under close review all controls on firearms to ensure maximum public safety."
    I find the expression "maximum public safety" difficult because to ensure maximum public safety the Government would have to ban all shotguns and rifles, the sport of motor racing and air displays. It is impossible to ensure maximum public safety. What can be ensured is maximum public safety commensurate with individual liberty. I am sorry that the Minister of State did not respond in that way.
    Mr. Michael: I am sorry that it is necessary to spell things out in such detail. I should have thought maximum safety clearly means maximum practical safety and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
    There is no suggestion of widening the scope of the discussion. We were dealing with the fact that the police raised concerns about the availability of black powder pistols. That exclusion was introduced to the 1997 Act during its passage through Parliament—I believe that that amendment was introduced in another place. The police are concerned about the loophole, so it is right that we should keep it under review. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should not keep safety under review?
    Mr. Chope: I make no such suggestion. I had the opportunity during the last Parliament to serve on the Health and Safety Commission, a body committed to ensuring public safety as far as reasonably practicable. In the light of the Minister of State's intervention, perhaps I should table a pursuant question to ensure that we get on the record the fact that he did not intend "ensure maximum public safety" to mean anything other than to ensure maximum practical public safety. Those are two separate propositions. The Minister of State must be deemed to have had responsibility for his answers to those questions. He decided not to qualify the answer in its written form, but I welcome the qualification that he has just given.
    As for single-shot muzzle-loading guns, I have information from the Christchurch gun club in my constituency, which has 500 members and is one of the most successful gun clubs in the country, that someone firing a black powder pistol at a 25 yd range has half an hour in which to make 13 shots and the three worst shots are disallowed. That is another example of pistol shooting where tremendously high skill is involved. It is akin to the sport of pistol shooting with a single-shot pistol. That is why I hope the Government will take the amendment seriously.
    The Government have already earned among some people a reputation for being a little spoilsport. They have an opportunity this afternoon to accept the amendment and demonstrate that they are willing to accommodate the legitimate interests of the sporting fraternity. I therefore hope that they accept the amendment.
    Mr. Michael Howard: My right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken in support of the amendment with notable moderation. The arguments that they have advanced deserve to be treated with proper respect and I hope that they will receive such a response from the Minister of State.
    44
    I hope that the Minister of State will take particular note of the tributes paid to the standards of safety observed in gun clubs. The mischief of the problem that we have been debating arises out of the fact that the Government now propose entirely to ban pistol shooting, particularly in gun clubs. During the passage of the earlier legislation, the Front Benches agreed that handguns should be banned from the home. That agreement, however, was reached and abided by in the context in which the ban was embodied in quite different legislation. That legislation enabled Olympic shooting to continue and .22 calibre pistol shooting, both single and multi-shot, to continue in gun clubs—not in people's homes. The Bill would put an end to pistol shooting in gun clubs, which is why the matter now needs to be reconsidered.
    The effect on single-shot .22 calibre pistols is one of the most conspicuous and unfortunate consequences of the Bill. The force that lies behind the arguments that have been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—I am sorry, I should have mentioned him earlier when I referred to the cogency of contributions to this debate—derives entirely from the difference in the context of this legislation.
    5.15 pm
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I will not resile from our earlier position that there should be a complete ban on the possession and use of pistols in the home. For that reason, and because the amendment would appear to allow pistols to be kept in the home, we shall not vote for it. Nevertheless, the arguments that have been put forward in this different context have considerable force and I hope that they will be treated in that way by the Minister of State when he replies.
    Mr. Michael: I am pleased to confirm that we ensured that answers to questions were provided properly this afternoon and we shall seek to continue to do that. I mention that to reinforce the point that I made in interventions. I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) an apology. I promised to provide him with a reply by today, but my reply has been delayed because I wanted it to be fuller and more accurate. He was right to say that I failed to achieve what I sought to do, but he will have that answer as quickly as possible.
    I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his helpful comments. I am happy to follow him in paying tribute to the standards of safety operated in the generality of gun clubs and by the generality of shooters. A number of Conservative Members showed a good deal less respect for shooters in suggesting that, on the passage of this Bill, they will immediately go underground or use guns elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made no such suggestion. Those suggestions were unhelpful and misleading because, in general, shooters are law-abiding citizens who, while they would not wish us to pass this legislation, will obey it once it becomes law.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Michael: I shall give way first to one of those who appeared to make just such an implication.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister agree that if it were possible to provide a legitimate and lawful way for the

    45
    sport of shooting with handguns to be maintained, if only with single-shot handguns for those wishing to engage in the sport recreationally, that would minimise the risk that people might act illegally in using handguns for recreational purposes?
    Mr. Michael: I shall return to the point. We considered carefully whether it would be possible to protect the activities of shooters and members of gun clubs and, after examining Lord Cullen's report and the evidence presented to him, we came to the conclusion that it would not. Furthermore, the amendment would entail an unacceptable degree of inconsistency.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Being a simple fellow, I always try to see things clearly. Is the Minister saying that evidence given to Cullen was inaccurate, or that Lord Cullen's recommendations were misleading? The comments that have just been made confuse me.
    Mr. Michael: That goes a little wider than the debate, but it is clear that Lord Cullen's findings were based sincerely on the evidence that he heard during the inquiry. Many people gave a great deal of thought to the matter and we came to the conclusion, as did the representatives of police officers, that a complete ban on handguns was the right way forward.
    That in no way denigrates Lord Cullen or his inquiry, or suggests that his findings were misleading. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the House, led by the Government, to reach conclusions. It is fair to say that when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was Home Secretary, he came to conclusions that went beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations. That was the exercise of proper judgment on the report and the evidence that was provided to the inquiry.
    Several of the contributions to the debate require comment. The shadow Home Secretary said that the Bill would mean the end of pistol shooting in gun clubs. That was extensively debated on Second Reading.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that we should consider the chances of harm. However, we must also consider consistency and the ease of enforcement of legislation, which is what led chief police officers to express alarm at the idea that there would be only a limited ban on some handguns, rather than a consistent ban on handguns as a whole.
    I appreciate that many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate disagree with the Bill as a whole. Some of the points that were made were Second Reading points, albeit addressed to the amendment. I do not think that a case has been made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) or other speakers, for single-shot small-calibre pistols to be exempted from the general prohibition on handguns. That, of course, is what the debate is about. I want to make it clear that we are not prepared to allow such an exemption.
    Mr. Howard: The Minister referred—I may have misunderstood his reference—to the spokesman for chief police officers and the concerns that they had raised. In fact, the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers was as I set it out in my speech on Second Reading last week. ACPO supported the proposals of the previous Government. I know that certain other police
    46
    associations took a different view, but the chief police officers supported not a total ban, but the position taken and enshrined in legislation by the previous Government.
    Mr. Michael: Both the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation formally welcomed the stance that we took. The discussions that I have had with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in recent weeks have focused more on remaining loopholes than on concern about our proposals. That has come clearly—
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes. I am referring to the conversations and discussions that have informed our preparation for these debates and the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. Howard: I know nothing of private conversations or discussions that the Minister may have had. ACPO placed its view firmly on the record. I referred to that view in the debate last week. It was not challenged at the time, either by the hon. Gentleman or by the Home Secretary. It is firmly on the record. ACPO's on-the-record position, as set out by me in the debate last week, is in support of the legislation put on the statute book by the previous Government.
    Mr. Michael: The Police Federation considered our proposals a victory for common sense. I say again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the comments that I have received from ACPO have been entirely about remaining loopholes—for instance, the one involving black powder guns to which I referred earlier. ACPO is anxious that there should be no loopholes in the availability of handguns. Our position is clear. Perhaps matters have moved on since the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced his Bill.
    Mr. Chope: Does the Minister think that it is the responsibility of the police to decide the law of this country, or will he, on behalf of the Government, accept responsibility for deciding the law?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman did not raise that point when the shadow Home Secretary was quoting the Police Federation in support of anything that he did. It is reasonable for Members on either side to quote the views of police officers, particularly the representative bodies, when legislation which has implications for the police—in relation to enforcement or to their safety, as well as public safety—is under consideration in the House.
    We have concluded that it was neither practical nor safe to allow the exemption suggested in the amendment. That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whose contribution was thoughtful and considered until she accused the Government of being authoritarian. We are trying to ensure consistency to bring about the protection of the public.
    The number of small-calibre pistols in current ownership is small—perhaps only several hundred—but an exemption would mean an increase in that number.

    47
    In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, I say that it could well mean an increase in the number of single-shot pistols of a quite different type from the specialist guns to which several hon. Members referred in the debate.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: As I recall, several Conservative Members pressed the Minister to explain how he thinks that not accepting the amendment would prevent another tragedy similar to that at Dunblane. So far, the only answer that he has given is about consistency. When we are dealing with the individual liberties of law-abiding citizens, surely we need a better excuse than that.
    Mr. Michael: I am sorry—I was not addressing that point, and I am not sure that that is a good question. It is clear that the impact of single-shot pistols is not the same as that of multi-shot pistols. The question is whether we should ban all handguns, which is what the Bill seeks to do and on which there is considerable agreement, not least because of the view of the police that that is much easier to enforce and also makes it easier to distinguish when illegal guns are being carried. If pistols are not legal, it is clear that if one is being carried, it is illegal.
    Mr. Soames: I am sorry to push the Minister. Will he define for us exactly the safety argument in the matter? Will he also say why the exemption cannot be made, when there is a perfectly satisfactory licensing system that works when the police do their job properly? It is plain that the existing system would allow the exemption to be monitored adequately.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman missed the Second Reading debate, when he should have made that point. We are dealing now with a very specific exclusion—which is what I am trying to address.
    Mr. Soames: Answer the question.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman mutters grumpily, as he has done throughout the debate. If he had mentioned his point on the Second Reading, it might have been worthy of debate. Perhaps he should read the transcript of that debate again.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We shall not have a debate across the Floor of the Chamber.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it not highly relevant to an amendment that seeks to exempt from the provisions of the Bill a particular weapon in particular circumstances that questions be raised as to the safety argument for not exempting that weapon? Is that matter not highly germane to the amendment at present under discussion in Committee?
    The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members can raise any matter in Committee so long as it relates to the amendment. Amendment No. 7 is very narrow, and we
    48
    cannot have a Second Reading debate on it. Comments must be confined to the amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and I addressed clearly the question of safety within the narrow context of the clause. Is it not intolerable that a junior Minister replying on behalf of the Government should not answer a perfectly sensible question about the safety argument advanced by the Government, which is key to the debate?
    The First Deputy Chairman: The amendment does not relate to safety: it deals with another matter entirely. The hon. Gentleman referred to "the clause", but this is not a clause stand part debate. We are debating amendment No. 7.
    Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. The proposed clause relates to—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. We are not debating the clause; we are debating an amendment to the clause.
    Mr. Soames: The amendment to the clause framed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey clearly states:
    "which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design".
    The burden of the debate hinges on safety. Is it not intolerable that the Minister should refuse to answer my question?
    The First Deputy Chairman: The Minister may express himself in any way he chooses. If he is out of order, I shall be the first to remind him of that fact.
    Mr. Michael: I am very grateful, Mr. Martin. We are hearing some bluster from Opposition Members. The debate is not about safety but about whether there should be exemptions and whether those exemptions would be safe. The point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was a matter for the Second Reading debate. The claim of this group of shooters is no better than that made by many other groups who will be disadvantaged by the Bill. We accept that people will be disadvantaged by the legislation—that is an inevitable consequence of passing it into law. We cannot impose a general ban on handguns and then make exceptions that undermine the ban. The fact is that a single-shot pistol is capable of being lethal, portable and easy to conceal. The only difference is that it can be fired a single time, rather than several times, within a short period.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister is making a powerful case for consistency. He has referred to that point many times. However, he has not answered the questions that I posed on Monday or Wednesday, or the nine points that I raised with the Home Secretary on Second Reading. I received no answer to other questions that I raised earlier this year. There are many things wrong with firearms legislation in this country. The Government are pleading consistency, but patently ignoring it.
    Mr. Michael: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the answers that he has received. This Bill

    49
    is very narrow: it says simply that we will move from banning 80 per cent. of handguns to banning all handguns. That is all the legislation does; it does not address a wide range of issues. Amendment No. 7 tries to reintroduce an exemption for one specific category of handguns: .22 single-shot weapons. My point—I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that I am making it powerfully—is that such an exemption would make nonsense of the Bill. It would treat one group of shooters in a way that is inconsistent with the general approach that is written into the Bill.
    I referred to the evidence given to Lord Cullen because several hon. Members mentioned the speed of shooting using a single-shot handgun, which they claimed was one shot per minute. However, evidence to Cullen suggests otherwise. Mr. David Penn, a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, stated:
    "With reasonable practice, a shooter could get the reloading time down to about five seconds. I am content to accept that this could be achieved."
    That is the evidence that a firearms expert gave to the Cullen inquiry, and it appears at paragraph 9.52 of the report.
    Mr. Soames rose—
    Mr. Michael: I think that I have had enough of the hon. Gentleman's interventions: they do not contribute much to the debate.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about consistency. If a man is sufficiently skilled to be able to reload a single-shot handgun in five seconds, why does that not apply also to an ordinary single-shot .22 rifle? Where is the consistency in that regard?
    Mr. Michael: I do not see the hon. Gentleman's point. We are discussing a Bill that deals entirely with banning handguns. The amendment proposes an exemption in relation to single-shot .22 calibre handguns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not used to taking part in general debate in this place since transferring to the other side. We are addressing very specific points about a very specific amendment to a very narrow Bill.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I thank the Minister for giving way again. The Bill does not ban 100 per cent. of handguns, as it already makes exceptions for trophies of war, black powder weapons and other antique weapons. We are asking that one further category be exempted: the weapons used by Olympic shooters.
    Mr. Michael: The exemptions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were made by the 1997 Act, which is already in place. We seek not to address all gun licensing deficiencies, but to deal with only one element: the exemption of 20 per cent. of handguns allowed by the 1997 Act. That is what this legislation deals with; it is attempting to exempt a narrower group than was exempted by the 1997 Act.
    I point out once again that, if we introduce the exemption proposed by amendment No. 7, legally held weapons may still be used illegally. We cited the figures last week: one incident of gun theft—which may involve the theft of several weapons—occurs in England and
    50
    Wales every day. That may pose a danger to the public. The exemption proposed by amendment No. 7 would undermine the principle embodied in the Act that there should be a complete ban on handguns.
    Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman warn all people contemplating travelling to France for their holidays that they will face a grave risk in so doing as it is possible to purchase a single-shot .22 handgun over the counter in that country?
    Mr. Michael: There is a high incidence of accidents involving firearms in France. The point is that we deal with legislation for this country—I thought Opposition Members were generally in favour of that. We are trying to ensure public safety through a total ban on handguns rather than a partial ban, which would be difficult to enforce. However, that is a Second Reading point. We are now considering the narrow proposition that single-shot .22 weapons should be exempt from the ban. I would like to respond in detail to several smaller points raised by hon. Members, but that is the big picture. If we were to accept this amendment, it would undermine the consistency of our legislation, which aims to deal consistently with banning handguns. We believe that the 1997 Act, which is already in place, is defective. The Bill will put matters right. Acceptance of the amendment would undermine the consistency that we are trying to introduce.
    Mr. Colvin: With the leave of the Committee, if that is necessary, I shall respond to some of the remarks that have been made during the debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister's summing up and, at the end of my response, I shall press my amendment to a Division.
    We heard a powerful speech, as we are accustomed to in this place, from the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The hon. Gentleman always speaks robustly on whatever subject is before us. He speaks with immense knowledge of shooting, especially pistol shooting, and he is always sincere. That being so, it is significant that he failed to win any proper answers from the Minister of State. Nor did he receive any satisfactory answers on Second Reading.
    I am pleased that so many Conservative Members have been able to participate in the debate and to have been in their places throughout it, especially as a beauty contest is taking place in Committee Room 10 for the leadership of the Tory party. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) found time to enter the Chamber and join us in the debate. I have no doubt that he will give us his robust support. I hope that that does not mean that he has already been eliminated from the beauty contest. Perhaps the contest is one reason why more hon. Members have not been present. However, Conservative Members have consistently outnumbered Labour Members throughout the afternoon.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made, as one would expect, a powerful response in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), on legislation that might be pending to strengthen control of shotguns. I put the same question to the Minister of State on Second Reading. I asked him then how many draft Bills were in preparation, including those bringing shotguns and air rifles

    51
    within section 1 certification. I did not receive an answer on Second Reading and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex did not receive one this afternoon.
    Mr. Michael: If we followed every rabbit that the hon. Gentleman seeks to set running round the field, we would be denying things left, right and centre. There are no draft Bills.
    Mr. Colvin: I am pleased to hear that. That is the response that we could well have heard on Second Reading.
    5.45 pm
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the important point that neither the Hungerford massacre nor the Dunblane massacre could have taken place if the Bill, as it would be if the amendment were accepted, were enacted. Such a massacre could not be carried out with a single-shot .22. It is wrong to suggest that the public will be endangered if the amendment is incorporated in the Bill.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made a significant point, which was echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary. My amendment, as drafted, implies that single-shot .22 pistols could be kept at home, and that is intentional. If the argument is accepted that such pistols pose no danger to the general public because they are specifically constructed match pistols and impractical for use in crime or, indeed, for any other illegal purpose, there is no reason why they should not be kept at home.
    If we had sought to exclude .22 pistols from the home and had insisted in the amendment that they should be retained in gun clubs in secure conditions, would the Minister have accepted such an amendment? It is a matter to which he might give further thought between the debates in this place and those in another place that are to follow it.
    Mr. Connarty: The amendment refers to single-shot pistols, not specifically designed Olympic single-shot specially crafted pistols. If everyone who now holds a .22 pistol wishes to transfer to ownership of a single-shot .22, 40,000 .22 pistols will still be in circulation. That is the worry. What would happen if someone such as Hamilton were to have two or three single-shot guns? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that three deaths are just as bad as 16? At the beginning of the day of Dunblane, we were told that only one child had been killed. Does the hon. Gentleman not remember the shock of the nation?
    Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously the Minister of State's messenger boy as his parliamentary private secretary. He has displayed his ignorance of what the sport of shooting is all about. We are talking about single-shot sporting .22s that cannot be adapted for any other purpose.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the sort of intervention that would be expected from an hon. Member with a strong constituency interest, in that he has Bisley, the home of the National Rifle Association, in his constituency.
    52
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) argued that .22 pistol shooting was the crème de la crème of competition shooting. He expressed the hope that, in accepting the amendment, the Government would save face. We on the Conservative Benches are not normally in the business of suggesting ways in which the Government might save face, but in this instance they have it wrong and we have it right.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold asked specifically how many fatalities there have been as a result of crimes involving 22 rimfire handguns. We have not had an answer to that question.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked three specific questions. He wanted to know whether the amendment would help, whether it is right and whether it could cause harm. We have not had satisfactory answers.
    Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend able to surmise why we have not had answers to the pertinent questions to which he has referred, when the Prime Minister has said that he wants there to be maximum public scrutiny of all proposed legislation passing through the House of Commons? Why have Ministers not been prepared to answer pertinent questions?
    Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is best that we do not go too wide of the amendment. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to speculate why an hon. Member expressed himself in a certain way.
    Mr. Colvin: I acknowledge your wisdom, Mr. Martin. I shall keep myself strictly to order.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised some other interesting issues earlier in the debate. He was told by the Minister of State in an intervention in his speech that the Government were carrying out a review on safety. My hon. Friend had raised the important issue of single-shot .22 handguns. We were told that this is subject to yet another review. One of these days I shall table a question asking just how many reviews the Government have in being and how many civil servants are involved. Setting up a review seems to be the answer to every question on policy.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, with whom I was in complete agreement—unlike the previous debate in which I took part on this matter, when he was on the Government Benches and I gave him a rather rough ride—made the point that the official Opposition line does not enable them to support the amendment because it enables single-fire .22 pistols to be retained in the home. Would the Minister look again at the provision if an amendment were tabled in another place prohibiting the storage of these pistols in the home and insisting that they are stored in designated, official rifle clubs?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is starting to back-track from his amendment because it is deficient in a number of ways. He really should look at the evidence that was given to Lord Cullen by firearms experts about the ease of obtaining guns and extracting them from gun

    53
    clubs. It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and he should not hope for further consideration of his amendment.
    Mr. Colvin: That displays a certain amount of dictatorial inflexibility on the part of the Government.
    Mr. Soames: Can my hon. Friend help me, in view of the woefully inadequate summing up by the Minister of State? Everyone—including the Minister, although he does not understand it—acknowledges the extraordinarily high standards of safety, competence and skill of gun clubs, yet the Minister will not accept the amendment, presumably on the ground of safety. What is it that is so unsafe about this?
    Mr. Colvin: The simple answer is that .22 single-shot handguns are remarkably safe. They are probably the safest firearms there are. We have heard from a few hon. Members how dangerous some other firearms, such as shotguns, are. Perhaps an air rifle is one degree safer, but it is very little different from a .22. I think that the Minister has got the message. I very much hope that he will have second thoughts about what is proposed in the amendment and his reluctance to look at the matter between now and when the Bill is considered in another place.
    The Government are being very inflexible and dictatorial. They are also displaying ignorance of the sport of competition shooting. It is quite wrong to suggest that an exception for this type of handgun would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. That just is not so. We are in this place to defend the rights of minorities, and that is what Opposition Members have been doing with vigour, with stalwart help from the hon. Member for Stockton, North.
    This is yet one more occasion when the proposers and supporters of the amendment have won the argument, and having done so, it is fair that on this occasion we should see whether we can also win the vote. I shall press my amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 333.

    Division No. 29]

    [5.53 pm

    AYES

    Amess, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Norman

    Collins, Tim

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Colvin, Michael

    Bercow, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cotter, Brian

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cran, James

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham &Stamford)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Brady, Graham

    Duncan, Alan

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Evans, Nigel

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Faber, David

    Butterfill, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Flight, Howard

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Cash, William

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Gale, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Garnier, Edward

    54

    Gibb, Nick

    Prior, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Green, Damian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Greenway, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Ruffley, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hammond, Philip

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hayes, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Horam, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Spring, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

    Steen, Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Syms, Robert

    Key, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Townend, John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tredinnick, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lidington, David

    Walter, Robert

    Loughton, Tim

    Wardle, Charles

    Luff, Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Malins, Humfrey

    Wilkinson, John

    Maples, John

    Willetts, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Wilshire, David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Woodward, Shaun

    Opik, Lembit

    Yeo, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Paterson, Owen

    Mr. Peter Atkinson and

    Mr. Christopher Chope.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

    Ainger, Nick

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Butler, Christine

    Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

    Byers, Stephen

    Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Canavan, Dennis

    Atkins, Ms Charlotte

    Caplin, Ivor

    Austin, John

    Casale, Roger

    Barron, Kevin

    Caton, Martin

    Battle, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Chaytor, David

    Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

    Clapham, Michael

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Benton, Joe

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Best, Harold

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Blackman, Mrs Liz

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Robert

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cohen, Harry

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Colman, Anthony (Putney)

    Connarty, Michael

    55

    Cooper. Ms Yvette

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Corbett, Robin

    Hope, Philip

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cox, Tom

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Crausby, David

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cummings, John

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Iddon, Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    Darvill, Keith

    Jenkins, Brian (Tarnworth)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dean, Ms Janet

    Denham, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kemp, Fraser

    Drew, David

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kidney, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ellman, Ms Louise

    King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kingham, Tessa

    Etherington, Bill

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Flint, Ms Caroline

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Flynn, Paul

    Laxton, Bob

    Follett, Ms Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

    Levitt, Tom

    Foulkes, George

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Linton, Martin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lock, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Love, Andy

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAllion, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCabe, Stephen

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Graham, Thomas

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Grant, Bernie

    McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

    Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    McIsaac, Ms Shona

    Gunnell, John

    McKenna, Ms Rosemary

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McLeish, Henry

    Hancock, Mike

    McMaster, Gordon

    Hanson, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    McNulty, Tony

    Healey, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mc Walter, Tony

    Heppell, John

    McWilliam, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hill, Keith

    Mallaber, Ms Judy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mandelson, Peter

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Home Robertson, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    56

    Martlew, Eric

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Maxton, John

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Meale, Alan

    Singh, Marsha

    Merron, Ms Gillian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Milburn, Alan

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Miller, Andrew

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Soley, Clive

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Spellar, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Stevenson, George

    Mountford, Ms Kali

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mudie, George

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mullin, Chris

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stott, Roger

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Norris, Dan

    Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stunell, Andrew

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    O'Hara, Edward

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Olner, Bill

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Osborne, Mrs Sandra

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pearson, Ian

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pendry, Tom

    Timms, Stephen

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pike, Peter L

    Todd, Mark

    Plaskitt, James

    Touhig, Don

    Pollard, Kerry

    Trickett, Jon

    Pond, Chris

    Truswell, Paul

    Pope, Greg

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Purchase, Ken

    Wareing, Robert N

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Watts, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Webb, Steven

    Radice, Giles

    White, Brian

    Rammell, Bill

    Whitehead, Alan

    Rapson, Syd

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Raynsford, Nick

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wills, Michael

    Rooney, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wise, Audrey

    Roy, Frank

    Wood, Mike

    Ruane, Chris

    Woolas, Phil

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Wray, James

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Sawford, Phil

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Janet Anderson and

    Mr. John McFall.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. David Maclean: Clause I should not stand part of the Bill, because the Government have not been able to justify it. That was clear from the Minister's inadequate response to the

    57
    previous debate. Despite being pressed numerous times, he was unable to give specific safety reasons why single-shot .22 handguns should not be added to the exemptions for certain closely defined categories of firearms holder.
    It is legitimate and sensible to permit the 7,000 veterinary officers in this country to handle a handgun safely in certain conditions: not all them work in large animal practices that require a heavier calibre or repeat-shot weapon to dispose of casualty animals humanely. If it is sensible for them to be allowed to use handguns, what specific extra safety danger would be posed by permitting a group of people involved in target shooting competitions or in Olympic sports to fire .22 weapons with single-shot capacity? Largely for that reason, the Opposition will vote against the clause. The Government have also failed to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
    Make no mistake, if the clause is accepted, Britain will be the only country banned from international pistol shooting competitions. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 at least allowed competitors from this country to take part on the international stage in the three .22 calibre events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
    We have a long, noble and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting, which Britain invented and has dominated for more than 100 years. It is a sporting success story for Britain. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition, our competitors have brought home 23 pistol shooting medals in the .22 calibre events alone. As one of the original 12 modern Olympic disciplines, the sport deserves the same recognition as other more visible sports. It should not be lightly destroyed for no practical gain.
    Pistol shooting is one of those sports in which everyone—young, old, male, female, able-bodied or disabled—competes on equal terms. They are all valued in the sport. Indeed, pistol shooting offers positive incentives for disabled people, but we shall come to that later, so I shall not stray down that avenue now.
    It is legitimate to point out, however, that the British Paraplegic Shooting Association says that shooting is a form of rehabilitation that helps many disabled people with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and for sport. It provides them with a better quality of life, and encourages them to respect themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world. If the clause is accepted, disabled people and others will be disqualified from firing pistols in safe conditions.
    Whether able-bodied or disabled, pistol shooters are honourable sports people. They cannot be lumped into the same category as the madman of Dunblane. He was granted a gun licence when, according to the Cullen report, the law was not applied as rigorously as Parliament intended when the firearms Acts were passed—I shall leave the hon. Member for Stockton, North to be more specific on that.
    The clause bans all sporting pistol shooting. The Opposition would happily go along with that if it provided a sensible gain. If the Government were telling us that there would be a grave danger, a significant loophole and serious risks if we allowed such shooting to continue, every hon. Member would say, "That's it, I agree entirely." No matter how honourable the sport, no matter
    58
    how long the tradition, no matter the circumstances in which it is conducted, no matter that many disabled people can participate, we would be happy to let the sport be destroyed if the clause added measurable safety precautions to the existing controls, but it does not. The clause is nonsense.
    6.15 pm
    Rigorous safety controls to protect the public are already provided by the 1997 Act. Let me remind the Committee of those controls. The only pistol that the law still permits under the 1997 Act is a .22 pistol. The pistol is not to be left in secure gun cabinets in people's homes: it must be left only in those gun clubs that can show that they meet strict security criteria, that they satisfy the police that their premises have adequate security, and that appropriate procedures are in place to avoid any unauthorised removal of firearms from the premises.
    Under the 1997 Act, pistols have to be held in those strictly limited, highly controlled and regulated circumstances. When the Act was going through, many hon. Members and people outside the House said that those conditions were so restrictive that many clubs would be destroyed, because they would not be able to meet such strict criteria. The previous Government hoped that that would not happen, but strict security controls had to apply to protect the public before shooting could be conducted safely.
    Under the 1997 Act, .22 pistols can be moved from a club only if they have to be repaired or if the owner is competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club. Before a gun can be removed from a club, a permit from the police is required, and the gun has to be carried by a third party whom the police are satisfied is a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
    Those measures to protect the public are in the existing law. The only excuse that the Government have offered for the clause is that it is consistent with the 1997 Act. That argument is nonsense. Of course one hopes that, somewhere along the line, legislation is consistent with existing law, but that is not a good enough reason for abolishing a sport and for abolishing .22 shooting, when, to use the phrase that the Minister used earlier, there would be no practical safety gain.
    When pressed further, the Minister said that, when the Government talk about maximum safety, what they really mean is maximum practical safety. That is a considerable explanation—I was going to say "loophole"—and the Minister has perhaps given a considerable hostage to fortune.
    I agree with the Minister that we should ensure maximum practical safety, but it adds not one iota of practical safety to go further than the rigorous controls in the 1997 Act—which permits .22 shooting only at gun clubs in strict conditions—and to abolish the sport altogether.
    The clause has a practical effect. We take the Home Secretary at his word, because he is an honourable man. He intends to use section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to exempt foreign competitors who come to this country to participate in the Commonwealth games or for the Olympic games if we win the chance to hold them here in the future. I know that that can be done. Special certificates will be issued under section 5 to allow those competitors to shoot here.

    59
    There will be competitors from 50 to 60 countries, because shooting is one of the most important sports in those countries that were pressing Manchester to include shooting in its Commonwealth games application. No doubt arrangements can be put in place for those competitors, and we may later press the Government about them. It will be difficult, and much time will be spent by people at Queen Anne's gate and among police forces working it out, but arrangements can be put in place to allow such people to shoot in this country.
    What nonsense. No doubt the media will wish to cover shooting events at the next Commonwealth games, and will find interesting the spectacle of people from other countries coming with weapons and firing them in strictly controlled conditions. They will fire those guns safely at sporting events, and the only people not able to take part will be potential British competitors in their own country, because clause 1 forbids it.
    That is the nonsense that the Government advocate on the ground of consistency with the 1997 Act. It is not consistent, because that Act allows some exceptions. We have heard about the black powder case, and about the exception for veterinary officers who use weapons to kill injured animals humanely.
    We suggested in an earlier debate that an exception on single-shot weapons could have been added. We lost that argument, and we naturally accept the overwhelming majority against us. Although we lost the vote, I do not think that my hon. Friends and I lost the argument, because the Government did not have a legitimate answer.
    I should like to share with the Committee a letter from the British Olympic Association, which I think all hon. Members have received. The letter states:
    "Whilst the British Olympic Association welcomes tighter firearms control which will ensure that tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane are never repeated we are concerned about the impact that the proposed legislation will have on competitive pistol shooting in this country.
    The legislation, as it stands, will effectively preclude representation by British athletes at future Olympic Games in the three Olympic shooting disciplines concerned. With 135 national federations competing for 20-30 places in each discipline there is a significant level of training and commitment necessary to achieve an Olympic quota place. Forcing competitive pistol shooting abroad will kill the sport and with it the necessary depth to ensure international representation at the highest level.
    We therefore strongly support any reasonable amendments which will allow competitive pistol shooting in the Olympic discipline to continue."
    I may wish to refer to that letter when we debate the new clauses. I mention it now because the Government have been quite dictatorial in driving through their opposition to amendment No. 7, which was perfectly reasonable, and they can easily win all the votes.
    If the Government will not pay attention to the British Olympic Association, the British Shooting Sports Council, and the many honest sportsmen and sportswomen, some of whom have been or may still be police officers or who have served in the military, and who have handled handguns perfectly safely over the years and are members of shooting teams, I urge them at least to listen to Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who spoke with considerable authority on the subject.
    60
    If the Government see a chance of introducing even more tightly controlled conditions than those in the 1997 Act to permit sporting shooting in some form or other to survive, why will they not co-operate with us on that? If the single-shot amendment was flawed, or if, in the Government's view, it is too dangerous, is there nothing at all that they would be tempted to accept in the new clauses that would permit, under extraordinarily tight conditions—perhaps in one centre in the country—sporting shooting of some description to continue?
    If it is the Government's view that it is wrong per se to allow such shooting to continue, they should say so. It is perfectly legitimate for them to say, "We do not want such shooting to take place at all. We do not want anyone who does not wear Her Majesty's uniform to fire a pistol under any conditions." If that is the Government's view, they should not hide behind a bogus safety argument that they have not made out to justify clause 1. Nor should they hide behind the argument of consistency, because their response to the debate on amendment No. 7 was clearly inconsistent with the exceptions in the 1997 Act.
    If the Government say, "We want to reduce the number of people handling guns because of the gun culture," let them tackle television and the influence of films that promote the gun culture. They should not tackle the Commonwealth games team and the British Olympic team, and those who legitimately handle firearms safely in gun clubs.
    There is a tremendous obligation on the Government to explain why they are determined to shoot down, if I may use that phrase, any amendment that would permit shooting in any circumstances. By their actions, they seem to be saying, "We have taken a decision on principle. All guns will be banned, and we do not care what arguments you or anyone else present, whether on safety, sporting, Olympic or disablement grounds. That is our argument in principle, and we are not bending from it." If that is their view, let them say so.
    Unless the Government give some hope that it will be possible to protect in some narrow way the glorious tradition of .22 British pistol shooting at sporting events such as the Olympic games, the Opposition will have no option but to vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael: I shall be brief, because I do not want to go over the ground that was covered on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I explained the case for the Bill in Wednesday's debate. That case was clearly made, and it commanded the overwhelming support of hon. Members.
    I do not intend to enter into debate about the Commonwealth or Olympic games, because new clauses deal with those issues. In his opening speech, the Home Secretary accepted and set out the Bill's impact, and he was congratulated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on being open and honest about that rather than trying to hide it. Our stall and the reasons for the Bill have been clearly set out.
    Clause 1 contains the Bill's key element, and that is why it must stand part of the Bill. That key element is the prohibition of small-calibre pistols, which was accepted so overwhelmingly on Second Reading. The clause extends to small-calibre pistols the ban that was instituted

    61
    by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. That Act prohibited 80 per cent. of handguns from general civilian ownership, and clause 1 prohibits the remainder.
    The points in the speech by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were made by some of his hon. Friends when he was the Minister responsible for these matters. He was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that we did not introduce a measure which we know will affect the sport of shooting lightly or without thought.
    As I said earlier, in our original evidence to Lord Cullen, we said that we would look at the possibility of protecting the sporting use of handguns, although we felt that there was a strong case for a general ban. Our conclusion, which was thoughtful and reasoned, was that a complete ban was the right way forward. In opposition, we supported the 1997 Act, because we saw it as a vast improvement on earlier law. However, we also said, and have always said, that we did not think that it went far enough.
    I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border accepts the principle that public safety should override the interests of sport. We think that a total ban on handguns will help public safety, but from his speech it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not. It is a matter of judgment, but I am glad that, unlike some of his hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle on which we have based the legislation. We believe that it will have the practical effect of increasing public safety, and, as I have said, we did not come to that conclusion without careful thought. We did not believe that the 1997 Act went far enough, or that the pistol clubs system proposed under the Act would guarantee the public's safety. The only way in which to do that is to remove the weapons from general circulation.
    The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border cannot have it both ways. He says that we are not willing to listen and to allow exceptions, and then refers to the fact that we have indeed allowed and supported exceptions for veterinary purposes and for dealing with large mammals. Those are public interest exceptions rather than pure sporting exceptions, so we have been consistent, and have driven for the best possible outcome in legislation for the public's protection.
    As I have said, the only way in which to achieve maximum public safety is to remove handguns from general circulation. That is the effect of the clause, and I hope that it can now stand part of the Bill.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Soames: In the spirit of the speech made by the Minister of State, I shall not delay the House long.
    I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). For many reasons, clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. There is no sensible, pragmatic reason why the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) should not have been accepted. The safety arguments were not answered properly. The consistency case has been lamentably badly made. It has not in any way altered the balance of feelings of any Conservative Member who opposes the clause.
    The other extraordinary thing is the Home Secretary's remarkably high-handed, arrogant and cheeky response to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook),
    62
    who knows a lot about all this, and whose views on this matter are fortified and sustained by a considerable knowledge of sporting shooting. It is a pity that his views have not been more carefully listened to.
    One of the purposes of the House is to safeguard faithfully the interests of minorities. It is unfortunate that, among other things, the Olympians, who have in such a distinguished manner represented this country for so long, will no longer be able to do so. That is a sad and unhappy state of affairs, which the House should not countenance or allow to happen.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I do not know whether I shall delay the Committee uselessly this evening. Certainly, it is not my intention, but the simple truth is that I have raised numerous questions and made many points of logic, and none of them has received a sensible response. The only point that has been made in response to the case that I make, which I hope is based on common sense, is that I have been against the legislation from the outset and that I have been a passionate advocate, but that I am wrong anyway. That is not the way in which to counter logic.
    I was against the previous legislation that was introduced by the Conservative regime and, as Opposition Whip on the Hungerford Bill, I was against aspects of that legislation. Incidentally, that was the first time that a Government lost their sittings motion. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was a Minister at the time, sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I am proud to say that I was responsible for the then Government losing the motion. I suppose that that is one way in which to get into "Erskine May". I was happy to do it.
    That is a measure of the honesty that I have applied, or sought to apply, to proposals such as this all along, because all long they have been inadequate. Clause 1 is equally inadequate, because it does not recognise the simple truths of the matter. The whole morass of firearms legislation is full of anachronisms and anomalies. Clause 1 is symptomatic of that and one example of those anomalies.
    What do we have in terms of facts? We know that Thomas Watt Hamilton acquired his original handgun illegally; that is a proven fact, provable with documentation. We know that his certification was inappropriate because the police did not check the false statements that he made; that is also a proven fact and checkable. We know that he was rejected by and indeed ejected from some of the gun clubs that he sought to join. We know that he engaged in illegal gun purchases and trading and that he threatened a lady with a loaded weapon through the open window of his stationary vehicle.
    If that does not constitute grounds for the removal of all certificates and of all weapons, and indeed the throwing into custody of an individual, frankly, I do not know what the law means. The police had all those opportunities and, despite Sergeant Hughes pleading with his senior officers to take that course of action, a senior officer in the shape of a deputy chief constable refused to take action on the ground that he was afraid to go to a court of law on appeal. If they were as indolent and as dilatory in that instance, how do we know that they will be any more conscientious in the light of the Bill?
    I have outlined the case in relation to Thomas Watt Hamilton. There is a similar history in the case of Michael Ryan and Hungerford. He, too, did not have lawfully held

    63
    weapons, as those weapons are frequently described by both Downing street and the Home Office. Frankly, I do not know whether I do any good by raising those points, which I have raised so many times before. The Bill is based on a false premise. We are taking punitive action against people who are law-abiding, who have conformed in every respect to this country's legal requirements, as laid down by the House, and we intend to punish them and indeed to make them pay a considerable sum; no one will convince me that the draft compensation scheme is adequate to provide for the stocks that people hold, certainly the dealers. Therefore, there seems to be a deeply entrenched determination to expunge the sport of pistol and revolver target shooting from people's leisure opportunities, regardless of whether they be young or old, black or white, able or disabled.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a supporter of Blackburn Rovers, who I am told have been known on occasion to play football. He will have attended those meetings and will have seen at the front, by the pitch side, disabled people watching the game, which I hope was entertaining—although it rarely was when Blackburn Rovers came to Middlesbrough. I wonder whether he has thought about whether the people sitting in those wheelchairs, or people with prostheses or arthritic callipers, take part in target shooting for the sake of a sense of sporting achievement, because many of them do. It might not have gained the attention of the Home Secretary on those occasions—[Interruption.]—and it certainly is not getting his attention today. Those people, whether they support Blackburn Rovers, any other football team or, indeed, any other sport, can, in the sport of target shooting, actively engage in the activity and compete on equal terms. We shall stop that if we go ahead with the Bill.
    I want to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Is it his intention to do away with the sport altogether? If the answer is yes, and I fully expect it to be so, what will he do about policemen who are part of an armed team? I have news for the Home Secretary, as I had news for the previous incumbent of that post: any police officer undertaking firearms duty has an opportunity to use a shooting range, but the time on that range is limited. He has the opportunity to make several shots from a service weapon, but the number of rounds is limited. He has to stand square on at the range and shoot at a piece of cardboard, but that discipline is limited. To expect a policeman to go on active service with limited training time, limited experience loosing off rounds and with limited positional disciplines puts that officer at risk.
    When I raised the matter previously, although perhaps not as comprehensively as I am doing today, the Home Secretary of the day said that police training was adequate. That is not so, but I would have great difficulty persuading a policeman to say so publicly. Why is that? It is because of questions of career development, of protection of pension rights and, sadly, because we live in a society in which the whistleblower virtually puts himself as the bull on the target at 25 m range, and has just as much chance of survival. It is indicative of the sort of nonsense surrounding the issue.
    Many steps should be taken to make more stringent the legislation that applies to firearms of every sort, not just pistols and revolvers, but the Government are ignoring the
    64
    anomalies. They are turning a blind eye, yet at the same time they are pretending to be consistent and logical. Frankly, they are neither.
    This evening will not exhaust my will and my wish to continue preaching common sense, because I believe that legislation should be based on common sense and be practicable and enforceable. However, I can give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some comfort, because I regret that after this evening's proceedings I shall not be able to continue with my arguments because of parliamentary duties elsewhere. I want to be sure that my arguments are clearly understood tonight. All reasonable proposals, for which my right hon. Friend pleaded, have been ignored without any response or justification—[Interruption.]—indeed, they are being ignored at this very minute.
    Mr. Colvin: I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that clause 1 should not stand part. The Minister referred to clause 1 as the key element in the Bill, as it bans all .22 weapons. During the earlier debate on my amendment No. 7, which failed, the hon. Gentleman said that it was not the Government's business—and, indeed, it would be quite wrong—to talk about exemptions. However, as he admitted, there are already exemptions and exclusions. For example, he said that vets would be allowed to retain handguns. I would add the starters for athletic and swimming races. Slaughterhouse men are also entitled to retain handguns—.38 revolvers, which are much more dangerous than single-shot .22s used for competition purposes. There is also the question of black powder pistols. Exemptions and exclusions are already permitted and I see absolutely no reason to accept the Minister's argument against my amendment No. 7—that it would mean special exemptions. They exist in previous legislation and they exist in the Bill.
    6.45 pm
    There has been some discussion about the dangers of shooters going underground. Accepting amendment No. 7 or rejecting this clause would reduce that risk. If shooting with .22s is prohibited, there is a danger that some shooting might go underground. Of course, as other hon. Members have said, it is unlikely that any of the law-abiding community of sportsmen or women would go down that path.
    I agree with the Minister on one matter—that the Conservative Members who have spoken today are generally opposed to the Bill. We have been doing our level best to try to salvage a sport at which Britain excels and which poses no security risk to the public. The Minister's arguments about safety were inadequate. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, it defies all logic.
    Perhaps we should draw a comparison between .22 shooting and archery. I happen to be an honorary member of the Romsey Archers. I know that someone with a bow and arrow can fire more accurate shots, over a longer range, at greater speed and with a more lethal effect than could ever be the case with a .22 single-shot pistol. I am not trying to make a case for banning archery—[Interruption.] Obviously, the Minister does not understand the logic of my case. I am pointing out the illogicality of the Bill.

    65
    My amendment was a narrow one and the Bill is also narrow, but nothing is as narrow as the minds of the Minister and of the Government in what they are trying to do in the Bill. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border in asking the Committee to reject clause 1.
    Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members want to speak. I remind the Government of the two central questions that I asked during the debate on the amendment. First, is the Bill right, and secondly, will it achieve what it is intended to achieve? The answer to both questions is no.
    I also remind the Government that they are destroying an innocent pastime and I ask them to think about the sort of people who engage in it. They are nothing other than respectable, law-abiding citizens and their sport brings this country great credit. The Government are also removing from the disabled an opportunity for enjoyment and competition. I invite the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and even the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—with whom I shared a happy time on the armed forces parliamentary scheme—to come to the gun club in my constituency and persuade those in wheelchairs who compete at pistol shooting that it is for the benefit of the public that they should have their pistols and their opportunity for enjoyment taken away from them.
    The Bill tackles the horrors of Dunblane and Hungerford by asking the wrong questions. Guns, whether automatic or multi-shot pistols, are obtainable on the black market throughout the country. We could go to any number of inner-city pubs and buy a pistol, be it single-shot or multi-shot, on the black market.
    If the Government want to do something useful, they should increase the police resources dedicated to tackling the problem of unlawfully purchased or stolen weapons. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) suggested, Ministers could also increase resources dedicated to allowing police to fire more often and for longer periods within police time.
    The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—which I did not vote for—went too far. This Bill and clause 1 go further, and to no good effect. I invite my hon. Friends to reject clause 1.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: In the debate on clause 1 stand part, it is appropriate to focus again on the key issue and to try to persuade Ministers—as persuasion is the only weapon that we have—to give some thought to our arguments. I realise that I shall perhaps again make some points that 1 have already made, in the debate on amendment No. 7.
    I apologise that I could not be in the Chamber to hear the Minister's reply to the debate on amendment No. 7, but I have been told that he did not give any ground—although he said something to the effect that the Government would consider conducting some type of review. If such a review means that the Government might seriously reconsider their position before the Bill goes to another place—I should be grateful to have the Minister of State's ear on this point—and offer a possibility of modifying the Bill, it will have been a proper exercise of legislative function.
    The case made by Conservative Members is that the only ground for passing such a stringent Bill is that the public interest and public safety require doing so, and
    66
    that the passage of such a Bill is necessary only if the single-shot pistol—which cannot be adapted and must be reloaded individually between shots—is seriously likely to be used in massacres such as Hungerford or Dunblane, which rightly horrified the House and the public. However, I have not heard either the Home Secretary or the Minister of State make that specific argument. I have also not heard them say that there is a real danger that someone who was minded to carry out such a massacre—who would be an oddball, and a dangerous loner—would attempt to use a single-shot .22 pistol.
    Hon. Members know that it is only too easy to obtain other types of handguns, and we stand four-square with the Government in passing proper measures to prevent the illegal holding of any type of handgun. Conservative Members believe, however, that we have made a serious argument that the type of specialised sporting weapon used for the Olympic games, for the Commonwealth games and for other bona fide sporting activities represents no real threat of causing that type of massacre.
    Mr. Michael: Amendment No. 7 was not as narrow as the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. We are now debating clause stand part, and the Bill in its generality.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment, which I take not so much as a rebuke as an invitation to think that Ministers may still have an open mind on the matter. I think that I am right in believing that a clause stand part debate is exactly the moment at which to attempt to put some slightly wider ideas into the minds of Ministers, so that, before they force through the clause, they may either reflect further on those ideas or have the chance to indicate that there will be an opportunity—perhaps at a later stage in the Bill's passage, such as Report or in another place—to make sensible and perhaps tightly focused amendments.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. and learned Friend, but I suspect that the review mentioned by the Minister of State will be an attempt to make the law even tougher. The Minister was concerned that black powder replica pistols, for example, might be used in a massacre similar to Dunblane. He said that Ministers were sufficiently concerned—in such an idiotic way—about such weapons that they might apply the ban to them.
    Sir Nicholas Lye11: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's comments, and I can hope only that they are incorrect.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) did not listen to what I said. I said that the exemption introduced in another place to the 1997 Act had caused considerable concern to the police.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Such a matter can be fairly considered in a review. However, I am inviting the Minister to consider carefully focused amendments to the Bill, which will allow legitimate sporting activities to continue in tightly controlled circumstances, so that British citizens who are held to be responsible can train for and compete in the Commonwealth and Olympic games.

    67
    Such people will be few in number, because the sport is comparatively focused and involves a comparatively small number of highly responsible people. Moreover—as I have already made perfectly clear—they will be members of clubs. I suggest that they should keep their weapons at their clubs, as that would provide as much safety as any hon. Member could reasonably propose. I say that with all the more force—at the risk of boring the Committee—because, as we know, a person can go across the channel, buy a single-shot .22 weapon without any licensing requirement, bring it back to the UK in the glove box of his car and know that no one is remotely likely to stop him. It would require tight intelligence—of a type that there is no reason to believe there is or should be—to prevent such activities.
    We are dealing with massacres committed by people who are unbalanced, criminally minded and extremely devious. Such people are likely—because they have done so in the past—to get hold of far more dangerous weapons, and they have evaded an already complex licensing system. Conservative Members are simply asking for tightly focused exemptions so that honest people can participate in an honest sporting activity that is of real importance to the United Kingdom and to sport. I ask the Home Secretary and the Home Office to think again.
    Mr. Boswell: I invite the Home Secretary to think again. The passage of clause 1 will represent a step change in legislation, and the sport of pistol shooting, rather than being confined, will effectively be eliminated. It will be a change in quality and character and not simply in numbers, and it will entail all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
    Simultaneously, in introducing a blanket and indiscriminate ban, Ministers are forcing themselves to be discriminatory. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said, the Government cannot control what happens outside the United Kingdom, because the Bill is confined to Great
    68
    Britain. Not even the Government, with their majority, can control what happens outside the UK, and the consequences will be remarkable.
    The first consequence will affect Olympic and other competitions, about which we shall hear more later in the debate. Ministers will have to enforce exceptions in the system—although I am pleased that even limited exceptions are being considered—to enable activities that are regarded as perfectly acceptable and normal abroad to be pursued in the UK. The question remains, however—the Home Secretary has not clarified the matter—whether such exceptions will include the participation of British shooters alongside their continental counterparts, or whether British shooters will be uniquely discriminated against, in a manner that may well attract the attention of the European Court of Human Rights.
    We shall require further clarification also on the issue of police certification for persons entering the UK, who are participating in shooting competitions. I raise that matter only to emphasise the difficulties that will require further thought.
    Another matter must be considered. There is an issue not only of importation of illegal firearms—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire mentioned—but of discrimination in regard to the type of people who will be able to continue shooting. Someone who lives in Kent near the channel ports or who happens to be affluent can carry on shooting as much as he likes, because he can go to France or anywhere else where that activity is perfectly legitimate. It will be members of ordinary pistol clubs—probably those from less affluent backgrounds—who will be precluded. There will thus be a weird social inversion as an unintended but very real consequence of the Government's misguided policies.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was small-minded, mean and profoundly bad, and clause 1 encapsulates that fact. Also on Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the Bill was designed to protect the public, but can anyone really believe that small-calibre pistols—
    It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.)

Private Bills (Procedure)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;

(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;

(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;

(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;

(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;

(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

70

(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;

(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;

(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The purpose of the motion is to enable the private Bills that were before the House at the end of the last Parliament, or that originated here in the last Session of that Parliament before going to another place, to be revived and taken automatically through the stages that they had passed in this House. As a result, the Bills will be in exactly the same position as they would have been if the previous Session had not been brought to an end as a result of the general election.
When a Session of Parliament is brought to an end by a Dissolution, it is the practice of the House to enable those private Bills that were before it to resume their passage in the new Parliament, although I have read the thoroughly learned speech on the history of those matters by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who I see in his place, on 27 October 1982. I am indebted to him for the history that he set out.
The promoters of a private Bill and, where relevant, any petitioners concerned about the Bill or any aspects of it, are entitled to expect Parliament to consider that Bill individually and to reach a decision on the merits of each case. The revival motion will enable that process to be completed in the case of the six private Bills to which it applies.
Some of the Bills affected by this motion—for example, the King's College London Bill, which emanates from my constituency—have been the subject of careful consideration, both of the promoters' and petitioners' cases. Others, including the Imperial College Bill, with which I am also concerned, contain proposals which, though important, are uncontroversial. In both sets of cases, however, it would be unfair and quite unreasonable to refuse to pass the motion, thereby killing all the Bills

71
en masse, without any consideration of their respective merits. Having already incurred significant expense in promoting their Bills, promoters would have to start once more from scratch. That would be unfair not only to promoters but to petitioners who would have to present their cases all over again.
I have already adduced, in the last Parliament, the reasons why it is important that the King's College London Bill should be passed. The Imperial College Bill is an important piece of draft legislation, which affects not only my constituency but, like the King's College London Bill, the future of medical education in London. The Bill would provide for the Royal postgraduate medical school and the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school to be united with Imperial college, thereby establishing what we expect will become a world-class teaching and research facility, both complementing and benefiting from the world-class science teaching and research already carried out at Imperial college. The Bill is not party political or controversial. It passed all its stages in the House unopposed between January and March this year. When Parliament was dissolved, it was awaiting a Reading in another place.
There is considerable urgency in the case of the Imperial College Bill because the merger is due to take place on 1 August this year. Any delay in meeting that target will involve the college in considerable expense which, like all such public bodies, it can ill afford. I have spoken before of the need for the King's College London Bill.
I am aware that hon. Members have delayed the passing of the motion and caused it to be debated tonight because they are concerned about particular private Bills. It would, however, be quite wrong to refuse to pass the motion for those reasons. As I said, each private Bill should be individually scrutinised by the House and should pass or fail on its merits. That is what promoters and petitioners are entitled to expect. It is a practice which the House has long followed and it is why you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, have seen fit to table the motion which I commend to the House.
7.4 pm
Mr. Alan Whitehead: I agree with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and support the revival motion. I support it in order to breathe life into the Bill of which I am now the sponsor—the Southampton International Boat Show Bill. That Bill is about as uncontroversial as a Bill could be. Indeed, in the last Session, it passed all its Commons stages, received a Second Reading in another place in March 1997 and was awaiting an Unopposed Bill Committee when the Session ended.
The aim of the Bill is to amend the facility for the closure of the Mayflower park in Southampton each autumn as originally set out in the Hampshire Act 1983. The park is next to the waterfront and that is, of course, an integral part of the Southampton international boat show, which is now Europe's largest show involving more than 500 exhibitors, 120,000 attenders and more than £40 million of business transacted during the show itself.
The closure of a public park for more than six days requires permission by way of a private Bill. The Hampshire Act 1983 gives permission only for nine days'
72
closure. The variation between the closure to provide for public access to the show and park closure for the preparation and dismantling of the exhibition is therefore sought in order to allow an extra day of public showing.
The boat show is very much a part of Southampton. It is welcomed by the city's population, but its international reputation means that it receives visitors from across the world and provides an unrivalled showcase for the UK boat building industry, securing many export orders for that element of the nation's industry. It is therefore very important for the UK as a whole, not just for Southampton or the surrounding region.
The Bill, however, provides not an alteration in the overall numbers of days that the park is closed or partly closed but a variation in the days that it is open to the public to cater for the changing patterns of attendance at exhibitions of this type. The Bill will allow the show to open to the public over two full weekends—two Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
The 10-day opening envisaged in the Bill is now typical of the Southampton international boat show's competitors. Increasingly, visitors wish to extend their visits to such shows over more than one day and book hotels in the vicinity to that end. The provision of two full weekends therefore allows for the maximisation of the facility and brings the boat show into line with its overseas competitors. That is especially important for international visitors seeking to place orders for boats. Indeed, some sections of the UK boat industry, especially the power boat industry, export up to 90 per cent. of their production to overseas visitors.
As I said, the variation will in no way adversely affect the public's general right of access to the park since improvements in efficiency in the setting up and dismantling of the exhibition will mean that the additional day's public opening can be compensated for by less time spent on those activities.
Last year, the UK boating industry's turnover topped £1.75 billion. Overall, it represents a favourable balance of trade to the UK of £291 million a year. It is fair to say that it is a great success story for our country. The Southampton international boat show also provides an unrivalled opportunity for the business to show off its wares and for the public to get a taste of what is on offer and, in many instances, to place orders for the boats on display. I hope, therefore, that the House will find it possible to support that showcase and assist that public success story. By reviving the Bill and allowing it to continue and complete its passage through its various stages, the House will be assisting British industry in a positive manner.
7.9 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The motion before the House appears straightforward, but it is actually one of the more arcane and esoteric segments of the House's business. I notice in passing that we are debating this subject at the same time as the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is meeting in Committee Room 20. In addition, the Tory party is having its hustings tonight—
Mr. David Maclean: Been there, done that.
Mr. Hughes: Some of us are spared having to attend that particular meeting.

73
I have a few things to say about the procedure and then about the Bills themselves. I own up to being one of those who has, by blocking the motion, forced this debate and I think it right that we should have this debate. I shall support the passage of the motion—my objective in forcing in the debate was to have the debate, not to block the motion. Therefore, like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I hope that, at the end of the debate, the House will vote for the motion and allow the Bills to go through.
A few years ago, the private business of the House reduced considerably after both an inquiry into private business and the changes that, by and large, took transport and works business out of the private Bill procedure. Private business remains a difficult area for the public to get to grips with and understand and I want therefore to comment on how we as the House of Commons might do more to make sure that it is not a hidden corner of legislation. To be honest, the electorate rarely get to know about it or participate in the process.
Private business is, by definition, business that does not affect the whole country, but affects only a specific area or institution. I hope that, as Parliament devolves powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, in time, to London and the other regions of England, we shall get rid of this sort of business from this place. There may be a national interest in the Bills—as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead) said, there is a Southampton interest, a south coast interest and a national interest relating to the Southampton International Boat Show Bill—but the reality is that whether the boat show is open for nine or 10 days is very much a Southampton issue and it is better debated by those with a local knowledge and interest, rather than in this place. The same is true of the other Bills that are affected—and, in a sense, hidden—by the motion. If we are contemplating taking democracy out to the people, as the Prime Minister did on Friday, I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, private business will have gone out to the people as well.
My second point is that we must get away from the nonsense of never knowing whether private business is going to come up. It can, in theory, come up on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, but never on a Friday, for some reason that I have never looked into.
Mr. Maclean: There is nobody here.
Mr. Hughes: There will be lots of people here on a Friday to debate fox hunting, so I am sure they could come for other private business.
It is a nonsense that, on a Thursday when the business statement is made, all that the Leader of the House says is, "The Chairman of Ways and Means may set down private business to be considered next Monday," without telling us what that business is, without it ever getting into the public record and, potentially, without anybody apart from those in the know knowing about it more than four days in advance.
Let us take two of the examples relevant to the motion: the Bills relevant to the south-west and Cornwall—I see the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is present—the Tamar Bridge Bill and the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. Those are both important pieces of legislation, especially in Cornwall, but it seems to me that, if they were to have come up in tonight's
74
slot, it would have been helpful for some sort of public notification to have been given to the people of Cornwall, and not only to the promoters, who clearly have an interest, and to those in the know.
We must get away from a procedure that is nobody's fault, but that means that private Bills are an activity that is carried on between consenting adults in private and only occasionally emerges at the last minute into the public domain. The Clerks are extremely helpful and I make no criticism of them, but a sort of loop that means that one does not know when or how to petition means that the great British public might be shut out. I hope we can, as the House, make private legislation much more accessible to the public.
The Library fact sheet states:
"Private Legislation is a very complex subject, and the idea of these notes is no more than to provide an introduction for the layman."
I checked with the Clerk and discovered that "Erskine May", which is in the process of being updated from its 1989 edition, has pages and pages on the subject of private Bills and all the things that one can do with them and how one can object to them.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, had he been in the House 100 years ago, he would have spent more time on private Bills than on public ones?
Mr. Hughes: Indeed, I am aware that the business of the House used to consist almost wholly of private Bills-the building of the railways meant that little else came to Parliament for years and years. I am glad that we have moved to a system of local inquiry, although I have some reservations about the powers of the Secretaries of State under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and believe that the balance may have been moved the wrong way.
I am keen that, as part of the modernisation process of this Parliament, we look for ways to make timetabling, fixing of dates and notification in advance of the proceedings of private Bills far more accessible to the public. The Leader of the House is not in her place, but I hope that, even in the next few weeks, we arrive at a system whereby private business is announced in the business statement so that people have notice of when it is coming up. I know that Government timetabling of business is always difficult, but we now have a system whereby we know in advance about private Member's Bills days and non-sitting Fridays. I hope that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons will come up with clear fixed dates for the parliamentary session, so that we know in advance about holidays, not because I want more holidays, but because those with young children need to know such things in advance—indeed, parliamentary Sessions should fit in school holidays. It seems to me that we could timetable private business as well.
My last point is that, as part of the procedure, we should make sure that all those with a potential interest in a private Bill should be formally notified, alerted and briefed, rather than the system allowing for people to find out by being tipped off. To take the example given already—the Southampton International Boat Show Bill—notification should be given to Members of Parliament for the county and the city, Members of the

75
other place with an interest, local bodies such as the city council and people who are known to have an interest in the subject of boating and marine affairs. There should be a procedure that ensures that notification is not some sort of accident and that briefs all those concerned at the beginning of a Parliament. These days, there are few private Bills—only half a dozen are affected by the motion and, in the last Parliament, there were only about a dozen. It is not too big a task and I hope we can address the matter and become more effective in dealing with it.
I shall deal now with the substance of the Bills. There are the two Cornish Bills—I call them Cornish, but that is like saying the Scottish play. One is clearly Cornish, but the other affects two counties—
Mr. Paul Tyler: Greater Cornwall.
Mr. Hughes: The other side of the Tamar cannot be called Greater Cornwall. The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill and the Tamar Bridge Bill are supported by my hon. Friends and they wish them good speed. The first Bill would secure the better management of stock on Bodmin moor and the second would allow improvement of the Tamar bridge, which is the gateway to Cornwall. That improvement is much desired—although in summer the people of Cornwall may wish that fewer people could cross the bridge—and needs to be facilitated. I agree with the hon. Member for Test that the Southampton International Boat Show Bill is the most modest of Bills. I hope that it passes through the House quickly. In fact, it shows the nonsense of the system when a Bill has to be brought to this place in order
"to amend section 60 of the Hampshire Act 1983 to permit the closure of Mayflower Park in Southampton or the restriction of public access to it for 10 rather than 9 consecutive days each year for the purposes of the Southampton International Boat Show; and for connected purposes."
It may be a private sector enterprise, but it strikes me that using private legislation to extend the Southampton boat show for one day is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
There is a northern Bill to match the southern Bill. The Lever Park Bill
"provides for the extension and adjustment of the boundaries of Lever Park…in the boroughs of Bolton and Chorley".
I admit to the House that I know zero about that proposal. No doubt, colleagues in both those parts of the north-west know about the proposal and have an interest in it and in North West Water and North West Water Heritage trust.
The two London Bills to which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred are academic Bills. They form a natural pair because they are part of the general proposals to consolidate academic and teaching medicine in quadrants around London. The Imperial College Bill is the latest in a series of actions that has brought together a considerable number of medical and dental teaching schools in London. The Bill will bring together the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school—where there were originally two hospitals and two medical schools, which I remember on my Universities Central Council on Admissions form—and Imperial college. In general terms, all the advice that I have received suggests that that is a good idea; it brings
76
cross-faculty and cross-specialist improvement. It means that medics are not simply with other medics or dentists with other dentists. It is also meant, I have been told by those who are slightly less pro-medic and pro-dentist, to civilise them so that they have to spend more time with other people.
Mr. Maclean: They need to become vets in that case.
Mr. Hughes: I do not know about that.
I am not sure whether I regard all the faculties at the Imperial college of science, technology and medicine as the most earthly and wide ranging in their interests. We always used to think that the least exciting people at college were the engineers and there are plenty of those at Imperial college. However, the idea is a good one and, clearly, if all parties—academics, boards of governors, undergraduates and postgraduates—want it to go ahead, it is right that it should. I heard what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—that there is a deadline and the merger is wanted by 1 August. That may be a reason for knowing timetables in advance and for fixing things—it would prevent uncertainty.
The last Bill that I have blocked is one that, at the end of the last Parliament, was awaiting its Third Reading: the King's College London Bill, which is jointly promoted. It is promoted by King's college London—a highly esteemed and valuable institution that is an important part of the university of London. King's college is based north of the river in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency and has outposts all over the country, which will also be consolidated. It is also promoted by the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St. Thomas's. There was a merger between two great teaching hospitals over the river and their medical and dental schools.
The Bill will bring together King's college, King's college medical and dental school, which is currently at Denmark Hill, and the united medical and dental school, which is currently principally on the Guy's hospital site in my constituency. It is a great medical and dental school which, I think, has the highest number of research gradings of any academic institution in the country. It is clearly pre-eminent and is of worldwide renown.
I have blocked that Bill: I wanted to use this opportunity to ensure that we did not simply let it go through on the nod. This is the first opportunity that I have had to send out the important message to the new Government that, although the merger does not necessarily threaten the united medical and dental school, there are still some residual concerns involving the present student body—concerns that I trust are now being addressed.
We must ensure that those who applied to and entered a specific institution, graduate from it. That may be a traditional and nostalgic approach, but I believe that if someone applies to Guy's hospital medical school, he or she will want to graduate from it. Guy's medical school is a different institution from a big amalgam of different schools. I hope that we can establish that principle. I have been encouraged by my conversations with the school secretary and with the principals of the two institutions. I hope that we can ensure that those who entered as students of one institution, graduate with that same institution on their degree certificates.
The proposal to merge is a good one, but it is still threatened by some of the implications of the previous Government's plans to move some of the activities from

77
the Guy's hospital site to the St. Thomas's hospital site. I know that at least one person in the House will not agree with that—my neighbour, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who represents St. Thomas's.
The most intensely fought local issue during the general election campaign in my part of Southwark, and one about which then shadow Ministers made promises, was the survival of Guy's hospital. For it to survive as a teaching and research hospital, it needs in-patients as well as out-patients. For it to survive as a credible entity, it needs a minimum number of in-patients. The best advice that I have received suggests that there must be a minimum of 400 in-patient beds. We therefore await with great interest the Government announcement—already considerably delayed—about the moratorium on hospital closures in London. I have made no secret of the fact that I have sought to persuade Ministers that the moratorium should apply not just to hospital closures, but to any rundown of services from the date of the election.
I am asking not for the clock to be stopped, but that we take account of the fact that the first review was based on information that was clearly inaccurate and factually out of date when Tomlinson made his report. We must also take account of rising demand in accident and emergency provision and rises in the number of patients. Above all, we must not agree to something without an assurance that, by the time the Bill reaches the statute book, there will be a viable academic teaching and research institution on the Guy's hospital site.
I have a letter from the principal of King's college and the principal of the united medical and dental school that makes it clear that the viability of the institution in its new format would be threatened if there were an insufficient number of beds. We are about to have the best out-patient facilities in the world in the new Thomas Guy house into which the first patients went earlier this month. It was budgeted to cost £50 million and actually cost £150 million. One can have wonderful out-patient facilities, but I do not think that any hon. Members would say that the real definition of a hospital was something with only out-patient facilities. Once in-patient facilities and casualty units are removed from a hospital, there is only a remote chance of anyone thinking that it is a real and fully functioning institution.
When, last year, I talked to people about the health service and academic medicine in some of the greatest American hospitals, they expressed concern that we should do nothing to undermine some of the best academic institutions in this country. I am privileged to be the Member of Parliament who represents one of them, but there are great hospitals all over the country—in Nottingham, Birmingham and elsewhere. I do not pretend that the one that I represent is the greatest hospital, but I know that it would be wrong for Parliament to legislate to undermine excellence or to take away the things that we do well—such as the Southampton boat show.
If the Government are to honour their implied commitment to the people at the general election, before the Bill returns they must make an announcement about the moratorium on the health service changes in London; they must include the changes at Guy's hospital and at St. Thomas's hospital in that review; they must look again at the issue; and at the end of the debate on those subjects, we must have a guarantee that there will be, for the foreseeable future at least, 400 beds on the Guy's hospital site in addition to all the other facilities.
78
The case is clear. I hope that the House, and especially the Government, will take it to heart. I hope that we shall proceed to deal with the Bills in the order of whatever is the most urgent in the next few weeks. I hope that, by next year, we shall have a more modern system for private Bills, which will allow the House and the world outside to know what we are doing and will allow all the people who want to participate to do so.
7.30 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak relatively briefly on the carry-over motion, but the House should not treat it as a routine matter.
Traditionally, the idea is that a carry-over motion should be passed after a general election, to allow private Bills that are in the pipeline to continue. I understand the arguments in favour. If money has been spent on drawing up petitions and if evidence has been heard, it is unfair if, through no fault of the promoters, they are obliged to start the process again. However, in my opinion that places some onus on the promoters to try to ensure that the Bill passes in a reasonably short time.
Increasingly, in recent years, it has been assumed that it does not really matter if not much progress is made in one Session; the Bill can be carried over into the next Session and the Session after. I notice that the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill has been knocking around in Parliament for more than four years. That is not a good way to deal with legislation. I believe that Bills should be carried over only once, and that there is a strong onus on the promoters to reach compromises—common in the history of private Bills—to ensure that their legislation passes in a reasonably short period.
Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the private Bill procedure needs urgent reform. We went a long way to do that with the Transport and Works Act 1992; many of us believed that these sessions at 7 o'clock of an evening in the House would disappear when the 1992 Act came into force. On the whole, it is working well. On Thursday 12 June 1997, the House passed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order 1997, which enabled one of the inquiries into the Stratford terminal to start, under that procedure.
All the evidence suggested that the 1992 Act was working well—until today, when I received a note from the Ramblers Association about the Welsh highland railway and the fact that some of the provisions of the 1992 Act were not being observed regarding footpaths. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will draw to the attention of the Department of Transport the fact that it must ensure that the 1992 Act is used fully and not abused. Otherwise, that method may come into disrepute and more private Bills may end up being debated on the Floor of the House.
As I said in an intervention, private Bills were used a tremendous amount in the 18th and 19th centuries for projects such as canals, railways and reservoirs, and almost always there was much wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. It was fairly common for bargains to be struck. I think I am right that Northampton worked hard to ensure that the railway from London to Birmingham did not go anywhere near Northampton, and then Northampton, having witnessed the benefits of the railway, had to work very hard to try to get a loop line added to it.

79
In the 19th century, various great landowners used the blackmail of blocking a Bill in the House of Lords to get their own personal station and to guarantee that express trains stopped there. The tradition of the argument, manipulation and manoeuvring that goes on during the passage of private Bills has a long history.
Legislation should no longer be passed in that way in this country. All private Bills should be dealt with through the Transport and Works Act 1992 or as agreed measures. I should have thought that the wheeling and dealing relating to the Southampton International Boat Show Bill had been done outside the House and all that we needed was a parliamentary Act to give it a rubber stamp, but one or two of the other Bills do not come into that category. The sad history of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill reveals the way in which the parliamentary procedures do not work well, and need reform.
The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill started as an agreed measure combining three interests—conservation of Bodmin moor, access to the moor and better management of the moor. That would benefit those people who had stock, in that if numbers were limited, grazing would be better and the return from farming activities would be improved.
Had the Bill continued in that vein, it might well have passed through Parliament—this House, at least—without argument, but the Bill was mugged in the House of Lords. People said, "Let us have the sections that give management of the moors, but let us get rid of the access."
I have been unable to discover why Cornwall county council agreed to a deal in the House of Lords that removed all the access provisions from the Bill, destroying the initial compromise agreement. Some of the Labour county councillors for Cornwall, whom I spoke to, were amazed that that deal had been done. I am still waiting to be told on what authority from the county council its agents in the House of Lords removed that clause. One cannot expect the people who originally agreed to the compromise of access, conservation and management, to be happy if a third of the platform was torn away in the House of Lords. That is where the Bill has run into considerable difficulty.
During the past 12 months, when I have been opposing the Bill, I have been asking only that we reinstate the access provisions, to achieve the original compromise. However, the arcane procedure of the House says that a private Bill can only be narrowed. I find that an amazing concept.
If one were promoting a railway and the relevant railway Bill originally said that the line would go from London to Liverpool, I can understand that the last-minute addition of provision for the railway to continue to Preston would be an expansion of the Bill and would be unreasonable. However, if one starts with a Bill that has access in it, balancing conservation measures, it is odd that if access is removed in the House of Lords it cannot be reinstated in the Commons. That is an anomaly. What was narrowing for one group of people was widening for another group. What was widening the rights of the commoners was narrowing the rights of the people to access.
We must get round that. Fortunately, in relation to the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, there was a way round for the county council, because instead of returning to the
80
House and inserting access clauses into the Bill, it was easy for it to set up access agreements to the moor. I have been arguing that the county council should have got on with that.
Access agreements exist frequently in the Peak district and other parts of Britain. Often they exist by agreement between a county council, a national park and the landowner, but there are examples of access agreements that are arranged by county councils in spite of the opposition of the landowner, and there is a process by which the landowner has a right of appeal but eventually the access agreement can be put in place.
It would have been perfectly possible for Cornwall county council to remedy the problem that it had created. It dropped the access proposals in the House of Lords. Having made a mess of things, it might have put them back in place by using normal legislation for access agreements, and while doing so, might have suspended action on the Bill in the House. By now, the council could have returned to the House and said, "We have binding access agreements in place. May we have the Bill for the management parts?" I would then have been happy to let the Bill go through. But no: the county council did virtually nothing for six months. Then, just before the election, the council again tried to rush the Bill through. Not surprisingly, it was blocked.
One or two people in Cornwall have put it to me that we should let this management Bill go through because the Labour Government are committed to right-to-roam legislation, so by the time the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill is on the statute book that right to roam will nearly be in place. I never count my chickens before they hatch. I think it quite possible that the legislation will take some time to go through Parliament. I therefore believe that it would be wrong to allow the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill to go through before access has been sorted out.
I strongly urge Cornwall county council to get back to negotiations with the landowners and to put access agreements in place.
Interestingly, not far away in the south-west is Dartmoor, for which an agreed access measure was produced allowing for management and access. That private Bill went through the House with no problems and is working well. The farmers enjoy grants for their agriculturally sensitive farms, and access is also in place.
I plead again with Cornwall county council to put access measures in place before returning to this House. We have lined up about 100 amendments to the council's Bill. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) wants to spend a lot of time arguing the case for those amendments when, if the county council were prepared to negotiate, something could be done much more quickly.
Another Bill on the list is the Lever Park Bill. I was delighted to see it, because it solved a small constituency matter for me—namely, the fact that there are proposals to develop the reservoirs owned by North West Water at Audenshaw. I was pleased to see the company promoting a Bill for the area; it came as confirmation that, if it wants to develop anything at Audenshaw, it will have to go through the private Bill procedure. As I keep assuring my constituents, getting a private Bill through the House is no easy matter.
I began objecting to the Lever Park Bill simply to show North West Water that I was capable of making a fuss about private Bills dealing with reservoirs. The trouble is

81
that one gets drawn into the process. I warn anyone listening of the snags: showing the slightest inclination towards or knowledge of private Bill procedure induces people to start pressurising an hon. Member and asking him various questions.
The Lever park Bill is designed to introduce a management scheme to the old Bolton reservoirs and the Lever park area around them. That would appear to be a very good idea. I know that the former hon. Member for Chorley was particularly keen on the development of a visitors centre close to the hall, which would improve public access. Equally, some local people do not want more visitors in their back yards.
In order to come up with a management plan, North West Water wanted to get rid of the rights of way running through the area. I can appreciate that the company might find it difficult to negotiate with one or two people who do not want more visitors in their back gardens, but North West Water could and should have entered into detailed negotiations with the Ramblers Association, the Peak and Northern and various other footpath and conservation groups in the area so as to sort out the problems to do with the Bill. Had the company done so, the Bill could have gone through quickly.
I stress again that private Bill procedure should be embarked on as little as possible in the House. Whenever possible, private Bills should be agreed measures that can go through without taking up time. Whenever possible, the Transport and Works Act should be used. If people want to introduce Bills, they must demonstrate that they are prepared to negotiate and arrive at compromises, removing any controversial issues.
I hope that Cornwall county council will get down to serious negotiations if it wants the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill to progress; the access problems must be solved. I also hope that North West Water will talk to the people concerned about access under the Lever Park Bill so that that issue, too, can be solved.
7.44 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I do not oppose the carrying over of private Bills described in the motion, but I want to comment briefly on a glaring anomaly in the procedure. It concerns the Transport and Works Act; I am sure that both the shadow spokesman and the Minister responsible will deal with the matter in their speeches later this evening. Perhaps the usual channels, or a Select Committee, or a brief consultation document issued by the Government will resolve the issue. In any event, some urgent procedure is required to deal with the anomaly.
The Transport and Works Act works well—if the works take place solely in England or in Wales. But a company called Border Transport Futures proposes to build about 16 miles of railway line between Scotland and England in part of my constituency and part of that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The company has decided to use the private Bill procedure instead of an alternative. Such an alternative is available, but it is slightly more complicated because the works are partly in Scotland and partly in England.
82
Last year I checked with the Department of Transport and the then Minister wrote to me to say:
"I can confirm that this railway could be authorised either by Private Bill or a combination of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and an Order made under the Transport and Works Act. I can see, however, that the promoters are likely to favour the private Bill procedure"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am having some difficulty spotting the connection between the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about a future Bill and a motion for the continuation of six current Bills.
Mr. Maclean: I certainly believe, Sir Alan, that those Bills should be carried over into this Parliament, but I am expressing reservations about the procedure. It could allow—unjustly—some Bills to be carried forward which, while they should complete all their stages in one or two Sessions at most, may in fact take three or four years to complete. That will give their promoters an unfair advantage, while protesters against such Bills would incur a great deal of expenditure over a long period of time.
There would, moreover, be much uncertainty if the promoters of such a Bill were lackadaisical. The promoters of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill may be slightly lackadaisical about getting their measure through Parliament. I am worried about a loophole in our procedures that could allow a lackadaisical company such as Border Transport Futures to exploit the anomaly and to go for a private Bill procedure that would be rather complicated because it relates to both countries in the Union. Such a measure, if proceeded with, might be carried over from Session to Session—even beyond another general election.
I was going to conclude, Sir Alan, by saying that these procedures could apply to any of the Bills under discussion this evening—
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Another element of this procedure is blight. Some of these Bills are used to promote serious construction works—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) should sit in his place while another hon. Member is speaking.
Mr. Rowe: I was just saying that a number of those Bills are used to promote construction projects, the principal victims of which are private citizens whose properties are blighted by whatever is projected. If the promoters are allowed to proceed lackadaisically, the blight is perpetuated.
Mr. Maclean: That is correct. Blight has already been caused in my constituency by the prospectus that BTF issued saying that it intends to go for the private Bill procedure. That has caused considerable concern to landowners and householders in my constituency. One reason why the company wants to do that is that it hopes to get compulsory purchase powers in the Bill so that it will not have to pay the full market value of the land.
The Transport and Works Act 1992 was passed by the House to avoid new railways legislation, for example, going through the House as private Bills. At that time,

83
the House had no thought whatever that someone might come along one day with a railways Bill that would apply partly to Scotland and partly to England. It should not be beyond the wit of the House, a Select Committee or a Minister to issue a short consultation paper, which would find favour on both sides of the House, suggesting that the House does not wish to see another private railways Bill before it next year or the year after. Such a Bill would bog up Committees and take up time in the House whereas it could be dealt with either through an amended Transport and Works Act or by some procedure agreed with the Scottish Office, which would apply the same procedures in principle as the Transport and Works Act.
That is the plea that I make tonight. I appreciate that I cannot expand the point properly because I would be discussing a Bill that is not before the House, but I shall have no other opportunity in the foreseeable future to raise the general point of principle about that little anomaly in our procedure, which, with good will on both sides, could easily be plugged.
7.51 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: It is with great reluctance that I rise to speak to this motion, which revives six Bills—as hon. Gentlemen have already said, there is a great deal of good in many of them. The House should examine private Bill procedure; we are making a decision that affects all the Bills as a group, so if we want to object to the revival of just one, under the terms of this motion, we must object to them all. That is not a sensible way to proceed. We should consider the notion of linkage in the future.
I want to object to two of the Bills because the promoters are at fault in two respects: first, they have been dilatory—they have not made progress with the Bills; secondly, they have shown a gross reluctance and inability to consult and compromise. I particularly wish to discuss the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has already mentioned it and I want forcefully to support one of the points he made. I am surprised that, under the private Bill procedure, a Bill can be narrowed but not widened.
When the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill first came to the other place, it contained access provisions, but they were quickly dropped. When it came before this House, many of us wanted to argue that cause but were told firmly that the Bill had been narrowed and that we could not add to it. A third of the original Bill was about access, but that provision had been dropped in the other place and we were unable to argue for its inclusion. That procedure is wrong and needs reviewing.
I am reluctant to oppose the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill as it contains many good provisions. I criticise it for sins of omission rather than sins of commission, which is a bit like arguing about a Jane Austen novel from a Marxist perspective. Marx would argue that the novel contains nothing about the Napoleonic war; I argue that the provisions of the Bill are good but that what is left out ought not to be.
The promoters, particularly Cornwall county council, should hear the voices that want access on Bodmin moor. The Bill could do a great deal of good in Cornwall.
84
I admire its conservation aims and believe that the promoters are right to want better husbandry on the commons, but they disregard other voices. We are now in an age in which people should listen to all the voices and try to compromise.
The promoters argue that those of us who object to the Bill are urbanites. They try to characterise the argument as rural versus urban communities. That is old politics and they would be wise to listen to all the voices, because those of us who love and care for the countryside know that it can develop only if the right balance is struck between all its needs and the different demands on it. That is where the Bill is fatally flawed. It was good in its original form. I remind the House that it received its Second Reading on 7 June 1994 in the other place. It has had more than three years to make progress.
I have been surprised at the promoters' stop-start attitude. They have sought to make progress when that suited them but, despite pleas from many of us and meetings that we set up to make progress, they have not consistently tried to take the Bill forward. They deserve criticism for that; it is a fundamental reason why the Bill should be opposed tonight—the promoters have had more than three years to get it through the House.
The most damning criticism of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill is the lack of consultation and Cornwall county council's inability to compromise and listen to other voices. The Bill's history speaks for itself. Prior to its publication, a number of organisations such as the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society wanted to talk with the promoters, the county council, about the Bill's progress so that it could be put into practice quickly. The county council ran away from those talks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and I attended a meeting in the Palace of Westminster earlier this year at which members of Cornwall county council were surprised that the access element of the Bill had been withdrawn in the other place. They had not been told. A decision had been made somewhere within the county council which had neglected to tell a proportion of its members. That cannot be good practice.
Several of us have set up meetings with the county council to explain that, although the access provisions were withdrawn in the other place, the Bill allows the setting up of a commoners council which, within two years, must produce a management plan. The county council has made no progress in getting people round the table to try to build up an access plan. Various organisations, such as the Ramblers Association, have offered to start those meetings and provide a facilitator. I am surprised that the county council has not taken the matter forward.
If the Bill is to make progress—I wish it well and want it to succeed—the promoters must listen to other voices. The Bill could do much for Bodmin moor, Cornwall and those of us who love the countryside.
Another Bill before the House is the Lever Park Bill. That, like Bodmin moor, is an area that I know well. Things need to be done at Lever park. North West Water is right to try to bring about management changes. Once again, it must heed the voice of local people and use its own resources. The company is not short of money to make improvements at Lever park. I note that one of the objectives of the Lever Park Bill is to bring national

85
lottery money into Lever park. The Lever Park Bill would make progress if the promoters were to consult and look for consensus, and if they gave an undertaking to use their own resources to better Lever park, which does, indeed, need betterment.
The private Bill procedure is out of date and out of time, and needs review, but it is what we have at present. Those of us who are accused of being urbanites are disregarded and given bad press reports. My plea to the promoters of both Bills, which are about enhancing the environment and lifting the landscape, is to listen to our voices, too. The countryside is for all of us. We aspire to leave a better environment for our children. The promoters of both Bills should listen to our voices, consult and compromise. Then we can all go forward to leave to our children the legacy that we so desire.
8.2 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I apologise for not having been in the House for the whole of the debate, but I have been serving the House in the Select Committee on the revision of the management of the House. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Having been Chairman of the Procedure Committee for the past 14 years, I hope that he will not cast any of his aspersions on me, because the Procedure Committee is allowed to deal only with public business and has no control over the aspects of private business that the hon. Gentleman criticised.
I ought to declare an interest at the start. Although I do not believe that I have to, I always like to do so. I am the chairman, entirely unpaid, of the National Asthma Campaign, which has some obvious interest in the National Heart and Lung Institute referred to in the Imperial College Bill.
I want to say a few words about the procedure and the Imperial College Bill. I think that the procedure is right. A great deal of time, effort and money is put into the promotion of such Bills, but they are often cut off as time cannot be found for them in the legislative timetable, usually because Government business has left insufficient time for private business. It is therefore only right and proper that there should be an opportunity to carry those Bills forward into a new Session, as proposed.
Mr. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Chairman of Ways and Means has the absolute right to name time for private business? My experience is that he takes no notice of Government pressure, and names time. Any dilatoriness about the Bills is entirely down to the promoters, not to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Sir Peter Emery: I cannot speak for all the Bills, only for the Imperial College Bill. I do not believe that that is a fair assessment, as I have watched with interest as the Bill has come to the other place and then to this place.
I have some connection with the Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals and I have seen the training carried out in them, often under the leadership of Professor Roger Greenhalgh, who has been the dean and professor of surgery at Charing Cross hospital and who has done so much to bring about the amalgamation of the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals into the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, which I believe will
86
in due course become the leading centre for training of medical personnel in the whole of London. A new building is being constructed for it.
It is only right and proper that the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school and the National Heart and Lung Institute should be brought together, as the Bill proposes, to create that centre of learning. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were further delayed. After the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I need say no more other than to point out the interesting fact that under clause 10 nobody may pick up the names of the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school, the Royal postgraduate medical school or the National Heart and Lung Institute until 25 years have lapsed, without the approval of Imperial college.
At this late hour, to allow hon. Members to go to dinner, I shall sit down—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members say that, I might go on too long. With the support of the House, which I see will readily be given, I am sure that we can proceed properly and fully.
8.7 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise after a little more than five years of oratorical abstinence in the Chamber, due to my time doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. Now, in my capacity as the acting deputy shadow Leader of the House, may I say that we entirely endorse the motion, not because we necessarily support any of the Bills that are being revived, but simply because we believe that it is right and proper that each of the Bills should be judged on its merit and properly scrutinised in this Session.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right to say, in a fascinating speech, that we should review the possibility of allowing a Bill to be revived only once through one Session, and that there should be penalties if the promoters are unduly dilatory. With that proviso, the Opposition entirely support the motion.
8.9 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I rise to express the Government's hopes that the House will agree to the motion. However, we believe that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) suits the role of a Trappist rather more than that of a preaching black friar.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised proper constituency or party political interests on the back of this motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was as erudite as usual on this subject, regarding both the history and the practice of procedural matters. I undertake to pass on his comments to the appropriate Ministers. I make the same pledge to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who raised an anomaly that I am sure will be of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—who is not in his place—made a rather curious intervention about blight, which left me in mind of what is occurring in another place regarding the leadership of the Conservative party.

87
The purpose of the motion is to allow the revival of the private Bills that were before the House at the end of the last Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, and which fell automatically at the Dissolution of Parliament. The motion will enable them to be proceeded with in this Session at the stages they had reached at the end of last Session. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are many precedents for carrying forward private Bills in this way in order to avoid unnecessary expense and delay.
The motion is concerned solely with procedure. Those hon. Members who wish to make points of substance about any of the Bills to which this motion applies will have every opportunity to do so when the legislation that they are concerned about comes to the House for its next stage. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;

(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;

(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;

(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;

(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

88

(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;

(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;

(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;

(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Again considered in Committee.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
8.12 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by welcoming the Financial Secretary to her new responsibilities, and by wishing her well. I raise this issue tonight because I received several letters during the recent election campaign from elderly constituents expressing concern about Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals to scrap tax relief for private medical insurance. Perhaps I should also declare a sort of interest in the debate: the law firm I founded has a corporate private health scheme for staff. I have a constituency interest also, as Private Patients Plan is a major and respected employer in Eastbourne.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is not in his place, wished to be present for my Adjournment debate, as he is the sponsor of early-day motion 26 concerning tax relief for medical insurance. However, illness in the family has sadly prevented his attendance tonight. I know that he takes a close and detailed interest in this issue.
For once, we have a clear pledge from the new Labour Government: in this case, to abolish private medical insurance. In opposition, Labour made no secret of its hostility towards it. It might be helpful to examine the background to this issue. The White Paper, "Working for Patients", which was published by the previous Government in January 1989, set out the growing importance of the private medical insurance sector in this country. It referred to
"the increase in the provision of medical insurance cover by companies for their employees. But in most cases this cover stops when an individual retires. As a result, people are faced with deciding whether to take out cover as individuals at a time when their income has fallen and when medical insurance premiums rise."
There is no general tax relief for the costs of private health care, but tax relief is given for private health insurance for the over-60s. That relief is given by making a deduction from the amount of the premiums due, so that even non-taxpayers benefit.
In the 1989 Budget, the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, announced that the relief would come into effect from April 1990. In the November 1993 Budget, the then Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), announced that the relief would be limited to the basic rate of tax with effect from April 1994.
One obvious reason for limiting the relief at that time was that it had become quite expensive because it had become popular. The total cost of relief is estimated at £120 million in 1997–98. That sum is payable in respect of some 400,000 contracts, providing cover for about 600,000 individuals. When the relief was introduced, only 400,000 individualswerecovered—so it is easy to see the rapid rise in its popularity.
It is estimated that 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom over the age of 60 have a tax relief PMI plan. In my constituency, there are some 600 subscribers—involving 1,150 people, as obviously some policies cover a couple or a family—to PPP alone. The number of my constituents who have plans with other

91
providers—I gather there are about 30 in the market at present—will be much higher. I have no doubt that a high percentage of those subscribers are over 60. According to recent statistics, some 40 per cent. of voters in my constituency are over retirement age.
The growth in the appeal of private medical insurance to the over-60s is interesting. As the Association of British Insurers has pointed out, three factors might lead one to expect that fewer older people would be covered by medical insurance. Those issues were addressed in the 1989 White Paper.
The first factor is the increased cost of insurance as one grows older. Secondly, as a rule, that portion of the population does not have access to employer-provided insurance. Thirdly, the over-60s tend to have less disposable income than those in full-time employment. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude—as the ABI did—that the tax relief on these premiums is a major factor in encouraging a high level of take-up among the over-60s.
Labour spokesmen often try to drive a wedge between the NHS and private health provision for purely dogmatic reasons. The fact is that the two ways of providing health care in this country are complementary, and—as I shall demonstrate in a moment—a substantial fall in private health provision could cause major problems for the NHS. We should remember also that elderly subscribers to PMI have supported the NHS throughout their working lives by paying tax and national insurance contributions. They have made a personal decision—a choice—to use some of their spare resources to acquire PMI cover. The Government want to abolish that choice.
There is also considerable logic in providing tax relief only for the over-60s because, first, premiums naturally increase with age; and, secondly, upon retirement, people often take over the payment of premiums after leaving a corporate scheme. Tax relief therefore helps to ease the transition from the world of work to retirement.
There is no doubt that private medical insurance carries a major burden in terms of health care for the over-60s. We know that 80 per cent. of the premiums paid on such plans are paid out in treatment costs. The private sector now treats 28 per cent. of all hip operations, 20 per cent. of all heart conditions and 20 per cent. of all acute conditions.
Figures provided to me by Prime Health show that 6,840 hip or knee-joint replacement operations alone were carried out in the past eight months, at a cost of about £40.5 million. The average stay in hospital was 10.85 days for this procedure, equating to a potential of nearly 72,000 days' accommodation for hip and knee-joint replacement patients.
Apart from hip replacements, other common procedures such as cataract removal, coronary bypass and prostatectomy operations carried out on customers increased by no less than 30 per cent. in 1996 over 1995.
I have already said that people already expect their premiums to increase as they grow older. There are also yearly adjustments for inflation. The ABI tells me that that means that there is already a natural incidence of lapses in cover and what is called trading down, which is buying a policy with lesser benefits.
My argument is that policyholders know in advance that their premium costs are likely to increase, and can therefore budget and plan to meet likely increases.
92
The ABI tells me that the industry average for the lapsed rate is between 5 and 10 per cent., rising to between 15 and 20 per cent. when age-related increases are made to the premium rates.
The removal of tax relief at 23 per cent. means that policyholders will in effect pay an extra 30 per cent. According to Prime Health, its research has shown that, when an increase of 30 per cent. was mentioned, 35 per cent. of policyholders said that they would cancel their policies or look for a replacement policy. According to the ABI, some companies estimate that up to 50 per cent. of policyholders would lapse their policies.
That is not all. There is also what the ABI calls a domino effect. As the number of existing PMI policyholders decreases, an additional burden will be placed on remaining contributors. That in itself would increase the cost of premiums yet further, causing even more policyholders to lapse their cover. I am told that there would also be significant administrative costs to the insurers in abolishing tax relief.
But, I hear you ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "Does this matter?" Surely these people could revert to relying on the NHS for any medical care they needed. Well, let us remember that we are talking about an age group of whom many will already have a pre-existing condition, which in turn makes it difficult for them to shift health schemes or trade down, or who, because of their age, are more likely to develop health problems than younger sections of the population.
National health service hospitals such as my local district general hospital would suffer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed the relief. Thirteen pence in every pound paid out, for example, by PPP goes to the NHS. That amounts to about £220,000 paid to the NHS by PPP alone every working day, or £55 million a year. That is only one company.
I do not have the figures for all the other companies, including, for example, BUPA, but no doubt the Minister will be able to supply them in her reply. The point is that the Government would have to find additional resources merely to maintain the financial status quo. Additional costs, which are difficult to quantify, would also arise for the NHS because many subscribers are elderly and require expensive treatments, and more often.
I hope that the Minister has her own best estimate of the revenue stream that would be lost, and also the knock-on costs of many current elderly subscribers reverting to health care on the NHS.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I am listening with great care to what he has to say. I wonder whether, in his research, he has carried out any costings on the differential between abolishing tax relief on private medical insurance and the cost to the national health service of those people who will inevitably have to opt out of PMI and into the NHS, thereby costing the NHS a considerable sum. Is he able to tell the House the sums involved?
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who in his inimitable fashion has put his finger on the central issue. It is easy to draw attention to the figures on the one side, which are the savings to the Treasury. I think that the Minister referred to them in a written answer recently, and stated that they would amount to £120 million.

93
On the other side of the equation are two significant areas of costs. Direct revenue will be lost from the private sector to the NHS on a daily and yearly basis. In addition, there will be all the additional costs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has referred, as a result of policyholders opting out and lapsing their policies, and relying on the NHS instead. That is the key point.
The plain truth is that there is a massive contradiction at the heart of the new Government's policy on this issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends will well remember that, during the election, the Labour party made five major pledges, one of which was that it would cut NHS waiting lists by 100,000. I think that Labour party members even carried little cards setting out their five major pledges. In fact, their proposal to abolish tax relief for PMI would put greater strains on NHS resources.
In my constituency, with a high proportion of elderly residents and many PMI subscribers, I have little doubt that waiting lists would lengthen, not least because some of the elderly who were previously relying on private health care would be waiting for difficult and expensive treatments from the NHS. I must stress to the Minister that the constant theme in the letters I have received on the subject from constituents has been that it was tax relief that made the cover attainable, and that removing it would make all the difference as to whether they could continue paying their premiums.
The Government may rethink their proposal—I certainly hope they will—but if, for what are clearly dogmatic party political reasons, they are determined to proceed, may I urge upon the Minister the ABI' s view that, at the very least, the withdrawal of the tax relief should be phased? There has already been a reduction in the maximum tax relief from 40 to 23 per cent. There was a similar staged reduction in tax relief on mortgage interest, which is a useful parallel.
I have already said that the relief costs about £120 million a year. Against it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has said, must be weighed the extra costs to the NHS of subscribers who give up their PMI as a result of losing relief. As I have described, we could be talking of up to 300,000 people. The Minister's reply will be entirely meaningless unless she can tackle that specific question, and in detail. There are worrying parallels with other Government policies, such as the recent Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. Like that measure, the one that we are discussing is petty and vindictive, with no tangible saving. It has at its heart the desire to remove choice.
The proposed measure is yet another policy initiative that has not been properly thought through. Perhaps it should join the ever lengthening queue of reviews promised by the Government. It is yet another attack on pensioners in our society. We may well see an attack on private pension provision in the forthcoming Budget. Now it is being suggested that pensioners should pay prescription charges, and that those going into hospital or being visited by a general practitioner should also be charged. None of these dramatic departures from the founding principles of the NHS appeared in the Labour manifesto.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Is it not at the heart of the issue that
94
pensioners whose income is on the margin will have to relinquish their private health schemes? We are talking not of wealthy pensioners but of those whose income is at the margin. That is what is so cruel.
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have described, it is just one of a series of measures that the Government have brought forward, or will bring forward, that will have the effect of disadvantaging pensioners in my constituency, in my hon. Friend's constituency, and across the country.
I urge the Government not to break faith with pensioners in respect of private medical insurance.
8.29 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing the debate. He made a number of interesting points about tax relief for private medical insurance, to which I paid careful attention.
I realise that tax relief on private medical insurance is a matter of some interest to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I hope that he will understand if I do not comment on the possibility of any future tax changes affecting this relief. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate in any way what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do in his forthcoming Budget. I am sure that, in this, the hon. Gentleman had no great expectations.
Tax relief for premiums paid on private medical insurance for the over-60s is of fairly recent origin. It was introduced only in 1989 and took effect from 1 April 1990. When it was first introduced, as the hon. Gentleman said, relief was given at both the basic and higher rates of tax. That did not last long. Relief at the higher rate was withdrawn with effect from 6 April 1994 in relation to payments made on or after that date.
That change reflects, perhaps, a less than total commitment to the relief by the then Government. It is certainly true that, when the relief was first introduced, there were reservations even on the Conservative Benches about whether it was right to give such a tax relief. Indeed, on Second Reading, the previous hon. Member for Beaconsfield expressed "major reservations" about the introduction of such a tax relief.
The tax relief is not unconditional. There are restrictions about the type of treatment that can be included if payments under a contract of insurance are to qualify for the relief. To qualify, a private medical insurance contract can offer only certain approved benefits, which, broadly speaking, are limited to medical and surgical treatments of a kind normally available in the national health service.
When the relief was introduced in 1990, the then Government stated that they intended the relief to encourage the take-up of medical insurance by older people. Arguments against the relief centred on the fact that the cost was largely what is known as dead weight. It would primarily benefit those who had already taken out medical insurance or who would have done so anyway. Events have largely confirmed the truth of that concern.

95
In the period from 1990–91 to 1996–97, the estimated number of contracts rose by only 25,000, from 350,000 to 375,000. The number of people covered by such contracts rose, on our estimates, from about 500,000 to 550,000. It seems that the cost of this relief continues to be largely dead weight—that is, going to people who have already decided to take out medical insurance. In addition, a tax relief for a select group of taxpayers ran counter to the policy of having a broad tax base and low rates. That was the stated policy of the then Government, but they chose to make an exception in this instance.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not opposed to private medical treatment; it clearly has a part to play in the care of people in this country.
96
The public sector, which is supremely important in its provision, can have a good working relationship with the private sector.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of all his comments and concerns on behalf of his constituents, and that any of my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based on effective and genuine need and on a proper assessment of what is best for the taxpayers of this country. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to support the health service, to continue to support the lowest-paid pensioners, and to do nothing to undermine their access to the national health service.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Development Council
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Development Council Meeting on 5 June. [4140]

  Clare Short
  Ministers held further discussions on the future of EC trade and development relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States. The Council adopted two Resolutions. The first establishes mechanisms to improve coherence between development and other EC policies. The second sets out plans to create a more coherent framework for research activities. The Council also adopted two sets of Conclusions, relating to co-ordination between the programmes of the Community and Member States and the needs of indigenous peoples. It also agreed a Common Position on a draft Regulation covering co-financing with Non-Governmental Organisations. Useful discussions were held on a number of other topics, including the 1996 DAC report on EC Development Assistance, preparations for the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) to review progress since the Rio Summit, and UN Reform. The Commission made presentations on two further topics: proposed Community involvement in the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Democratisation, Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the ACP states.

  Environmental Policy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to ensure opportunities for women to participate in environmental decision-making; and if she will make a statement. [3756]

  Clare Short
  I am making a speech on 26 June at the Commonwealth Institute which will outline our plans, for enhancing the participation of women in the decision-making process in all aspects of development.

  Sustainable Development
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's proposals relating to women and sustainable development for the Earth summit II. [3758]

  Clare Short
  One of the messages the UK will be stressing at the Earth summit II is that environmental sustainability and the elimination of poverty go hand in hand. I firmly believe that empowering women is a major key to poverty reduction. My Department will be refocusing its efforts to support the aim of halving the proportion of people living in abject poverty by 2015.

  Sexual Discrimination
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to eliminate discrimination against women world-wide; and if she will make a statement. [3754]

  Clare Short
  My Department already has a gender equality strategy which was redesigned in response to the Beijing Platform for Action. We will continue to assess and address inequalities between women and men as an integral part of all our development co-operation activities.

  Development Policy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the funds allocated to promoting women's role in development for each of the next six years. [3757]

  Clare Short
  There is no pre-set allocation of funds for any sector within the development co-operation programme. My Department's policy is to mainstream gender equality throughout all its activities and to carefully monitor progress.

  Human Rights
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the promotion and protection of the human rights of women and girls. [3753]

  Clare Short
  My Department recognises that the rights of women and girls need special attention if human rights are to be secured in practise. Women's development and the education of girls, as well as human rights, will be major themes of the forthcoming Development White Paper.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Closed Circuit TV
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the use of footage obtained from CCTV cameras. [3392]

  Mr. Michael
  Most public space closed circuit television systems are already regulated by codes of practice as are any systems which receive financial assistance from the Home Office. We wish to encourage best practice but will be prepared to consider the arguments on the principle and practicalities of statutory regulation of CCTV to underpin the existing codes of practice.

  Treason and Piracy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what year was the last(a) prosecution and (b) conviction for (i) treason and (ii) piracy; and what was the penalty imposed. [3391]

  Mr. Michael
  Statistical data held centrally by the Home Office show one prosecution in 1981 for treason under the Treason Acts 1351 to 1842. This resulted in a conviction carrying a five-year custodial sentence. A
  3
  further four prosecutions have also been recorded (two in 1989, one in 1991 and one in 1992) but none resulted in a conviction.

  In 1849 there were two prosecutions under the Piracy Act 1837. One resulted in a custodial sentence of between seven to 10 years. In 1894, five defendants were tried for piracy. All were acquitted.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the detention procedures relating to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [3388]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A general review of the Government's immigration detention policy is currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of the white list. [3386]

  Mr. O'Brien
  We are reviewing the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, including those relating to designated countries of destination, and will consider the options for change that best meet our manifesto commitment to secure swift and fair asylum decisions.

  Firearms
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to ensure that police stations at which firearms are surrendered in accordance with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 comply with the health and safety requirements concerning the handling of explosive substances. [3594]

  Mr. Michael
  The Police Service is fully aware of its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974. Police stations are not required to be licensed to store explosives, but forces have a general duty of care to ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff. The terms of the compensation scheme keep the need to store explosives for any length of time down to a minimum and forces have been offered guidance on the safe handling of surrendered firearms, ammunition and explosives. The Explosives Inspectorate Directorate and the Ministry of Defence will offer further guidance to police forces as necessary.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give authority under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to competitors from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth Games 2002 to use pistols in their ownership which are lawfully held overseas so that they can participate in the games on equal terms with nationals from other countries. [3994]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government appreciate the need for the planning of the games to take place well in advance and we intend to discuss the matter with all interested parties. It is too early to grant section 5 authority at this stage. However, all competitors from the United 4
  Kingdom, as elsewhere, will be eligible to be considered nearer the time.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 11 June,Official Report, column 1165, if he will publish the evidence which shows that nothing proposed in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will put the holding of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 in jeopardy; [3990]

  (2) pursuant to his statement of 11 June, Official Report, column 1165, if he will publish the evidence which shows that nothing proposed in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will put in jeopardy the ability of the United Kingdom to host a future Olympic Games. [3989]

  Mr. Michael
  The arrangements for holding the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 are set out in a contract between Manchester city council and the Commonwealth Games Federation. The contract can be invalidated only if the host nation is unable to hold the games due to natural disaster or if the games are not properly organised.

  The hosting of the Olympic Games and the inclusion or otherwise of particular events is a matter for the Olympic Committee to decide in discussion with prospective host nations. The provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 can be used to allow shooting events to take place.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the correspondence which he has had with the organisers of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 in relation to pistol shooting competitions. [3992]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has not received any correspondence from the organisers of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in relation to pistol shooting competitions, but the issue was dealt with fully in the debate in the House on 11 June 1997.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a draft of the authority and the conditions attached thereto which he intends to grant under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 in respect of competitors in pistol shooting events at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. [3988]

  Mr. Michael
  No. Any authority to be issued to competitors for the pistol shooting events at the Commonwealth Games in 2002 under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 will be a matter for the Secretary of State. Under section 5(4) of the 1968 Act, the Secretary of State can attach any conditions which he considers necessary to ensure that public safety or the peace is not endangered. It is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide the appropriate drafting and conditions of any such authority after consultation with the Games organisers and, in the case of Manchester, with the Greater Manchester police.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to outlaw the possession and use of black powder pistols. [3991]

  Mr. Michael
  The term "black powder pistol" is not used in the Firearms Acts, but is synonymous with a muzzle-loading gun as defined in the Firearms
  5
  (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government have no plans at present to prohibit the possession of such weapons. The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which is presently before Parliament, deals only with the prohibition of small-calibre pistols. However, we shall keep under close review all controls on firearms to ensure maximum public safety.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many authorisations Home Secretaries have given under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 during the last five years to foreign nationals to enable them to participate in pistol shooting competitions in the United Kingdom. [3993]

  Mr. Michael
  There have been no applications. Until the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, pistols (other than fully automatic pistols) are not prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 and authority is not required. Foreign nationals can at present possess pistols on a visitor's firearm permit issued by the police force for the area which they were visiting.

  Self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments: 1992–19971

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Totals for the prison estate

  41

  47

  62

  60

  64

  21

  HMP Winchester

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Dates of deaths at HMP Winchester

  20 February

  31 July

  23 April

  16 May

  3 May

  17 May

  1 1997 total up to 21 May 1997.

  Prison Service Union
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give the Prison Service Union official recognition as a trade union. [3273]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The Prison Service has no plans to give official recognition to the Prison Service Union at this time.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons at which members of the Prison Service Union work. [3272]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service does not formally recognise the Prison Service Union (PSU) and does not maintain membership records or details of the location of the union's members. However, it is understood that PSU membership is in the order of 1,200 in England and Wales, spread across more than 100 prison establishments.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women, who were serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales as of 1 June. [3203]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The latest available provisional totals are for 30 April 1997. On that date, there were 3,523 male and 128 female life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many prisoners have committed suicide(a) at HMP Winchester and (b) in total; if he will list the dates of all suicides committed at HMP Winchester; and if he will make a statement. [1086]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The number of self-inflicted deaths at Winchester prison and for the whole prison estate over the requested period is shown in the table. For Winchester, the individual coroners' verdicts were as follows:

  1993: open

  1994: suicide

  1996: 1 x open; 1 x suicide

  1997: inquests still outstanding.

  The Prison Service is committed to doing everything possible to reduce the likelihood of suicides occurring and is continuing to research prevention strategies.

  Prisoners' Families
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review his Department has undertaken of the impact of imprisonment on families of prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [3285]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  In keeping with Prison Rule 31, which provides that special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both, the Prison Service keeps under continuous review the impact of imprisonment on prisoners and their families, in a number of fora. These include the Prison Service Family Ties Consultative Group which comprises representatives from a wide spectrum of interests, including penal reform and family ties support groups.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to redirect section 11 funding towards needs led allocation. [3023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 9 June,Official Report, column 330.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was allocated to local authorities under section 11 to assist language teaching in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [3024]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The table shows the amounts of grant paid to, or expected to be paid to, local authorities in relation to their expenditure within each of these years on projects which were entirely or principally concerned with
  7
  teaching English as a second language in schools. Precise disaggregation of projects containing elements of other work concerned with raising educational achievement is not possible. The figures in the table do not include grant paid in relation to projects in further education colleges,

  Section 11 Grant: ESL funding for 1992–93 to 1996–97

  ESL projects

  LEA

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon2

  738,902

  782,422

  560,462

  517,469

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  300,053

  285,412

  216,681

  245,269

  252,014

  Barnet

  886,259

  888,470

  604,181

  739,744

  785,198

  Bedfordshire

  2,728,983

  2,799,311

  2,095,796

  1,930,291

  1,977,989

  Berkshire

  900,858

  917,565

  927,074

  811,214

  833,522

  Bexley

  63,446

  161,686

  100,138

  110,848

  113,896

  Birmingham

  5,211,788

  5,077,372

  3,475,267

  3,324,125

  3,415,538

  Bolton

  716,582

  731,700

  558,616

  578,376

  594,282

  Bradford

  4,891,850

  5,147,620

  3,758,431

  3,612,026

  3,707,284

  Brent

  1,335,990

  1,456,511

  1,008,819

  970,869

  994,487

  Bristol2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  539,235

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  19,118

  22,671

  Buckinghamshire

  1,223,956

  1,209,284

  884,750

  761,564

  884,119

  Bury

  395,825

  464,258

  338,238

  300,468

  308,731

  Calderdale

  990,242

  1,034,282

  724,005

  698,055

  658,291

  Cambridgeshire

  1,137,452

  1,256,649

  943,296

  862,061

  885,768

  Camden

  1,232,639

  1,364,312

  996,706

  1,231,714

  1,324,898

  Cardiff2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  353,806

  Cheshire

  90,746

  99,664

  73,682

  68,369

  70,249

  Cleveland2

  459,449

  470,930

  340,541

  331,799

  0

  Coventry

  2,192,027

  2,267,078

  1,843,142

  1,599,123

  1,616,104

  Croydon

  956,353

  1,102,874

  779,056

  857,263

  913,168

  Derbyshire1

  1,058,739

  1,406,477

  1,026,632

  944,899

  1,040,741

  Devon

  15,597

  15,816

  11,949

  42,249

  59,573

  Doncaster

  91,925

  125,714

  93,665

  86,240

  88,611

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  15,523

  20,316

  Dudley

  972,476

  990,148

  763,374

  656,613

  711,594

  Durham

  96,533

  171,737

  119,090

  117,811

  121,051

  Ealing

  2,515,428

  3,359,869

  2,502,375

  1,123,777

  1,149,605

  East Sussex1

  171,546

  172,010

  132,752

  175,571

  188,022

  Enfield

  932,179

  1,182,166

  881.644

  1,001,209

  1,067,566

  Essex

  33,143

  34,865

  25,755

  24,258

  24,925

  Gateshead

  17,132

  32,918

  22,732

  21,211

  21,536

  Gloucestershire

  283,982

  271,120

  196,920

  201,468

  208,837

  Greenwich

  1,381,572

  1,561,935

  1,185,583

  845,944

  869,207

  Gwent2

  149,533

  268,583

  192,662

  221,407

  0

  Hackney1

  3,612,460

  3,466,312

  2,978,070

  2,377,959

  2,289,531

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  604,060

  582,028

  475,431

  369,128

  407,789

  Hampshire

  674,973

  748,448

  558,367

  513,435

  527,554

  Haringey

  1,695,810

  2,565,456

  2,113,364

  1,704,835

  1,751,367

  Harrow

  682,275

  723,789

  550,753

  511,042

  528,968

  Havering

  51,960

  50,636

  39,169

  35,875

  36,862

  Hereford and Worcester

  204,565

  238,339

  175,235

  154,930

  160,021

  Hertfordshire

  1,906,645

  1,980,344

  1,464,810

  1,340,169

  1,377,024

  Hillingdon

  287,153

  297,310

  244,050

  203,954

  209,563

  Hounslow

  1,556,837

  1,585,688

  1,157,155

  1,041,080

  1,069,711

  Hull2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32,750

  Humberside2

  309,419

  338,209

  244,893

  232,011

  0

  Islington

  1,569,829

  1,593,722

  1,169,014

  1,199,552

  1,232,540

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,007,552

  1,051,241

  820,563

  714,954

  734,615

  Kent

  956,653

  1,074,317

  882,988

  736,981

  757,248

  Kingston

  99,962

  123,861

  95,806

  83,838

  86,143

  Kirklees

  2,414,075

  2,725,944

  2,005,454

  1,912,360

  1,946,520

  Lambeth1

  1,204,508

  1,237,070

  922,583

  1,001,111

  1,011,152

  Lancashire

  4,603,652

  4,838,711

  3,651,180

  3,164,866

  3,328,182

  Leeds

  772,344

  1,053,854

  869,678

  709,138

  728,639

  Leicestershire

  3,252,152

  3,580,065

  2,353,001

  2,401,675

  2,480,992

  Lewisham

  1,726,023

  1,825,602

  1,363,705

  951,038

  978,279

  Lincolnshire

  55,236

  69,958

  61,319

  70,972

  72,924

  Liverpool

  119,714

  139,807

  110,580

  113,917

  112,739

  Manchester

  1,984,133

  2,094,634

  1,613,278

  1,490,701

  1,517,795

  Merton1

  474,754

  643,576

  438,356

  490,188

  509,289

  Middlesbrough2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  343,729

  Newcastle

  304,618

  306,095

  208,403

  209,981

  215,756

  8
  which remained a local authority responsibility in 1992–93, or grant paid in respect of adult education projects across the period, on which information is not readily available.
  9

  Section 11 Grant: ESL funding for 1992–93 to 1996–97

  ESL projects

  LEA

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Newham

  1,978,422

  1,877,198

  1,384,944

  1,320,239

  1,381,687

  Newport2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  244,900

  Norfolk1

  58,662

  65,199

  57,978

  44,966

  109,975

  North Lincolnshire2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  178,098

  North East Lincolnshire2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27,543

  North Tyneside

  132,170

  139,766

  100,409

  95,879

  98,516

  North Yorkshire

  58,154

  65,123

  49,312

  44,675

  45,903

  Northamptonshire

  497,138

  473,678

  357,729

  324,943

  333,879

  Nottinghamshire

  1,122,334

  1,157,276

  870,731

  793,892

  815,724

  Oldham1

  1,955,632

  2,080,963

  1,512,693

  1,375,509

  1,424,141

  Oxfordshire

  731,768

  747,107

  591,895

  425,844

  437,555

  Redbridge

  1,075,250

  1,084,599

  819,143

  873,727

  926,098

  Richmond

  56,087

  69,014

  49,864

  47,343

  48,645

  Rochdale1

  1,280,039

  1,319,926

  962,488

  904,920

  929,805

  Rotherham

  364,063

  384,180

  285,862

  305,061

  318,653

  Salford

  62,117

  64,844

  47,498

  44,930

  45,695

  Sandwell

  1,424,681

  1,522,154

  1,162,653

  1,044,197

  1,036,800

  Sheffield

  1,070,476

  1,105,230

  519,908

  827,922

  857,194

  Shropshire

  104,866

  114,218

  84,104

  87,160

  93,768

  Somerset1

  0

  0

  0

  19,970

  40,201

  South Glamorgan2

  445,116

  501,949

  376,219

  344,337

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  99,071

  101,795

  Southwark

  1,651,171

  1,750,683

  1,356,049

  563,744

  610,385

  St. Helens

  10,307

  18,975

  14,043

  14,571

  15,379

  Staffordshire

  1,057,289

  1,105,331

  817,911

  654,603

  677,458

  Stockport

  100,052

  103,265

  76,079

  70,839

  72,788

  Suffolk

  268,621

  286,280

  214,077

  196,388

  201,788

  Sunderland

  110,656

  115,825

  87,284

  79,456

  81,641

  Surrey

  347,992

  360,270

  262,375

  247,145

  253,942

  Sutton1

  35,684

  37,447

  27,813

  60,312

  73,755

  Swansea1,2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  250,937

  Tameside

  479,674

  478,072

  359,057

  327,957

  336,976

  Tower Hamlets

  6.141,920

  6,650,264

  4,764,299

  4,958,796

  5,095,163

  Trafford

  257,277

  289,973

  215,001

  216,777

  251,797

  Wakefield

  281,492

  348,796

  251,031

  210,797

  230,907

  Walsall

  1,204,522

  1,262,720

  903,519

  1,078,064

  1,089,353

  Waltham Forest

  1,355,777

  1,555,259

  1,165,388

  1,081,470

  1,107,825

  Wandsworth

  1,637,795

  1,485,719

  1,374,497

  998,981

  991,955

  Warwickshire

  852,412

  909,935

  672,836

  646,029

  663,795

  West Glamorgan2

  0

  0

  0

  224,304

  0

  West Sussex

  260,247

  280,628

  212,623

  192,511

  197,805

  Westminster

  1,695,144

  1,774,620

  1,338,600

  1,252,246

  1,340,792

  Wigan

  56,170

  60,071

  44,078

  55,801

  59,212

  Wiltshire

  155,475

  160,301

  121,565

  109,967

  112,991

  Wirral

  60,592

  95,393

  75,839

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  1,677,545

  1,746,895

  1,311,354

  1,063,003

  1,077,042

  Total

  98,419,336

  105,694,919

  78,849,967

  72,111,981

  74,560,777

  1Payments due to these authorities for the year on the basis of expenditure claimed. Some payments remain to be made

  2Subject to local government reorganisation in 1996.

  1. Where an authority's allocation of grant covered both education and non-education projects, an estimate has been given, based on the proportion of expenditure on relevant projects.

  2. Figures for 1996–97 reflect grant entitlement. Final payments will be made in 1997–98.

  EUROPOL
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received concerning the extension of the powers and duties of EUROPOL; what consultations he has initiated and with which bodies on these matters; and if he will make a statement. [3930]

  Mr. Michael
  EUROPOL will be a central body in the European Union for the exchange and analysis of intelligence on serious and organised trans-national crime. Its powers and duties are set out in the EUROPOL Convention, which is currently subject to ratification in member states. There have been no formal proposals to amend the Convention.
  10
  There has been discussion of EUROPOL' s powers and duties in the High Level Group on Organised Crime, which was set up following the Dublin European Council in December 1996, and in the current Intergovernmental Conference. The majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, do not believe that EUROPOL should have executive powers but should support investigations and operations conducted by national law enforcement agencies. Any proposal to amend the EUROPOL Convention in this respect would be subject to a unanimous decision of the Council and to ratification in member states.

  The Home Office maintains close contact with other Government Departments and operational law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom on all

  11
  EUROPOL related matters. In addition, all significant documents to be submitted to the Council which concern EUROPOL are submitted in advance for scrutiny to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.

  Asylum Seekers (Haslar)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in Haslar Detention Centre, Gosport, have been on hunger strike in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [3311]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Records show that 10 immigration detainees have refused regular prison meals at Haslar Detention Centre during the past 12 months, although they do not distinguish between those who have applied for asylum and others. There are currently no foods protesters at Haslar.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in Haslar Detention Centre in Gosport have been detained for more than(a) six and (b) 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [3312]

  Mr. O'Brien
  Central records show that at Haslar Detention Centre there are 14 detainees who have been detained for more than six months and who have sought asylum at some time, and that there are three others who have been detained for more than twelve months. All 17 applications have already been refused.

  Special Constabulary
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to implement the recommendations of the report of the Working Group on Special Constabulary in England and Wales 1995–96, with particular reference to its recommendations relating to the provision of compensation for death or injury. [3419]

  Mr. Michael
  We are taking a fresh look at the Report's recommendations which, in general, provide a good basis for improving the efficiency, effectiveness and conditions of service of the special constabulary. Some of the recommendations have already been implemented by the Home Office and others are for police forces and police authorities to consider. Priority is now being given to the recommendations which relate to the circumstances in which special constables injured on duty will be able to receive compensation. A consultation paper is being prepared and will be sent shortly to the police and local authorities associations for their comments.

  Public Safety Radio Communications
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on the inclusion of NHS organisations in the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [3627]
  12
  Mr. Michael
  The National Health Service Ambulance Trusts are already represented on the Major Sharers Forum which communicates the views of potential users of the proposed radio communications service to the Board responsible for taking the project forward.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  NATO Membership
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on membership of NATO for(a) Estonia, (b) Latvia and (c) Lithuania. [3281]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The choice of countries to be invited to join NATO will be taken by the time of the NATO Summit in Madrid on 8–9 July. In reaching a decision with other allies we shall need to consider the wider effects on European security and on the effectiveness of the Alliance, as well as the credentials of individual countries. NATO will remain open to further enlargement after the NATO Summit in Madrid, in accordance with Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge Argentina to ratify the High-Seas Fishing Agreement. [3153]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I assume the right hon. Member is referring to the UN Agreement on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The United Kingdom and Argentina regularly discuss their international responsibilities for the conservation of fish stocks at meetings of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The United Kingdom hopes that Argentina will ratify the Convention in the near future.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which nations the UK proposes to enter into regional fisheries organisations under the High-Seas Fishing agreement. [3152]

  Mr. Lloyd
  I assume the right hon. Member is referring to the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The UK already participates in a number of regional fisheries organisations, including the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The UK is currently participating in talks aimed at establishing regional fisheries organisations for the South West Atlantic and the South East Atlantic.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he estimates the UK will ratify the High-Sea Fishing Agreement. [3157]

  Mr. Lloyd
  I assume the right hon. Member is referring to the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks which the UK signed last year. We intend that the UK should ratify this agreement when the necessary procedures have been completed.

  Russia and Ukraine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning a settlement of the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over the Black Sea fleet; and if he will make a statement. [3282]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We and our EU partners have welcomed the Russia-Ukraine agreements of 29 May on the Black Sea Fleet and the Bilateral Friendship Treaty of 31 May. They are an important contribution to regional stability and to security in Europe overall.

  Hong Kong (British Prisoners)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women who are British citizens are serving (i) a life sentence of imprisonment and (ii) a sentence of imprisonment in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [3204]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of 10 British citizens detained and sentenced in Hong Kong. All are men. None has received a life sentence. The British Trade Commission, which will become a Consulate General on 1 July, looks after the interests of British prisoners in Hong Kong.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a member of the British High Commission office in Cyprus last visited the Karpass area in occupied northern Cyprus; and what report has been made of that visit. [3528]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A member of the British High Commission visited the Karpass 9–10 May as part of a regular series of visits to this and other regions in Cyprus. The High Commission report no significant changes in living conditions since the previous visit in February.

  Seals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British embassy in Moscow last contacted the Russian authorities about the cull of(a) harp seals and (b) fully grown adult seals in the White Sea; when the Russian authorities last contacted the United Kingdom on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [3691]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The British Embassy in Moscow has made repeated approaches to the Russian authorities on both questions. The last one was on 28 May. The Russian Government have not yet released their figures for the seal cull in the White Sea. We will continue to press them to do so.

  Economic and Social Committee
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the role and functions of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union. [3438]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The role and functions of the Economic and Social Committee are currently under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Taiwan
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what exchanges he has had with the United States with a view to securing the territorial integrity of Taiwan. [2049]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has had no exchanges with the United States on Taiwan. We acknowledge the position of the People's Republic of China that Taiwan is a province of China. We attach importance to the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan straits.

  EU Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what procedure he expects the Council of Ministers to appoint a Foreign Affairs spokesperson, as proposed in drafts of the treaty of Amsterdam; under what terms such a person will operate; and what arrangements will be made for their direct consultation with the Foreign Ministers of member states prior to the exercise of their functions. [3906]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the Presidency's current proposal, the Secretary-General of the Council would assist the Council in the common foreign and security policy field, contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions. When appropriate, he or she would conduct political dialogue with third parties on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency. The Secretary-General is appointed by the Council acting unanimously and would operate in this new role on the basis of clearly defined mandates from the Council.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the topics suggested for future agreement by qualified majority vote of the Council of Ministers of the European Community contained in draft proposals from the Presidency to be considered at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference. [3911]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Below is the relevant section from the latest Presidency proposal:List of Articles where extension of QMV is envisaged

  Article 8a: Right of movement and residence.

  Article 45(3): Compensatory aid for imports of raw materials.

  Article 51: Measures in the field of social security necessary to provide freedom of movement.

  Article 56(2): Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals (right of establishment).

  Article 57(2): Amendment of principles laid down by law governing the professions in a Member State.

  Article 128: Culture.

  Article 130: Industry.

  Article 130i(1): Adoption of the research framework programme.

  Article 130i(2): Adapting or supplementing the research framework programme.

  Article 130o: Setting up of joint undertakings in R and T development.

  Article 130s(2): Environment.

  15
  It should be noted that:

  questions related to the free movement of persons shall be governed initially by unanimity but, after a transitional period of three years, should in principle fall within the scope of qualified majority voting;

  the broader scope of Article 113 of the TEC implies a broader scope for QMV;

  the new CFSP provisions on decision-making entail an extension for QMV;

  a number of new provisions in the Treaty will also be subject to QMV;

  Article 209a (countering fraud);

  New Article (customs cooperation);

  Article 213a (statistics);

  Article 213b (protection of individuals with regard to the processing and free movement of personal data).

  EU Legislative Proposals
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those areas where legislative proposals of the Council of the European Community can be halted by a resolution of the European parliament(a) currently and (b) as proposed by the Presidency to the IGC. [3909]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Measures under the following Treaty Articles are subject to the assent of, or codecision with the European Parliament:

  assent: 8a(2); 105(6); 106(5); 130d; 138(3); 228(3); 0;

  codecision: 49; 54(2); 56(2); 57(1); 57(2); 100a; 100b; 126(4); 128(5); 129(4); 129a(2); 129(d); 130i(1); 130s(3).

  So far as further areas are concerned, below is the relevant section from the latest Presidency proposal.

  Assent procedure

  The assent procedure would apply to the following provisions:

  New Treaty provisions

  Article Fa: Sanctions in the event of a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights by a Member State.

  Existing Treaty provisions

  Article O: Accession procedure.

  Article 138(3): Proposals by the European Parliament for a uniform electoral procedure.

  Article 228(3), second subpara: Conclusion of certain international agreements.

  New Treaty provisions

  Article (5): Employment—Incentive measures.

  Article 119: Social policy—Equal opportunities and treatment.

  Article 129: Public health (former basis Article 43—consultation):

  minimum requirements regarding quality and safety of organs;

  veterinary and phytosanitary measures with the direct objective the protection of public health.

  Article 191a: General principles for transparency.

  Article 209a: Countering fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community.

  New Article: Customs cooperation.

  Article 213a: Statistics.

  Article 213b: Establishment of independent advisory authority on data protection.

  Existing Treaty provisions1

  Article 6: Rules to prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality (co-operation)

  16

  Article 8a(2): Provisions for facilitating the exercise of citizens' right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (assent).

  Article 51: Internal market (consultation):

  rules on social security for Community immigrant workers.

  Article 56(2)2: Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals (right of establishment).

  Article 57: Coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons (consultation).

  Amendment of existing principles laid down by law governing the professions with respect to training and conditions of access for natural persons (consultation).

  Article 75(1): Transport policy (co-operation):

  Common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States;

  the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State;

  measures to improve transport safety.

  Article 84: Transport policy (co-operation):

  sea and air transport.

  Social policy: Articles resulting from the transposition into the Treaty of the agreement on social policy (Article 2(2)), except for aspects of that Agreement which are currently subject to unanimity (Article 2(3)) (see Chapter 4—Social provisions)(co-operation).

  Article 125: Implementing decisions relating to the European Social Fund (co-operation).

  Article 127(4): Vocational training (co-operation):

  Measures to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of Article 127

  Article 129d 3rd subpara: Other measures (TENs) (co-operation).

  Article 130d: Structural and cohesion funds.

  Article 130e: ERDF implementing decisions (co-operation).

  Article 130o 2nd subpara: Adoption of measures referred in Articles 130k and —research (co-operation).

  Article 130s(1): Environment (co-operation):

  Action by the Community in order to achieve the objectives of Article 130r.

  Article 130w: Development cooperation (co-operation).

  1. The procedure currently applicable is indicated between brackets after the content of each Article.

  2 As simplified (see CONF/4152/97).

  Western European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he received notice from the Presidency of the European Union concerning the Franco-German proposal for progressive absorption of the Western European Union into the European Union; what information that notice gave of the opinions of other member states; and what subsequent steps he has taken to inform the originators of the proposal of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. [3907]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 24 March the Presidency of the European Union circulated to all Partners a letter enclosing a joint proposal by Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain for the phased integration of the Western European Union into the European Union. We have made clear both in the Intergovernmental
  17
  Conference (IGC) and in bilateral meetings with Partners that we oppose the integration of the Western European Union into the European Union.

  Draft Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed provisions of the draft treaty of Amsterdam on the relations between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth; and if he will initiate discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the effect of relevant aspects of the treaty prior to its signing. [3912]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The draft Treaty is primarily concerned with internal EU matters and has no direct impact on UK/Commonwealth relations. We therefore have no plans to hold discussions with Commonwealth governments before signature of the Treaty. There will however be opportunities to discuss EU matters of interest to the Commonwealth in the margin of this year's Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In addition, the EU has regular contacts with Commonwealth countries through a wide range of co-operation agreements, notably the Lome Convention to which 38 Commonwealth countries members belong.

  European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the activities of the European Union described in or arising from Pillar 2, or the J articles of the treaty of European Union from which the European Commission(a) is currently excluded and (b) would be excluded under the widened scope of such title and articles as proposed by the Presidency. [3910]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the existing Treaty on European Union the European Commission is fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field. This would remain the case under current Presidency proposals.

HEALTH

  High Dependency Beds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in relation to promoting the establishment of high dependency unit beds in the hospital service. [2460]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provision of high dependency care is one of many policy areas to which we are turning our attention.

  As a first step, we have asked regional offices to report on the current position and we will be using this to take forward consideration of adult and high dependency care.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Richard Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether public funds will be made available in 1997 for the building of the new maternity hospital at the Stone Grove site in Sheffield if the PFI hid proves to be unsatisfactory. [2545]
  18
  Mr. Milburn
  The private finance initiative scheme for the new maternity hospital for Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust is one of the 43 acute sector PFI projects included in the prioritisation exercise we announced on 10 June. An announcement on those schemes which have been selected to proceed will be made at the end of June.

  Those trusts which fail to be prioritised will be invited to stop further work on their PFI schemes. Their projects will then be reconsidered and prioritised nationally alongside schemes that are competing for public capital. They will then be progressed under the PFI, if that is appropriate, or considered for funding from available public capital.

  Historic and Heritage Buildings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the interest rate returns on capital requirements imposed on trusts where trust estates include historic or heritage buildings. [3041]

  Mr. Milburn
  The return required on a National Health Service trust's assets is affected by both the set target rate of return (currently 6 per cent.) and the value of the assets concerned.

  There are currently no plans to change the target rate of return. However, following a recommendation by the Advisory Group on the Review of the Trust Financial Regime the NHS Executive is at present investigating the methods used for valuing land and buildings in the NHS. If it can be demonstrated that clear benefits would result from changes to the existing method, those changes can be implemented at the next national revaluation.

  Health Promotion Shops
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the impact of health promotion shops on men's health over the next five years. [3221]

  Ms Jowell
  We are aware of the Acorn shop in the foyer of St. Mary's hospital in the hon. Member's constituency and there are a number of similar shops throughout England. No Department of Health assessment has been made of the impact of shops of this type on men's health. However, the Department has recently funded a project run by Community Health UK to look into the question of health promotion for men. One of the aims of this project was to identify which health promotion methods are effective for conveying messages to men. This project ended in March 1997 and we are awaiting the final evaluation.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from(a) Northumbrian Water Ltd. and (b) Water Services Association regarding the indemnities available to water companies to cover liabilities of operating a fluoridated water supply; [3208]

  (2) what representations he has received from the (a) British Dental Association and (b) British Fluoridation Society regarding the decision not to extend fluoridation of water by Northumbrian Water Ltd. [3205]
  19
  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the time scale for the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. [3313]

  Ms Jowell
  The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine contains a wide range of provisions covering a number of complex ethical issues. The Government are considering the implications of the provisions and of signature and ratification. No decisions on a timescale for signature have been made.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he will put in place to ensure that the interests of patients are protected when any research is conducted without their consent, pursuant to article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. [3314]

  Ms Jowell
  Under the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, research must not be conducted on patients capable of giving consent without such consent and this accords with current United Kingdom law. Article 17 affects only those incapable of giving consent. For the protection of patients, the Department of Health has required since 1991 that all research on National Health Service patients must be approved by an independent Local Research Ethics Committee. A range of guidance is available to members of such Committees, including a Briefing Pack issued by the Department of Health earlier this year.

  General Practitioners (Complaints)
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken to monitor public satisfaction with the procedure for complaints against general practitioners; and if such monitoring reveals public satisfaction to be increasing or decreasing. [3671]

  Mr. Milburn
  Work is under way to develop an evaluation programme which will cover all aspects of the complaints procedures.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to establish the Royal Commission on the costs of the care of the elderly; and what its membership and remit will be. [3449]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 5 June at column 243.

  GP Complaints
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collected centrally on the level of complaints against general practitioners. [3672]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities are required to make annual returns to the National Health Service Executive providing information on the numbers, and general nature, of complaints made against general practitioners.

  Dementia
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had regarding training in dementia care for professionals; and if he will make a statement. [3011]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have had no recent discussions on this issue. Such training is primarily the responsibility of the relevant professional bodies, the universities and the organisations which employ health and social care professionals.

  The Department has contributed funding towards the provision of training material on dementia for mental health professionals. We commissioned Manchester university to produce training literature in mental health, including specific guidance on older people with mental health problems. We helped the Alzheimer's Disease Society with the production costs of their recent training pack for general practitioner trainers, "Dementia in the Community: management strategies for general practice". The Department also contributed funding to a recent feasibility study led by the British Medical Association into an educational video for GPs on dementia.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the funding of research into Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. [3012]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's commitment to the health and well being of mentally ill people is exemplified in "The Health of the Nation". The Medical research Council, the Department's Policy Research Programme and the National Health Service Research and Development Programme are all undertaking work into dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. For example, the policy research programme is contributing almost £1 million to the Medical Research Council's Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Results of Government funded research are made freely and widely available. Research and development priorities cover a wide range of health care issues and research into Alzheimer's disease is considered along with other research priorities. Government investment in this area of research is continuing.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the provision of specialist services for the needs of younger people who suffer from dementia. [3013]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Health of the Nation Handbook on Mental Health of Older People advises health and social care purchasers to work across boundaries to ensure the necessary care and treatment are available for those with early onset dementia.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on discrimination against people at risk of dementia. [3014]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to identify medically those at risk from dementia.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks are made to ensure that departmental guidelines on the taking of cervical smears are followed. [3253]
  21
  Ms Jowell
  Guidance on taking cervical smears was given in the British Society for Clinical Cytology's training video and booklet for smear-takers, "Taking Cervical Smears" which was promulgated to the NHS under cover of EL(94)33, and "Quality Assurance Guidelines for the Cervical Screening Programme" issued to the NHS in March 1996. A further training resource pack is currently in preparation by the NHS, which will include methods of audit. Copies of these guidance documents are available in the Library. It is for health authorities to ensure that quality standards in smear-taking are achieved.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of actions for clinical negligence brought against each NHS trust in the Northern and Yorkshire regions in the last two years. [3254]

  Mr. Milburn
  At present this information is not held centrally. However, the Department of Health is actively considering what steps can be taken to improve the range of clinical negligence data collected to get a more accurate picture of the effect of clinical negligence on National Health Service funds.

  Cancer Treatment Centres
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his conclusions on the location of cancer treatment centres. [3255]

  Mr. Boateng
  A great deal of work has been undertaken in the National Health Service to implement the recommendations contained within the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". A key element has been local discussion as to where and what cancers should be treated at each individual potential cancer centre or cancer unit. As the process is ongoing, we will continue to review progress before considering any announcement.

  NHS Staff (Criminal Prosecutions)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases there have been in which NHS staff have been the subject of criminal prosecutions based on their work for the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [3256]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have inquired what information is available. Unfortunately, no information is held centrally. It may be held by personnel departments of individual NHS employers but could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Cancer Surgery
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a patient receiving cancer surgery has a right to be told the results of such surgery. [3257]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are concerned to ensure that all patients and their families, including cancer patients, who may have particular worries about their condition and treatment, including surgery, receive information which is clear, concise and easily understood, not only about the proposed treatments, but about possible alternatives and any substantial risks. A patient partnership strategy has been developed to ensure that the National Health Service 22
  gives patients and their carers greater voice and influence in their own care. This will not only increase patient satisfaction but is also likely to improve health care outcomes. This important principle has been emphasised to local health authorities, trusts and individual clinicians.

  Racism
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the General Medical Council takes to eliminate racism in the exercise of its functions of professional regulation. [3258]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Medical Council has made it clear that it is committed to a system of self-regulation of the medical profession which is open and accountable; and to procedures and processes that are fair, objective, transparent and free from discrimination.

  The General Medical Council's guidance Good medical practice states that doctors "must not discriminate against colleagues, including doctors applying for posts, because of your views of their lifestyle, culture, beliefs, race, colour, sex, sexuality, or age." and the President of the Council has made it clear that the same principle must apply, and be seen to apply, to the GMC itself.

  The GMC commissioned a report by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) in 1996 which reviewed the GMC's handling of complaints against doctors. The PSI found no evidence of overt discrimination. The GMC is commissioning a further study by PSI for later this year.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances pathologists reporting cervical cytology are permitted to advise on follow-ups without a record of the visual appearance of the cervix. [3259]

  Ms Jowell
  A record of the visual appearance of the cervix is a requirement on the pathology request form only in cases of suspected abnormality. Since the purpose of the cervical smear test is to detect abnormalities at a very early stage, a cervical smear can be classed abnormal in cases where the appearance of the cervix remains normal. Pathologists are expected to advise on follow-up action on the basis of an abnormal smear alone, whether or not there is a record of the visual appearance of the cervix. Where the request form explicitly states that the cervix has not been visualised, pathologists should always advise that follow-up action be taken.

  Executive Directors
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total remuneration package for the current financial year for(a) the highest paid executive director, indicating the title of the post, and (b) the chief executive of Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust. [3303]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are informed that the remuneration of the Executive Directors at Basildon and Thurrock General Hospital NHS Trust has not yet been agreed for the current financial year.

  The total remuneration package for 1996–97 for (a) the highest paid executive director, the medical director, was £93,000 and (b) the chief executive of Basildon and Thurrock Hospital NHS Trust was £86,000. These figures are provisional and subject to audit.

  Line Management Relationships
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a code of practice exists for senior health service management which discourages spouses being in a line management relationship; and if he will make a statement. [3300]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no specific code of practice. Employers are expected to follow good employment practice when involved in the recruitment and selection of staff. The actions of those who work in the National Health Service must be able to stand the test of parliamentary scrutiny, public judgments on propriety and professional codes of conduct.

  Hospital Land
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the criteria by which trusts can determine that land within their ownership is hospital land surplus to requirements; [3301]

  (2) what procedure must be followed by NHS trusts prior to resolving that land within their ownership is hospital land surplus to requirements. [3302]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts are responsible for determining their own property requirements but they must consult with the health authorities who may commission services from them (and who themselves have a statutory duty to consult on proposed substantial variations in services), and with other NHS organisations who may have an interest, before resolving that the property they own is not required for NHS purposes.

  NHS trusts are required to prepare an annual business plan, supported by an estates strategy which details the plans they have for their property, which they must submit to the NHS Executive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, in the interests of the NHS, prohibit or restrict the disposal of assets owned by NHS trusts.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's review of the operation of the private finance initiative for health will include consideration of the need for the full environmental impact of such projects to be taken into account. [3593]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have given a commitment to ensure that all Government Departments promote policies to sustain the environment, and any changes to the private finance initiative approvals process will take into account. Any changes to the PFI appraisal process within the National Health Service will be made in accordance with that policy.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how hospitals in the Dudley borough will be affected by the Government's commitment to cut NHS waiting lists by an extra 100,000 patients. [3648]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our manifesto commitment is to treat an extra 100,000 patients through reducing bureaucracy. Linked to this is our commitment to end waiting times for cancer surgery, especially breast cancer. We have already 24
  announced an initiative to improve breast cancer services (22 May). We will be discussing our future plans with the National Health Service before making any final decisions about the exact scope of our targets and how quickly we will expect them to be achieved.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to take steps to limit the amount of NHS money which is to be paid out to patients who sue for negligence or medical accidents; and what plans he has for a no-fault medical accident compensation scheme. [3405]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have every sympathy with those who suffer adversely as a consequence of clinical treatment. Where negligence can be shown to have caused this it seems only right that compensation should be available, and the Government is currently exploring alternatives to litigation which might offer a quicker and cheaper way of dealing with clinical negligence claims. However, it is a longstanding principle that compensation should be paid by the National Health Service only when there is evidence that negligence has been involved.

  Children (Care)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve services for children who are looked after by local authorities; and by what means young people in care will be consulted about proposed changes. [3401]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Children Act 1989, and other relevant legislation, gives local authorities the responsibility for looking after children in public care.

  The Department supports them in their role in a variety of ways, for example: statutory guidance; professional and practice guidance; and the "Looking After Children" system and materials which provides local authorities who chose to use it with a framework to capture information about the development of individual children to ensure that their needs are properly met within a care plan which involves the child, their families and carers. The Department also commissions and disseminates a range of research.

  A reports is expected in the summer from Sir William Utting on safeguards for children living away from home, including those in public care. In considering Sir William's report the Government will take the opportunity of discussing with local authorities and other interests, including those representing children, what further steps might be usefully taken to improve services for children who are looked after by local authorities.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were looked after by local authorities in England and Wales on 1 April 1997 broken down by local authority and type of placement; how many children left care in each authority in 1996–97; and how many of those moved to secure tenancies in(a) the public housing sector and (b) the private housing sector. [3400]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of children looked after by each local authority in England at 31 March 1995, including types of placement and the
  25
  number of children who ceased to be looked after, is given in Tables 1 and 4 in the publication "Children Looked After by local authorities, year ending 31 March 1995, England", copies of which are available in the Library. The corresponding figures for the year ending 31 March 1996 are due to be published in August 1997. Local authorities have until 30 June 1997 to return their data on children looked after at 31 March 1997 to the Department of Health; this information is therefore unavailable at present.

  Information on the subsequent accommodation of young people who have ceased to be looked after is not collected centrally.

  Statistics on children looked after in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy towards compensation payments to women who claim to have been injured through receiving radiotherapy treatment; and what steps his Department is taking to investigate the causes of this problem. [3394]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have every sympathy with women who have suffered adverse side-effects as a consequence of radiotherapy treatment. However, it is a longstanding principle that compensation should be paid by the National Health Service only when there is evidence that negligence has been involved.

  The following action has been taken to help women with damage as a result of radiotherapy for breast cancer:
  In May 1994 the Department issued guidance entitled "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy—A Quality Management System for Radiotherapy".
  The Royal College of Radiologists at the Department's request, convened a small group of professionals and lay people in Autumn 1994 to consider guidelines for care of women who have suffered tissue damage following radiotherapy for breast cancer. This report was issued to the NHS by the Department in October 1995.
  The Royal College of Radiologists carried out a confidential clinical review of 126 women who had suffered injury following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer at 15 centres in the period 1980–1993. The report makes recommendations on the management of breast cancer, particularly on radiotherapy, and for further research.

  With regard to those suffering adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers, in 1996, a Working Group, which includes representatives from a number of Royal Colleges, voluntary organisations and the Department, was set up to consider the preparation of patient information leaflets concerning possible adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy and to raise awareness generally. A sub-group is also considering issuing guidelines for health professionals on the care of women suffering adverse effects as a result of pelvic radiotherapy.

  Asthma
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of asthma have been recorded in the Torbay parliamentary constituency in each year since 1987; and what the national average levels of asthma were in each year since 1987. [3781]
  26
  Ms Jowell
  According to the available data provided by South and West Devon Health Authority, in-patient finished consultant episodes for asthma in the borough of Torbay are as follows:

  Asthma in any diagnostic position

  Asthma as the main diagnosis

  1993–94

  484

  233

  1994–95

  570

  236

  1995–96

  785

  217

  1996–97

  796

  243

  Nationally, there is no comprehensive data on the number of people with asthma.

  According to data collected by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the mean weekly incidence of new general practitioner episodes of asthma per 100,000 population in England for each year since 1987 was as follows:

  1987: 27.2

  1988: 33.3

  1989: 34.0

  1990: 37.3

  1991: 46.3

  1992: 48.3

  1993: 50.3

  1994: 49.2

  1995: 40.3

  1996: 38.2.

  Silicone Breast Implants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will implement a moratorium on the use of silicone breast implants until the review on their use has been completed; and if he will introduce an immediate directive ensuring that all plastic surgeons only operate when the patient has given their informed consent. [2300]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: An independent expert group has on two occasions (in 1992 and 1994) found no evidence of a link between silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease. In view of the renewed concerns of patients the Department of Health has now set up a further review (May 1997). This will look particularly at issues relating to preoperative advice and counselling to patients. However, the scientific evidence does not currently suggest the need for a moratorium or immediate directives to plastic surgeons. Further action will be considered in the light of the review findings.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of the experts on the panel of the review of the use of silicone breast implants.[2301]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The names of the members of the Independent Review Group are as follows:

  Professor R. D. Sturrock (Chairman): Professor of Rheumatology

  Professor R. Batchelor: Professor of Immunology

  Professor Alan Silman: Professor of Epidemiology

  Mr. T. M. Milward: Consultant Plastic Surgeon

  27

  Professor J. P. Sloane: Professor of Histopathology

  Professor D. R. London: Formerly Professor of Medicine.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when his office briefed the media about his opinion of bonuses to Camelot directors. [3776]

  The Prime Minister
  On 28 May.

  Royal Commissions
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) reviews and (b) Royal commissions the Government have established; and how many of each it plans to establish in the next year. [3026]

  The Prime Minister
  Significant reviews which we have announced include:

  A comprehensive spending review;

  A strategic defence review;

  A review of the bureaucratic burden on teachers;

  A review of detailed criteria used in considering license applications for the export of conventional weapons;

  A review of the law relating to surrogacy;

  A review of the law relating to silicone breast implants;

  a review of proposed NHS private finance initiative schemes;

  A review of the breast cancer screening service in Devon and implications for the breast cancer screening programme as a whole;

  A review of the arrangements for celebrating the Millennium;

  A review of the National Lottery, leading to the publication of a White Paper;

  A review of film policy;

  A review of steps which might be taken to strengthen local democratic control of the three public water authorities in Scotland;

  Scottish Enterprise has been asked to bring forward its planned review of strategy to encourage a more effective, responsive and accountable enterprise network in Scotland;

  A review of the way in which social rented housing is supported in Scotland;

  A review of the Skye Bridge tolling arrangements;

  A fundamental review of transport policy leading to the publication of a White Paper on our long term strategy for an integrated transport policy;

  A review of the arrangements for enforcing the rules on the welfare of animals exported live to the continent;

  A review of the case for inoculation as a substitute for the quarantine of animals;

  A review of the international development policies leading to a publication of a White Paper in the Autumn;

  A review of economic regeneration in Wales;

  We made clear in the Labour manifesto our plans to review ministerial accountability, to implement the Nolan recommendations fully and extend them to all public bodies. These will be among the various matters to be reviewed in preparation of the White Paper on Better Government which we intend to publish in the Autumn.

  No Royal Commissions have been established.
  28
  The announcements of any further reviews will be made when those reviews are initiated.

  Political Appointments
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the salaries of each of the political appointees to assist the Prime Minister and other Ministers on a Department by Department basis. [3403]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 10 June,Official Report, column 390.

  Security Service Commissioner's Report
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [4262]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart Smith's seventh annual report, for 1996, has been laid before the House in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in providing assistance to the Tribunal as provided in that Act and for reviewing the issue of warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by name and office each current political appointee to the Civil Service indicating their job description, salary and terms of employment; and how many appointees are required to carry out duties previously performed by a civil servant. [3050]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 June 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 June, Official Report, columns 97–9. Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell have been appointed under the terms of the amended Civil Service Order in Council which allows them to undertake some duties which would previously have been performed by civil servants.

  General Elections
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to require general elections to be held at weekends. [3348]

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 98, when he expects to be able to provide the information on total salary bills for special advisers. [3760]

  The Prime Minister
  When agreement has been reached with each individual on their precise employment terms.

  Welsh Assembly (Ministerial Functions)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and other Welsh Office ministers when Welsh Office functions are transferred to a Welsh Assembly. [3288]

  The Prime Minister
  There will continue to be a Secretary of State for Wales who will represent Welsh interests in the Cabinet. The forthcoming White Paper on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly will set out more details.

  Secretary of State for Wales
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce proposals to require that the Secretary of State for Wales represents a Welsh constituency. [3289]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the task forces and groups which have been instituted across Government departments, their aims and objectives, the composition of each group and when each is expected to report. [2544]

  The Prime Minister
  I announced on 9 June,Official Report, columns 302–10, the composition and terms of reference of the Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet which I have established.

  My Government have also announced the establishment of the following task forces and groups:
  The Task Force on Youth Justice
  The Task Force's Role is to advise Home Office Ministers on Government proposals for the development of youth justice policies.
  The President of the Board of Trade's Advisory Group
  The group's remit is to advise the President of the Board of Trade on competitiveness. It is not expected to issue any formal reports.
  Competitiveness Working Parties
  A number of expert groups will report to the President's Advisory Group on different aspects of competitiveness. Each group will include business people and others who could contribute an expert view to the Working Parties' remit. Each Working Party will be reporting by the end of 1997.
  Interdepartmental Task Force on Competitiveness in Europe
  The Task Force's role is to advise on the implementation of the Government's Manifesto objectives to complete the Single Market and promote flexible labour markets across the EU. No formal report is planned.
  Export Forum
  The Forum will carry out a full assessment of how well our export programmes work by:
  looking at the strengths and weaknesses of official support for trade fairs, trade missions, identifying leads, export market research, UK firms bidding for overseas projects, and other export promotion activities:
  examining the current arrangements for interdepartmental consultation, the current arrangements for consultation with business, the interface between the Overseas Trade Services and Business Links, the present system for establishing market and sectoral priorities and marketing and branding of official export promotional services.
  The Forum will report by the Autumn.
  30
  UK Presidency Task Force
  This Task Force will continue to meet until the end of the UK Presidency of the European Union in June 1998, at Ministerial and official level.
  Tax-benefit Working Group
  This Working Group will examine the interaction of the tax and benefits system so that they can be streamlined and modernised, so as to fulfil the objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life.
  New Deal Advisory Task Force
  This Task Force will advise Government on the key issues of programme policy and design. It will promote the New Deal, particularly to the business and voluntary sectors, stimulating action and commitment in these sectors. The Task Force will also receive regular reports on and advice on progress on implementation of the New Deal, flagging up emerging issues and advising on their resolution.
  Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Task Forces will also be established.
  School Standards Task Force
  This Task Force's roles are to advise the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the development and implementation of policies to improve school standards and to keep the Secretary of State abreast of best practice nationally and internationally.
  NHS Efficiency Task Force
  This Task Force will examine areas of NHS expenditure with a view to redirecting resources to patient services.

  The announcements of any further Task Forces or groups will be made when we come to establish those groups.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Wigs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the practice of wearing wigs in court so that solicitors with a right of audience and banisters are treated on an equal basis. [2995]

  Mr. Hoon
  The LCD has no immediate plans to review the wearing of wigs in court. This issue was considered by the Department through consultation papers in 1992 and 1994. There was no consensus among all of those who responded about whether solicitors should be allowed to wear a wig in court although a majority wanted the wearing of wigs generally to be discontinued. The Lord Chancellor, having consulted with the Lord Chief Justice and the Heads of Division, concluded that the practice of wearing wigs should not be extended.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to establish whether there is a freemasons' lodge in the Lord Chancellor's Department. [2999]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not sought to establish if there is a freemasons' lodge in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Home Affairs Committee recently held an inquiry into freemasonry in the criminal justice system. The Government will be responding to its report in due course.

  Civil Court Procedures
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has evaluated relating to communitisation of procedures and rules in civil court procedures in respect of legislation originating from the European Commission or Union. [3929]

  Mr. Hoon
  During the negotiations preceding the Intergovernmental Conference the Government have considered various proposals relating to civil judicial co-operation, one of which would apply Community legislative procedures to this field. This matter is currently governed by Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (intergovernmental co-operation in justice and home affairs) and the Government consider the present arrangements broadly satisfactory. It is one of the matters for discussion at the Amsterdam Conference which began today.

  Payments to Witnesses
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he intends to pursue and publish the report on the payment of trial witnesses by the media which was announced in the last Parliament and reported on by the National Heritage Select Committee. [2966]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department issued a consultation document, "Payments to Witnesses", in October last year and the responses to that are under consideration. A response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee will be made in the next few weeks.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions his Department has held with the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office concerning the appointment of a chairman or chairwoman of the United Kingdom Sports Council; and if he will make a statement. [2753]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: Further to my reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) of 21 May, Official Report, column 69, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend invited Sir Rodney Walker, chairman of the English Sports Council, to take on temporarily the role of acting chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council following consultation with the home country Departments. He will be consulting home country Secretaries of State to confirm the appointment of a full-time successor to Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth as chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council. A further statement will be made in due course.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to speed up the processing of smaller-scale lottery bids. [3140]
  32
  Mr. Tony Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing all aspects of national lottery distribution, including the way in which applications for small awards are dealt with. We shall be publishing our proposals for consultation next month.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the regulations governing concessionary television licences in sheltered housing establishments. [3146]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government have no plans at present to review the concessionary television licence fee regulations.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many television licence holders are over 75 years old. [3160]

  Mr. Fisher
  This information is not available, as TV licensing does not record the age of television licence holders. There are approximately 3.07 million UK households with one or more members aged 75 or over, of which an estimated 2.44 million consist solely of people of that age.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what communications he has had from the Secretary of State for Social arising from her oral answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 28, regarding concessionary television licences for pensioners. [3711]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has drawn my hon. Friend's comments of 2 June,Official Report, columns 5-6, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Government have no plans at present to extend the existing concessionary television licence scheme.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what powers he has to ensure that archives purchased with lottery funds with special reference to the Churchill papers are insured. [2992]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  The Secretary of State's powers in relation to the distribution of lottery funds are contained in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and in policy and financial directions. The Government look to distributing bodies to ensure that suitable insurance arrangements apply in respect of lottery-funded projects. For projects relating to archives the relevant distributing body is normally the Heritage Lottery Fund, whose standard grant conditions include a requirement that the property concerned must be appropriately insured. I understand that the Churchill Archive Centre has insured against damage or loss of the Churchill papers and that separate cover is obtained when papers from the collection are exhibited elsewhere.

  Sport (Tobacco Sponsorship)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with Worcestershire County Cricket Club about tobacco sponsorship of cricket; and if he will make a statement. [2733]
  33
  Mr. Tony Banks
  I have had no discussions with Worcestershire County Cricket Club about tobacco sponsorship of cricket, but I intend to consult relevant sports bodies on their concerns.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on motor sport of the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship of the sport; and if he will make a statement; [2732]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on cricket of the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship of the sport; and if he will make a statement. [2731]

  Mr. Banks
  We are looking very carefully at how best to achieve an end to the advertising and promotion of tobacco at sports events in a way which will minimise any damage to sports, such as cricket and motor racing. The details, including proposals for legislation to ban tobacco advertising, will be published in the White Paper later this year. Any legislation will include a transitional period.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many inquiries he anticipates will be undertaken by the National Audit Office in the current Parliamentary Session. [2035]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The National Audit Office expects to audit and report as necessary on 550 accounts and produce 50 studies on value for money subjects in this session.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of staff available to the National Audit Office. [2036]

  Mr. Sheldon
  It is the main concern of the Commission to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has right resources to undertake his work. The Comptroller and Auditor General considers annually the staffing implications of developments which affect his remit and reflects them in the Supply Estimates for the National Audit Office which the Commission considers each year. Were he to need more staff or other resources, he would request extra resources from this House when compiling his Supply Estimate.

  Role of the Commission
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what representations he has received about the possibility of widening the remit of the Public Accounts Commission. [2037]

  Mr. Sheldon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend, the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The remit of the Public Accounts Commission is set out in the National Audit Act 1983 but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions about widening the remit I should be happy to receive them. I have not so far received any representations on this matter.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  St. Ethelburga's Church
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the latest position regarding the rebuilding and use of St. Ethelburga's church in the City; and if he will make a statement. [2038]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In March the Bishop of London announced a proposal for St. Ethelburga's to be restored as a centre of peace and reconciliation, providing support for the victims of terrorism and conflict. It would include a memorial garden dedicated to those killed in the two city bombs. The church's facade to Bishopsgate would be re-built and the surviving fabric incorporated in the new building. The proposal would require listed building consent and a scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1983 to authorise the new use. The Commissioners await a recommendation from the diocese of London to draft and publish such a scheme.

  Pensions Measure
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what consultations have taken place with parishes since the Pensions Measure 1997 was approved by Parliament. [2039]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Consultations with individual parishes are a matter for dioceses. The Commissioners have been consulting closely with Diocesan Boards of Finance about transitional assistance, which the Commissioners will provide so that the cost of pension contributions can be absorbed by dioceses and parishes over a manageable period.

  Annual Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member as representing the Church Commissioners how much of the income from each source shown in the consolidated statement on page 24 of the Church Commissioners' annual report for 1996 was(a) restricted and (b) unrestricted. [1842]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  All the income identified in the question was unrestricted. The Commissioners' restricted income, i.e. income which it is not within the Commissioners' discretion to allocate between their general objectives, is dealt with in the note on page 45 of their annual report.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member as representing the Church Commissioners how much of the £145.9 million net income shown in the consolidated statement on page 24 of the Church Commissioners' annual report for 1996 contributes to the surplus of £1.9 million mentioned in note 28 on the accounts. [1840]

  Mr. Bell
  The short table may help to explain the relationship between these figures.

  £ million

  Consolidated

  Commissioners only

  Net income after interest and asset management Costs

  145.9

  138.8

  35

  £ million

  Consolidated

  Commissioners only

  Total expenditure on behalf of the church

  (136.2)

  (136.2)

  Commissioners own administrative costs

  (0.7)

  (0.7)

  Surplus of income over expenditure for the year

  9.0

  1.9

  The reason for the consolidated income exceeded the Commissioners' own income is that the income of the Commissioners' subsidiary companies in 1996 exceeded the dividends they paid to the Commissioners in that year.

  Church Income
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member as representing the Church Commissioners how much income was received by the Church Commissioners in 1996 on the specific trusts of section 10(6) of the Church Commissioners Measure of 1947. [1841]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  All the income of the Church Commissioners was received on the trusts of section 10(6) of the Church Commissioners Measure as expanded by subsequent legislation.

  I am sending the hon. Member additional information about the nature of the Commissioners' trusts.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Environmental Standards
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of economic instruments as a means of promoting higher environmental standards. [3021]

    Angela Eagle
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently set out his attitude to economic instruments in his speech at the conference on Earth Summit II.

    He said:
    "Whatever the environmental concern, we must find the best way to deal with it, and ensure that the polluter bears the cost of measures required. A regulatory approach is often the right one, to ensure consistent standards of environmental protection. Voluntary agreements can also work well in the right circumstances. And economic instruments also have a role, which is why our Manifesto highlighted the use of taxes to discourage pollution.
    Tax is not a popular word. But environmental taxes can encourage industry to find cost effective, innovative ways of reducing pollution. They can be particularly attractive if they provide revenue which may be used to reduce other taxes, or recycled in other ways. This is not to say they are always appropriate - for example if they would have unacceptable social and distributional effects. What we must do is to consider how to achieve the best package of measures to meet our environmental objectives."

    Household Growth Projection
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reliability of the figure for the projected increase in the number of households up to 2016. [2858]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 3 June 1997,Official Report, column 163.

    Climate Change
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plans to publish a climate change action programme; and if he will make a statement. [3194]

    Mr. Meacher
    We are currently reviewing the United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme looking at policies and measures across all sectors which could contribute to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2010. These include improvements in areas such as domestic and industrial energy efficiency, measures to tackle emissions from the transport sector as part of the integrated transport strategy, and a large increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes. We shall produce a revised Programme after Kyoto.

    New Forest
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the establishment of a New Forest national park. [3144]

    Angela Eagle
    The designation of new National Parks is the responsibility of the Countryside Commission. Ministers will meet shortly with the Countryside Commission to discuss the potential for new National Parks in England, as well as the Commission's proposals for the future funding and management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

    Drinking Water (Cryptosporidium)
    Mr. Leslie
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Drinking Water Inspectorate plans to publish the findings of its investigation into the alleged cryptosporidium outbreak in drinking water from the Gilstead treatment works in Bingley, West Yorkshire, in June 1993. [3673]

    Angela Eagle
    The investigation by the Drinking Water Inspectorate of this incident is continuing. As is standard practice, as part of its investigations, the Inspectorate is considering whether there is a case for prosecuting Yorkshire Water plc under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 for the alleged offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption. The timing of the publication of the Inspectorate's findings will depend on whether or not there is a prosecution.

    Diving Equipment (Costs)
    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost to public funds of the diving suit and accoutrements he wore on 8 June off St. Mary's Island. [3523]

    Mr. Prescott
    None, unlike the asking and answering of this question. The diving equipment was kindly loaned to me at no cost to the public, and my dive highlights this Government's belief that actions, not words, will protect our seas into the next century.

    CITES (Elephants)
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegation to the forthcoming convention in international trade in endangered species in Zimbabwe to oppose proposals to downlist elephants from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES. [3347]

    Angela Eagle
    The UK delegation will consider the proposals to downlist elephants from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES, taking account of all the evidence available, the views of Range states, and the Conference debate. The Government's main objective is to help African countries to protect elephants against the threats they face from declining habitat and ivory poachers. A final decision will be taken during the Conference in co-ordination with other EU Member States.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) timetable and (b) process will be followed for the removal of capping on the budgets of local authorities. [3741]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We have given a commitment to do away with crude and universal capping, although we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax increases. We are now considering ways to implement our commitment.

    Earth Summit 2
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the UK delegates to the Earth Summit 2 Conference. [3745]

    Angela Eagle
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on Tuesday 10 June 1997,Official Report columns 392–93. Further to that reply the following officials from the Department for International Development will also attend:

    Mr. B. Ireton

    Mr. A. Bennett

    Mr. A. Smith

    Mr. A. Wray

    Ms K. Johnson

    Mr. D. Harris

    Mr. P. Aylett.

    Out-of-town Development
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to review planning policy guidance in respect of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres; and when his Department will publish the revised guidance. [2573]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We have no current plans to review PPG6, although we are concerned to apply it firmly and consistently, and to monitor its effectiveness. The Government is currently considering its response to the more detailed and specific matters raised by the Environment Committee's report on shopping centres.

    British Gas Sites (Decontamination)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that public sites owned by British Gas are properly decontaminated before development is allowed on those sites. [3406]

    Angela Eagle
    It is the responsibility of local planning authorities, when determining planning applications for land which may be contaminated, to consider whether the proposal takes proper account of any contamination. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary for detailed site investigation or specific remedial measures to be made conditions of the planning permission.

    Development Corporations
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the development corporations currently in existence and the dates on which they will cease to exist. [4011]

    Angela Eagle
    The urban development corporations currently in existence in England are as follows:

    Birmingham Heartlands

    Black Country

    London Docklands

    Merseyside

    Plymouth

    Sheffield

    Teesside

    Trafford Park

    Tyne and Wear.

    Sheffield Development Corporation ceased its operational business on 31 March 1997 and will be dissolved on 1 July 1997. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary orders, the remaining development corporations will cease operations on 31 March 1998 and will be dissolved on 1 July 1998, after a three month period in which to prepare their final accounts and report and wind up their affairs.

    There are also development corporations in Cardiff Bay and in Laganside. Responsibility for them rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

    Allotments
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to take to protect allotments from development. [3780]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Statutory provisions already exist which afford protection to certain types of allotment. The Allotments Act 1925 provides that where land has been purchased or appropriated for use as allotments, it cannot be disposed of or used for any other purpose without the consent of the Secretary of State. Any land disposed of would still be subject to the usual planning requirements.

    The Government believes that these controls provide appropriate protection to allotment sites and has no plans to amend them.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he intends to take to identify storage or disposal sites in the United Kingdom for nuclear waste, or other radioactive materials which have(a) been abandoned and (b) had their function changed since nuclear activities took place on site. [3941]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government is considering how best to apply the provisions of the 1995 Environment Act to radioactively contaminated land. These include the identification of radioactively contaminated sites.

    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take over British Nuclear Fuels plans to transport nuclear waste for recycling at Sellafield by air. [3402]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    BNFL have no plans to transport by air nuclear materials to Sellafield for reprocessing.

    However, Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) has been safely transported from Sellafield by air since 1973 in packages meeting International Atomic Energy Agency standards.

    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has agreed to talk to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about routeing, to see what might be done to ensure that overflights of urban areas are avoided as far as possible.

    Mobile Homes (Council Tax)
    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the revaluation of mobile homes and caravans to ensure they are placed in a council tax band related to their real market value. [3908]

    Mr. Raynsford
    For council tax purposes all chargeable dwellings, including mobile homes and caravans, are placed in a valuation band according to their open market value on 1 April 1991. The question of whether any changes should be made to the existing structure of the valuation bands is one that I shall wish to discuss with the Local Government Association and others, before reaching a view.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to help the voluntary sector to alleviate the current problems of homelessness. [3799]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government places great value on the work of the voluntary sector in the prevention and relief of homelessness. This year the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is providing £7.9 million in grants to fund 195 projects, run by voluntary sector organisations, that help single people in housing need. The voluntary sector has also played a major role in the Rough Sleepers Initiative. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has recently announced £17.2 million in funding to voluntary sector organisations and housing associations, to be spent over the next two years, to extend provisions for people who are sleeping rough to twelve areas outside central London.

    Links with the voluntary sector have been strengthened by the secondment of Ian Brady, deputy Chief Executive of Centrepoint, to the Department. Mr. Brady will be promoting guidance and encouraging the development of local strategies to ensure that there is no necessity for people to sleep rough. He will also chair a Rough Sleepers Forum of homelessness charities to help co-ordinate national efforts to tackle rough sleeping.

  TRANSPORT

    Bus Employees (Pension Fund)
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Bus Employees' Superannuation Trust Pension Fund. [3946]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 20 May,Official Report, column 53.

    Derailment (Bexley)
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions if the cause of the derailment of a freight train at Bexley on 4 February has been established. [3222]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) independent investigation into the freight train derailment at Bexley is continuing. The investigation is complex and it would be premature to speculate as to the cause. HSE intends to make public its findings once it has completed its enquiries.

    Rolling Stock (Safety)
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the policy of the Health and Safety Executive on the use of MK l rolling stock on British railways until 2007. [3223]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Health and Safety Commission and Executive are currently working towards setting a firm timetable for the withdrawal or modification of Mark 1 rolling stock well before 2007. The Executive
    41
    will shortly write to train operating companies and other interested parties, seeking their views on ways of securing that aim.

    Rail Track Maintenance
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Dunwoody) of 22 May,Official Report, column 159, what powers exist to oblige Railtrack to accept an amendment to their licence to ensure delivery of investment in infrastructure. [3242]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    If Railtrack do not accept a proposed amendment to their network licence by agreement, the Rail Regulator has the power under Section 13 of the Railways Act 1993 to refer the proposed amendment to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation, determination and report. If the MMC decide that the proposed amendment is in the public interest, the Regulator can, in line with the procedures set out in Section 15 of the Act, impose the licence amendment.

    South West Trains
    Mr. Whitehead
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make an assessment of the proposals of South West Trains to introduce rolling stock which restricts the availability of space for bicycles; what assessment he has made of the compliance of such rolling stock with the undertakings provided upon receipt of the franchise by Stagecoach plc; and if he will make a statement. [3286]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The South West Trains Franchise Agreement requires the franchise operator to make facilities available for the carriage of bicycles on trains so far as this is reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on the rolling stock. The specifications of the new South West Trains' rolling stock are a matter for South West Trains, having regard to this provision.

    The Government is keen to see proper facilities for cyclists who wish to use the railway. We are currently reviewing the Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance and, as part of our review, we will be considering what action the Franchising Director should take to encourage increased carriage of cycles on trains.

    Radioactive Material (Transport)
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the specifications of the packaging used for(a) surface transport of radioactive material, (b) air-shipment of radioactive material and (c) flight data recorders. [3134]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Packages used for air and surface transport of radioactive material are expected to meet a series of performance standards, which are to be found in the document published by the International Atomic 42
    Energy Agency entitled "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition (As Amended 1990)" a copy of which is in the library. The standards are accepted world-wide and are the same for all modes of transport.

    There is no set specification for flight data recorders, this is left to the authorities of individual countries. However the latest standard to be applied in the UK is contained in the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment specification ED-55 "Minimum Operational Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems", a copy of which will be placed in the library.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many consignments of MOX fuel been transported by air in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; and what type of packaging was used. [3133]

    Ms Jackson
    There have been five such consignments within the last 12 months. All the consignments were carried in Type B packages, approved and certificated for use within the United Kingdom, in accordance with UK statutory requirements.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the implementation date of the new IAEA recommendations on the transport of radioactive material. [3132]

    Ms Jackson
    In order to keep its domestic legislation governing the transport of radioactive material in line with international modal regulations, the UK plans to use the implementation dates to be set by the relevant international modal organizations. The secretariats of the relevant organizations have agreed to recommend a common implementation date of 1 January 2001.

    Speed Restrictions
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct local authorities to re-examine the case for speed restrictions where previous road traffic accidents have resulted in fatalities. [3634]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Guidance provided by the Department to local authorities on setting speed limits, contained in Circular Roads 1/93, includes a recommendation that the accident history should be a factor in determining the imposition of a particular speed limit. But it is for local authorities themselves to decide what to do.

    Heathrow Airport (Terminal 5)
    Mr. McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the planning application for a Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport. [3670]
    43
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I confirm that the Government is adhering to a policy of strict neutrality in respect of the planning application by BAA plc for a Fifth Terminal at Heathrow. We are placed in a quasi-judicial position because the determination of the application will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The public inquiry into BAA's application is currently under way, and we will study the resultant Inspector's report carefully before reaching any decision on the issues that are being examined.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision he has reached on the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road; and if he will make a statement. [3751]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Inspector's report on the 1994–95 public inquiry into the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief road has been received and is being considered. No decision has been taken on the scheme.

    Public Transport (Merseyside)
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of public transport in Merseyside. [4017]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Guidance relating to the 1998–99 Transport Policies and Programmes (TPP) budget will shortly be issued to local authorities and passenger transport authorities. This guidance will emphasise that bids for funding must demonstrate effective plans for reducing car dependency and encouraging other modes of transport including public transport, cycling and walking. Package bids will be partly assessed on the extent to which they provide for the development of integrated and sustainable transport policies.

    Through the TPP, Capital Challenge and Objective 1 programmes a substantial investment has been made in improving the public transport infrastructure in Merseyside and it is anticipated that future Package bids within the region will, through appropriate targets for bus and rail passenger usage, adequately reflect the value of this investment.

  TREASURY

    Single Currency
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his plans for the future role of the Bank of England fulfil the criteria required for joining the single currency. [1693]

    Mrs. Liddell
    [holding answer 12 June 1997]:The proposed changes to the Bank of England will not make it compatible with the requirements in the Treaty which would apply if the United Kingdom were to adopt the single currency.

    G7 Economic Summit, Denver
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters with regards to the environment he intends to raise at the G7 Economic summit in Denver. [2875]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    [holding answer 10 June 1997]; Along with his colleagues my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be seeking to argue for policies to promote sustainable development. We will ensure sustainable economic growth only by making all policies—including importantly environmental ones—take full account of all costs and benefits, including ones relating to the environment.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has set a date for decisions on the reform of the PFI; and if he will make a statement. [3763]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    The Government will be responding on 23 June to the review of the PFI process by Malcolm Bates.

    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will publish the report reviewing the private finance initiative. [4135]

    Mr. Robinson
    The summary and conclusions of the Bates report on PFI will be published in full on 23 June when the Government responds formally to the report. I will arrange to place a copy in the Library.

    Halifax Building Society
    Liz Blackman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Building Societies Commission plans to challenge the Halifax Building Society's policy in respect of share payouts to savers with learning difficulties. [2188]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Building Societies Commission have no powers to consider the merits of a society's proposals for making shares available to members, when it converts to a plc. That is for the Board and the members to decide. The Commission have already confirmed the transfer of the Halifax Building Society to Halifax plc. A copy of the decision has been placed in the library.

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Green
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he will use to assess the liability of companies for the windfall tax. [3316]

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the technical issues relating to the operation of the windfall levy upon which he is seeking representations from companies. [3559]

    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of return on its investment for a regulated public utility his Department will deem to be excessive. [3705]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall tax in his Budget statement.
    45
    Mr. Green
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of a windfall tax on pension funds which own shares in utility companies. [3317]

    Mr. Robinson
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering a wide range of factors in reaching his view on the windfall tax. He will announce details of the tax in his Budget statement.

    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from accountancy organisations regarding the proposed windfall tax on privatised utilities; and if he will make a statement; [3676]

    (2) what representations he has received from United Kingdom pension funds regarding the proposed windfall tax on privatised utilities; and if he will make a statement. [3675]

    Mr. Robinson
    Treasury Ministers are treating representations from companies and other bodies as confidential.

    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Treasury has had with the Commission of the European Union regarding the introduction of a United Kingdom windfall tax on the profits of certain privatised utilities. [3677]

    Mr. Robinson
    There are standard arrangements for making the Commission aware of tax changes introduced in the Budget.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies from which he has invited representations on the technical operation of the windfall levy. [3558]

    Mr. Robinson
    The press notice issued on 13 May invited representations from any company who felt they had an interest in the matter.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the consultation documents on the operation of the windfall levy. [3560]

    Mr. Robinson
    No consultation documents have been issued.

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on corporate investment plans of the proposed windfall tax. [3742]

    Mr. Robinson
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering a wide range of factors in reaching his view on the windfall tax. He is consulting the regulators and will announce details of the tax in his Budget statement.

    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations the Treasury has made as to the financial impact the proposed windfall tax will have on United Kingdom pension funds. [3683]

    Mr. Robinson
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering a wide range of factors in reaching his view on the windfall tax. He will announce details of the tax in his Budget statement.

    Share Trading
    Ms Abbott
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make inquiries into the reason for the delay in the introduction by the London Stock Exchange of order-driven share trading; and if he will make a statement. [3211]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The timing of the introduction of order-driven trading in FTSE-100 shares is a matter for the London Stock Exchange subject to the approval of the Securities and Investments Board. I am advised that 20 October remains the Stock Exchange's planned starting date.

    Exchange Rate Policy
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's exchange rate policy. [3244]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Government wants a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with its objective of price stability.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the growth rate of the British economy, expressed as a percentage rise in non-oil gross domestic product, for 1997. [3238]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will provide his forecast of the UK economy when he presents his Budget on 2 July.

    Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee
    Mr. Green
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he plans to have with the members of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. [3320]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Chancellor has no plans to meet or communicate with the members of the Monetary Policy Committee. The Treasury will be represented at the Committee's meetings in a non-voting capacity.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies privatised since 1979; and if he will define utility for the purposes of industrial regulation. [3129]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    Table 3.13 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1997–98 (HMSO Cm 3601) lists companies privatised since 1979. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall levy in his Budget statement on 2 July.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses and small business organisations regarding the impact on the economy of a national minimum wage. [3679]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Ministerial colleagues have received a number of representations. He
    47
    is keen to have the views of small businesses on this matter. That is why small businesses will be represented on the Low Pay Commission, which will advise the Government on the appropriate level of the minimum wage, taking into account the wider effects on the economy.

    EC Finance Ministers
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [3768]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council-ECOFIN-of the European Union in Luxembourg on 9 June, preceded by a working dinner on 8 June.

    I presented my initiative to "Get Europe Back to Work", which proposes a number of measures to increase employment and employability across Europe, including the discussion of national employment programmes by European Finance Ministers. This received a warm welcome from the Council, which noted that employment was a key issue which Europe needed urgently to address and recognised the need for member states to work together to implement practical measures to combat unemployment.

    The Council discussed the Stability and Growth Pact the texts of which are to be submitted to the European Council.

    Finance Ministers examined a number of design series for common European faces for single currency coins. The final selection of the winning series will be made by Heads of State and Government.

    The Council took note of Luxembourg's plans for work in ECOFIN during their forthcoming Presidency of the EU, including taking forward technical aspects of the preparation for stage three of EMU and co-ordination of economic policies.

    The series of "structured dialogues" with Ministers of the Central and Eastern European countries continued with a discussion of capital liberalisation reform of the financial sector. It was recognised that these countries still have some way to go to strengthen the structures of their financial sectors.

    The Council agreed a draft for a European Council Resolution, to be endorsed at the Amsterdam meeting, establishing a new voluntary exchange-rate mechanism.

    The Council reached agreement on texts relating to the legal framework for the euro, subject to outstanding UK Parliamentary Scrutiny reserves.

    The Council carried out an examination of Ireland's convergence programme for the period 1997 to 1999. It welcomed the strategy of combining budgetary consolidation, stability-oriented monetary and exchange rate policies and limiting wage growth as the basis for continuing economic growth.

    The Council agreed a report on the implementation of the 1996 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and the draft
    48
    of the 1997 Guidelines. Both will go forward to the European Council.

    The Council discussed a progress report on the Sound and Efficient Management 2000 programme of financial management reform. Further detailed technical work will be taken forward by the Commission.

    The Council took note of the Commission's annual report on the Fight Against Fraud programme and gave broad support to its work programme for the coming year. It was noted that the UK felt that levels of fraud against the Community budget were still too high and the Council's attention was drawn to UK proposals in the IGC to help combat fraud.

    The Council discussed the extension of a number of derogations from the Mineral Oils Directive, without reaching final agreement.

    The Presidency presented its text of the Settlement Finality and Collateral Security Directive, which was acceptable to all member states.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his assessment of the minimum rate of unemployment for adult men consistent with a high and sustainable rate of growth. [2282]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Claimant unemployment amongst adult men is currently around 1.3 million (8.1 per cent.), 60 per cent. higher than in 1979. However, it is necessary to look at more than just the unemployment of a particular group. The Government's aim is to achieve a high and stable level of employment, by running a successful, low-inflation economy and through policies which improve the operation of the labour market and open up job opportunities to all groups in society—men and women, young and old.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Richard Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make further education colleges more accountable to the local communities they serve; and if he will make a statement. [2817]

    Dr. Howells
    My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to change the constitutional arrangements for further education colleges.

    Low Pay
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy in advance of the introduction of the national minimum wage to give jobcentre managers discretion to refuse a job advertisement where the wage rate is assessed to be unreasonably low. [2996]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    There are no plans to do so in advance of the conclusions of the Low Pay Commission. However, where an employer notifies a jobcentre of a
    49
    vacancy offering a rate of pay which appears unduly low, jobcentre staff should advise the employer of the local rates of pay for the job and that their vacancy may be difficult to fill.

    Universities (Top-up Fees)
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy in respect of top-up fees at universities; and if he will make a statement. [3031]

    Dr. Howells
    We are committed to maximising the opportunity for access to higher education, but will wish to take into account the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, which is expected to report next month, before reaching decisions on the future funding of higher education.

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery vouchers have been issued in the Stroud constituency; what percentage of eligible children have taken up the vouchers; and if a date has yet been agreed for the ending of the voucher scheme. [1097]

    Mr. Byers
    [holding answer 10 June 1997]: Of the estimated 7,180 children resident in Gloucestershire who are eligible for a nursery education voucher for the summer term, 6,970 (97 per cent.) have been sent vouchers. Information on the parliamentary constituency in which children are resident is not held centrally.

    We announced on 22 May that the voucher scheme will finish in England at the end of this term. There will be new arrangements which will lead to a place being secured for every eligible four-year-old with effect from September 1998.

    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what expenditure savings have been budgeted by the Treasury for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 as a result of the Government's proposed abolition of nursery vouchers. [3643]

    Mr. Byers
    We intend to use the money allocated to the nursery voucher scheme to implement an early years policy which better serves the needs of young children, their parents and the providers of the services they use.

    Departmental Staff (Redundancy)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many members of his staff have been made redundant in the last 12 month period(a) voluntarily and (b) compulsorily; if his Department has retained outplacement consultants to advise staff made redundant; what is the average expenditure per member of staff advised on outplacement; in what circumstances his Department makes payments above the statutory minimum to members of staff made redundant (i) voluntarily and (ii) compulsorily; and if he will make a statement on his policy on such payments. [3131]
    50
    Dr. Howells
    No members of staff have been made either voluntarily or compulsorily redundant from this Department (including the Employment Service) over the last 12 months. However, during that period 2,089 people have taken voluntary early retirement or voluntary early severance. Outplacement consultants were retained to advise them on starting a new beginning. The average expenditure per member of staff advised was –325.

    All payments made to staff were fully in accordance with the Civil Service Compensation Scheme provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Similar provisions would have applied, should staff had been made redundant, in accordance with their terms and conditions of employment.

    Education Funding
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 127, on education funding, when he expects to complete the review of SSA methodology for 1988–99; and when he expects to publish the conclusions. [3433]

    Mr. Byers
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 460, to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the reduction of primary class sizes to 30 pupils; and in each case what is the overall implication for public expenditure. [3542]

    Mr. Byers
    The previous Government's published expenditure plans for the assisted places scheme in England for the years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–00 are £140 million, £160 million and £180 million respectively. The Education (Schools) Bill currently before Parliament provides for no new assisted places to be awarded after the start of academic year 1997£98 and savings will therefore begin to accrue in financial year 1998£99. The Government's spending plans for 1998–99 onwards will be announced in due course and will take account of the savings progressively released from phasing out the scheme. Those savings will amount to about £100 million in total by the year 2000. We will be discussing with LEAs and others the implementation of our policy on class sizes following publication of the forthcoming White Paper on education.

    Nursery Education
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his reply policy document on nursery education, on what criteria the calculation of –366 per term per four-year-old place has been based. [3981]

    Mr. Byers
    The level of nursery education grant per four-year-old for the autumn 1997 and spring 1998 terms
    51
    corresponds to the value of a termly voucher under the nursery education voucher scheme.

    Ofsted Reports
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines(a) his Department and (b) Ofsted have issued on the tone, style and content of Ofsted reports; and if he will make a statement. [3805]

    Mr. Byers
    The Department has issued no such guidelines. This is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked the Chief Inspector to write to the hon. Member.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Obscene Publications (Prosecutions)
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is issued to Crown Prosecutors considering prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. [3395]

    The Attorney-General
    The decision whether to prosecute under the 1959 Act is taken in accordance with evidential and public interest criteria set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Those criteria govern all categories of case.

    In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to justify proceedings in a particular case, consideration will be given to the statutory definition of obscenity and the manner in which is has been applied by the courts in cases involving comparable material. Where proceeding may be appropriate a representative sample of the material is submitted to Central Casework at Crown Prosecution Service Headquarters where it is assessed by experienced staff to ensure a consistent approach. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not publish the detailed operational guidance given in relation to particular categories of offence.

    In determining whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, the principal factors include:

    the degree and type of obscenity together with the form in which it is presented;

    the type and scale of any commercial venture;

    whether publication was made to a child or the possibility that such publication would be likely to take place.

    The above is not however an exhaustive list of relevant factors.

  SCOTLAND

    Student Loans
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average amount owed by further education(a) students and (b) mature students in Scotland to (i) the Student Loans Company and (ii) personal banks as a result of and at the end of their period of study, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [2745]
    52
    Mr. Wilson
    The amount owed to the Student Loans Company Limited is an operational matter for the Company.

    I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member, although the information may not be available in the precise format requested.

    Information is not held centrally on the extent of borrowing from personal banks.

    Land Laws and the Feudal System
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Scottish land laws and the feudal system. [2472]

    Mr. McLeish
    The Scottish Law Commission has been asked to consider the law on leasehold casualties and has published a discussion paper. It aims to report by March 1998. The Commission will also issue a report on the law of the tenement later this year, and expects to make recommendations and issue its report on the abolition of the feudal system by the end of 1999. It will consider wider aspects of the law of leasehold tenure thereafter. We will consider the options for legislation in these areas as soon as possible after the Commission's reports are received.

    Unemployment
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to tackle unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [2726]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Government attach a high priority to helping unemployed people into work. Under our initiative Welfare to Work we intend to help young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for over six months move off benefit and into work. There will also be help for people over the age of 25 who have been unemployed for two years or more.

    Mature Students
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of(a) how many and (b) what percentage of mature students studying for (i) undergraduate degrees and (ii) equivalent vocational qualifications in Scotland currently (1) are entitled to and (2) claim grants for (A) teaching fees and (B) maintenance, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [2743]

    Mr. Wilson
    The information is not available in the form requested.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of(a) how many and (b) what percentage of those studying for (i) undergraduate degrees and (ii) equivalent vocational qualifications in Scotland are mature students; and if he will make a statement. [2742]
    53
    Mr. Wilson
    There are no direct equivalences between undergraduate degrees and vocational qualifications. An undergraduate degree (incorporating first degrees, HNDs,

    Students studying for undergraduate courses in Scotland: 19967–97 (provisional)

    Higher Education Institutions1

    Further Education Institutions2,3

    Total

    Mature4 students

    Total students

    Percentage mature4

    Mature4 students

    Total students

    Percentage mature4

    Mature4 students

    Total students

    Percentage mature4

    Other

    undergraduates

    61,797

    119,861

    52

    35,675

    54,584

    65

    97,472

    174,445

    56

    SVQ Level 4

    56

    56

    100

    220

    292

    75

    276

    348

    79

    SVQ Level 5

    0

    0

    —

    31

    106

    29

    31

    106

    29

    All undergraduates

    61,853

    119,917

    52

    35,926

    54,982

    65

    97,779

    174,899

    56

    1Provisional DATA: Source HESA 1996–97 December record.

    2Provisional DATA: Source FES 1996–97 Autumn data.

    3 Missing ages are excluded from analysis.

    4Mature students are aged 21 and over.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average maintenance(a) grant and (b) loan awarded to mature students in Scotland in each year of study; and if he will make a statement. [2744]

    Mr. Wilson
    The information available on student awards does not enable us to identify separately the amounts actually received by mature students as a group. It will vary according to individual circumstances.

    Information on the average student loan is not available in the form requested, but the average loan made to students aged 26 or over studying in Scotland in academic year 1995–96 was £1090.

    Ferry Services
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subsidy was paid to Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services to(a) Dunoon, (b) Rothesay and (c) Rhubodach in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the disparity of fares between Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services to Dunoon and the Island of Bute. [2854]

    Mr. Chisholm
    The Government pay subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne on its total operating loss rather than on individual routes. Although an aggregate revenue target is set as part of that process, the setting of fares on individual routes is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. I will ask the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne to write to the hon. Member about fares on the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has offered Caledonian MacBrayne an opportunity to tender for the passenger service franchise on the ferry services to Orkney and Shetland; and if he will make a statement. [2842]

    Mr. Dewar
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: Ministers are currently considering the report of Scottish Office officials on the evaluation of tenders submitted in the competitive tendering process for the Northern Isles passenger ferry services contract, and will decide in the light of the tenders received whether to conclude now a contractual agreement with one of the ferry operators who have submitted tenders or whether to re-open the tendering process.
    54
    HNCs and other Advanced non-postgraduate activity in FE institutions) is approximately equivalent to SVQ levels 4 and 5. The available data are set out in the table.

    Schools (Internet)
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with BT concerning proposals to link Scotland's schools to the Internet; which areas of Scotland he assesses will be linked to the Internet; what form it is anticipated any link will take; if the link will be through ISDN or digital connection; what is the expected cost per pupil of the proposed link; and if he will make a statement. [3184]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Government are discussing with BT how they can best fulfil their commitment to link Scotland's schools to the information superhighway. The details of these plans, including the capacity of the link, are not yet finalised.

    Cable companies already provide a free link to schools passed by their networks. They offer schools a competitive flat monthly fee for unlimited Internet access. Additionally, ISDN or equivalent high speed connection is available also at competitive rates. An estimated 45–50 per cent. of Scottish schools could benefit from this service by the turn of the century when cabling in current franchise areas is completed.

    Loch Lomond National Park
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to create a Loch Lomond national park; and if he will make a statement. [3260]

    Mr. Chisholm
    We are committed to put in place a proper system for the management of our areas of outstanding beauty, of which Loch Lomond is a prime example, which is both tailored to Scottish circumstances and consistent with the highest international standards. The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Steering Committee consulted earlier this year on future management arrangements for the area. My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries in Scotland is to meet representatives from the Steering Committee to discuss their proposals for the establishment of a Joint Committee. We are also currently considering the many responses received to the Discussion Paper issued at the end of last year, following the Review of Natural Heritage Designations, before reaching decisions on the need for changes to the present system, such as the introduction of National Parks in Scotland.

    Television Masts
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review planning procedures as they relate to the erection of television masts under 15 feet in height; and if he will make a statement. [3455]

    Mr. Chisholm
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to review planning procedures relating to television masts. All television masts, regardless of their height, require full planning consent. The Scottish Office is, however, reviewing planning controls over telecommunications masts under 15m in height, which benefit from permitted development rights. If any proposals to change planning legislation result from this review, a consultation paper will be issued.

    Departmental Documents
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage and how many documents in 1996 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of, and (g) otherwise unaccounted for. [2515]

    Mr. Dewar
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: The records of my Department are specifically exempted from the Public Records Act 1958, and therefore are not passed to the Public Records Office. However similar procedures apply to the transfer of records to the Scottish Record Office (SRO). The procedures oblige my Department to ensure that all documentary records are properly preserved with a view to possible selection and transfer to the SRO and eventual release to the public. Statistics relating to records retained and passed to the SRO are not available in the precise categories requested; however for 1996–97 the numbers of files by broad category are as follows:

    Records processed: 54,131

    Question

    Category

    Number

    Per cent.

    (a)

    Intact Records to Scottish Record Office

    2,209

    4.1

    (b)

    Censored Records to Scottish Record Office

    0

    0

    (c)

    Full Records retained by the Scottish Office

    3,224

    5.9

    (d)

    Part Records retained by the Scottish Office

    0

    0

    (e)

    Records destroyed by the Scottish Office

    48,698

    90

    (f)

    Records otherwise disposed of

    0

    0

    (g)

    Records unaccounted for

    0

    0

    Public Service Task Force
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for representation of local authorities in the islands areas on the task force established to develop a best value system in the delivery of local public services; and if he will make a statement. [2841]
    56
    Mr. Dewar
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]:Local authority representation on the task force is a matter for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA).

    Breast Cancer
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women in Inverclyde have been diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer and have been treated for this complaint in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [2766]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 12 June 1997]: The number of registrations for breast cancer among Inverclyde residents and the number of discharges of women with breast cancer for the period 1991–95 are as follows:

    Inverclyde residents

    Year

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    Number of registrations

    62

    67

    37

    25

    79

    Number of discharges

    145

    128

    81

    73

    143

    The registration figures for 1995 are provisional. The figures for discharges relate to all Inverclyde residents with a primary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the breast. Discharges include inpatient and day cases. There may be more than one discharge per woman.

    The annual changes over the last five years in the number of registrations and discharges among Inverclyde women with breast cancer may reflect the timing of the screening programme. The mobile unit of the Scottish Breast Screening Programme visited the Inverclyde catchment area from January 1992 until October/ November 1992. It then visited the Inverclyde catchment area again in November/December 1994. This may explain the fall in registrations and discharges in 1993 and 1994 and their rise in 1995.

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the specialist breast cancer units in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [2767]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 12 June 1997]: The Macmillan Directory of Breast Cancer Services lists the following Breast Cancer Units in Strathclyde:

    Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

    The Western Infirmary, Glasgow

    Glasgow Royal Infirmary

    Southern General Hospital

    Inverclyde Royal Hospital

    Royal Alexandra Hospital

    Hairmyres Hospital

    Law Hospital

    Monklands Hospital

    Crosshouse Hospital

    Ayr Hospital.

    The Macmillan Directory also lists the following Breast Cancer Units in other areas of Scotland:

    Perth Royal Infirmary

    Stirling Royal Infirmary

    Falkirk Royal Infirmary

    St. John's Hospital at Howden

    Raigmore Hospital

    Western General Hospital

    57

    Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

    Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

    Queen Margaret Hospital

    Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

    Borders General Hospital

    Ninewells Hospitals.

    In recent years there has been a significant trend towards increased specialisation in the provision of care and treatment for patients with cancer, including breast cancer. Following publication in 1996 of the report on Commissioning Cancer Services in Scotland, Health Boards and Trusts were asked to review their cancer services, and to prepare plans for improving services to ensure that all patients have access to high quality care. The plans which Health Boards have developed in collaboration with NHS Trusts should ensure continuing improvements in the high standards of care already available throughout Scotland to patients with breast cancer.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Clean Coal Initiative
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the level of effectiveness of the clean coal initiative proposed by the previous Administration; and if she will make a statement. [3017]

    Mr. Battle
    An evaluation of the clean coal programme took place only last year and the evaluation report published in July 1996. The evaluation by an international panel of experts and involving UK industry and universities showed that the programme has been a significant value to industry by acting as a focus for collaboration and contributing to the development of the technology for both the home and export markets. The present phase of the programme is due to be completed next year and we are currently reviewing in consultation with industry, what further work may need to be undertaken. This review will take into account both the recommendations in the evaluation report and the views of the industry led Foresight Task Force on clean coal power generation.

    Over the coming months the Government will be considering the balance of activities within the spending plans it inherited to ensure that they reflect the Government's priorities. The results of our review of the UK's future clean coal technology requirements will be fed into this wider exercise. Copies of the evaluation report for the clean coal programme are in the Libraries of the House.

    Plastic Baton Rounds
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the amount and type of 37/38 mm plastic baton rounds licensed for export to Indonesia, in each year since 1990. [1846]

    Mrs. Roche
    There is no record that any such export licences have been issued since 1990.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific measure her Department proposes to achieve the Government's target for the reduction in CO, emissions by 20 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2010. [3156]

    Mr. Battle
    I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 12 June 1997,Official Report, column 516.

    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of the UK reduction in CO, emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010 she estimates will be contributed by industry; [3155]

    (2) what reduction in CO2 emissions she estimates British industry will make by (a) 2005 and (b) 2010. [3154]

    Mr. Battle
    We are currently reviewing the United Kingdom's Climate Change programme looking at policies and measures across all sectors. At present it is not possible to estimate what contribution each sector will contribute to the overall programme.

    EU and Government Grants
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she will take to regulate services to business provided by consultants in the private sector on the issue of United Kingdom Government grant availability relating to the European Union. [3269]

    Mrs. Roche
    My Department is aware of cases of unscrupulous practice by a small number of companies—so called "grant cowboys"—who trade in grant availability advice to businesses. My advice to firms approached by such companies is to talk to their Business Links, who are a local and reliable source of advice on the full range of business support that is available both from the EU and other sources.

    We will continue to keep the matter under review.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to reform the current structure of local, regional and national business advisory services dealing with European Union and United Kingdom Government grant support. [3271]

    Mrs. Roche
    My Department will work with existing business support organisations, and with the proposed Regional Development Agencies, to strengthen the quality of all business support services.

    Sellafield
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when MOX fuel fabrication is due to commence at the new Sellafield MOX plant. [3135]

    Mr. Battle
    The precise timing for commissioning of the new Sellafield Mixed Oxide (MOX) plant is an operational matter for the company, subject to meeting regulatory requirements. However, I understand that the MOX plant is expected to commence operations sometime in 1998.
    59
    Dr. Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Sellafield MOX plant will be set up to handle weapon-grade plutonium. [3136]

    Mr. Battle
    The Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) has been designed to handle civil plutonium. I understand that BNFL currently has no plans for the plant to handle ex-military plutonium.

    G7 countries have already recognised that, in the context of disposing of Ssurplus fissile military materials, incorporating the plutonium into MOX fuels—and subsequently irradiating it—is an important means of safeguarding the material. No decision has yet been made whether to convert surplus plutonium taken from nuclear weapons in the USA and former Soviet Union into MOX fuel and burn in conventional reactors.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if routine checking will take place of the weight and isotopic composition of the feed material the Sellafield MOX plant receives. [3137]

    Mr. Battle
    The Sellafield MOX plant is subject to international safeguards arrangements which require the reporting of the weight and isotopic composition of plutonium feed to the plant.

    Environmental Technology
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she has taken to assist the United Kingdom environmental technology industry; if she will make a statement. [3582]

    Mr. Battle
    The Government recognise the importance of the environmental industry and will be exploring with its members how we can best work together to support it. We have already made financial help available under the Sector Challenge to a project aimed at helping companies in the technology and services sub-sector to export.

    Energy Production
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the(a) desirability and (b) feasibility of internalising the environmental and societal externalities of energy production. [3009]

    Mr. Battle
    The Government share with other member countries of the International Energy Agency the goal that, to the extent necessary and practicable, the environment costs of energy production and use should be reflected in prices. The Government are also concerned about the social implications of changing patterns of energy production, though they believe that there are better ways of responding to such concerns than distorting market prices.

    Business Links
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links have been created since 1993. [3954]

    Mrs. Roche
    There are 89 Business Link partnerships and 241 separate Business Link outlets.
    60
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of business links. [3953]

    Mrs. Roche
    Improving the Business Links service to small and medium sized businesses is one of my key priorities. I am committed to ensuring that all Business Links deliver a service which is of the highest quality. Many are already doing so, and I am discussing with officials and with the national Business Links partners how we can ensure that all Business Links are brought up to the standard of the best.

    Telecommunicationsy
    Mr. Ian Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to meet the Internet Service Providers Association and the Cable Communications Association to discuss competition aspects of the Government's discussions with British Telecom. [3712]

    Mr. Battle
    I and my ministerial colleagues engage in many meetings with the full range of players in the industry. Following a special package for schools earlier this year from the cable sector, BT have recently brought forward their own first proposals for the connection of schools to the Internet. The Director General, OFTEL, has announced plans to consult widely, and as quickly as possible, on these proposals. This consultation will include the Internet service providers and the cable companies.

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when her Department intends to publish proposals for a reform of the regulatory structure for telecommunications and broadcasting;. [1566]

    (2) if her Department will continue to have both responsibilities for the communication and information industries. [1567]

    (3) if her Department will continue to be responsible for all aspects of conditional access for digital television. [1568]

    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 3 June 1997]: The development and application of digital technology is steadily undermining the distinctions between the previously separate sectors of telecommunications, broadcasting, and IT, and is creating new opportunities, for example in multimedia and interactive services. This is enabling the development of the "Information Society".

    It is clear that, in the medium term, a new regulatory regime will be required to reflect these developments. For example, the Government have made clear their intent to create an Office of Communications (Ofcom), which would regulate the communications infrastructure and ensure fair competition. My Department will take a central role in work on this, and other possible changes, by virtue of our objective of promoting the interests of UK business and consumers; encompassing not only those sectors which supply, but also sectors which use the Information Society technologies and services, and the regulation of consumer protection, competition, and the communications sectors.

    This work is however at an early stage, and it is important not to attempt to pre-empt technological developments. Departmental responsibilities are, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister.

    Energy Programme
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will give a breakdown of the expenditure on promotion for the energy programme for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [1006]

    Mr. Battle
    Net expenditure on promotion within the energy programmes was approximately £3.5 million in 1995£96 and £2.7 million in 1996–97. Current plans for 1997–98 are approximately £3.2 million. The expenditure relates to new and renewable and clean coal technology and the oil and gas supplies industries.

    The current plans will be included in the Comprehensive Spending Review, announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 11 June 1997, under which the Government will be considering the balance of activities within the spending plans it inherited to ensure that they reflect the Government's priorities.

    The promotion budget handled by the Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals Supplies Office (0S0), which was £1.2 million in 1995–96 and £0.97 million in 1996–97 with current plans for 1997–98 of £1.5 million, is primarily used for export promotion on trade fairs, missions and seminars in the oil and gas supplies industries. The expenditure within the new and renewable and clean coal areas, which was £2.3 million in 1995–96 and £1.7 million in 1996–97 with current plans for 1997–98 of £1.7 million, is on technology transfer activities including commercialisation, export promotion and disseminating information to industry in publications, seminars and workshops.

  WALES

    Devolution Referendum
    Mr. Alan Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the speech made by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to the Institute for Public Policy Research in Cardiff, what evidence there is to support his contention that the Welsh economy will be badly hit and thousands of jobs will disappear in the absence of a yes vote in the referendum. [2535]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    The global market for inward investment on which Wales relies so heavily is becoming intensely competitive. Ten years ago there were only three Development Agencies actively operating in Japan; today there are 88 from Europe alone. In this climate, the economic development of Wales needs the clear leadership and dedicated attention to local priorities that can best be provided by an elected Assembly.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion funding for the visual arts is work of artists working and living in Wales; [3015]
    62
    (2) what steps the Wales Arts Council is taking to ensure that galleries in Wales exhibit the works of artists living and working in the locality in which galleries are located. [3016]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    These are operational matters for the Arts Council and I will ask the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Sarn-y-Bryn Caled Road Junction
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on plans for the redevelopment of Sarn-y-Bryn Caled road junction, Welshpool, indicating the timetable for redevelopment; and if he will ensure that 40 miles per hour speed limits are implemented until any permanent safety changes are made. [3224]

    Mr. Hain
    The provision of a roundabout at the Sarn-y-Bryn Caled junction is included in the current Welsh Office roads programme. Work is anticipated to start in spring 1998 subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, acquisition of land and availability of finance. As an interim measure the Department has already taken steps to implement a 40 mph speed limit together with other measures to improve safety at this junction.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of public money spent on the assisted places scheme since its inception; [3596]

    (2) how many assisted places there are in each of the private schools of Wales. [3595]

    Mr. Hain
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 487.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of public money that must be provided to the assisted places scheme up to the cessation of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [3597]

    Mr. Hain
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Education (Schools) Bill, the assisted places scheme will be phased-out over a period of 7 years. The total cost of the scheme over that time is estimated at around £20 million.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil to teacher ratio in(a) infant and (b) primary schools in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1996; and if he will make a statement. [3598]
    63
    Mr. Hain
    The information requested is shown in the following table:

    Pupil teacher ratios, by type of LEA maintained primary school

    Pupil teacher ratios1

    Type of LEA maintained primary school

    1979

    1996

    Infant

    22.1

    22.8

    Junior with infant

    21.4

    22.4

    Junior without infant

    22.8

    22.7

    All primary

    22.0

    22.5

    Note:

    1The ratio, at January each year, of the total number of full-time equivalent pupils to the total number of full-time equivalent teachers within the schools.

    Breed

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    11997

    Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    17

    38

    51

    24

    16

    7

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x

    0

    0

    3

    7

    19

    46

    127

    164

    140

    63

    39

    6

    Aberdeen Angus x Ayrshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    2

    3

    0

    0

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x Charolais

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Aberdeen Angus x Friesian

    0

    0

    4

    14

    28

    76

    172

    184

    89

    52

    24

    2

    Aberdeen Angus x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    5

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    7

    6

    2

    7

    1

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Aberdeen Angus x Sussex

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Ankole

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Ayr x Charolais

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire

    0

    8

    31

    93

    195

    274

    381

    314

    209

    96

    64

    3

    Ayrshire x

    0

    1

    3

    8

    1

    7

    1

    5

    3

    1

    1

    0

    Ayrshire x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Blonde D'Aquitaine

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Galloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Gelbvieh

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    5

    2

    1

    1

    0

    Ayrshire x Red Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    3

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Simmenthal

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Sussex

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Ayrshire x Welsh Black

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Bazadaise

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    6

    17

    27

    19

    6

    5

    0

    Belgian Blue x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    22

    22

    25

    17

    10

    1

    Belgian Blue x Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Belgian Blue x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Belgian Blue x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Belgian Blue x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Belted Galloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Black Hereford x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    7

    1

    0

    Black Limousin x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    2

    11

    9

    15

    8

    10

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    4

    11

    4

    1

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Charolais

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    6

    17

    17

    10

    5

    3

    2

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    1

    0

    0

    Blonde D'Aquitaine x Lincoln Red

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Blue Grey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    4

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Blue Grey x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Blue Roan

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    British Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    British White

    0

    0

    0

    0

    8

    27

    4

    2

    1

    1

    0

    1

    British White x Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    British White x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    0

    2

    1

    0

    British White x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Brown Swiss

    0

    0

    2

    1

    2

    5

    4

    6

    4

    0

    9

    1

    Brown Swiss x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    2

    4

    2

    0

    Brown Swiss x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    8

    6

    9

    6

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    BSE
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by cattle breed the number of cattle clinically confirmed as having BSE in the United Kingdom for each year since 1985, together with an estimate of the total number of resident cattle of each of these breeds within the United Kingdom in each year, indicating the percentage that the number of confirmed cases represents for each breed of cattle. [13568]

    Mr. Rooker
    The number of cattle confirmed as having BSE in the United Kingdom in each year from 1985 are listed by cattle breed in the table:
    65

    Breed

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    11997

    Brown Swiss x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Brown Swiss x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    Brown Swiss x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Brown Swiss x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Canadian Angus

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Canadian Angus x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Canadian Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Charolais

    0

    0

    2

    11

    17

    41

    103

    116

    66

    54

    18

    5

    Charolais x

    0

    0

    0

    6

    7

    31

    69

    102

    72

    51

    23

    2

    Charolais x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Charolais x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    27

    54

    47

    33

    16

    10

    1

    Charolais x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    3

    0

    0

    0

    Charolais x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    I

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Charolais x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Charolais x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    4

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Charolais x Murray Grey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Charolais x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    2

    2

    0

    0

    Charolais x South Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Chianin x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Chianina x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Chianina x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    5

    3

    4

    10

    5

    3

    2

    0

    Devon x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    11

    4

    3

    2

    0

    0

    Devon x Blonde D'Aquitaine

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Devon x Friesian

    0

    1

    0

    1

    6

    3

    16

    19

    14

    9

    3

    0

    Devon x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Dutch Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Friesian

    3

    86

    2,089

    6,008

    11,615

    21,065

    29,572

    26,676

    18,632

    10,958

    6,054

    893

    Friesian x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    11

    40

    98

    96

    48

    25

    15

    2

    Friesian x Ayrshire

    0

    0

    0

    2

    6

    15

    22

    22

    16

    6

    2

    1

    Friesian x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    11

    41

    39

    27

    19

    11

    1

    Friesian x Blue Grey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Friesian x Galloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    5

    4

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Friesian x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    6

    5

    5

    3

    0

    0

    Friesian x Holstein

    0

    16

    127

    204

    388

    637

    999

    1,231

    1,179

    816

    490

    99

    Friesian x Longhorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Friesian x Normandy

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Friesian x Red Poll

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Friesian x South Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    5

    8

    7

    5

    0

    0

    1

    Galloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    4

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Galloway x

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    5

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Galloway x Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Galloway x Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Galloway x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Galloway x Saler

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Galloway x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Galloway x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Gelbvieh

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    3

    9

    1

    0

    3

    0

    Gelbvieh x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Gelbvieh x Charolais

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Gelbvieh x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    5

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Gelbvieh x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Gloucester

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Gloucester x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Guernsey

    0

    2

    19

    64

    146

    221

    332

    302

    198

    123

    68

    8

    Guernsey x

    0

    0

    3

    1

    1

    1

    2

    5

    5

    1

    1

    0

    Guernsey x Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Guernsey x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    0

    4

    0

    1

    Guernsey x Merse Rhine Issel

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Guernsey x Murray Gray

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Guernsey x Red Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Guernsey x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Hereford

    0

    0

    1

    24

    44

    82

    138

    144

    100

    60

    23

    4

    Hereford x

    0

    0

    9

    65

    141

    362

    727

    830

    574

    386

    195

    30

    Hereford x Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Hereford x Ayrshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    4

    3

    2

    1

    3

    0

    Hereford x Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hereford x Friesian

    0

    4

    21

    106

    242

    571

    1,150

    1,370

    755

    433

    212

    29

    Hereford x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Hereford x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hereford x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    3

    1

    0

    0

    Hereford x Red Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    3

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Hereford x Shorthorn

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    2

    0

    0

    Hereford x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    8

    10

    7

    4

    4

    1

    Hereford x South Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Highland

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    2

    4

    4

    3

    2

    0

    Highland x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Highland x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    66 67

    Breed

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    11997

    Holstein

    0

    2

    62

    147

    272

    475

    475

    399

    267

    164

    113

    27

    Holstein x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    8

    42

    128

    103

    87

    22

    13

    1

    Holstein x Ayrshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    4

    3

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Holstein x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Jersey

    0

    0

    19

    60

    135

    210

    323

    290

    230

    114

    68

    12

    Jersey x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    7

    4

    2

    0

    1

    1

    Jersey x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Jersey x Charolais

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    3

    2

    0

    1

    2

    0

    0

    Jersey x Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Jersey x Friesian

    0

    1

    3

    2

    4

    10

    11

    4

    9

    5

    2

    2

    Jersey x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Jersey x Welsh Black

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Limousin

    0

    0

    1

    10

    13

    46

    96

    114

    88

    56

    39

    4

    Limousin x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    28

    87

    217

    335

    221

    159

    94

    19

    Limousin x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Limousin x British White

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Limousin x Friesian

    0

    0

    2

    12

    32

    92

    246

    308

    183

    123

    44

    8

    Limousin x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    5

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Limousin x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    4

    5

    6

    1

    3

    0

    Limousin x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    3

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Limousin x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    4

    6

    3

    2

    1

    1

    0

    Limousin x Luing

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Limousin x North Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Limousin x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Lincoln Red

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    3

    3

    1

    1

    0

    Lincoln Red x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Longhorn

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    2

    2

    1

    1

    1

    Luing x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Luing x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Marchigiana

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Meuse Rhine Issel

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    3

    5

    2

    2

    2

    1

    1

    Meuse Rhine Issel x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Meuse Rhine Issel x Ayrshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Meuse Rhine Issel x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    1

    0

    1

    0

    3

    0

    Meuse Rhine Issel x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    Murray Grey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    7

    4

    8

    6

    3

    1

    0

    Murray Grey x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    4

    4

    1

    1

    0

    Murray Grey x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    2

    3

    0

    0

    1

    Murray Grey x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Murray Grey x South Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Normandy x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Normandy x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    North Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    5

    2

    5

    0

    0

    0

    0

    North Devon x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    North Deveon x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    5

    8

    9

    1

    4

    2

    0

    North Devon x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Not Recorded

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Piedmontese

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    0

    1

    2

    0

    Piedmontese x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    0

    Piedmontese x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Red Friesian

    0

    0

    2

    8

    28

    50

    72

    45

    48

    20

    9

    2

    Red Friesian x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Red Fr x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Red Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Red Holstein x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Red Poll

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    2

    6

    6

    11

    2

    5

    1

    Red Poll x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Red Poll x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Red Poll x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Romagnola

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Romagnola x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Romagnola x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Saler

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Saler x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    Shetland

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Shorthorn

    0

    2

    2

    20

    8

    21

    44

    67

    47

    23

    16

    0

    Shorthorn x

    0

    0

    2

    2

    3

    7

    14

    11

    13

    5

    3

    0

    Shorthorn x Blue Grey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Shorthorn x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    9

    12

    11

    4

    3

    4

    0

    Shorthorn x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Shorthorn x Jersey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Shorthorn x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Shorthorn x Merse Rhine Issel

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Shorthorn x Red Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Shorthorn x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    0

    0

    0

    Simmental

    0

    0

    2

    11

    16

    52

    123

    150

    I 1 1

    71

    32

    6

    Simmental x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    15

    72

    213

    299

    195

    144

    95

    12

    Simmental x Angus

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    68 69

    Breed

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    11997

    Simmental x Belgian Blue

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Simmental x Friesian

    0

    1

    2

    8

    28

    69

    239

    242

    166

    106

    50

    6

    Simmental x Galloway

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Simmental x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    2

    0

    0

    2

    0

    Simmental x Highland

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Simmental x Holstein

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    2

    Simmental x Lincoln Red

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Simmental x Luing

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    South Devon

    0

    0

    2

    4

    4

    14

    20

    33

    19

    5

    8

    0

    South Devon x Aberdeen Angus

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    South Devon x Guernsey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    South Devon x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    South Devon x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    6

    2

    2

    0

    0

    South Down

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sussex

    0

    0

    1

    1

    5

    2

    4

    16

    9

    4

    6

    0

    Sussex x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    5

    7

    3

    8

    0

    1

    1

    Sussex x Devon

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Sussex x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    1

    5

    5

    7

    14

    16

    12

    3

    Sussex x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Sussex x Simmental

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Welsh Black

    0

    0

    1

    4

    1

    4

    8

    19

    11

    5

    1

    0

    Welsh Black x

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    2

    7

    2

    0

    1

    Welsh Black x Friesian

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    1

    2

    1

    0

    Welsh Black x Hereford

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Welsh Black x Limousin

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    2

    0

    0

    1

    0

    White Park

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Unknown

    1

    194

    76

    271

    599

    291

    370

    296

    217

    148

    138

    39

    Total

    4

    318

    2,493

    7,193

    14,160

    25,244

    36,989

    34,828

    24,394

    14,537

    8,114

    1,255

    1 1997 Figures for GB to 11 June 1997. 1997 figures for NI to 6 June 1997.

    My Department does not hold data on the numbers of resident cattle by breed.

    Food Labelling
    Shona McIsaac
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to end the use of misleading nutritional information on food labels. [3514]

    Mr. Rooker
    Detailed rules governing the provision of nutrition information on food labels are contained in the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. This information is also subject to the overriding requirements of section 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990 which makes it an offence to label a food falsely or in such a way as to mislead consumers.

    Responsibility for enforcing these rules rests with local authority trading standards officers, who are being reminded of the need to check compliance in this area.

    Organophosphates
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Minister in his Department is responsible for matters relating to organophosphates. [3390]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    Issues relating to organophosphates within my Department relate to their use in pesticides and veterinary medicines. These fall within the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, I have overall responsibility for all departmental issues and am taking an active interest in this topic.

    Beef Farmers
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures he proposes to support beef farmers whose livelihoods are under threat. [3399]
    70
    Mr. Rooker
    Considerable amounts of money have been allocated to help relieve some of the financial pressures facing the industry. Significant sums are also currently being spent on the calf processing scheme and expanded intervention arrangements. In the circumstances we do not currently envisage additional payments to producers to compensate for the current low level of prices.

    Smuggled Animals
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals have been detected being smuggled into the country in each year since 1974. [3458]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    The information is not available in the form requested. The number of dogs, cats and other rabies susceptible mammals known to have been illegally landed in Great Britain in each year since 1974 is as follows:

    Dogs

    Cats

    Other rabies susceptible mammals

    1975

    143

    38

    20 incidents involving 563 animals

    1976

    118

    45

    42 incidents involving 138 animals

    1977

    60

    17

    13 incidents involving 115 animals

    1978

    57

    27

    17 incidents involving 35 animals

    1979

    70

    39

    25 incidents involving 452 animals

    1980

    51

    34

    18 incidents involving 277 animals

    1981

    56

    22

    23 incidents involving 88 animals

    1982

    45

    30

    15 incidents involving 43 animals

    1983

    56

    36

    16 incidents involving 17 animals

    1984

    28

    30

    11 incidents involving 14 animals

    1985

    44

    37

    21 incidents involving 109 animals

    1986

    50

    27

    18 incidents involving 34 animals

    1987

    26

    25

    17 incidents involving 92 animals

    1988

    93

    16

    16 incidents involving 75 animals

    1989

    38

    28

    13 incidents involving 93 animals

    1990

    59

    40

    12 incidents involving 92 animals

    1991

    72

    39

    16 incidents involving 23 animals

    1992

    60

    33

    11 incidents involving 46 animals

    71

    Dogs

    Cats

    Other rabies susceptible mammals

    1993

    50

    39

    13 incidents involving 56 animals

    1994

    70

    39

    7 incidents involving 14 animals

    1995

    59

    44

    8 incidents involving 13 animals

    1996

    60

    20

    14 incidents involving 14 animals

    In respect of farm livestock and horses the information is not available for the earlier part of the period in question and could be obtained only for the later part at disproportionate cost. But we believe the number which could be classified as smuggled is extremely small.

    British Beef (Export Ban)
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to remove the ban on exports of British beef. [3397]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, gave to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on 12 June,Official Report, column 1279–87.

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy towards imports of beef to the United Kingdom from(a) the European Union and (b) elsewhere. [3398]

    Mr. Rooker
    All fresh meat imported into the United Kingdom, whether from the European Union or elsewhere, must be produced in accordance with harmonised hygiene rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC (as amended). Also, imported meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter, were more than 30 months old is prohibited under the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 unless it comes from animals covered by the Beef Assurance Scheme, or born, reared and slaughtered in those third countries specifically excluded by the Regulations where there is no known risk of BSE.

    On 5 June, following advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced (Official Report column 227) the opening of consultations on legislation which would extend to imported beef (other than from those countries exempted from the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 our current domestic controls on specified bovine material (SBM).

    The proposed extension of these controls does not amount to an import ban.
    72
    Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we intend to proceed in late July if agreement to introduce similar Community-wide controls (which would also apply to imports from third countries) is not forthcoming by then.

    Quarantine
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals detained in quarantine have been identified as rabies positive in each year since 1974; and what was their country of origin. [3457]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    In 1983, rabies was confirmed in an Irish Wolfhound imported from the USA which died in quarantine. There were no cases in the other years.

    Mr. Kennedy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals detained in quarantine have been put down in each year since 1974; and what was their country of origin. [3459]

    Dr. Cunningham
    The information is not available in the form requested. The number of cats, dogs and other rabies susceptible mammals that died during their detention in quarantine in Great Britain for the period 1975–1996 is as follows:

    Dogs

    Cats

    Other animals

    1975

    79

    52

    3

    1976

    71

    65

    2

    1977

    72

    52

    2

    1978

    70

    52

    21

    1979

    82

    62

    16

    1980

    68

    44

    6

    1981

    52

    33

    4

    1982

    48

    36

    5

    1983

    68

    50

    7

    1984

    71

    62

    3

    1985

    69

    92

    5

    1986

    75

    49

    24

    1987

    64

    43

    3

    1988

    66

    50

    8

    1989

    69

    63

    7

    1990

    79

    52

    3

    1991

    49

    34

    20

    1992

    71

    67

    1

    1993

    72

    68

    5

    1994

    61

    65

    4

    1995

    61

    56

    4

    1996

    65

    69

    17

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the quarantine regulations in respect of animals entering this country. [3393]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 508.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Student Loans
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the average amount owed by further education(a) students and (b) mature students in Northern Ireland to (i) the Student Loans Company and (ii) personal banks as a result of and at the end of their period of study, broken down into local authority areas; and if she will make a statement. [2741]

    Mr. Worthington
    Information on student indebtedness to banks is not collected centrally. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company to write to the hon. Member about average debt to the Student Loans Company at 31 March 1997.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of(a) how many and (b) what percentage of mature students studying for (i) undergraduate degrees and (ii) equivalent vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland currently (1) are entitled to and (2) claim grants for (A) teaching fees and (B) maintenance, broken down into local authority areas; and if she will make a statement. [2739]

    Mr. Worthington
    The information is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the average maintenance(a) grant and (b) loan awarded to mature students in Northern Ireland in each year of study; and if she will make a statement. [2740]

    Mr. Worthington
    The available information on student awards does not separately identify those awards received by mature students. Information on the average student loan is not available in the form requested, either in the Department or in the Student Loans Company. However, the average loan to students in Higher Education Institutions in Northern Ireland, aged 26 years and over at the start of their course in the academic year 1995–96 was £1,080.

    RUC Station, Coleraine
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects work to begin on the new RUC station in Coleraine. [2540]

    Mr. Ingram
    A new RUC Station in Coleraine has a high priority. The commencement of this work will be dependent upon the availability of funding, but it is unlikely that work on it will start before the final quarter of the 1998–99 financial year.

    Hunt Kennels
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits were made to hunt kennels in each month of the last year in respect of the enforcement of SMB controls in Northern Ireland; what was the percentage judged to be unsatisfactory in each month; and if she will make a statement. [2786]

    Mr. Murphy
    The following table details the number of visits made to hunt kennels each month during 1996 and the percentage judged to be unsatisfactory.
    74

    Number of visits

    Percentage unsatisfactory

    January

    3

    0

    February

    2

    50

    March

    3

    0

    April

    2

    50

    May

    3

    67

    June

    2

    0

    July

    1

    0

    August

    3

    67

    September

    13

    46

    October

    20

    55

    November

    19

    32

    December

    9

    33

    Mature Students
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of(a) how many and (b) what percentage of those studying for (i) undergraduate degrees and (ii) equivalent vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland are mature students; and if she will make a statement. [2738]

    Mr. Worthington
    There are no direct equivalencies between undergraduate degrees and vocational qualifications. The following table provides an analysis by qualification aim of those studying at undergraduate level in HE institutions in Northern Ireland in 1996–97.

    Undergraduate students in higher education establishments1 in Northern Ireland 1996–97

    Qualification aim

    Mature students2

    All students

    Percentage mature

    First degree

    11,475

    24,178

    47.5

    Professional qualifications

    194

    201

    96.5

    Diploma/Certificate in HE

    225

    376

    59.8

    HND/HNC

    322

    1,100

    29.3

    NVQ/SVQ levels 4 and 5

    0

    0

    —

    Institutional credit

    2,322

    2,337

    99.4

    Foundation course

    131

    241

    54.4

    Other undergraduate

    612

    618

    99.0

    Total

    15,281

    29,051

    52.6

    1Excludes HE in FE establishments.

    2 Students aged 21 or over in the current academic year.

    The participation of mature students in Higher Education in Northern Ireland continues to increase and this is to be welcomed.

    Departmental Publications
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means her Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print, and how this is publicised. [1663]

    Mr. Murphy
    [pursuant to his answer 10 June, Official Report columns 432–33]: The information regarding all the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

    The Departments of Agriculture and Education do not produce any publications in the formats specified.
    75
    The Department of Environment's Roads Service and Water Service have produced charter statements and information leaflets in the formats specified. This information is available through the Royal National Institute for the Blind, who advise their members on the availability of the information. The Roads Service also produces an audio tape outlining on street parking concessions for registered blind people and those with severe disability handicaps. This tape is available through Roads Service Divisional Offices, Disability Action and the Blind Centre for Northern Ireland, all of whom advise interested customers of the tape's availability.

    The Heritage Service provides park leaflets, trail leaflets and exhibition texts in both Braille and audio tape at Crawfordsburn Country Park and advertises these services in the PHAB (Physically Handicapped and Able Bodies) magazine.

    The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has adopted a policy that all documents addressed to the workforce or the public should be considered for publication in alternative formats. All published documents contain information on the availability of the document in alternative formats. DHSS also works closely with the appropriate voluntary bodies in the drafting and distribution of material published in alternative formats.

    The Department of Finance and Personnel's Citizen's Charter Unit has produced all documents in the formats specified since January 1997. These documents are available from the Royal Institute for the Blind and this fact is outlined in each document.

    The Department of Economic Development publishes all Disability Advice Service Information in the formats specified. In addition, material on Industrial Tribunals Procedure, citizens charter statement and information on the Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme are also available in Braille, large print and audio. Information on Employees' Rights, Race Relations and Redundancy Payments Service Charter Standard, are available in large print. Some of this information will be publicised on the internet. Domestic Energy Efficiency publications have been mentioned on Blind Radio and copies supplied to The Royal Institute for the Blind.

    The Compensation Agency has produced three publications in the formats specified:

    (i) Guide to Criminal Injuries Compensation

    (ii) Guide to Criminal Damage Compensation

    (iii) Agency Charter Statement

    and these are available upon request or through the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. In addition the Agency runs a Community Awareness Programme where the publications, in their various formats, are available as required.

    MRSA
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of MSRA have been recorded in each health authority district in Northern Ireland in each of the last 12 months. [2982]

    Mr. Worthington
    [Pursuant to his answer 11 June, Official Report column 498]: The information is not
    76
    available centrally. However, I recognise the anomaly between Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales, and I will be asking officials to investigate. I will write to the hon. Member at the conclusion of these investigations.

  DEFENCE

    Naval Gunnery Support Range
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government will review the decision to transfer the naval gunnery support range to Cornwall from Portland. [2050]

    Dr. Reid
    Naval Gunfire Support training is now operating successfully in the exercise areas off Dodman Point, on the South Cornwall coast. I have already carefully examined this question, and I have no plans to review further the decision to transfer it, or the other elements of Royal Navy Operational Sea Training.

    Chinook Helicopter Accident
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Chinook helicopter accident in June 1994. [2053]

    Mr. Spellar
    We are content that the Inquiry into the Chinook accident was thorough and exhaustive. All possible causes were carefully examined and no new evidence has subsequently come to light to cause us to doubt the inquiry's findings.

    Gulf War Veterans
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives from the Gulf War Veterans Association to discuss Gulf war syndrome. [2054]

    Dr. Reid
    As part of our commitment to listening to their concerns, the Secretary of State for Defence and I met veterans' representatives, including members of the Gulf Veterans Association, on 29 May. I was encouraged by the welcome extended by veterans to the new measures I announced last month, including new research on the effects of vaccines, additional resources for the medical assessment programme and a full and open explanation of the scientific basis on which our troops were protected against Biological Warfare in the Gulf.

    Mr. Kemp
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives from the Gulf War Veterans Association to discuss issues relating to their service in the Gulf. [2062]

    Dr. Reid
    As part of our commitment to listen to their concerns, the Secretary of State for Defence and I met veterans' representatives, including members of the Gulf Veterans Association, on 29 May. A wide range of issues was discussed.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the preliminary assessment of the causes of Gulf war illness from the current review. [2067]
    77
    Mr. Reid
    The Ministry of Defence is funding two epidemiological studies into the health of Gulf veterans and their families. These aim to identify whether there are any unusual patterns of ill health and if so to relate these to common risk factors so far as possible. Research of this type is not intended to test any particular casual hypothesis. The studies commenced earlier this year and have an expected duration of three years. It is too soon to predict when preliminary results might become available. Proposals for implementation of the research into the possible health effects of having multiple vaccinations and taking other medications concurrently, which was announced on 11 May, are currently being developed.

    Defence Review
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the result of his defence policy review; and if he will make a statement. [2055]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I expect the Strategic Defence Review to be completed around the turn of the year. I will make a statement to the House as soon as practicable thereafter.

    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the defence-related industries about his proposed defence review. [2059]

    Mr. Robertson
    I have received a number of letters from Defence Trade Associations, companies and individuals offering inputs into the Strategic Defence Review.

    Mr. Martin Bell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's strategic defence review and its impact on the welfare of service families. [2064]

    Dr. Reid
    The Strategic Defence Review will decide how our Armed Forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet our nation's interests and commitments. Decisions will take full account of the implications for the welfare of Service personnel and their families.

    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely impact of his strategic review on defence procurement. [2068]

    Mr. Robertson
    The Strategic Defence Review will ensure the Armed Forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks we ask of them. The Government are also committed to a strong British defence industry as a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort. There will be no moratorium and business will proceed as normally as possible. Decisions on major equipment programmes not yet under contract will be considered on their individual circumstances and in relation to progress with the Review. Projects already under contract will continue.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his forthcoming Defence Review will be based on the assumption of unchanged expenditure plans. [2061]

    Mr. Robertson
    The Strategic Defence Review will be foreign policy led rather than driven by resources. The Government are committed to the spending plans already laid down for the next two years.

    Defence Industry
    Mr. Hutton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals the Government have to improve co-operation with the United Kingdom defence industry. [2056]

    Mr. Spellar
    A strong industry is necessary to a strong defence. Co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and defence industry is already close, for example through the National Defence Industries Council, through conferences on future requirements and in many other ways. The Government intend that such co-operation should continue and improve.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. [2057]

    Dr. Reid
    We have already made clear our commitment to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons and to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We will be examining how best to implement that commitment, particularly in the context of the Strategic Defence Review.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of nuclear weapons which are vulnerable to an early strike; and if he will make a statement. [2073]

    Dr. Reid
    In current circumstances, the risk of any attack on our nuclear forces is very low. The invulnerability of our deterrent submarines when deployed at sea ensures that our nuclear forces are safe from attack in a crisis.

    West Indies Guard Ship
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the West Indies guard ship. [2058]

    Dr. Reid
    As I know my hon. Friend is aware from his visit as a member of the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme the West Indies Guard Ship together with her Royal Fleet auxiliary tanker, provide support to our Dependent Territories and other UK interests in the region. They carry out a range of tasks, including contributing to the international fight against drug trafficking, disaster relief, goodwill visits and training for Caribbean forces.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the role of United Kingdom troops in the former Yugoslavia. [2060]

    Mr. George Robertson
    British troops are continuing to make a most effective and widely respected contribution to the multinational stabilisation force mission to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs will come to the United
    79
    Kingdom during the next five years as a result of the manufacture and deployment of the European fighter aircraft. [2063]

    Mr. Spellar
    Currently there are about 6,000 high technology jobs sustained by the development phase of the Eurofighter programme in the UK. This figure is expected to rise to about 14,000 at the peak of production.

    NATO
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the new accord between NATO and Russia. [2065]

    Mr. George Robertson
    The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation was signed in Paris on 27 May by the Heads of State and Government of NATO and Russia. It provides the foundation for co-operation, openness and consultation between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia across a wide range of security issues of common interest. The Government welcome the Act and look forward to building on that foundation.

    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [2071]

    Mr. Robertson
    The NATO Summit on 8 and 9 July will invite one or more countries of Central and Eastern Europe to begin negotiations for accession to NATO membership, and will reaffirm the Alliance's continuing willingness in future to consider taking in countries which share its principles and can contribute to European security. The Alliance will decide collectively, nearer the Summit, which countries should receive invitations.

    Future Large Aircraft
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future large aircraft. [2066]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 2 June,Official Report, column 13.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce an order for production of Eurofighter. [2069]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 9 June 1997,Official Report, columns 353–54.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the programme to introduce IT for the three armed services. [2070]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are comprehensive programmes for the introduction of Information Technology into Armed Services. The Joint Command Systems Initiative is being developed to provide a tri-Service framework for future 80
    Command, Control and Intelligence systems which are interoperable with those of our Allies. In addition, each of the Armed Services has an approved strategy for the introduction of Information Technology. These strategies are designed to ensure that Information Technology contributes to the effective conduct of Joint and single-Service operations and improved efficiency. This is achieved by the adoption of common management and technical standards, designed to improve interoperability between the equipment of the three Services and our Allies. Moreover, a comprehensive range of training in Information Technology has been developed to meet the requirements of the three Services.

    Land Release
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to release land presently used by the services for alternative environmental purposes. [2072]

    Mr. Spellar
    My Department continually reviews the size of the Defence estate to ensure that it is no larger than necessary to meet the essential requirements of the Armed Forces. Our policy is to dispose of surplus property in a timely manner which takes into account the Government's wider employment and environmental objectives, local planning and social considerations, and the need to protect the taxpayers' interests.

    Search and Rescue Helicopters
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Defence Review will include examination of the provision of search and rescue helicopters around the United Kingdom. [2074]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Strategic Defence Review will decide how our Armed Forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet our national interests and commitments. The primary role of our search and rescue helicopters in peacetime is to provide cover for military exercises and training flights, although in a secondary role they also make a significant contribution to civil search and rescue.

    Trident
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to modify the existing policy on numbers of Trident missile warheads. [1979]

    Dr. Reid
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 486.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military threats nuclear warheads on Trident submarines are designed to combat; and what is the minimum number of vessels needed for these purposes. [3630]

    Dr. Reid
    Our nuclear deterrent forces ensure that the United Kingdom is safe from any threat of nuclear coercion and contribute to the Alliance's policy of war prevention. The Government are committed to the fourth Trident submarine and will maintain strong defences while pressing for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of his special advisers, and those of his Ministers, stating their qualifications relating to those appointments. [1978]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 6 June,Official Report, column 255.

    Vacant MOD Homes
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the number and proportion of MOD homes currently vacant; what are the reasons for them being empty; what were the equivalent figures a year ago; and how many homes have been empty for more than 12 months. [3644]

    Mr. Spellar
    As at 31 March 1997, the most recent date for which figures are available, the Ministry of Defence held a stock of 65,800 Service families quarters in Great Britain of which 13,142 were empty. Directly comparable figures for March 1996 are not available due to the transfer of responsibility for reporting for properties in Great Britain from the individual Services to the Defence Housing Executive at which time the format changed. However, equivalent figures are available for June 1996 and these are as given.

    March 1997

    June 1996

    Total stock

    65,800

    69,348

    Number empty

    13,142

    13,149

    Reasons:

    Identified for disposal

    1,755

    3,629

    Allocated to incoming families

    3,364

    3,535

    Awaiting major works

    2,533

    1,923

    Temporarily surplus, seeking lease out agreement

    633

    459

    On military base (not available to dispose of or lease out due to security constraints)

    1,117

    828

    Remainder empty and under review

    3,740

    2,775

    It is not possible to identify how many of the properties currently empty have been empty for more than 12 months as the information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Select Committee on Defence
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, as part of the strategic defence review, he will authorise civilian and military personnel in his Department to discuss policy options with the Select Committee on Defence.[1993]

    Mr. George Robertson
    We will be involving the Select Committee on Defence in the Strategic Defence Review. Evidence given by officials in this context will of course comply with the guidance contained in Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees issued by the Cabinet Office in January this year. A copy of the document is in the Library of the House.

    Arms Diversification Agency
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish an arms diversification agency within his Department. [1992]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mr. John Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a statement on the creation of a defence diversification agency. [1915]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

    Trade Union Representation
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on introducing trade union representation into the Armed Forces. [1994]

    Dr. Reid
    Because of the special nature of Service life, it is my Department's policy not to have a Service union or federation for Service personnel. However, the Ministry of Defence does have agreements with a number of major unions and concessions with professional associations whereby Service personnel may be recognised as eligible for membership. We have no plans at present to change this system.

    Service pay and allowances, and the charges related to services provided, are governed by an independent Pay Review Body. In addition, Service personnel have statutory redress of complaint procedures under which they have the right to submit a complaint to the Defence Council. The details of these procedures are kept under review.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to rationalise the command and control of attack and support helicopters under one service. [1976]

    Dr. Reid
    The Government have no plans to rationalise the command and control of attack and support helicopters under one Service. Should there be any changes arising from the Strategic Defence Review, they will be announced when the Review is complete.

    Statement on Defence Estimates
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department intends to publish the present year's Statement on Defence Estimates. [1977]

    Dr. Reid
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 3 June 1997,Official Report, column 121. I am also aware that since placing this question the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has written to the Secretary of State on this subject and I shall be responding to him.

    Rearming
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the warning time required for the United Kingdom to rearm in the event of a major threat. [1980]

    Dr. Reid
    Warning times for conflict are kept under continuous review. We currently assess the warning time for the re-emergence of a major threat of general war proportions to be measured in years; and the trend in this respect is towards longer warning times.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he intends to visit the Joint Rapid Deployment Force; [1981]

    (2) when he intends to visit the RAF strike command at High Wycombe; [1982]

    (3) when he intends to visit the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood; [1984]

    (4) when he intends to visit 1 (UK) Armoured Division;
    [1985]

    (5) when he intends to visit HMS Illustrious. [1987]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I place a very high priority on visits to MOD establishments and to the three Services. I have recently visited the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland and Bosnia and plan to make a number of other visits in the coming weeks.

    Mr. Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to visit DML Plymouth [1983]

    Mr. Robertson
    I have no plans at present to visit DML at Plymouth.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's criteria for the allocation of married quarters to service personnel. [1986]

    Dr. Reid
    Services Families Accommodation, either in the form of married quarters or property rented from the private sector is provided for occupation by Service personnel with their families subject to the following criteria:

    (a) Service personnel must be aged 18 or over, have completed their initial training and be serving on a regular engagement with the UK Armed Forces, or be Full Commitment Reserves;

    (b) They must be married or, if divorced, have a requirement to provide a home for dependent children;

    (c) They must have at least 6 months to serve at the station where they qualify for the married quarter;

    (d) The allocation of married quarters to officers is currently based on rank and that for other ranks on family size.

    Defence Procurement Questions
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department is responsible for answering defence procurement questions. [1988]

    Mr. George Robertson
    Day-to-day responsibility for defence procurement matters lies with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. In this House,84
    responsibility for answering questions on his behalf on these matters will normally fall to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

    Working Week Directive
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the EU' s 48 Hour Working Week directive on the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. [1989]

    Dr. Reid
    Our current assessment is that Article 1.3 of the Working Time Directive excludes from its scope most of the activities of the Armed Forces by virtue of its reference to Article 2 of the Health and Safety Framework Directive. We are continuing to assess the precise impact of the Directive and my officials are in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead department for this subject.

    Court Martial Cases Inquiry
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his inquiry into British court martial cases resulting in the death penalty will extend beyond First World War cases. [1990]

    Dr. Reid
    The boundaries for the forthcoming reassessment of British court martial cases resulting in the death penalty have yet to be determined. In setting these boundaries however, it will be important to take care that in addressing one perceived injustice, we do not create another.

    Departmental Spending
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely level of underspending or overspending by his Department in the current financial year. [1991]

    Dr. Reid
    My Department aims to deliver the Defence Programme for the current year within the available resources granted by Parliament.

    Land Mines
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what exceptional military circumstances the use of land mines will be permitted; and what steps he intends to take to limit and monitor this exceptional use. [3404]

    Dr. Reid
    We have introduced a complete moratorium on the use of anti-personnel land mines. That moratorium would be suspended only if Ministers judged that, for a specific operation, the security of our Armed Forces would be jeopardised without the possibility of the use of anti-personnel land mines. It is impossible to predict what such exceptional circumstances might be, but Ministers would wish to be satisfied that it was not feasible to provide adequate protection for our Armed Forces using other means. We have made clear that we would report any such decision to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Any use of anti-personnel land mines by UK Armed Forces would be strictly in accordance with international humanitarian law.
    85
    Mr. Bruce George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the HB876 area-denial submunition complies with internationally agreed requirements for the reliability of anti-personnel land mines. [4232]

    Dr. Reid
    The HB876 area-denial submunition is an integral component of the JP233 Airfield Attack Weapon, and is therefore quite different from the types of land mine which have raised justifiable humanitarian concerns. HB876 nevertheless is an anti-personnel land mine under the meaning of the amended Protocol II to the United Nations Weaponry Convention. We will therefore withdraw JP233 from service no later than 2005, in accordance with the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 May,Official Report, column 708. Until withdrawal, we have introduced a complete moratorium on the operational use of JP233, which would be suspended only if we judge that for a specific operation the security of our Armed Forces would be jeopardised without the possibility of its use. Any such exceptional decision, and the circumstances which led to it, would be reported to Parliament.

    Under the terms of the amended Protocol II to the UN Weaponry Convention, all remotely-delivery anti-personnel land mines must comply with certain criteria on the reliability of their self-destruct and deactivation capabilities. In conjunction with the manufacturer, Hunting Engineering Limited (HEL), my Department has carried out a detailed assessment of HB876 and we are satisfied that it complies with these criteria. Copies of unclassified versions of the HEL report into HB876, and a further report by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency validating HEL's tests, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Armed Forces (Civilian Staff)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list each British Army establishment employing civilian staff, indicating(a) the number of staff at each establishment and (b) the role of that establishment; [3277]

    (2) if he will list each Royal Air Force establishment employing civilian staff, indicating (a) the number of staff at each establishment and (b) the role of that establishment; [3278]

    (3) if he will list each Royal Navy establishment employing civilian staff, indicating (a) the number of staff at each establishment and (b) the role of that establishment; [3279]

    Mr. Spellar
    I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Naval Deployments (NATO)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to deploy a Royal Navy task group outside the NATO area. [3266]

    Dr. Reid
    Royal Navy units in small Groups regularly operate outside the NATO area. On current plans, the next major, carrier-led Task Group out of area would be in the year 2000.

    British Army of the Rhine
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual running cost of the British Army of the Rhine; and what were the figures for(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1988 at current prices. [3267]

    Dr. Reid
    The British Army of the Rhine ceased to exist as a formation from 1 April 1994 when 1(UK) Armoured division and the United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) became fully operational under Headquarters Land Command. The estimated running costs for Financial Year 1997–98 for the Army in Germany is £1,163 million. I regret that I am unable to provide comparable costs for 1974, 1979 and 1988 as these were compiled on a different basis.

    Service Personnel (Electoral Registration)
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what special arrangements are currently in force to enable service personnel posted at short notice to vote in local, parliamentary and European elections.[3202]

    Mr. Spellar
    Service personnel and their spouses may decide to become Service voters by making a Service declaration. This declaration must be made no later than 10 October in any given year for qualifying addresses in England, Scotland and Wales, or 15 September in Northern Ireland. Should a Serviceman be posted overseas he may vote by proxy in the constituency in which he is registered. If he is posted elsewhere in the UK he may vote either by proxy or post.

    Should a Service person be posted at very short notice, i.e. after 5pm 11 working days prior to an election, they would be unable to vote as their method of voting could not be changed in time.

    In cases of illness however, the time permitted for changing a person's voting procedure is reduced to six working days. The deadlines above apply to all voters are not only to Service personnel.

    Pension Schemes
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to examine the operation of private occupational pension schemes in respect of interrupted service resulting from national service; and if he will make a statement. [3750]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are no plans. The operation of occupational pension schemes is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. The treatment, for pension purposes, of any break in career due to national service will be dependant upon the member's scheme's rules and the effect of the application of Inland Revenue limits on financial retirement benefits.

    CS Mist Sprayer
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British military or special forces have been issued with the Manroy L80 Manpack CS Mist Backpack Sprayer. [3589]

    Dr. Reid
    I understand that the Manroy L80 Manpack CS Mist Backpack Sprayer has never been issued to any British Forces and that it has never been purchased by my Department.

    Foreign Military Personnel (Training)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training places have been offered to foreign military personnel over the last 10 years; and which countries were involved.[3268]

    Dr. Reid
    Records of the number of training places offered to overseas students are not maintained. According Falkland Islands
    to our records, the numbers of overseas students attending courses in the UK in the last 10 years are:

    1987–88: 4,844

    1988–89: 5,131

    1989–90: 4,734

    1990–91: 4,083

    1991–92: 4,229

    1992–93: 4,071

    1993–;94: 4,183

    1994–95: 4,170

    1995–96: 4,130

    1996–97: 3,793

    These figures may include some non-military personnel including police and customs officials. Details of these are not held separately.

    These figures cover students from the following countries and Dependent Territories:

    Albania

    Algeria

    Anguilla

    Antigua and Barbuda

    Argentina

    Australia

    Austria

    Bahamas

    Bahrain

    Bangladesh

    Belarus

    Belgium

    Belize

    Botswana

    Brazil

    British Virgin Islands

    Brunei

    Bulgaria

    Burma

    Cameroon

    Cayman Islands

    Chad

    Chile

    China

    Congo

    Croatia

    Cyprus

    Czech

    Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

    Denmark

    Djibouti

    88

    Dominicia

    Ecuador

    Egypt

    El Salvador

    Estonia

    Ethiopia

    Falkland Islands

    Fiji

    Finland

    France

    Gambia

    Georgia

    Germany

    Ghana

    Gibraltar

    Greece

    Grenada

    Guatemala

    Guyana

    Honduras

    Hong Kong

    Iceland

    India

    Indonesia

    Iran

    Iraq

    Ireland

    Israel

    Italy

    Ivory Coast

    Jamaica

    Japan

    Jordan

    Kenya

    Kuwait

    Kyrgyzstan

    Latvia

    Lebanan

    Lesotho

    Libya

    Lithuania

    Luxembourg

    Macedonia

    Malawi

    Malaysia

    Maldives

    Malta

    Mauritania

    Mauritius

    Mexico

    Moldova

    Montserrat

    Morocco

    Mozambique

    Namibia

    Nepal

    Netharlands

    89

    New Zealand

    Nigeria

    Norway

    Oman

    Pakistan

    Papua New Guinea

    Paraguay

    Peru

    Philippines

    Poland

    Portugal

    Qatar

    Romania

    Russia

    St. Kitts and Nevis

    St. Lucia

    St. Vincent

    Saudi Arabia

    Senegal

    Seychelles

    Sierra Leone

    Singapore

    Slovakia

    Slovenia

    Somalia

    South Africa

    South Korea

    Spain

    Sri Lanka

    Sudan

    Swaziland

    Sweden

    Swaziland

    Tanzania

    Thailand

    Trinidad and Tobago

    UAE

    Uganda

    Ukraine

    Uruguay

    USA

    Venezuela

    Yemen

    Yugoslavia

    Zambia

    Zimbabwe

    Medals and Campaign Stars
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and type of medals and campaign stars awarded to date to national service men who served between(a) 1939 and 1945 and (b) 1946 and 1963; and if he will make a statement. [3749]

    Mr. Spellar
    A list of the medals and campaign stars for which National Servicemen were eligible is as shown. In addition, they were eligible to be recommended for the 90
    full range of gallantry awards. No differentiation was made between National Servicemen and Regular personnel.

    MEDALS AND CAMPAIGN STARS 1939–1945

    1939–45 Star

    Atlantic Star

    Air Crew Eurpoe Star

    Africa Star

    Pacific Star

    Burma Star

    Italy Star

    France and Germany Star

    Defence Medal

    War Medal 1939–45

    CAMPAIGN MEDALS 1945–1963

    Korea Medal 1950–53—Al Services

    Africa General Service Medal 1902–56(with clasp)—All Services Kenya

    Naval General Service Medal 1915–62(with clasps)—Royal Navy

    SE Asia 1945–46

    Minesweeping 1945–51

    Palestine 1945–48

    Malaya

    Yangtze1949

    Bomb and Mine Clerance 1945–53

    Bomb and Mine Clerance 1945–53

    Cyprus

    Near East

    Arabian Peninsula

    Brunei

    General Service Medal 1962 with clasp—All Services

    Borneo

    Other Operational Service Awards—All Services

    United Nations Service Medal with clasp Korea

    United Nations Service Medal for the Congo

    Non-operational Medals 1945–1963

    Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal 1953

    No statistics are available showing the total number of medals
    awarded between the years 1939–1963.

    Prisoners of War (Compensation)
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State Defence when the expects to complete the review of compensation for prisoners of war who were protected personnel or officers; and if he will make a statement. [3130]
    91
    Mr. Spellar
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan),Official Report, column 485.

    Scottish Regiments
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current posting of each battalion of the Scottish regiments indicating dates of commencement and expected departure. [3199]

    Dr. Reid
    The 1st Battalion Scots Guards was posted to Windsor in July 1993.

    The battalion of the Scottish Division are stationed as follows:

    The 1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment) was posted to Colchester in August 1996.

    The 1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment) was posted to Fallingbostel, Germany in February 1994. The bulk of the Battalion is currently deployed in Belfast.

    The 1st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers was posted to Edinburgh in February 1995.

    The 1st Battalion The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) was posted to Inverness in August 1996. The bulk of the Battalion is currently deployed in Hong Kong for 4 months between February and June this year.

    The 1st Battalion The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons) was posted to Catterick in April this year.

    The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) was posted to Edinburgh in August 1995).

    On security grounds I am withholding information on the future movement of the battalions under exemption of 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Contracting Out
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions his Department has made about contracting out the administration of service(a) pay, (b) personnel and training records and (c) pensions; on what dates these decisions were made; when they will come into operation; which companies have been awarded these contracts; and if he will make a statement about the (i) cost savings, (ii) future quality of administration and (iii) security implications of these decisions. [3138]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency was launched on 1 April this year. Its tasks include record-keeping and the processing of pay and pensions for all Service personnel. The Agency's objectives and key targets are set out in its Corporate Plan, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. These require new IT systems to be developed to enable improvements in efficiency and performance.
    92
    Plans to appoint a commercial partner to provide most of the Agency's services, and to develop and operate the new systems, are continuing. This would be a private finance arrangement. Two companies remain on the short-list as a result of the competitive process. They are EDS (Defence) Ltd., and Siemens Business Services Ltd. Negotiations are nearing completion and final bids are expected to be invited by the end of this month. These will be evaluated against the cost of the Agency undertaking the work through normal in-house methods. A decision on the results of the evaluation is expected by the end of September. A partnering contract will be awarded only if one of the companies' bids offers the best value for money. Transfer of responsibility to the successful company, including most of the Agency's staff and capital assets, would then follow after 2 to 3 months.

    The security implications of appointing a private sector partner have been a particular concern since the competitive process began in April 1996. It has been the subject of full consideration by the relevant security authorities and by the Services themselves. The two companies remaining in competition are the only ones to have demonstrated, amongst other fundamental matters, that they could meet and maintain the very rigorous standards required. The Agency's services will continue to be delivered from existing, secure MOD installations.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to amend the jobseeker's allowance to enable school cleaners to claim during the summer holidays. [1289]

    Mr. Bradley
    The Social Security Commissioners are currently considering a case in this area. We will review the position in the light of their conclusions.

    Benefits Agency
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what indicators are incorporated into Benefits Agency district managers' performance targets; and if she will introduce a target for service delivery to local authorities; [625]

    (2) what representations she had received from local authorities in respect of targets for the service that the Benefits Agency provides for the administration of housing and council tax benefits. [624]

    Mr. Field
    There are no current Secretary of State performance targets for Benefits Agency District Managers relating specifically to service delivery to local authorities. We have received no representations to introduce Benefits Agency service targets for Housing Benefit but are aware that the Local Authority Associations have expressed concern in the past about liaison between the Benefits Agency and local authorities. We will be reviewing the business relationship between the Benefits Agency and local authorities and within that review, we will consider the need for such a target over the coming months.
    93
    Performance targets for Benefits Agency District Managers are set every year. Current targets are in the tables.

    Benefits Agency Secretary of State's targets for 1997–98 Accuracy targets

    Percentage of cases

    Benefit

    1997–98 our targets are to pay the correct amount in

    Income Support

    87

    Incapacity Benefit1

    94

    Family Credit

    91

    Jobseekers Allowance

    87

    Disability Living Allowance

    96

    1Includes Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity Allowance.

    Financial recovery targets

    1997–98 our target is

    Recovery of Social Fund loans

    £333 million

    Security1

    2£2,100 million

    Unemployed register sign-offs

    160,000 claims withdrawn

    in 10 days

    185,000 claims withdrawn

    in 28 days

    Recovery of benefit

    £120 million

    overpayment3

    1Security Savings—target relates to weekly benefit savings from activity in the year. It includes activity funded through the new Spend to Save fraud and evasion package announced in the 1996 budget.

    2This level of saving will reduce programmed expenditure by £1.6 billion in 1997–98.

    3Overpayment of recovery target—now includes recoveries arising from security and control activities, and reflects an increase of 31.15 per cent. from 1996–97.

    Claims clearance times targets

    1997–98 our target is to clear

    Jobseekers Allowance

    65 per cent. in 10 days

    90 per cent. in 21 days

    Faster Family Credit

    90 per cent. in 5 days

    Financial control targets

    Our targets are to:

    Manage the Agency's resources to deliver its business plan within the allocations from the Secretary of State.

    Keep to the cash limit agreed with Treasury for the discretionary Social Fund budget approved by Parliament.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to alter housing benefit regulations; and if she will make a statement. [1737]

    Mr. Bradley
    We are reviewing a range of Housing Benefit provisions. Any proposals for legislative changes will be announced in due course.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Hill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples have a total income
    94
    of at least £125 per week; and what percentage and number of pensioner couples have a total of income of at least (i) £200 per week and (ii) £250 per week. [2122]

    Mr. Denham
    We are examining ways of getting more help to the poorest pensioners.

    The information is in the tables.

    Pensioner couples and single pensioners, with income of at least £125 pw

    Number

    percentage of pensioner units

    Single pensioners

    1,450,000

    33 (singles)

    Pensioner couples

    2,450,000

    91 (couples)

    Pensioner couples only

    Number

    Percentage of pensioner units

    Income at least £200 per week

    1,250,000

    47

    Income at least £250 per week

    800,000

    30

    Source:

    Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95.

    Notes:

    1. The information is based on gross unequivalised income before housing costs at July 1994 prices. Numbers of "pensioner units" are rounded to the nearest 50,000.

    2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over State Pension Age (SPA) or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA.

    Benefit Reviews
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews of social security benefits are being conducted by her Department. [2674]

    Mr. Field
    We are committed to modernising the structure and delivery of Social Security in order to encourage independence, social cohesion and well being; to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to help tackle effectively unjustifiable social and economic inequalities. To that end we will be examining the major components of the system. We will consult on specific issues in due course.

    Benefits Offices (Wales)
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the future of benefits offices in Wales. [3225]

    Mr. Field
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 11 June,Official Report, columns 493–94.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to make asylum seekers eligible for benefit. [3387]

    Mr. Bradley
    Under current rules those asylum seekers who make an application for asylum when they first arrive in this country, or who make an application for asylum within three months of the Home Secretary declaring their
    95
    country subject to upheaval, are already eligible to claim Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Those asylum seekers who make their application after they have arrived in this country, or who are appealing against a negative Home Office decision on their asylum application are not eligible to claim Social Security benefits.

    However, we are committed to a wide ranging review of the Social Security system to reduce poverty and social division. We will consider the position of all claimants, including asylum seekers as part of this review.

    Halliday Case
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 114, relating to the recent House of Lords
    96
    judgment on the Halliday case; what estimate she has made of the annual cost of the steps being taken by the Benefits Agency; and what preparatory actions were taken by her Department prior to the judgment. [2305]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: The Benefits Agency are currently estimating the administrative costs arising from this judgment. Additional benefit expenditure on those cases covered by the judgment is estimated to be £3 million for 1997–98.

    Preparatory actions included discussions with the Benefits Agency on the practicalities of handling the judgments; preparation of draft forms and circulars giving advice to staff in the Disability Benefits Directorate and the collection of information on cases which had already benefited under the original Commissioner's decision of 14 October 1994 in order to forecast the likely financial impact. Advice was also considered on the implications of the cases involved.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Marquess of Tweeddale—Took the Oath.
The Bishop of Liverpool—Took the Oath.

Message from the Queen
The Lord Chamberlain (The Earl of Airlie): My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Parliamentary Procedure
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked the Leader of the House:
Following the appointment of a Commons Select Committee to look at ways of making parliamentary procedure more effective and efficient, whether a similar proposal will be made for a comparable committee in the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting proposition on which I have an open mind, though leaning towards the sympathetic. It is, of course, very much a matter for the House itself and therefore I shall be consulting with the usual channels and the Chairman of Committees.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer to my Question. Perhaps I may be tempted a little further by his sympathy into asking him to accept that changes which are made in the Commons procedure in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, organisation of committees and management of legislation necessarily affect what the revising Chamber does, even if we stop before considering joint committees and the like. Therefore, does he consider that, as the other place considers revising its procedures, we may need to do the same?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, there are better arguments for his proposition. What he has just said is an argument for not doing it until after the House of Commons has reported. That is certainly one side of the argument. The other side is that this House should give consideration to its own procedures at this stage. As I said, I have an open mind on that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me that this side of the House has great faith
1068
in his judgment in these matters and will look with confidence to the guidance that he gives to the House in considering what will be a difficult matter of judgment? Nevertheless, will he recognise, when he comes to give guidance to the House in these matters, which are particularly fashionable at the moment and understandably so, that this House is not a clone of the other place? As he said in his Answer to the noble Lord, there is a great deal to be said for this House not falling into the seductive trap, very often indulged in—dare I say?—by Members of your Lordships' House who have had experience of another place, of believing that the practices of another place are necessarily better than those of your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord. Lord Wallace, has thoughts on this matter, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal consider asking him to submit a paper for the consideration of the Procedure Committee?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I personally am touched by the noble Viscount's faith in my judgment. Any guidance that I give to the House will be well considered. Frankly, I do not want to go any further this afternoon than what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It seems to me that this is a matter which the House might wish to consider. But it is a matter for the House to decide whether it wants to consider it. As regards the noble Viscount's observations about the difference between this House and the other place, as he and I know, having served in both Houses, the answer to what he asked is yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a matter of this kind should be referred to the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House? Bearing that in mind, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that any changes that do come through shall not be at the expense of the freedom of individual Members of your Lordships' House to challenge the Executive and the Government, whenever they feel it appropriate, on the Floor of this Chamber?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course, it is a matter for the committees of your Lordships' House to decide which way this House wishes to go. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, might indeed think hard about the suggestion made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition as to whether he should put a paper before the Procedure Committee. So far as concerns the rest of my noble friend's question, yes, I entirely agree with what he said.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that most of our important procedures are carried out in this Chamber? Does he further agree that an important part of those procedures is that we should feel comfortable? Would he suggest that comfort to the Opposition Benches could be assured if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and his friends would cross to the other Benches in conformity with their oft expressed admiration of the new Government?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I feel extremely comfortable with the existing arrangements in the House, infinitely more comfortable than I felt three

1069
months ago. The place where the Liberal Party sits is very much a matter for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party to work out for themselves
Baroness David: My Lords, can my noble friend say, if a committee is set up, whether it will look at the procedure for the introduction of Peers? Cannot there be a reduction in the ceremony that goes on?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend says. Again, it is a matter for the House. Whether or not at some stage I will feel moved to offer the House the firm and well thought out guidance to which the Leader of the Opposition referred a moment ago in relation to the introduction ceremony remains to be seen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that there is anything radically wrong with the existing arrangements? They have gone on and changed from time to time to meet circumstances.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me. At this stage all I will say is that it is a matter for the House. Though I have a sympathetic view in relation to this request, it will have to go through the normal committees in the normal way.

BSE and Other EU Countries
2.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington, on behalf of Lord Wyatt of Weeford, asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have studied the report in the Sunday Times of 1st June which indicated that beef imported into the United Kingdom from European Union states carried a high risk of being infected by BSE: and whether they will seek a ban on the export of beef by those states.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, I trust that my noble friend is not too ill in Ascot week. The Sunday Times report refers to findings by a Commission study of BSE controls in the European Union indicating lapses in the identification and reporting of BSE in member states. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee considered this matter at its most recent meeting and recommended that action should be taken to extend our specified bovine material controls to imported material. In the light of that advice, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 5th June that we were opening consultation on proposals which would mean that the requirement to remove and dispose of specified tissues would apply not only to carcasses of cattle slaughtered in the UK, but also to imported bovine material. We are not proposing an import ban.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. However, is he
1070
aware that when this matter first arose in May of last year, when the European Commission put out a regulation banning the United Kingdom from exporting beef to countries other than those in the EC, the then government and the then opposition were united in support of my contention that the EC acted entirely illegally? One would hope that that action is still being pursued. If any doubts arise again in the future, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate to take the appropriate legal action through the European Court of Justice.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. The Government are proceeding, as did their predecessor, through the European Court of Justice in protest against what they see as an excessive use of the powers of the European Union. We await the result of that judgment which we consider should be due before the end of the year. In relation to any ban which members may incline towards, it would not be appropriate for us to pursue a ban on imports while at the same time protesting that such a ban was beyond the EU powers. I should point out also that it is contrary to GATT, to which we are a signatory, as well as contrary to the single market treaty.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all our undertakings on BSE followed strict scientific advice? Is he happy and confident that other European countries are proceeding in the same way as we have always proceeded?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge that is the case. We act only on strict scientific advice. When my right honourable friend announced on 5th June that we were applying the same controls to imports that we applied to our own meat, it was based on the SEAC report. The European Commission takes independent veterinary advice and acts upon it. I have no reason to believe that that is not independent and highly qualified advice.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not I misunderstood him? I believe he said that the Government were adopting a ban which they would not enforce. What is the use of an unenforced ban?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not believe that that is what I said. or anything like it. I said that we were not introducing a ban. However, we are applying controls to imported meat of the same kind that we apply to ourselves. That will be strictly enforced.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, who will pay the cost of the measures outlined in the noble Lord's initial response?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, consultation is currently taking place. That will be completed at the end of this month. The Government will then announce their proposals.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if we are imposing the same kind of controls over imported meat from the

1071
European Community as we do on our own meat, does this also extend to other countries such as the United States? That, after all, in 1950, was the first country to ban imports of British beef.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the controls apply to all countries where it is suspected that there is BSE. They do not apply to countries such as the United States; to some what I would call old Commonwealth countries; to one or two countries in Africa; and to one or two countries in South America, where there is no reason to believe that there is BSE. If there is reason to believe that there is BSE, the controls will be applied.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the report in the Sunday Times and the risk of BSE infected meat now entering this country, will my noble friend have conversation with firms such as McDonald's and Burger King and with food manufacturers which rushed to ban British beef, which is now recognised to be the safest in the world? Will he have words with them now and ask them to reverse their ban and include British beef in their products?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. We believe that the ban was precipitous. My right honourable friend is in the process of being in touch with the firms that my noble friend mentioned.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that all these measures were taken because of the fear that BSE was transmissible to humans? Can he say whether there has been any confirmatory scientific evidence of the work of Professor Collinge, which precipitated the announcement by Mr. Stephen Dorrell last March bringing in all these extra measures?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish I knew what was ultimately confirmatory scientific advice. We can only take the best advice we get and be as cautious in applying it as we can. That is what we are doing
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we are delighted by what the Government are doing? Can he tell us whether the European Commission is similarly delighted? Can he also clear up a little confusion in my mind from the Statement last Thursday? Was the noble Lord saying then that the Government are contemplating continuing the 30 months' scheme for a considerable period into the future but reducing—perhaps even substantially reducing—the compensation paid to farmers under it?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the latter point, our proposals for compensation will emerge in due course. On the other point, it would only be honest to say that not everyone on the Continent welcomed with complete glee what we said. The Commission itself is troubled by the situation on the Continent in terms of surveillance and control of BSE and has, first last December and again on 14th May of this year. put forward proposals
1072
to introduce Europe-wide standard controls. So in the Commission there is considerable understanding of our approach.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is only the existence of an adequate compensation scheme for farmers in this country that ensures that infected animals are brought forward for slaughter? It is the absence of such a scheme across most of mainland Europe which means there is doubt as to whether infected animals are brought forward. Will he bear that in mind in any review of the compensation scheme the Government might undertake?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord. The need to avoid fraudulent evasion and the need to ensure that all cases are brought forward and disposed of will be the main factors behind our decisions on compensation.

Standards Task Force
2.55 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the role of the Standards Task Force announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 30th May.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Standards Task Force announced by the Secretary of State will bring together interests throughout our education service and beyond and it is part of our drive to raise standards in schools. The task force will advise the Secretary of State on the developments and implementation of policies, it will keep him informed of best practice and be an advocate of the spread of good practice. The task force will work with national agencies and with others to achieve the national targets for literacy and numeracy that have already been announced.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I naturally welcome, as who would not, any further initiative to raise educational standards and I am grateful to the Minister for the further detail he has given on this one. But may I ask him for a little more detail? Will the new task force publish periodic reports on what it is doing? Will it make recommendations; for example, to individual schools, to institutions, or more broadly? Is it the case that the task force will address itself to one particular educational level—say, primary level—or will it spread right throughout the education system? Furthermore, will it address perhaps particular curricula areas, such as literacy and numeracy? In all those connections, if I may sum them up, what will be the new task force's relation to existing task forces, such as those on numeracy and literacy, to the newly established task force, the Standards and Effectiveness Unit, in the Department for Education and Employment, and of course to Her Majesty's Inspectorate in Ofsted?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions. The task force will hope to work

1073
closely with all of those bodies, including the new numeracy task force under David Reynolds, and with the inspectorate and will take advice and information from all of them. It will report to Ministers. Ministers are not laying down the form of those reports, but the Standards Task Force will itself be free to decide whether it publishes a regular report or an occasional report. It will cover all aspects of school standards. However, there will of course from time to time be priorities for the focus of its activities, including the one I have already mentioned, in regard to the achievement of numeracy and literacy targets at age 11.
Lord Henley: My Lords, bearing in mind that two vice-chairmen with what one could call widely differing views have been appointed to this task force—the noble Lord will be able to confirm that—can he give an assurance that those different views can be accommodated? Bearing in mind what seems to be a road-to-Damascus conversion towards traditional classroom teaching standards, can the noble Lord again give an assurance, having agreed that their different views can be accommodated, that that road-to-Damascus conversion is not merely illusory? Can he also tell us how often the committee will meet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it will lay down its own frequency of meeting but it will meet at least once a month. Because it is bringing in a wide range of opinion, both in its own membership and in the bodies it consults, the intention is that we will reach a consensus, albeit that some people come to that task force with widely differing views. As to a conversion on the road to Damascus, it has always been the view on this side of the House that standards in schools are central to our education policy. We intend that the task force will point the way to achieving some very basic standards of literacy, in regard to which, unfortunately, the inheritance from the former government has left something to be desired.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware of moves now being made towards the establishment of a college of teachers? In the light of the Government's pledge in their manifesto to establish a general teaching council, can the Minister give any indication as to when such a council is likely to be established? Surely those two major initiatives could play an important role in improving standards in the teaching profession?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at the end of the day the delivery of these higher standards will be very much due to the quality of teaching, which of itself is due very much to the training of teachers.

Business of the House: Debates, 19th June
3 p.m
Lord Richard: My Lords,I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper
1074
Moved, That the provisions of Standing Order 38(4) be dispensed with on Thursday 19th June to allow the Motion in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before that in the name of the Baroness Hogg.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, having declared an interest as the father of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, why is it thought necessary to alter the order of batting?
Lord Richard: My Lords, Standing Orders give precedence on days other than Wednesdays to Select Committee reports over Motions for Prayers, such as that tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It has been agreed through the usual channels that, for the convenience of the House, the Prayer of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, should be taken before the debate on the Select Committee report in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. This Motion does nothing more than to give effect to that agreement. It has no general application and I assure the noble Lord that no discourtesy is intended to his daughter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Officers Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
For me, this is a momentous and nerve-racking day. It is my maiden speech in the House of Lords. It is my first speech as Solicitor-General and it is my first speech in full-time politics. I am proud to sit in the House of Lords. I am proud to hold the honourable and historic office of Solicitor-General for England and Wales; and I am especially proud to be a member of this reforming Labour Government
When I left private practice at the Bar suddenly on Monday 5th May to take up my present role, I was relieved at least in one respect: that I would no longer face on a regular basis the risk of judicial destruction of what I had said. So often, that which looked watertight in chambers proved easily prone to well aimed judicial torpedo.
As I took my seat in the House on 15th May 1997 there, to my horror, dotted around the Chamber—sitting in some cases on the steps and aisles—were all the usual judicial suspects willing me on with what appeared to be a genuine warmth. Whether the warmth was the anticipation of the burning flesh as they hold my feet and my logic to the fire, only time will tell. I thought, on that day, you can run, but you just cannot hide.
I have, since my abrupt arrival in this House, been welcomed with immense kindness by my follow Peers. Perhaps I may mention three only. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, on the day I was introduced into the House, personally congratulated me and told me that the job of Solicitor-General was one of the best in government.

1075
For those who are aware of his contribution to the law, first as President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and then as a Law Lord, those were encouraging words indeed.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said in the Chamber that he was not sure what the Solicitor-General did, but he was sure that it was better that he did it from this place rather than another place. I was not present when he made that speech, but subsequently he repeated it to me with a great deal of warmth (not the whole speech; simply the part dealing with the role of the Solicitor-General).
Thirdly, there is my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, whose judgment I have in recent days particularly come to respect. He congratulated me when he met me for the first time in the House. He particularly complimented me on the photograph of my family in the newspaper. He referred to a lady, who was in fact my wife, and said how very nice the lady standing with her legs crossed holding the child looked. He said that he assumed this was the nanny. I felt this was a compliment both to my wife and myself.
The Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is not the stuff of political controversy. It seeks simply to remove a difficulty which exists in the running of the Law Officers' department, primarily in respect of the work of a non-political role which the Law Officers perform. In a nutshell, every time the Attorney-General wishes to delegate a particular piece of such work to the Solicitor-General he has formally to authorise the Solicitor to perform it. This means that the papers have to be presented to the Attorney for the delegation to be made.
The Bill, if passed, would permit the Attorney and the Solicitor to agree a general division of labour between them and then the work can be distributed without the need for further formality.
The two Law Officers for England and Wales—the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—are politicians, and members of the Government. They are the chief legal advisers for the Executive, and their prime advocates. They also perform a wide range of duties in the public interest in which they are independent of government and to which the doctrine of collective responsibility does not apply.
My right honourable friend in another place is an experienced and heavyweight politician who has held Front Bench office, including Cabinet Office, in all the years that Labour have been in power since 1964. He is a man whom I know from my own experience to be of immense political and legal judgment. Moreover, he is a man who has, from the time I was thrust beneath him, shown to my family and me a degree of tolerance, support and kindness, which was way beyond the call of duty and for which we are immensely grateful. I believe the Labour Government and the nation is lucky that there is such a man as Attorney-General.
In centuries gone by the Law Officers have not performed their role of government advocate with the degree of objectivity and balance which would now be expected of them. In 1730, a leading commentator,
1076
Mallit, said that some of the people who had held the office of Solicitor and Attorney-General acted at the Bar as if they thought themselves,
"absolved from all the obligations of truth. honour and decency".
Even in the eighteenth century anti-lawyer jokes appeared to be fashionable. Whilst Mallit names no names, he might well have had in mind Sir Edward Coke who, at the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, described Raleigh as "a monster", and went on:
"Thou are the most vile and execrable traitor that ever lived … I will now make it appear that there never lived a viler viper upon the face of the earth than thou".
That was no doubt part of Sir Edward's non-controversial opening statement.
Or he may have had in mind Richard Rich who, as Solicitor-General, assisted in the prosecution of Sir Thomas More. When there appeared to be a gap in the evidence necessary to convict, the ever-amenable Rich simply went into the witness box and gave the necessary (perjured) evidence himself. At the end of his trial, as described by Robert Bolt in "A Man for all Seasons", More sees around Rich's neck the chain of office of the Attorney-General of Wales, and says:
"For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … But for Wales!".
The more recent roll of Law Officers, some of whom are in this Chamber this afternoon, has I think completely removed the blot on the reputation of the Law Officers. The Law Officers' public interest functions are wide-ranging and important. Some have arisen by operation of law, such as the Attorney-General's role in representing the interest of charity in the courts; or his role in bringing proceedings to vindicate the rights of the public in court; or his right to enter a nolle prosequi in criminal proceedings thereby halting the proceedings.
Others of his public interest functions come from statute; for example, the Attorney's right to apply to make people vexatious litigants; or his right to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. With a very few exceptions the performance of these functions is personal to the Attorney-General.
The problem of the personal nature of many of the functions of the Attorney-General is one that Parliament has, on a number of occasions in the past 350 years, sought to address. In 1644 the Long Parliament could not find an Attorney-General. This was hardly surprising since they had impeached the last one and left him languishing in the Fleet prison—no doubt something of a disincentive to his successor. So they passed an ordinance saying the warrants of the Solicitor-General should be treated as if they were those of the Attorney. That was only a temporary measure, which was repealed when a new Attorney was eventually found. The problem was then left in abeyance for 300 years.
In 1943 during the war the then Attorney, Sir Donald Somervell, went to the USA for a prolonged period (some months) to participate in the drafting documents of the United Nations. he left the Law Officers' department in the hands of the then Solicitor-General,

1077
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who went on subsequently to be one of the leading lights in the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights.
When he returned from the USA Sir Donald sought to remedy some of the problems his absence had caused by introducing and procuring the passage of the Law Officers Act 1944. This permitted the Solicitor-General to perform the statutory functions of the Attorney-General when the office of the Attorney-General was vacant, when the Attorney-General was away or ill and where the Attorney-General had authorised the Solicitor-General to act in a particular case.
That is where the law presently stands. It has significant practical and legal shortcomings. First, it requires the specific delegation in every case as I have described above. Secondly, it does not resolve whether, where the Attorney is available, he can nevertheless delegate his non-statutory functions to the Solicitor.
The position in the Law Officers' department is, therefore, unlike any other Ministry where work of the appropriate level can be assigned to the junior minister without the need for the intervention of the Secretary of State or leading minister, and without the fear, save in the exceptional case, that it could be said the junior minister did not have the authority to undertake the function.
The Bill, for which I am seeking a Second Reading, addresses the problems I have described in a short and straightforward way. Clause 1 permits the Solicitor to perform all the functions of the Attorney for England and Wales. This obviates the need for the specific delegation. It covers the position of vacancy or illness or unavailability on the part of the Attorney, and it removes the doubt about the extent which the Attorney can delegate his non-statutory functions.
Clause 2 does the same in respect of Northern Ireland. Since 1973 the Attorney-General for England and Wales has been ex officio the Attorney for Northern Ireland, by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act.
Clause 3 is the short Title and repeals section, which repeals the 1944 Act in so far as it relates to the English Law Officers.
The Bill will permit my right honourable and learned friend in another place who is in charge of the department and his successors to run the department in a sensible and efficient manner, using the Solicitor-General to the full, without the need for specific delegation. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.11 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it is a pleasure as well as a duty to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on his delightful maiden speech. Not only did he describe the Bill with great clarity, he also regaled the House with some historical anecdotes. The only time that I thought I saw
1078
the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, flinch was when the noble and learned Lord gave his anecdote about Wales.
Lord Birkenhead (F. E. Smith), the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, said:
"All that is left in the House of Commons for the Solicitor-General in normal circumstances is the elucidation of unintelligible legal difficulties in minor and uninteresting bills".
That will not be the fate of the present Solicitor-General in this House, whose important addition to the debating prowess of the Government will be immediately welcomed by them, just as his agreeable speeches will be welcomed by this side of the House.
I have two things in common with the noble and learned Lord. First, I too made my maiden speech in this House from the Dispatch Box, but that was 19 years ago and was from this side of the House when we were in opposition, as we are once again. Secondly, I held the same office, but that was 35 years ago—a time when it was unthinkable for an English Law Officer to be a Member of this House.
It was 1962 and I was summoned to Admiralty House because Downing Street was then, in the immortal words of the American Ambassador to the Court of St. James, undergoing "refurbishment". The Prime Minister was Mr. Harold Macmillan. He waved me to a seat and made a lengthy and elegant survey of the salaried officials who had been Members of Parliament. He dwelt a great deal on Samuel Pepys in the 17th century and said that the Law Officers were the last of the breed. Most importantly, he said to me, "Your obligations as a Law Officer are first to the Crown, secondly to Parliament and only thirdly to my Administration". Then came a courteous inquiry, which was quite unnecessary, as to whether I would do him the honour of joining his Administration. I am afraid that I rather spoilt it in my eagerness to say yes by asking him to delay it while I mitigated in the Central Criminal Court on behalf of a former colleague who had pleaded guilty to gross indecency with young males, at which the Prime Minister inquired why the gentleman had not fled abroad as had old Willy Beauchamp so many years earlier. I am afraid that I could make no adequate reply.
Those were sound instructions about the duties of a Law Officer, especially in those days when a principal duty of a Law Officer was to appear in cases in which the Crown had a major interest which, for the Solicitor-General, was the Revenue List, into the horrors of which we were introduced by the doyen of Treasury counsel, Reggie Hills, who had coached generations of Solicitors-General before. I do not anticipate that the noble and learned Lord will have such horrors inflicted upon him.
Later, when I was invited to become a Law Officer a second time, the style was very different from the elegant style of 32 years previously. It took the form of a gruff and laconic telephone call, appropriate for the person issuing the invitation. By then, eight years later, I had discovered that Harold Macmillan's ideas about the duties of a Law Officer were not at all acceptable to Whitehall which believed that the Attorney-General's first duty was to be on hand, to attend and to advise

1079
Cabinet, and not to wander about appearing in court, here or abroad. It has always been the desire of Whitehall that Law Officers should be tame, in-house lawyers at the beck and call of government. Whitehall has always wanted to remove them—and accomplished it in the end—from the law courts where their chambers used to be situated and to bring them nearer to Whitehall and Westminster. Perhaps I should add that I managed to resist that since I feared that removal from the law courts would loosen the Law Officers' links with the courts and their semi-judicial duties and would translate them into mere political Ministers with legal qualifications. In those days—25 years ago—despite Whitehall, I was able to insist on appearing regularly in court—in the appellate courts, in Strasbourg and at the Hague, and to prosecute on each circuit, save the Welsh circuit. As I had succeeded my dear friend Sir Elwyn Jones I would not have dared to prosecute on that distinguished circuit, among its distinguished practitioners.
In the past 25 years, the role of the Law Officers has greatly changed. Their appearances in court have significantly declined. That may be partly due to the European business which is now inflicted upon them, but principally their traditional role has changed because another place has increasingly ceased to be an assembly where Members with different experiences and different expertise in finance, industry, agriculture, the law or medicine can contribute their experience to debates. Such Members have been replaced by professional politicians who are without real experience of trade or the professions. Sir Gordon Downey appears to be doubting whether Members of another place should even be permitted to have any outside interests whatsoever. In the future, therefore, there is little chance of a successful barrister seeking election to another place. In my day, "real barristers"—that is, practising barristers; not those simply with qualifications who have been called to the Bar—were encouraged and accommodated as Members of another place by being excused morning committees by the Whips, provided that they were in the House by 4.30 p.m.—that is, after the courts had risen. How can a government in future expect to find banister Members who are capable of serving as Law Officers? They will not be able to do so.
Therefore, while I welcome the noble and learned Lord to this House—he has substantial practical experience in the courts—there remains a problem for the other place which used to receive expert legal advice from Law Officers, knowing that they enjoyed a substantial practice in the courts. If the Attorney-General does not appear regularly in the courts, I do not see how he can remain head of the Bar. I hope that I shall not be the last ex-Attorney-General to be elected chairman of the Bar, but I regret that I do not believe that the traditional role, whereby Law Officers were frequently in the courts and appearing in cases in which the Crown was seriously interested, either prosecuting or being involved in fiscal or other matters, can be preserved. Indeed, as I expressed on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, the judicial role of the Lord Chancellor has been threatened by his becoming the head of a vast spending and administrative
1080
department. He thus becomes less the judge and more the political Minister. Inevitably, I fear that the time is coming for the establishment of a ministry of justice.
As far as concerns the role of the Lord Chancellor, perhaps I may give the noble and learned Lord a rather sly warning. The Law Officers are the constitutional advisers on law to the Cabinet, of which the Lord Chancellor is a member. When the Law Officers give advice the question has been researched not only by themselves but by lawyers in their departments, lawyers in the department concerned and also Treasury counsel—the leading practitioners in the field of law under review. Such is their calibre that in my time I can cite, for instance, the following Treasury counsel: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bridge, Lord Slynn and Lord Woolf, and Lord Justice Peter Gibson in Chancery matters. Such is the calibre of lawyers who contribute to a Law Officer's opinion. I warn the Solicitor-General, half in jest but half seriously, to beware of "top-of-the-head" advice. It is not unknown for such advice to be given in Cabinet to government by otherwise friendly Lord Chancellors. Beware!
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. However, I foresee the demise of the traditional system. I am saddened that the changes in another place over the past quarter of a century have effectively driven from its ranks those who were known as the gentlemen of the long robe and who over the centuries have long adorned the lower House of Parliament.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this debate gives me the opportunity to express my personal pleasure at the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as Solicitor-General, to congratulate him and to wish him happiness and fulfilment in his new career in public office. He has had a very successful career at the Bar where he is popular and universally admired for his warmth, wit, high intelligence and forensic ability. He will, I am sure, be a source of strength to the Government and to Parliament. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this imaginative and well merited appointment.
There is nothing unprecedented about a Law Officer being a Member of this House rather than of another place. There have been times when Law Officers have been outside Parliament altogether: Sir William Jowitt. as Attorney-General, was without a seat in 1931; Sir Henry Slesser, as Solicitor-General, was without a seat in 1924; the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not invariably a member of another place; and the Lord Advocate is now a Member of this House, which perhaps reflects the decline in the number of able advocates in the other place.
The present Bill makes a small but important change by empowering the Solicitor-General to discharge the functions of the Attorney-General free of the existing unnecessary constraints. Traditionally, the Solicitor-General has been the general deputy of the Attorney-General and subordinate to him. In effect the

1081
present Bill establishes the Solicitor-General as a Law Officer with potentially co-ordinate powers and duties to those of the Attorney-General.
I hope that this will be only a first step in a programme of much needed reform of the government legal services. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already expressed an intention to create a judicial services commission for the appointment of judges, a proposal long advocated by my party. The importance of that proposal is twofold: first, properly constructed—by which I mean with a mainly judicial membership—a judicial services commission will protect the independence and high quality of the judiciary. Secondly, the creation of such a bulwark and safeguard will make it possible to move towards the creation of a more powerful department of justice, unifying responsibility for the criminal and the civil law together with public law in a single department and giving a very high priority to constitutional and law reform. It is surely anomalous that responsibility for criminal law reform is still a matter for the Home Secretary while responsibility for civil law reform is a matter for the Lord Chancellor.
I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in his recent lecture to the Administrative Law Bar Association, that it would also be desirable for the Lord Chancellor to cease to be the head of the judiciary in England and Wales while retaining all his other functions about appointments, law reform, statute law revision, legal administration and as constitutional adviser to the Government. As the noble and learned Lord observed,
"Under governments of all complexions the Lord Chancellor is always a spokesman for the government in furtherance of its party political agenda. Even in respect of matters affecting the administration of justice he is … always subject to collective cabinet responsibility. The Lord Chancellor as a cabinet member represents the voice of reform guided by the Treasury perspective. The view of the judges is rather different. They do not wholeheartedly share the modern adoration of the deity of the economy. On the whole they put justice first. That view can in our system he best put forward by the Lord Chief Justice. He should he the head of the judiciary in England and Wales."
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, I believe that the proposition that a Cabinet Minister must be the head of our judiciary in England is no longer sustainable on constitutional or pragmatic grounds.
What then of the constitutional role of the Law Officers? The office of Attorney-General is highly political. Although he is not normally in the Cabinet he is a member of the Government. Together with the Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland, he is a member of the Administration and one of the Crown's principal advisers on points of law. He represents the Crown in all matters in which rights of a public character come into question. He is entitled to take civil proceedings to enforce the law, including contempt proceedings against the media. He may be instructed to prosecute in important criminal cases and his consent is required before some criminal proceedings can be undertaken. He has the power to enter a nolle prosequi on any
1082
indictment. The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible to him and he is in turn accountable to Parliament.
The Attorney-General's power to take civil proceedings to enforce the law and his control over criminal prosecutions is quasi-judicial, but he is also a political figure responsive to political pressures. By convention, in his quasi-judicial function the Attorney-General is not subject to collective responsibility and he does not take orders from the Government. But he may seek the views of other Ministers and they may volunteer their views. He must weigh issues of public interest and public policy, but he is not meant to be influenced by party political considerations.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, has pointed out, these conventions are weak and their
"efficacy depends on Chinese walls in the mind of the Attorney General".
He gives the examples of the decision taken by a distinguished Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, to bring proceedings to prevent the publication of Spycatcher, observing that there was nothing very quasi-judicial about that decision.
In his Hamlyn lectures in 1990 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, examined the Attorney-General's function in bringing civil proceedings to protect the public interest. The Master of the Rolls said that in controversial cases involving the Government it seemed virtually impossible for the public or the media to identify when the Attorney-General was wearing his guardian of the public interest hat rather than his governmental hat. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, concluded that it was not apt any longer for the Attorney-General to perform this important function. He called for the appointment of an independent director of civil proceedings, and I tend to agree with him.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, has argued cogently that the same reasoning based on considerations of public confidence applies to the Attorney-General's power over criminal prosecutions. He asks,
"How can there be public confidence in a decision by the Attorney-General to prosecute or not to prosecute in a politically sensitive case? How can the public have confidence that the Attorney General is able to keep his political and public interest responsibilities in separate mental compartments? The present position is entirely inconsistent with constitutional principle. Nothing will be lost if the office of Attorney General is removed from the political arena, as an independent office outside government."
That is a model adopted under the Irish constitution and the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries. The Attorney-General in those countries is not a government servant, but an independent officer with quasi-judicial and executive functions. There is much to commend it. There is an alternative to the independent status advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and others, which would be to relieve the Attorney-General of his functions in respect of criminal prosecutions and to take civil proceedings to enforce the law by entrusting those powers to independent public

1083
officers—the Director of Public Prosecutions and a director of civil proceedings, who could be made accountable to Parliament through the appropriate Select Committee.
In his review of Government Legal Services, in 1989, the distinguished public servant Sir Robert Andrew wrote that he had been struck by two features of the present organisation.
"On the one hand, the Law Officers do not really have a Department—only a Legal Secretariat … If the Attorney-General, assisted by the Solicitor-General, is to perform the important and onerous task of acting as Legal Adviser to the Government on a wide range of increasingly complex issues … he needs more substantial support. On the other hand, the Treasury Solicitor's Department is a department without a ministerial head in the usual sense. It would be helpful to the Treasury Solicitor to have a Minister in day-to-day charge of the Department. This would give him a ministerial voice and ensure that he saw copies of ministerial correspondence … thus facilitating an early legal input on policy issues. It would give him additional 'clout', for example in disputes over resources."
I believe that Sir Robert Andrew was right in recommending that the two departments should be merged to form a single Law Officers' department presided over by the Attorney-General. The Treasury Solicitor would retain his historic title and duties but would become the Permanent Secretary of the new department, and would be the Law Officers' principal adviser as well as supervising the department.
I agree also with Sir Robert Andrew that there would be advantage in bringing Parliamentary Counsel's Office within the new Law Officers' department. Giving the Attorney-General a more direct responsibility for Parliamentary Counsel's Office would not alter the position of the Lord President, nor the relationship between individual drafters and the Ministers for whom they prepare Bills. It would not mean that the Attorney-General became an extra link in the drafting process, but it would help to meet the criticism that there is no one to whom Ministers can turn if they are dissatisfied with the way in which the drafting of a Bill is being handled. I well remember that problem, when I had the privilege of acting as special adviser to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead at the Home Office in the mid-1970s. Both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General were greatly dissatisfied with the way in which a Bill's drafting was being handled, but they were helpless to do anything effective to resolve the problem.
I hope that each of those suggestions will be carefully considered at an early stage in the lifetime of this Government, and that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, whose powers and influence will be greatly enhanced by this little Bill, working with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, will be a midwife for further reforms.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, paid a felicitous and well deserved tribute to the admirable maiden and ministerial speech of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. I exceptionally wish to associate myself with that, partly on personal grounds and partly
1084
because it is a valuable parliamentary development that an English Law Officer should be a Member of your Lordships' House.
I do not know whether there is still, in the library of the Law Officers' department, an old hook, now superseded, by Norton-Kyshe, on the Law Officers of the Crown. If the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has not come across it, I recommend the first three pages to him. In that he describes, first, how horrible is the existence of the Attorney-General: everything he does will be execrated; on the other hand, he says that the job of Solicitor-General is the happiest in the Government. I hope that that will encourage the noble and learned Lord.
Your Lordships will remember that when Disraeli became a Member of your Lordships' House one of his colleagues asked him how he was getting on, and he said,
"Dead, dead, but in the Elysian Fields".
The noble and learned Lord will not merely be occupying the most felicitous post in the Government, but he will be grazing, in that respect, in the Elysian Fields, and we are glad that it should be so.
I mentioned the value of an English Law Officer being a Member of your Lordships' House. In a sense, that is partly a reversion to history. Until about 1600 both Law Officers, but particularly the Solicitor-General, had the duty of advising your Lordships' House. The Attorney-General's duties, oddly enough, consisted, among other things, of carrying messages between the two Houses, but the Solicitor-General was particularly the adviser of your Lordships' House. When he was elevated to Attorney-General, difficulties sometimes arose. They were mainly personal.
The main difficulty arose when Francis Bacon, a Member of the other place, was made Attorney-General. He was already by that time intensely distrusted, partly because of his obvious ambition, by his parliamentary colleagues. They resolved at first that no Attorney-General should be a Member of the other place. They relented slightly after that and resolved that Mr. Attorney Bacon should remain a Member, but that in future no Attorney-General should be a Member of the other place. Remarkably, that was observed for about three-quarters of a century, but since the Restoration the Attorney-General has been welcomed as a Member of the other place, the difference again, I think, being largely a matter of character.
Sir Henry Finch, afterwards the great Earl of Nottingham, was a man of outstanding integrity and was implicitly trusted by the other place to carry out his duties impartially and not merely as a servant of the Crown. That brings me to why it is valuable to have an English Law Officer among your Lordships. The law officers, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, explained, have their primary function as legal advisers and representatives of the Government. But they also have a duty to Parliament. Parliament looks to them to explain with impartiality difficult points of law. I remember Mr. Attorney Manningham-Buller explaining to a mystified House of Commons the

1085
Byzantine differences between malice aforethought, constructive malice and implied malice. The House readily accepted his advice, even if it did not fully understand it. Indeed, we look to the Law Officers not only to represent the Government but also to advise your Lordships with integrity and impartiality.
For those reasons, I greatly welcome the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. For some time, we have had the Lord Advocate as a Member to our advantage. Indeed, he has gone far beyond the bounds of Scottish business in assisting your Lordships. I do not know what will happen to him if we have a Scottish Parliament. One of the many ideas that has been successively floated is that there should be a Cabinet in the Scottish Parliament and that the Scottish law officers should be heard and advise there but not be Members. How that places the Lord Advocate in regard to your Lordships' House I do not know. Perhaps he will be a noble embodiment of the West Lothian question. If we are to miss him we will all the more value the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, who by his speech today has so much commended himself to your Lordships.
3.42 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, your Lordships may be relieved to hear that I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his perpetual and restless desire to change almost everything seemingly for change's sake or merely because it is done differently in some remote country. I rise to express my delight at the appointment of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton as Solicitor-General and as a Member of your Lordships' House. I have two reasons for doing so. The first is purely personal; the second is more general and relates to the functions of the Law Officers of England and Wales, if Wales will still have him after his earlier remarks.
Sitting on these Benches, I can have no general view as to the desirability or not of the recent change of government. However, that they have brought the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer, to the office of Solicitor-General and to this House is a great point in their favour. Not only is the noble and learned Lord a very able lawyer and advocate, but he is also an enormously interesting and interested person who will bring to this role a highly intelligent and original mind; a great felicity of expression; a high degree of charm and wit, as the House will already have witnessed; and a deep concern for what is fair and right. He will also bring to it a very delightful and charming wife who, as he assures us, is not his nanny. Your Lordships might have thought from that that he is an ideal adornment for the Front Bench, but one must perhaps accept his lack of sartorial elegance.
I have only two qualifications to my unadulterated delight at his appointment. The first is that our chambers are a much duller place without him; and the second is that I feel a deep sympathy for those in his office who, no doubt, have already encountered his unique ability to create instant and total chaos out of his room and out of
1086
every set of papers put before him. If they find that position wholly intolerable and would like to get in touch with me I shall be able to give them the name of probably the only person in the world who can deal with it.
On a more general point, I strongly echo what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell. In the distant past. many of those elected to another place had already pursued successful careers in spheres outside politics. They came to Parliament bringing that wisdom and experience and they did not abandon that other activity. Now, such are the demands of the parties that almost everyone in another place is and always has been a full-time professional politician who has done and achieved little else. Of course, this is not the time and perhaps not even the place to debate the general desirability of that.
However, in few fields has that been more marked than in the law. There were times when much of the leading talent at the Bar was available for appointment as Law Officers. Names such as Carson. F.E. Smith, Sir John Simon, and so forth, come to mind. In more recent years. more notable exceptions have fulfilled the talents and abilities of the names I have mentioned. One has to think only of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, to see what I mean.
But it will be accepted that it is no longer the case that there is available for choice as Law Officers in another place those who have and are pursuing successful careers at the Bar and who therefore are in touch with the full knowledge and nuances of an ever more complicated legal system. If our Law Officers are always to come from those elected to another place, it is therefore inevitable that they will lack the knowledge, experience and wisdom of someone in full-time practice.
That fact has led many, including myself, to doubt the continuing utility of the system and to wonder whether it would he better if each government appointed a panel of leading lawyers to advise them rather than relying on the Law Officers.
As regards Scotland, in recent years Law Officers have been appointed from lawyers rather than from Members of Parliament and have therefore had that wisdom. In the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, one can hardly expect to gain the unanimous approval of this House for that step or for its consequences, but I believe that on the whole it will receive general approval. This is the first time that the step has been taken for England and Wales and I very much commend it. However many people may dislike lawyers as a breed, it is the function of government to propose and of Parliament to enact law. In doing so, it is surely necessary that they should have access to the best possible legal advice and cogent exposition of that advice.
I hardly expect the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, with his natural modesty. to say in his closing speech how much he agrees with me; that his was an excellent appointment and innovation. However, I hope that my remarks and those of the noble and

1087
learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, may be conveyed to others and that we will see this excellent precedent followed on future occasions.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on his maiden speech. It is the latest of several from the Government Front Benches, from which position a maiden speaker probably does not have the same freedom of choice as a Back-Bencher in relation to either the occasion or the content of his first speech. That has not affected the noble and learned Lord who comes to the House, as we have heard, with a well-deserved reputation for his formidable intellect and advocacy.
The noble and learned Lord has introduced a Bill which will give him more work for no extra pay because, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill will have no effect on public expenditure. As your Lordships may be aware, there has been much cheerful speculation about just how big a financial sacrifice the noble and learned Lord made to take up his office. There have also been serious suggestions for a reconsideration of the level of remuneration to the Law Officers. Perhaps the argument for higher pay will be defeated so long as governments can recruit and retain eminent practitioners such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
Some people say also that the Law Officers should appear in court more often, as in the days when they often appeared in important criminal trials and tax cases. That is a point on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, touched. It may be that the present Solicitor-General can make up for the dramatic impact on the Inland Revenue resulting from his own abandonment of practice by restoring his appearances for that organisation. However, I do not know whether there is any way in which the effect on the turnover of the chambers of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, can be remedied in quite the same way.
I should like to think also that this appointment sets a precedent for there to be one Law Officer for England and Wales in this House. Not only would that relieve the sometimes enormous parliamentary burden on the Lord Chancellor but it would also enable a Law Officer to participate directly in the work of this House as a revising Chamber, to the long term enhancement of the quality of our legislation. I hope also that the point made by my noble friend Lord Lester about an assumption of responsibility for the work of parliamentary counsel will be considered seriously.
The necessity for this Bill would surprise most lawyers who would have assumed—and would probably have been taught—that the Solicitor-General can exercise all the powers of the Attorney-General when the Attorney-General is not available. The late Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his memoirs, quoted the author of Forensic Fables who described the difference between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as,
"Broadly speaking, the difference between a crocodile and an alligator".
In present company, I am sure that that refers only to speed of movement when roused and to firmness of grip.
1088
In fact. the 1944 Act provides only for the exercise of statutory powers by the Solicitor-General in place of the Attorney. The reason for that limitation is not very clear from reading the debates on the 1944 Act. Then there was no debate about the constitutional position of the Law Officers. Nowadays, every first-year law student learns that the Law Officers' position exerts much theoretical and actual strain on the separation of powers. The Law Officers' ability to withstand that strain depends on the independence and integrity of the office holders and on their ability to separate the interests of the government of which they are a member and the interests of the wider community.
Unfortunately, the public probably no longer believes that a Law Officer can fully immunise himself from political pressures. Yet there must be public confidence in the total independence of those who make the sort of discretionary decisions which Law Officers must make; for example, decisions whether or not to prosecute the media for contempt of court or, in cases of incitement to racial hatred, where it has been suggested that there has been too much caution in prosecution and that that has had the effect of weakening the legislation.
As we have heard this afternoon, there have been many different proposals to detach the Law Officers from the political arena while retaining some measure of parliamentary accountability for which, as my noble friend said, there are models in other jurisdictions. These proposals have come not just from political parties but from distinguished academics and most recently from noble and learned Law Lords, in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Steyn.
We are embarking on a period of constitutional reform. I hope that it will include a real consideration of the functions and powers of Law Officers at the turn of the century. But perhaps I may end by reassuring the new Solicitor-General that this Bill will not be used by me at any rate as a vehicle by which to change his job description so early in his career.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in view of the politically anodyne content of this Bill, and the many excellent speeches that we have heard this afternoon in your Lordships' House both from noble and noble and learned Lords, almost the only thing that is left for me to do is to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General most warmly on an entertaining and accomplished maiden speech. Listening to him, it is easy to understand how he has attained such great eminence in his career and at such a tender age.
I should like to think that, while in office, he will manage to maintain himself in court room condition. As I understand it, in the old days the Law Officers honed their forensic skills on prosecuting poisoners in the criminal court. Nowadays, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, told us, the role of Law Officers is mainly that of what the Americans now call, I believe, "upstairs lawyers". They advise government departments on how best to behave and no doubt advise them on how to make their decisions immune from judicial review—usually with absolutely disastrous consequences.

1089
I believe that this move, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, particularly addressed, is reflected in what I regard as the rather sad shift of the Law Officers from the law courts in the Strand to Buckingham Gate. That symbolises what has happened. However, it is true to say also that poisoning is not as fashionable as it used to be.
Your Lordships' House will agree, from the grasp that the noble and learned Lord showed of the historic background of his appointment, that he will be a great servant in that role. I wish him the very best of luck in it.
The noble and learned Lord quoted the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as saying what a jolly good thing it was that the Solicitor-General had come to your Lordships' House. I share that view. I was particularly struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said about the difficulty these days in combining a full and successful law practice in the courts with a full and successful political career in another place. That is something that has perhaps passed us by for ever. In those circumstances, and particularly with the kind of international travel that a modern Law Officer will have to undertake, appearing in international courts, including the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, it may be a very good thing that he is not burdened with the heavy constituency duties which are now a daily part of the diet of Members of another place.
Also, it reflects a very interesting change in the direction of authority as between your Lordships' House and another place. The story of the 20th century has been a story of a gradual ebbing away of power from your Lordships' House to another place. Here is a happy example of a reversal of that flow. The power has now come back to your Lordships' House in the shape of the office of Solicitor-General. I rather take the view that, just because you have been elected, does not necessarily mean that you are a good thing. So, perhaps one day, we will see the position of Attorney-General also added to that of Solicitor-General in your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that he thought that the appointment of Solicitor-General was an excellent appointment to have in government. That was not the view of the first Labour Law Officer, Sir Patrick Hastings, who is said to be, by those who saw both men, the greatest advocate of the 20th century, next to Lord Carson. He hated the job of Law Officer. Indeed, he only held it for a few months. He called it, "the job out of Hell". He recommended that a certain prosecution take place but the Labour Cabinet reversed that recommendation. As a direct result, as I understand it, the first Labour Government fell.
I am not suggesting to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General that that will be the consequence of the Bill that he has introduced today. On the contrary, I believe it to be an excellent Bill. I only wish that my own party had introduced it when it was in government, because it is clearly long overdue. By doing so, the noble and learned Lord has fulfilled that other requirement when making a maiden speech which is to introduce
1090
something uncontroversial. The noble and learned Lord has opened his innings in the finest style and I wish him the best of luck in the future.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the many kind words that have been addressed to me in the debate. For me, it has been a short but interesting debate. I am pleased and relieved that the Bill has been broadly welcomed.
I shall begin by dealing with the very helpful contributions which have been made this afternoon. I should like, first, to refer to the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I should tell him that, in my capacity as deputy to the Attorney-General, I was in Northern Ireland last week. While I was there, without making any comment on his predecessor and on the politics involved, a member of the Northern Ireland Bar said that one of the few benefits of the suspension of Stormont and what followed in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was that Sir Peter Rawlinson (as he then was) became the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Plainly he is a man held in the greatest respect both here and in Northern Ireland.
In effect, the noble and learned Lord made three points. First, he said that he very much hoped that the Law Officers would continue with the tradition of appearing in court. We very much agree with that; but, of course, it is very much more difficult to appear in court on the regular basis that the Law Officers have done in the past. Moreover, there are certain kinds of litigation, such as revenue litigation, in which it might not be appropriate for them to get involved. However, both myself and my right honourable and learned friend in another place hope to appear in court, not just in poisoning cases—indeed, perhaps not even in poisoning cases—but certainly in criminal and civil cases of importance.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that it was most unfortunate that there was no time now to be both a successful barrister and a Member of the Lower House. That does not apply to my right honourable and learned friend in another place who, after the Labour Government lost power in 1979, pursued an extremely successful career at the criminal Bar and now holds the office of Attorney-General. Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord warned me about, as he described it, the top-of-the-head advice from the Lord Chancellor. All of us would agree that the top-of-the-head advice from the present Lord Chancellor would be better than the bottom-of-the-head advice from most of us. However, I take on board the warning given to me.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his kind remarks and welcome. I am not sure that this is the appropriate debate in which to discuss the constitutional position either of the Lord Chancellor or of the Law Officers. However, I shall simply make three points in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. First, there are substantial benefits in having as a Law Officer a political big hitter—I do not mean myself, but my right honourable and learned friend in another

1091
place—because it is useful to have a substantial politician who is able to express legal advice. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, perhaps among the most distinguished barristers who has held the office of Law Officer this century was Sir Patrick Hastings. Whether through his own fault or otherwise, he ended up making a very substantial mess so far as concerns politics.
Thirdly, the noble Lord referred to statutory drafting. The position now is that if a Minister is dissatisfied with the drafting of a Bill, he is entitled to go to the Law Officers for their advice to ascertain whether or not the Bill as drafted reflects the policy of the ministry. If it does not, then it is for the Law Officers to raise the matter with the drafters of the Bill and to make sure that it gives effect to the policy. Therefore, one hopes that the problems that the noble Lord identified, especially in relation to the legislation to which he referred, would not now be encountered.
I am most grateful for the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I very much hope that I will be grazing in the Elysian Fields, as he suggests. I would regard it as immodest to suggest for one moment that the Solicitor-General could take over the role that has been performed with such distinction by the Lord Advocate in this House over many years. As for my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I must say that I am deeply grateful for his kind personal remarks; indeed, I regard every one of them as being in breach of confidence. As regards his echoing the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, I believe that I dealt with those points when responding earlier.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his kind remarks. I particularly noted his reference to the financial position of the Law Officers. Up until 1892, Law Officers could conduct their own private practices. However, Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister at the time, sought the advice of the Attorney-General on a particular occasion but he was too busy performing his private practice. He then reached for his very much second best, the Solicitor-General, but he, too, was performing private work. Therefore, they were banned ever afterwards from conducting private work. Their last hope was the fact that they used to be paid when they appeared in court on behalf of the Government but, thanks to the negotiating skills of Mr. Hartley Shawcross (as he then was), that right was negotiated away in return for a bigger salary. I imagine that there is no connection between that negotiation taking place and the fact that the appearances of the Law Officers in court have substantially declined since then.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for the kind remarks that he made. Again, I believe I dealt with all the points that he raised in my earlier responses. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment)Order 1997
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may already be aware of the news from Northern Ireland today of the murder of two police officers. I condemn unreservedly the cold-blooded and brutal murder of two police officers in Lurgan and express my sympathy to their families. Full details of the incident are not yet available, but the RUC is investigating the matter. However, the Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for these murders. No effort will be spared to bring those responsible to justice. At this stage, I would appeal for calm on all sides and for anyone with any information on the murders to contact the police as soon as possible.
I return now to the specific details of the order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made this order proscribing the Loyalist Volunteer Force (the LVF) and the Continuity Army Council (the CAC) on 3rd June. It came into effect on 4th June and is subject to approval within 40 sitting days.
The Loyalist Volunteer Force is a breakaway group of the Ulster Volunteer Force. The Continuity Army Council is a name generally used to describe the military wing of Republican Sinn Fein.
We do not take decisions concerning the proscription of any organisation lightly. It might be helpful if I put the proscription of these two organisations in the context of a number of appalling acts of terrorism for which they have claimed responsibility. First, in March this year the LVF set fire to the tourist information centres in Banbridge and Newcastle. It is also responsible for arson attacks on the Irish Heritage Centre in Donaghmore, a school in Newry and Sinn Fein offices in Dungannon. It also in the same month claimed responsibility for planting a bomb in Dundalk town centre. In April the LVF claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a public house in Aghalee and in May it claimed responsibility for the murder of 62 year-old Sean Brown, from Bellaghy, a respected member of the community who was active in the local Gaelic Athletic Association club.
With regard to the CAC, in July 1996 it claimed responsibility for a car bomb left outside the Killyhevlin Hotel in Enniskillen which destroyed much of the building. In September it claimed responsibility for a bomb abandoned in a stolen car in Belfast city centre. In May the CAC was believed to be responsible for a car bomb in Belfast which detonated prematurely injuring an occupant of the car.
Taking into account such heinous crimes as these, and judging carefully all the available information against our criterion for proscription, my right honourable friend concluded that in both cases the criterion of being

1093
concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it, had been fully met. Once this judgment had been made, my right honourable friend decided to take immediate action since any organisations which are constituted for the primary purpose of carrying out criminal terrorist acts can have no legitimate place in our society. As a result of this order, it is an offence to be a member of the LVF or CAC from the time they became proscribed organisations. It is also an offence to solicit or invite any person to become a member of these organisations or to assist in the holding of a meeting to support or further their activities.
Our message is clear and unambiguous. We will not tolerate violence from whatever quarter it comes in Northern Ireland. Violence will not win. Its use is futile and unacceptable. The LVF and CAC have joined the IRA, INLA, UVF and UDA and others on the list of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's hope lies with those who are committed to creating a just, peaceful and prosperous society; something which all of us in your Lordships' House support. The Government regard this order as a fully warranted response to the activities of the LVF and CAC. I therefore have no hesitation in commending it unreservedly to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I fully support the measure now before us. I wish only to sound a note of warning to the Minister and to the Government he represents. As a result of the recent elections in the Republic of Ireland it has been reported that the new Taoiseach intends to nominate Albert Reynolds as his special representative to and link with the nationalists in the North, and has committed himself to defending the interest of the Nationalists. Given the part that Mr. Reynolds himself has publicly claimed that he played in using Sinn Fein/IRA drafts as the basis of the Dublin version of the Framework Document, and in effect allowing them to dictate the then Dublin Government's policy in what was supposed to be the work of the two Governments, this move is bound to cause both anxiety and anger among Unionists in the North. This is a critical time for them.
The former Taoiseach, John Bruton, had gone far to reassure Unionist opinion by making it clear that he and his Government joined us in holding Sinn Fein/IRA at arm's length while they refused to abandon violence, and had said specifically that his Government did not share the IRA all-Nationalist agenda. Now there is a new Government in Dublin with a long tradition of sympathy with Sinn Fein/IRA. It will be extremely important, therefore, to reassure the Unionists, who have good reason to feel anxious. The marching season is upon us, when tempers run high and Sinn Fein/IRA are as adept at provoking clashes as some of the Orange Order are, I fear, at acting intemperately. The callous murder of two RUC officers today is an example. I was immensely reassured but not at all surprised to hear the
1094
firm words uttered by the Minister. Sinn Fein is very good at provoking crises. I hope I may therefore urge the Government most strongly to step warily with Mr. Reynolds, and to require Mr. Adams and Mr. Reynolds to say clearly what they think of the unnecessary murders.
In a "Dispatches" programme last year Mr. Reynolds was happy both to state unequivocally that Dublin's drafts of the Framework Document were written by Sinn Fein/IRA, and to show on television actual exchanges of correspondence between himself and the then British Prime Minister, John Major. I urge, therefore, that Ministers should recognise that confidentiality will fly out of the window as Mr. Reynolds comes in. I do not suggest that the new Taoiseach, who is perfectly open in his political stance, seeing himself as the champion of nationalists in Northern Ireland, will not be ready to respect confidentiality himself—of course he will—but there has been plenty of proof that Mr. Reynolds does not operate by those rules, and that he is likely to be little more than a willing and voluble voice of Sinn Fein/IRA.
The Unionists, whether Dublin and Sinn Fein like it or not, are the majority in Northern Ireland, and they and a large number of nationalists who did not and would not vote for Sinn Fein are indispensable to the peace process. They need every reassurance the Government can give them that the Government, who have so far most honourably followed a bipartisan policy in Northern Ireland, will take account of the strengthened position of Sinn Fein/IRA in the South and their capacity not only to influence but to form Dublin policy. At this critical time that is important.
This might be no bad moment to ask Dublin where it now stands on the one tentative possible concession it offered in the Framework Document: the commitment to consider the abolition of Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I still believe that practical, pragmatic, step-by-step agreement to work out various cross-border conventions in the areas of trade, transport, public utilities and so on, and the devolution of much more responsibility within Northern Ireland to district councils where people can work together, coupled with talks, however slow the progress, could produce real results.
Meanwhile, however, we must not be blown off course by the Unionist reaction to Mr. Reynolds's re-entry on the stage, which we must expect to be wary, if not hostile. He will be bent on high visibility; what is needed are patience and a low key approach, some small practical gestures, and above all the trust of the majority. The loyalist paramilitaries as a whole have behaved with admirable restraint. I think they will recognise that their efforts must not be destroyed by the small group who are being discussed today.
Perhaps I may add one last word. I hope that, whatever the Government's intentions on the issue of marches, special efforts will be made to show the RUC that the extreme pressures to which it is subjected in its efforts to keep the Queen's peace are valued and respected; that it will be supported; and that we all share its grief and anger over the hateful and inexcusable

1095
murders that have been reported today, and claimed so blithely by the IRA. Nothing could more clearly justify the need for the measure before us today. I fully recognise that extremists—whichever side of the barrier they are—need to he restrained. However, I hope very much that we shall nevertheless remember that the vast majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland, and a large number of Catholics, believe in the peace process and are exercising great restraint.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed in relation to the terrible murders of two policemen that took place today in Lurgan. This order before the House today should make it unnecessary to have any prolonged debate as, in view of the terrible murders that have occurred, no one in his right mind could object to an order such as this.
In 1973 I was a Member of another place when this emergency provisions order first came on to the statute book. Since then I have seen a succession of Secretaries of State introducing orders to ban certain organisations. All I can say is that they do not appear to have been particularly successful. I had intended to ask my noble friend Lord Dubs today, in the event that there was a credible ceasefire—up to this morning I believed that there was the possibility of a ceasefire, as many reports in the national newspapers in particular suggested that—by word and deed, to use the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how long it would be before we could take legislation such as this off the statute hook. It now appears that that moment will be a long time in the future.
In a recent debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, drew the attention of the House to the fact that, while the loyalist paramilitaries claimed that they supported a ceasefire, many things were happening behind the scenes which associated them with some awful acts of terrorism. We cannot come down on one side and say that one section of the paramilitaries is admirable and the other side comprises murderers. They are all engaged in murderous intent.
I say this to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that the murders today have taken place with malice aforethought. They took place in Armagh; and everyone in Northern Ireland knows that Armagh is a tinder keg at present. We shall run into Drumcree in July. The so-called tenants associations have indicated that in July they will bring American television crews, American congressmen, American senators, civil rights organisations and Amnesty International to the Drumcree geographical area. They will not bring them to stand and watch; their intent is to bring about a confrontation between the police, the Army and the Catholic population in Garvaghy Road. The Catholic population will be put in a position where there is likely to be serious rioting and American television will be watching it. Pictures will be beamed to America to show the American people how brutal the security forces are in Northern Ireland.
1096
The terrible act of depravity this morning, the murder of two innocent community policemen in Northern Ireland, is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein ploy to create the maximum amount of trouble in Drumcree this year. I hope that my noble friend Lord Dubs has taken that into consideration. What is to happen in July of this year is, I believe, ominous.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, on a day like today when two policemen have been murdered in Lurgan in County Armagh, it would be easy to be taken up with a deep sense of anger and frustration at what has happened. It is an anger that I share not only as someone who comes from Northern Ireland but as someone born in Lurgan.
Many of the other events that have taken place are not far removed from any of us. I refer to Harryville where the LVF and its associates have been distinguishing themselves by blocking ordinary Catholics from going to worship. That has been happening for some 39 weeks, with increasing violence over recent weeks. The violence is not lessening. On such an amendment as we debate today which permits us to add two more organisations, one on the Loyalist side and one on the Republican side, to the list of proscribed organisations, it would be easy simply to say yes and to pass on to the next business. However, the very event of proscription of the two organisations demands a little more thought.
My noble friend Lord Fitt referred to the fact that the emergency provisions legislation first came on the statute book in 1973. In the not too distant future when we review its continuation, we shall do so in respect of emergency legislation which will be going into its 25th year. The very word "emergency" scarcely conjures up the notion of a quarter of a century. The provisional IRA which has claimed responsibility for the murder of the two policemen today was one of the organisations put on that list of proscribed organisations from the very beginning.
One can simply say that it is a political problem which will be solved in that kind of way. Indeed, we know that there is no purely security solution. However, I find the requirement to add these two organisations to the list of proscribed organisations disturbing for a political reason. Why did the two organisations come into being? The Loyalist Volunteer Force came into being because it was perceived in that paramilitary community that the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives were moving towards democracy, or perhaps a mixture of politics and violence. There were those within the community who said "No, we simply want to stick with the violence". They were referred to by one of the representatives of the Progressive Unionist Party, which politically represents the Ulster Volunteer Force, as renegades in the paramilitary organisations. What a curious term, my Lords. Yet it represents a disturbing way of thinking.
Some of the political representatives of the Loyalist paramilitary organisations are guilty of the most foul and despicable crimes. On the Republican side one sees Sinn Fein prepared quite unapologetically to represent

1097
the views of a long proscribed organisation, the Provisional IRA. One of the disturbing features of recent times is that with the seductive suggestion that those organisations, both political and paramilitary, were prepared to move into democracy, and democracy alone, a cloak of respectability has been cast upon them, without either side committing itself to democracy. On the Loyalist side, we are told that the CLMC ceasefire is still intact. The CLMC is not still intact. There is barely any kind of ceasefire between the component organisations, never mind from that set up to the community as a whole. It is a charade and the people in Northern Ireland know it to be so.
Yet those who stand as the apologists for those organisations are welcomed with open arms and given not only publicity but a place that I think is out of kilter with their proper standing in any democratic society. That is so on the Republican side too where there are representatives, and, indeed, representatives who have been elected to the other place. I fear that we may be crossing, if we had not done so already, a line between politics and violence over which we may find it difficult to cross back. I greatly fear that the use of violence has now become such an entrenched component of politics in Northern Ireland—not only by those who have been involved and their elected mandate but also in the way they find themselves being treated by representatives of proper sovereign governments—that even where there is a supposed ceasefire, we shall not find those atrocities disappearing.
In a recent edition of the Economist, in an interview with a respected journalist, it was made clear by a leading Republican that, yes, even if there were another IRA ceasefire such atrocities as we have seen today in Lurgan would continue because the so-called Loyalist ceasefire has seen atrocities continue and their representatives have not been banned from the talks.
So while we may with all propriety, and perhaps with a degree of self satisfaction, add those two organisations to the list of proscribed organisations, I fear that at the same time we are allowing a degree of respectability to gather round those longer-standing paramilitary organisations and their political apologists which may not serve anyone well either in my home place or on this side of the water.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, everyone on these Benches joins in the condemnation by the Minister of the acts of violence today in the killing of two, I understand, community policemen who were going about their job. They were mown down in a most terrible way. We extend our sympathies to their families and share their heartbreak. Perhaps we could also praise the members of the RUC who at this precise moment, despite these incidents, continue to do their duty maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland.
We also support the Government in all their efforts to defeat terrorism in every form and at all levels, and therefore are supportive of the order brought forward today.
1098
Although I do not agree with all the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I do agree that proscription will not provide a cure to violence. That must come from within the community, whatever the dedication of those at all levels in all organisations who work towards peace. I take this opportunity to put on record that in my view that includes the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The fact that they do many jobs which local politicians should do does not raise a question as to the way they do them or their desire to find peaceful solutions.
Real help will come when there is no support out in the community for terrorists and when there are no hiding places. Those who connive at terrorism or turn a blind eye to terrorist activities are participants in violence. The Minister rightly appeals for information about today's killings and the many other incidents that the people of Northern Ireland suffer. Everyone must play his or her part against violence. This order deserves the support of the many people in Northern Ireland who desire and deserve peace. We wish the Government every success in their fight against these terrible crimes.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench for her words of support. She was a Minister in Northern Ireland for a long period of time and is well aware of the situation on the ground there. Her words therefore carry additional weight.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the points made by other Members of the House in the course of the debate. To turn to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the Government value enormously the work of the RUC, their bravery and their willingness to put up with enormous dangers in the course of their day-to-day work. It is very much upon them and other members of the security forces that so many people in Northern Ireland depend for the safety of their day-to-day existence. That in itself adds further risks to being a member of the RUC, as we saw so tragically earlier today.
As regards the new government in Dublin, the Government, as did the previous British Government, will co-operate with any government in Dublin. We are confident that whoever becomes Taoiseach on 26th June will stand fully behind the Anglo-Irish communiqué of 28th February last year, in which both governments agreed that their Ministers would not meet Sinn Fein until there was an unequivocal restoration of the IRA cease-tire. Mr. Ahern has affirmed in recent days his support for this position. I do not want to go into the details of particular appointments made by the government in Dublin; it would not be appropriate for me to do so, except to reiterate that we expect to co-operate fully with the new government in Dublin. We are confident that they will be as opposed to terrorism as the previous government in Dublin were.
My noble friend Lord Fitt speaks with the authority of having lived for many years in Northern Ireland and has a great deal of knowledge of the situation on

1099
the ground there. He will understand that I am not able to give an undertaking about the future of the emergency legislation today, except to say that it will stay in place for as long as it is needed. We will not lessen the power of the security forces, the police and others by taking away from any legislation that protects them. We will keep that legislation firmly in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, at times struck a pessimistic note. Last week, the Secretary of State made a speech from which perhaps I may quote a small section. She said:
"The Government will do all it can to deal with terrorism from whatever source. I fully share the concern expressed by many about recent terrorist attacks that have been attributed to loyalist extremists. The ceasefire announcement by the so-called Combined Loyalist Military Command is still formally in place and, as the Prime Minister has said. that sign of restraint—so far
1100
as it goes—is welcome. But the words of any ceasefire declaration are meaningless unless reflected in deeds on the ground".
I thank all Members of the House for the support that they have given the Government in relation to this order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.34 to 4.39 p.m.]
House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock.

  The Baltic States: Diplomatic Relations
  The Baltic States: Diplomatic Relations
  CSA Performance Report
  CSA Performance Report
  Income Support Deductions
  Income Support Deductions
  The Scarman Trust: Inquiry Report
  The Scarman Trust: Inquiry Report
  Badger Control
  Badger Control
  Landfill Tax
  Landfill Tax
  European Commissioners: Pensions and Benefits
  European Commissioners: Pensions and Benefits
  Loan Guarantee Contract Terms
  Loan Guarantee Contract Terms
  Jubilee Line Extension: Canary Wharf Contribution
  Jubilee Line Extension: Canary Wharf Contribution
  Vehicle Statistics
  Vehicle Statistics
  Schools, etc: Wiring to Information Superhighway
  Schools, etc: Wiring to Information Superhighway