Sitting of 30 June 1997

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

    Pensions
    Mr. Terry Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to encourage people to take out value-for-money pensions. [4334]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We want to ensure that all pensioners can share fairly in rising national prosperity. We will support and strengthen the existing framework for occupational pensions. We will develop stakeholder pensions to offer secure, flexible, value-for-money pensions, particularly to those who cannot join an employer's occupational pension scheme, or whose pay is low, or who have intermittent wages, and for whom personal pensions may therefore be unsuitable.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Over several years, there has been a sad decline in the membership of occupational pension schemes. How will my hon. Friend tackle the effects of, for instance, the flexible labour market on the membership of such schemes?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: there has been a sharp decline in the membership of occupational pension schemes, particularly among men. Part of that was caused by the mis-selling of personal pensions to members of occupational schemes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the action that my colleagues in the Treasury are taking to sort the problem out.
    Many people in the flexible labour market cannot join an employer's occupational scheme, because there is not one on offer. They may be badly hit by high fees and charges for existing personal pensions. It is to give those people some of the advantages of occupational pensions that we wish to develop stakeholder pension schemes.
    Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister acknowledge the international recognition of the extremely sound basis of British pension provision, as endorsed by a recent report by the International Monetary Fund? Will he give an assurance that in no particular will the Government threaten the soundness of that basis?
    Mr. Denham: It is certainly true that the size of funded occupational pensions is a strength. Occupational pensions have always been supported by Labour Governments; indeed, membership of occupational pension schemes has peaked under Labour Governments and declined under Conservative Governments. I hope that the strength of the British pension scheme in that regard will continue to be recognised, but we must tackle the problems faced by people who have no opportunity to take advantage of a good, value-for-money employer's occupational scheme.
    Mr. Olner: Will the Minister also take account of the huge black hole that has been created by the fact that many workers are now on temporary wage contracts, and cannot enter occupational pension schemes? Will he do anything to remedy the problem?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. It is one of the difficulties to which I have been referring. Some of the personal pension schemes that are currently on the market will impose very high charges, and will take a large proportion of people's savings if, for example, they can enter and stay in the schemes only for a few months or years. That is why the Government place emphasis on developing value-for-money, flexible schemes that will not unfairly penalise people who change their jobs or spend periods outside the labour market.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her policy on benefits for lone parents. [4335]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and we are committed to a package of measures that will help lone mothers to move off benefits and into work so that they and their children can be better off.
    Decisions on benefits for lone parents will be announced at the time of the Budget.
    Mr. Lansley: Does the right hon. Lady agree with her right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:
    "Tax and benefit policy was squeezed to help single parents"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members do not quote at Question Time. Paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made it clear that he felt that a policy of differential benefits for lone parents should be abolished. Will the right hon. Lady now say that she will provide the same benefits for two-parent families as are provided for lone parents?
    Ms Harman: What we are concerned about is the differential in opportunities between married or cohabiting women and lone mothers. When her youngest child reaches the age of five, the married or cohabiting woman will often start to look for work. When she is able to go out to work and contribute to her family budget, the family is better off. However, lone mothers remain trapped on benefit and after 18 years of Conservative Government policies, about 1 million lone mothers are on income support and bringing up 2.2 million children on the breadline. We want to ensure that lone mothers have opportunities to work so that, like lone mothers in the rest of Europe, they do not have to bring up their children on benefits.
    Mr. McAllion: Like my right hon. Friend, I accept that the best policy on benefits for lone parents is to help them to get off benefit and back into work. Bearing that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the predicament of the Whitfield sitter service and Whitfield community nursery in my constituency, both of which provide affordable, quality child care to lone parents to enable them to get back into work? Because their urban programme funding runs out this year, both those organisations face closure later this year.
    4
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly counterproductive to allow such excellent organisations to close because of a lack of public funding when their closure will inevitably force lone parents out of work and back on to welfare, leading to an increase in public expenditure, which I am sure neither my right hon. Friend nor the Chancellor wish to see?
    Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Whitfield community nursery in his constituency. He is right to say that child care is essential to underpin the opportunities for lone mothers to go to work. That is why the Government consider the national child care strategy to be of central importance. It will ensure a choice of affordable, high-quality accessible child care so that lone mothers can be sure that, when they go to work, their children are playing and learning safely with other adults. Together with my ministerial colleagues, I shall look into the issue of the nursery in his constituency.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and her Ministers to their places and wish them the best of luck? We shall try to be constructive in opposition and shall look at each of the Government's proposals on its merits. However, we shall also judge them against the high level of expectation that they raised in the run-up to the general election.
    Many times in the run-up to the election, the right hon. Lady, made it quite clear that she did not believe in equal benefits for single and two-parent families. She has made it clear that she would reverse the Conservative Government's proposals. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has said, on 28 November the Minister of State made it quite clear that he took a different view.
    It is becoming increasingly clear that the right hon. Lady is unlikely to have her way in the Department in this case. Is she absolutely determined to stand by her commitments to reverse what we instigated and, if she does not get her way, what will she do?
    Ms Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and his shadow colleague to their new positions. I also welcome his statement that he will make constructive proposals and engage in constructive debate. If the hon. Gentleman considers what I said in the run-up to the general election and looks at Labour party documents from that time, he will see that our approach was made absolutely clear. We want what lone mothers want for themselves and their children, which is to be better off in work than on benefit.
    The Policy Studies Institute recently completed research which shows that a lone mother with two children moving off income support and into work on in-work benefits are likely to be £50 a week better off. At the heart of the Government's approach is a welfare-to-work strategy with the opportunities that lone parents seek for themselves. The Government will back them to ensure that they get those opportunities.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Professor Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the rules governing eligibility for the jobseeker's allowance. [4336]
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes she plans to make to the jobseeker's allowance. [4338]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that the jobseeker's allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.
    Professor Webb: In reviewing the jobseeker's allowance, will the Minister examine cases such as that of my constituent, Mr. Peter Free, who is undertaking a worthwhile course and who has been told by the job centre to give it up, despite doing well in the first year of the course, in favour of a dead-end job? Is that the Government's policy, or will they break from the previous Government's policy?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that constituency case. Clearly, within the evaluation of the jobseeker's allowance, we are carefully considering the way in which education and training interact with the need to return to work. I have considered carefully the constituency case. I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss the precise details in the Chamber, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, after questions today, I will discuss the matter further with him to ensure that his constituent is given the correct advice on training and job opportunities.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that we are reviewing the benefit, but I wonder whether the Minister—I mean my hon. Friend; I have just got to get into the habit—could help me with a few immediate points. What have we done in the meantime to ease administration of the benefit, to ease the petty meanness, to protect the staff and to ease the strain on them, all of which we exposed powerfully when the legislation was passed?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because it is essential that we give credit to the staff who deal with claimants for the benefit. We have to ensure that it is administered efficiently and effectively, and that it forms a proper platform of our welfare-to-work programme. I assure him that his points will form part of the evaluation.
    Mr. Forth: Given the Minister's reply to the original question, what will be the difference between his approach to the jobseeker's allowance and that of the previous Government?
    Mr. Bradley: The most essential part of the jobseeker's allowance is integral to our welfare-to-work programme: that we put forward options that give genuine opportunities for people to return to work, because work
    6
    is what they want. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government, who did not put work at the top of the agenda.
    Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the way in which people with learning difficulties are treated in the assessment for the allowance?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his particular concern on this issue from previous correspondence and from the occasions when he has raised the matter in the House. I assure him again that, within the evaluation, the problems of people with learning difficulties will be fully taken into account in our welfare-to-work programmes.

    State Pension
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations she has received on the level of the state pension. [4337]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government are committed to reviewing all the main areas of insecurity affecting pensioners. In that review, pensioners' views will be important, but the review will take place within a framework of trying to achieve two objectives. The first is how we ensure pensioners share in this country's rising prosperity; the second is how we automatically deliver more help to the poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents in Southend, West what proportion of average retirement income the state pension accounts for today, and what proportion he expects it to account for in five years' time?
    Mr. Field: All that I can say is that, under the previous Government, the state pension's value fell by 6 per cent: from 21 per cent. of average earnings to 15 per cent. of average earnings. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer to see the successes of our reviews and of our economic strategy before anyone can sensibly answer that question.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend give us the assurance—I am sure that he can—that, in any discussions about the level of the pension, his Department will keep in the closest possible contact with the various pensioners' groups and organisations? Does he agree that one of the problems in dealing with pensioners' groups is the profound sense of betrayal they feel, which they certainly felt and expressed in the general election, about the way they were treated by the previous Government, when, despite the massive advantages of income from North sea oil, they did not get a fair deal?
    Mr. Field: I was trying to make that point, although I did not do so as effectively as my hon. Friend, in my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). It is crucial not only that we ensure that pensioners have a stake in the rising prosperity of this country and that we listen carefully to the voices of pensioners, but that we widen the debate so that all of us

    7
    realise that most of us will one day be pensioners and that we have an interest in the evolving pension debate which the Government are leading.
    Mr. Burns: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, will he explain the comments that the Secretary of State made last October at the Labour party conference, which led many people to believe that, in government, she would consider raising the linkage of state pension to wages rather than prices? Is he aware that, if that were to happen by only 1 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation, it would cost £300 million in the first year and £4.5 billion by the fifth year?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where that money would come from and whether the Treasury is in agreement—or was it simply a question of seeking to give hints, nods and winks to interest groups which the Government had no intention of fulfilling once they came to power?
    Mr. Field: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I suggest that, if he wishes to make a constructive contribution to the evolving welfare debate, it would be better if he did not misrepresent what my right hon. Friend said and accepted that parties are bound by their election manifestos. If he has not had a copy of our election manifesto, I shall be happy to send him one.

    Benefit Services
    Ms Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals to improve services to those claiming benefit. [4339]
    Ms Harman: We will modernise the social security system to improve services to claimants. We want a system that is speedy, fair and efficient; the system that we have inherited from the previous Government is complex, lengthy and unfair.
    Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is very slow and inefficient for people to have to wait on average six months, or up to a year in some instances in my constituency, for an appeal or a decision on appeal? Is not that the direct responsibility of the previous Government? Does she further agree that by simplifying the decision and appeals system, the Government will make a start on modernising the welfare state?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She said that, once an appeal against benefit refusal has been lodged, it can take up to six months on average for the appeal to be determined. Unfortunately, some cases lodged as much as two years ago are still awaiting a determination of appeal. It is not acceptable that it can take people up to two years to find their way through the 13 different appeals systems to get their appeal determined.
    The system treats people unfairly: on the one hand, it offers people the right to appeal but, on the other, it tells many people at the end of a very long process that they had no chance of success anyway. That is not acceptable. We shall modernise the system to ensure a
    8
    speedy, fair and efficient service for people who appeal against benefit decisions, and I shall be making further announcements shortly.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a constituent of mine recently fainted after standing in a queue for a benefit payment? Is it not possible for the Government to follow the practice of virtually every private sector organisation and arrange a proper queuing system in benefit offices or, better still, treat applicants with respect and provide chairs?
    Ms Harman: In the circumstances described, it is totally unacceptable that a constituent should faint while waiting to be seen at a caller office. The solution will be not only a fair queuing system but speedier service delivery and a speedier response to people who visit Benefits Agency offices. The system for telephoning offices also must be modernised and updated, in line with people's expectations about what a modern service should deliver.
    Queueing has ceased to be a feature in the former Soviet Union, and it should not be a feature of our Benefits Agency. We are determined to shorten the time that people must wait for answers to their queries. If possible, we want their queries to be dealt with on the telephone, so that they do not have to queue.
    Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend realise that complexities in the mortgage interest payment system cause many difficulties for people who are eligible for mortgage benefit? The system should be simplified so that Benefits Agency staff can get it right and avoid causing problems for people with mortgages.
    Ms Harman: We certainly want simpler claim forms and a system that is easier for claimants to understand. We also want a system that is understood by staff to be fairer and more efficient. Most often people have problems paying their mortgages and have to visit Benefits Agency offices because they are without work. We should ensure not only that people do not get into problems paying their mortgages but that they are advised and helped back into work. For people of working age, the social security system should not be about a handout but about a hand-up. Most people of working age who have mortgage problems have such problems because they are not in work. Welfare to work is a central part of the Government's strategy.
    Mr. Swinney: As we await the Government's review of Benefits Agency regulations on timetabling and dealing with appeals, will Ministers allocate more resources to solving the immediate crisis, which is causing enormous hardship for people in very vulnerable situations? Those people's lives have been shattered because the Benefits Agency cannot speedily resolve its quagmire of decisions.
    Ms Harman: Before the general election and in our manifesto, we said that we would stick to existing departmental spending totals. However, our priorities are different from those of the previous Government. One of our priorities is to improve service delivery, both at first instance and on appeal. We believe that there is much that we can do within the system to improve services for

    9
    claimants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and across the country. We will soon be making further announcements on that matter.

    Benefits Agency Change Programme
    Mr. John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to reform the Benefits Agency's change programme. [4340]
    Ms Harman: We are determined to modernise the social security system. Before the election, we stated our views about the Benefits Agency change programme and said that we would take a practical, non-ideological approach to the best way of delivering public services. The previous Government said, "Public bad; private good." We ask whether it works and whether it is fair—to those who use the services, to those who work in the services and to the taxpayer. Those are our criteria.
    Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is she aware, however, that the change programme instituted by the previous Government constituted an attack on the public sector, an attempt to destroy public sector jobs and an attempt to make private greed out of poverty?
    Ms Harman: Before the election, we stated what our approach would be, and said that our approach would be different from that of the previous Government. As I said, the previous Government believed that everything that was delivered by the public sector must be bad, and that everything must be privatised. We take a practical, non-ideological view. We have said that we will seek opportunities for extra investment by the private sector, that we will keep within spending totals and that we will review all projects that are in the pipeline. We have already met the trade union side. My ministerial team is examining proposals, project by project, and meeting the staff involved. My team is also discussing the proposals with the appropriate trade union side. We have stated the criteria against which we will review each project.
    Mr. Collins: As part of her reforms, will the Secretary of State take steps to accelerate the payment of child benefit to parents under pressure, particularly those who are worried by the Government's policies as their children attend grammar schools?
    Ms Harman: We are always concerned to ensure prompt, efficient, speedy payment of benefit, irrespective of the school choice of the mother who is entitled to receive that benefit on behalf of her children.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is real concern about the reduction of the administrative budget available to the Benefits Agency over the next two years, as that may prejudice not only customer and claimant services but the security of the staff involved and the uptake of means-tested benefits? That is particularly true in rural areas.
    The right hon. Lady may be aware that today in the East Edinburgh and Borders district some changes are being made involving the relocation of processing and there are local concerns that that is the thin end of the wedge. Can she give us an assurance that the Benefits
    10
    Agency will secure particularly remote local offices so that the service to claimants continues and the uptake of benefit is not prejudiced by the change programme over the next two years?
    Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified two of our objectives: first, to keep within the spending total and secondly to improve services to claimants. I am well aware of the challenge of ensuring that good services are delivered in rural areas. We need some new, innovative thinking about how we deliver services to people in rural areas.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the proposed change in the Benefits Agency offices in his constituency and we shall be looking closely at that issue. However, one of our central objectives is to provide a better service to claimants, unlike the previous Government who thought that anyone who claimed benefits was a scrounger and that however bad the treatment they received, it was too good for them. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that the services must improve.

    Income-related Benefits
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review social security income-related benefits. [4342]
    Mr. Field: The Government are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security, including income-related benefits. Its aim is to reward work, savings and honesty.
    Mr. Merchant: In the past, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and other Labour Members condemned family credit as a subsidy for poor employers. Do the Government now plan to phase out family credit in the near future?
    Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that my hon. Friend made any such accusation. A review is under way, but I should be very surprised if that were its conclusion.
    Dr. Iddon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite predictions to the contrary, the previous Administration managed to double the number of people receiving benefit? Does he agree that in one in five households where people could work, no one is actually working and that that is one of the worst records in the industrialised world?
    Mr. Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. In respect merely of income-related benefits, under the previous Administration the numbers claiming means-tested help rose from 10 million to 15 million. Part of the reason for that is that work is unevenly distributed. One of the aims of our review is to ensure that the benefit system does not act as a hidden hand, ensuring that some households get many jobs and others get none.
    Mr. Brazier: In setting out the laudable aims of his review, will the Minister tell us what co-ordination there

    11
    is with a similar review in the Department of the Environment on housing policy, that, on its own declared aim, seeks to revert to giving priority in two identical cases to someone who is nominally homeless—even with connivance—over those who have honestly taken their place in the queue?
    Mr. Field: I can happily reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be close co-ordination between Departments in the review.
    Madam Speaker: But there should not be such close co-ordination at Question Time.

    Pensioners (Income Support)
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the proportion of pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. [4343]
    Mr. Denham: One in four pensioners receive or are entitled to income support, but more than one in three of them do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We are committed to examining ways to bring more automatic help to the poorest pensioners and are commissioning research to establish why so many pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Campbell: Is it not true that the reason for non-take-up of the benefit is not personal choice, as the previous Government claimed, but the stigma of claiming income support? Is it not also true that non-take-up of the benefit is greatest among women? Just under 1 million women do not claim the benefit and do not have a second pension. Will my hon. Friend give a high priority to examining second pensions for women?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Administration claimed that benefits were not taken up by choice, but they never undertook any substantial research to establish the real situation. Without prejudging the outcome of our research, I think that it is likely that we shall find that stigma is an important factor in non-take-up and that there are many older single women without additional pension rights among those who are going without the support of the benefit. In the longer term, we should enable more people to develop an adequate second pension on top of their basic state pension, so that they can enjoy security in retirement.
    Mr. Baldry: Can the Under-Secretary adduce any evidence, in relation to pensioners or anyone else, for the Secretary of State's assertion a little while ago at the Dispatch Box that the previous Administration thought that anyone who claimed benefit was a scrounger? Does he not think that, if we are to have a sensible debate on welfare reform, we need a more mature approach than was demonstrated by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Denham: The message that my right hon. Friend spoke about was evident throughout the 18 long years of the previous Administration—in everything that they said, in their demonstrable lack of interest in why the poorest
    12
    pensioners go without assistance and in their casualness about the quality of service offered by the social security system.
    Mr. Wicks: Given that only pensioners in receipt of income support are eligible for cold weather payments during the severest weather, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that, in Britain, every winter—I suspect that this will be the case again during the coming winter—30,000 elderly people die from cold-related medical conditions? Will he initiate a take-up campaign for income support as soon as possible, so that people in their 80s and 90s who have served this country well do not have to make the terrible judgment this winter whether to heat their property or to eat?
    Mr. Denham: It is a scandal that so many pensioners suffer in that way and that this country's record is apparently so much worse than that of other European countries, including those that suffer a more hostile winter climate. We are concerned to encourage take-up and have commissioned research to understand why pensioners do not receive income support—which is a passport to other important benefits—so that we can deal with it as effectively as possible.

    Retirement Pensions
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase the retirement pension beyond the increase in the retail prices index: and if she will make a statement. [4345]
    Mr. Denham: We shall announce the uprating of the retirement pension at the normal time. Our manifesto said that we would increase it at least in line with prices.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful if the Government could say whether they intend to increase the pension above the rate of the retail prices index in the longer term? In the meantime, will he consider carefully the possibility of linking pension rises to a separate pensioners' price index that takes full account of the special needs and costs faced by elderly people compared with those faced by others in the community?
    Mr. Denham: That is an interesting question from an hon. Member who supported the previous Administration for most, if not all, of the past 18 years, during which neither of the two things that he has suggested was done. In contrast to the previous Government, we shall have a review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, which will include the basic state pension and its value. Again in contrast to the previous Administration, we will listen to the views of pensioners and pensioner organisations during that review.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that about the last group of people who should criticise us on pensions are the Tories, whose behaviour in office was quite disgraceful? Is he also aware that many pensioners believe that they should receive an increase above the retail prices index, that they have a very strong case indeed and that they have a great deal of support on the Government

    13
    Benches? One hopes that it will not be long before the Government are in a financial position to give pensioners the rewards to which they are perfectly entitled.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right in his judgment of the previous Administration. We shall increase the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We shall have a review of the central area of insecurity facing pensioners to ensure that we hear their voices and listen to their concerns. We have made it clear that we are committed to examining ways to get more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. I look forward to the cut in VAT on fuel, which will cut pensioners' winter fuel bills.
    Mr. Gibb: Are the Government still considering the proposal for a flexible decade of retirement from age 60, which the Secretary of State said before the election would involve a lowering of the basic state pension by £20 a week?
    Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend did not make any such statement before the election. We did say before the election that there are attractions in a flexible decade of retirement and that we would wish to move in that direction. I have no doubt that it is one of the matters that will be considered in the pensions review. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no question of anybody who is retired today or who retires at state retirement age in future receiving anything other than the right pension for that age.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to issue new housing benefit regulations. [4346]
    Ms Harman: We gave a commitment before the election to review the regulations that extended the single room rent to people aged 25 and over. We have done so—in the context of our commitment to keeping within spending totals.
    We have listened to the advice and views of hon. Members—including those on the Environment Committee, on which I know my hon. Friend played a major part—local authorities and housing organisations such as Shelter and Crisis and decided not to go ahead with the single room rent provision for over 25-year-olds. We will revoke the regulations laid by the previous Government.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is very welcome. What is the magic about the age of 25? Will it be possible to reduce the hardship being suffered by people under 25 years old?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the situation of those under 25 years old. The previous Government had already introduced a single room rent provision for under-25-year-olds, which requires them to live in shared accommodation. They cannot get housing benefit for anything more than a shared room; it will not even cover a bedsit. That was one of the many measures brought in by the previous Government which we opposed.
    14
    I have made an announcement today about one of the measures that was on the table when we arrived in government. The regulations had been laid in the House but had not been implemented. Although the rest of the announcements on benefits will be made around the time of the Budget, we brought forward this announcement because we knew that, due to regulations laid before the House, local authorities were making plans to implement the single room rent for over 25-year-olds.
    Mr. Gorrie: Will the Secretary of State consider trying to simplify the housing benefit regulations and making them more humane? I have wrestled with them for many years as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, and I know that they are complex and put many people off claiming their rights.
    Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. The complexity of the housing benefit system means that people are not able to understand the factors that change their entitlement. There is also clear evidence that the way the system works keeps some people on benefit because they cannot pay their housing costs if they start work. We have already announced that we will review housing benefit as part of wider housing policy.
    The previous Government abandoned any attempt to have a housing policy for those on lower incomes: they stood back and let the housing benefit system take the strain. It did—to the tune of £11 billion a year—while investment in housing collapsed. The review will be undertaken cross-departmentally, but in the meantime we need to ensure that the current system is made simpler and easier to understand.

    Young People
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's policy for getting young people off benefit and into work. [4347]
    Mr. Field: The Government believe that work is preferable to welfare. Shortly, the House will be given details of our plans to offer real opportunities to 250,000 young people who have been unemployed for six months or more.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the saddest aspects of the former Government's policy was their failure to give opportunities to young people and that, as a result, between 500,000 and 600,000 young people are now out of work? For the benefit of the Conservatives, will he reiterate his determination to ensure that young people are given opportunities and their life chances are improved?
    Mr. Field: I willingly give that commitment to my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will appreciate that, when the plans for moving people from welfare to work are unveiled, we will offer that group of claimants an opportunity that no other Government have ever offered them. Because we regard every individual as important, they will all be given four options. Because we will meet that part of our commitment, the Prime Minister's view that there should be no fifth option of remaining on benefit will also be part of the package.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the Minister of State agree that the complexity of his welfare-to-work programme

    15
    gives scope for wider benefit fraud? Will he confirm that he has asked his officials to consider that problem; that they have advised that there is greater scope; and that the arrangements to prevent that would cost extra money?
    Mr. Field: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and look forward to his using his considerable skills to develop our welfare reform programme.
    Given the lead the Social Security Committee took on fraud in the previous Parliament, is he not trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs?

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will hold discussions with the Home Office on the social security rules governing benefits to asylum seekers. [4350]
    Mr. Keith Bradley: As the House is aware, we are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security. Our aim is to encourage independence and reduce poverty. With the Home Office, the Department of Health and other Departments, we will consider all arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and promptly.
    Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the review is conducted urgently? Asylum seekers and their dependants, who are sometimes young children, should not have to wait long periods without social security subsistence and their asylum applications should be decided promptly. Can Government policy be co-ordinated so that starvation is not used as a weapon against asylum applicants?
    Mr. Bradley: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend that the review of the asylum system is undertaken across Departments as swiftly as possible. It is crucial that we speed up the process of determining applications to ensure that the scenario that my hon. Friend raises does not happen. The review is led by the Home Office, which has prime responsibility, but I shall ensure that the departmental review is undertaken as swiftly as possible.

    Lone Parents (Hackney)
    Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will visit Arcola street social security office to discuss the number of single—parent mothers in Hackney on benefit. [4351]
    Ms Harman: I intend to visit many social security offices to talk to claimants and staff and listen to their views. I have already visited offices in Streatham and Brighton and members of my ministerial team are undertaking a continual series of visits to benefit offices. I shall visit the Arcola street office in my hon. Friend's constituency in the near future. We are committed to a package of measures that will help lone mothers to move off benefit and be better off in work in Hackney.
    Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government's package of measures to encourage lone mothers to move from welfare to work has been widely
    16
    welcomed—particularly by lone mothers themselves, the majority of whom want to work and, indeed, are anxious to do so. Will she take this opportunity to assure the House that although every encouragement and support will be given to lone mothers to move from welfare to work, single mothers with children of school age will never be forced to go to work on pain of losing their benefit?
    Ms Harman: We are not proposing compulsion for lone mothers to take work. As my hon. Friend says, we are backing their desire to have the opportunity to go out to work, to be better off and to have a better life for themselves and their children. There is, however, one element of compulsion in the programme—fathers must pay for their children. In our view, we can tackle child poverty in lone-parent families by ensuring two things—first, that the mother can go out to work and, secondly, that the father pays for his children.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the Secretary of State agree that, important as it is to get single parents back to work—whether in Hackney or elsewhere—it is even more important that, when a kid comes out of school at 3.30, his mother is there to take him home, to help him with his homework, to keep him off the streets and to give him love, guidance and affection?
    Madam Speaker: Before the Secretary of State replies, I should tell the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that her supplementary question should have followed more closely the substantive question on the Order Paper, as should the question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I hope that the House will note that, in future, supplementary questions must follow what is on the Order Paper. I will allow the Secretary of State to respond.
    Ms Harman: We are backing lone mothers' desire to work. All the evidence shows that lone mothers do not want to depend on benefit—they want a better standard of living for themselves and their children, and they do not want their children to experience only benefit dependency. They want their children to know that the world of work is for them and that they cannot expect to live on benefits.
    Many lone mothers want to go back to work, particularly when their youngest child starts school—after all, that is what many married or cohabiting women do. Some married or cohabiting women work during school hours in term time but not at half-term or holidays; others work during school hours and holidays and make arrangements for their children during that time.
    It is not for the House to tell mothers to be at the school gates to collect their children. The House should back parents and ensure that the arrangements that they make for their children are satisfactory for them. That is why, as part of the welfare-to-work measures, we are proposing that £150 million be provided by the lottery for after-school clubs. There is enormous demand from both lone and married mothers to ensure that, after school, children can engage in activities for which time cannot

    17
    be found during the school day. That will give mothers opportunities to work, but it is not for the House to tell mothers how to do their business.
    Madam Speaker: In future, the Secretary of State's responses also should relate to the question, which in this case is about Arcola street social security office and the number of single-parent mothers in Hackney, and nowhere else.

    Chilean Pension Scheme
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her assessment of the Chilean national pension scheme as a potential model for reform of the old age pension in the United Kingdom. [4352]
    Mr. Denham: The Chilean national pension scheme has serious drawbacks as a model for pension provision in the United Kingdom. Only 60 per cent. of the scheme's members are contributing to it, and administration costs are high.
    Our aim is to enable people to avoid poverty and dependence on the state in retirement. We will retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, strengthen occupational schemes and develop a framework for stakeholder pensions for those who are not able to join a good quality occupational scheme.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In the carefree days when the Minister for Welfare Reform, as he is now, led the Social Security Committee to Chile for interviews with Dr. Piñera and other leading pension pioneers, the Committee saw the benefits of a funded scheme for Chile, which is the model that is increasingly being followed throughout the developing and industrialised world. Why does the Labour party set its face against such reform, which in Chile and elsewhere has proved both an agent for growth and a source of prosperity in old age undreamed of in countries such as ours?
    Mr. Denham: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report drafted by the Select Committee on its return from Chile. He will find that my right hon. Friend reached the same conclusion that I have just reported to the House about the failings of the Chilean pension system. It is essential that we are not blind to the defects of pension schemes around the world.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Chilean pension scheme was introduced by Jose Piñera, who was part of the fascist Government of the time, that it was designed to destroy the developing welfare state in Chile and that its whole purpose was to reduce the cost to employers of any kind of national insurance system and make workers' contributions into a private insurance scheme compulsory, which is expensive, inefficient and
    18
    ineffective in providing them with a decent benefit? It should have no part whatever in any consideration of welfare state development in this country.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right, I think, about the timing of those events. As we develop our pensions review over the coming months—we will announce the details shortly—we should judge proposals that are put to us, as our proposals should be judged, by their ability to enable people to achieve security in retirement. That, I suspect, will mean that we need the right balance between state and private provision and between the costs that fall on one generation and on another. As part of that, we will need to forge effective partnerships with the private sector to extend pension provision.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome the Minister to his post. Can he confirm that the pensions review will rule nothing in and nothing out, including the proposal from Dr. Piñera in Chile that we should move towards a funded pension, whether private or occupational? Would it be his view that the Chancellor should make that a priority in the Budget?
    Mr. Denham: The details of the pensions review will be announced shortly and will obviously include its terms of reference. It is already a matter of record that we want the process to be open and inclusive; we want to encourage new ideas and innovative thinking while consulting on some of our manifesto commitments, such as an examination of stakeholder pensions and the possibility of a citizenship pension for carers. I hope that the outcome will be the sustainable consensus that this country needs on the future of pensions policy.

    Benefit Services
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for improving services to benefit claimants. [4353]
    Mr. Field: We are reviewing how we deliver benefits to customers. In any such review, the views of customers will be crucial.
    Mr. Hutton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of improving services to benefit claimants would be to ensure access to good quality advice and information? What role would that play in the review of social security that his Department is undertaking?
    Mr. Field: The review that we are undertaking will obviously include my hon. Friend's points. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said earlier how we are seeking to find out why so many older pensioners do not claim the help to which they are entitled. As well as conducting national surveys, we are interested in what is happening at grass roots level. I have followed closely what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has pioneered in his constituency. We are anxious to learn those lessons and feed them into our review.

Montserrat
3.30 pm
Ms Diane Abbott(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the devastating volcanic eruption on the Caribbean island of Montserrat, which has resulted in serious loss of life, with eight dead, 10 missing presumed dead and a further eight missing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing condolences to those who have lost relatives in this dreadful disaster and in wishing all those who have been injured a speedy recovery.
In view of the seriousness of the eruption last week, my Department established a task force of officials to decide what best could be done to help the Government and people of Montserrat. As a result, we have taken a number of urgent steps. First, four helicopters were mobilised immediately, one of which has a burns treatment capability. I should express the Government's appreciation for the assistance given in the operation by the Dutch and French Governments.
Secondly, because the airport is closed, we have set up a new ferry service, which started operating yesterday, to and from Antigua. Thirdly, a senior official from our emergency aid department is on the island to help co-ordinate our contribution to alleviating the crisis. Fourthly, we are examining the possibility of setting up a helicopter shuttle service to Antigua. In addition to the funds that we had already allocated to Montserrat, a further £6.8 million has been made available for assistance.
My noble Friend Baroness Symons, who had recently paid a routine visit to Montserrat, and I had a meeting and it was agreed that she should visit the island on behalf of the Government, on the clear understanding that her visit would not distract in any way from the rescue work. I spoke to her on the telephone this afternoon and she is meeting the Government of Montserrat to discuss what further help may be necessary.
We and the Government of Montserrat accept responsibility for the both the immediate safety and the long-term future of the island. As hon. Members know, there will be debate on international development in the House tomorrow. If there is anything further to report, we will let the House know then.
Ms Abbott: The Minister will be aware that it is 16 months since the volcano first erupted. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Montserrat community in Great Britain: the Montserrat Aid Committee 89 and the Montserrat Overseas Progressive Alliance. I was also fortunate to meet the director of the health service in Montserrat, Dr. Ronnie Cooper, who was on a flying visit. They are anxious for me to put the following points to the Government.
First, there is an urgent need for housing in Montserrat because of the displacement of people from the southern part of the island caused by the earlier eruptions of the volcano. I am advised that housing is needed for more
20
than 4,000 people. I put it to the Minister that the deaths that we have heard about this weekend were caused by the lack of housing.
I understand that the southern part of the island, which is the volcano zone, is also the main agricultural area of Montserrat. Although people were evacuated from that area, because there was no housing and sufficient arrangements for resettlement were not made, the small farmers went back to the site of the volcano to continue farming as that was the only way that they felt they could survive. Had there been proper housing and had proper arrangements been made for resettlement, they would not have lost their lives.
There are also health care issues. A school has had to become a temporary hospital and it is totally inadequate—it has outside toilets. The temporary hospital is losing health care personnel every week because of the problems.
The Montserrat community is grateful for what the Government have done, but, in view of the tragic situation this weekend and the loss of life, it asks that urgent attention be given to relocation and housing. Can interim arrangements be made to get the temporary hospital up to scratch and can more attention be given to the people of Montserrat, who are having to come here to flee the volcano?
The Minister will be aware that the people of Montserrat did not want to leave the island. They have rejected the idea of evacuating it wholesale. They are very attached to what is a beautiful island in the Antilles, but they are in desperate straits. Advisers have been sent and money has been set aside, but there has been interminable delay in decision making. Unless action is taken urgently, particularly on housing, health care and sanitation, more lives will be lost unnecessarily in that beautiful and loyal British dependency.
Mr. Foulkes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her long and continuing interest in Montserrat and the area in general. We recognise the urgent need for housing. Indeed, when the most recent and most devastating eruption took place, my Department, Baroness Symons and I were discussing the long-term need for housing in the north, so that the housing and hospital facilities that are no longer usable in the south can be replaced. Our first priority now, however, is to take account of the current emergency and ensure that people are safe. We will then consider immediately the longer-term need for housing.
We are satisfied that the temporary hospital is sufficient to deal with immediate needs, but we have already started discussions about long-term hospital provision and will be discussing that immediately upon Baroness Symons's return to the United Kingdom tomorrow.
I hope that we will be able to establish the future of the island in the long term. We do not want it to be evacuated. We shall certainly encourage people to be there and will do everything in our power along with the Government of Montserrat. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want us to take over responsibility from the elected Government of Montserrat, even though it is a dependent territory. We are working with them and we want to ensure that, in the long term, the island is viable and that people can continue to live there.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is only eight weeks since this Government took office. We have already had three or four ministerial meetings about

21
Montserrat. We are dealing with the matter with the urgency that it deserves because there has been a lack of concern for the long-term interests of the people of Montserrat.
Mr. David Faber: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and join him and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in expressing sympathy on behalf of the Opposition to the families of those who lost their lives. I welcome the action that the Government have undertaken in sending HMS Liverpool and the four helicopters that he mentioned and in making extra aid available to try to prevent further loss of life.
Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment today that the West Indies guard ship, currently HMS Liverpool, which is doing such invaluable work in the area, will be maintained in its current state after the Government's defence review?
Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the hon. Member to his new responsibilities and I look forward to jousting with him across the Floor of the House on more party political occasions, and co-operating in every way possible. I also look forward to his participation in the debate tomorrow, when we can have a longer discussion of international development issues.
We are very pleased that HMS Liverpool was able to be deployed so quickly and that the Lynx helicopter on the Liverpool was used very effectively in the search-and-rescue operations. That underlines the importance of the West Indies guard ship. As for the defence review, happily that is a matter for my colleagues, not for me.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his statement. Many people in my constituency and other inner-London constituencies come from Montserrat and are desperately concerned about their families and friends back home. They want to know that the Government's commitment to Montserrat will continue and that there will not be any cash limit put on the immediate help that is so vital, such as the hospital and housing. Above all, they want to know that people from Montserrat who came to this country after the previous eruption will not be forced to return home, and that all those in Montserrat who feel the need to come here now will be allowed in without any restrictions on their entry or their stay in this country being imposed by the Home Office.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question about entry to the United Kingdom is, as he says, a matter for the Home Office; my Department and the Foreign Office will be discussing it with our colleagues in the Home Office.
I emphasise the importance of trying to keep Montserrat as a viable island. We hope that there will be no further eruptions, but that cannot be totally assured, so we have an evacuation plan in the event of any serious eruptions. Assuming that there is no serious eruption, we would want to keep Montserrat as a viable entity, which is why we are encouraging people to stay there. We will give them as much assistance as we can and we will work with the Government of Montserrat to try to make that
22
possible, but if, at the end of the day, they have to seek sanctuary elsewhere, they should be treated as sympathetically as possible.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Liberal Democrat Members would also like to extend their sympathy to the people of Montserrat at this terrible time. Although I appreciate the need of the people to stay on their island, I understand that the habitable area is becoming smaller and smaller and I want to know whether, in the long term, the Government have any plans for geological surveys or volcano surveys—I do not know the scientific name off the top of my head. Are there any plans in the long term to decide whether it is worth trying to persuade people to relocate elsewhere, and to help them to do so if that is necessary?
Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to say that the British Geological Survey has been providing seismological and volcanological advice to the Government and the people of Montserrat. We will continue to provide that seismological and volcanological advice to the people of Montserrat. Although vulcanology is not an exact science, we hope that there will not be a more serious and more fatal eruption. It is important to remember that this has been a viable island, producing rice for the European Union and acting as a haven for tourists, and we would want it to continue to be viable, if at all possible. We are working with the Government of Montserrat to try to make that possible.
If evacuation has to take place, we will consider the position as sympathetically as possible and do everything we can to make sure that the people of Montserrat are properly dealt with.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does not this tragedy highlight once more the fact that there is not adequate communication or facilities for communication between the legislative councils and Chief Ministers of small dependencies and this place?
I listened to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Will the Minister advise the House whether at any stage the legislative council or the Chief Minister tried to raise those points with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or his Department? Secondly, will he put in the Library the messages from the Governor, who is responsible for these matters during emergencies, so as to indicate at what stage the gravity of the current situation was flagged up? Those messages are appropriate for scrutiny by Members of Parliament.
Mr. Foulkes: In relation to the period for which I and the Government are responsible, I totally rebut my hon. Friend's suggestion.
I met the Chief Minister of Montserrat only five weeks ago when I was in Toronto at a meeting of the Caribbean development bank. As I said earlier, my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Montserrat, met the Government and the Opposition and discussed what was necessary in the short and the long term. We were in the process of considering all of the things that we should provide for the Government and the people of Montserrat when, unfortunately, the eruption took place. It could not be

23
predicted, and I do not think that even my hon. Friend would blame the present Government—or a Conservative Government—for a volcanic eruption.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his remarks about inactivity by the earlier Government, given that that Government paid for the building of a number of new schools and a new general hospital in Montserrat, which were destroyed by the volcano? Can he confirm that Montserrat receives more aid per head of population than any country in the world?
The House would like to know, if not today perhaps in tomorrow's debate, how much money are Her Majesty's Government are prepared to earmark to ensure that Montserrat is viable in future.
Mr. Foulkes: I will certainly try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's final question is answered in tomorrow's debate—if not in the introductory speech, then in the reply for which I am directly responsible.
It is not right to compare dependent territories with other countries. We have a special responsibility for dependent territories as long as they remain in that role, which is why I said that we accept, jointly with the elected Government of Montserrat, our responsibility to the people of Montserrat; and that continues.
No doubt if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have the opportunity tomorrow to extend his contribution and tell us what the previous Government did. I do not believe, however, that he will be able to say that they acted with the sense of urgency that has been shown in the past eight weeks.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, I saw the devastation in Montserrat from a Lynx helicopter flying from the back of HMS Argyll, the West Indies guard ship on station at the time. In view of the risk to Lynx helicopters because of the nature of the dust from the volcanic explosion, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, in the event of there having to be a major evacuation, there is sufficient seaborne support to bring that about?
Mr. Foulkes: Yes. As well as providing the ferry service, which started yesterday, we have had discussions with the Governments of the other islands in the area, and we are satisfied that there is sufficient seaborne capacity to carry out an evacuation. I can say, however, that we are currently reviewing the evacuation procedures—the second issue of which was produced earlier this year—in the light of recent happenings, to ascertain whether any updating and improvement are necessary.

Hillsborough Disaster
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Hillsborough stadium disaster.
Ninety-six people lost their lives as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, which happened on 15 April 1989. That was more than eight years ago, but no one who saw the news reports on that dreadful Saturday will have forgotten those terrible events. For those who lost loved members of their family, the pain is ever present. Following Hillsborough, Members of the House were united in their determination to do all in their power to prevent anything like that ever happening again.
After the Hillsborough disaster, a number of inquiries and investigations took place. The most thorough and wide-ranging of those was the public inquiry led by the late Lord Taylor. The terms of reference of that inquiry encompassed not only inquiring into the disaster, but making recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events.
Lord Taylor's inquiry took oral evidence from more than 170 witnesses at public hearings during May and June 1989 and considered many hours of video evidence from different sources. In his interim report in August 1989, Lord Taylor found that the disaster had a number of causes. He did not attribute all the blame to a single cause or person, but in paragraph 278 he made it clear that, in his view,
"The main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control".
Lord Taylor made 43 recommendations in his interim report. His final report in January 1990 made a further 76 recommendations. The developments that have taken place since then in safety at football grounds and in the policing of football matches have been based largely on those recommendations. Football in this country has been transformed since the Taylor report. To a large extent, that is due to Lord Taylor's wide-ranging and soundly based conclusions.
The deaths that occurred on 15 April 1989 were also the subject of inquests conducted by the coroner of the western district of South Yorkshire. After examining the evidence, the jury at the coroner's inquest found in March 1991 that the cause of death of those who died at Hillsborough was accidental death. A further investigation was conducted by the West Midlands police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, to establish whether there were any grounds for criminal proceedings and to consider whether any police officer should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
That investigation involved the taking of more than 5,000 statements and the scrutiny of all the material that had been examined previously by the Taylor inquiry. After that investigation, the evidence was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded that no person should be subject to criminal proceedings.
The Police Complaints Authority decided that the chief superintendent and the superintendent in charge on the day should face disciplinary charges for neglect of duty. In the event, the chief superintendent retired due to ill health in advance of a ruling by a disciplinary tribunal.

25
Under police discipline rules, a disciplinary hearing cannot proceed when a police officer retires before the hearing takes place. The Police Complaints Authority decided later that disciplinary proceedings against the superintendent should be withdrawn because the retirement of the chief superintendent meant that what, in effect, was a joint allegation of neglect of duty could not be heard fairly in the absence of the more senior officer.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the unhappiness of the families of those who died regarding the outcome of the inquest. They later applied for judicial review of the coroner's proceedings. In November 1993, the divisional court ruled that none of the matters raised in the judicial review proceedings justified intervention by that court in the verdict of the inquest jury.
The events surrounding the disaster have therefore been subject to investigation on several occasions. However, concerns have remained about whether the full facts have yet emerged. I have met relatives of the Hillsborough victims whose suffering is exacerbated by their belief that there are unresolved issues that should be investigated further.
Representations were made to my predecessor and have been made to me, to the Attorney-General and to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A Granada television programme in December last year dramatised the disaster and raised a number of issues that, in the view of the programme makers, represented new evidence. The programme prompted an Adjournment debate on 17 December 1996, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), and to which my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), replied. I know how seriously my predecessor viewed the matter.
Since that programme, further material has been submitted on behalf of the Hillsborough families support group. Those representations have related in particular to video evidence of the disaster and to medical evidence about the time of death of the victims. My Department, the office of the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service have considered very carefully all the evidence that has been put forward in recent months. The Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the material so far presented to her would not justify fresh criminal proceedings. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), also took the view—again, on the basis of the material presented to him—that any application to the High Court for a new inquest would not have any realistic prospect of succeeding.
None the less, I am acutely conscious that the families of those who died at Hillsborough and many others, including hon Members, are very concerned that unresolved issues remain. I am determined to go as far as I can to ensure that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence.
The Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have therefore agreed that it is in the public interest to establish an independent scrutiny to ascertain whether there now exists any new evidence relating to the disaster which was not previously available.
26
We are appointing Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, a senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, for that purpose. His full terms of reference are as follows:
"To ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 which was not available:

(a) To the Inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor; or

(b) To the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General for the purpose of discharging their respective statutory responsibilities; or

(c) To the Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police in relation to police disciplinary matters;

And in relation to (a) to advise whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify establishment by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a further Public Inquiry: and in relation to (b) and (c) to draw to their attention any evidence not previously considered by them which may be relevant to their respective duties; and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest."
I shall place a copy of those terms of reference in the Library.
We have asked Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to examine all the written and other evidence that has been submitted. He will also consider any further material that interested parties wish to submit to him. He will have two tasks. The first is to advise me whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify a further full public inquiry. His advice to me will be made available to the House, and will be made public. Secondly, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will identify for the Attorney-General, the DPP and the chief constable of South Yorkshire police any evidence that might be relevant to their decisions that has not previously been considered.
I hope that this examination will enable us to establish conclusively whether material evidence about the causes of the Hillsborough disaster has been overlooked. I assure the House that, if it has, I will take whatever action is needed. We owe it to everyone who has been touched by the tragedy, but, above all, to the families of those who died to get to the bottom of the matter once and for all.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and for his personal courtesy in relation to it.
What happened at Hillsborough was a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. Thousands of people—young and old alike—went to a football game; 96 did not return and others were injured. Those realities have blighted the lives of thousands of people for ever. There remain hurt and loss from which, in varying degrees, those people may never recover, and we are all affected by their suffering.
We owe it to the families and friends of those who died, to members of the police force and the other emergency services and to all who believe in justice to ensure—in the Home Secretary's words—
"that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence."
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I welcome his announcement and will support Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in pursuing that important examination.
I have four specific questions to ask the Home Secretary about his statement. First, given the urgency involved—not least for those most affected by those

27
terrible events; primarily the families, but also the police officers—what timetable does the right hon. Gentleman envisage, and can the House have his assurance that the process will begin immediately?
Secondly, the Home Secretary said that he would make Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's advice to him available to the House and the public. Will he also publish all the evidence considered by the lord justice on which that advice was based?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will consider any further material that interested parties wish to submit. Will such material be examinable in public and will those who may be affected by such material be given the opportunity respond to it before the lord justice reaches any conclusions?
Finally, given the sensitivity of this matter and the Home Secretary's constructive attitude, which I hope he feels that I have reciprocated, will he undertake to agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House can debate this matter further when Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has concluded his investigation?
Positive responses by the right hon. Gentleman to those four questions will help to reassure the families that we are genuinely seeking to help.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his courtesy. If it is not wholly inappropriate, I also congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Home Secretary. I am extremely grateful to him for his welcome for these proceedings. This is not and never has been a matter of party controversy. As I have said, I know how seriously my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, took this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked four questions, the first of which was on the timetable. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has told me that, subject to a case that he is currently hearing in the Court of Appeal being concluded as soon as possible, he intends to do some work in respect of the new duties before the end of July, and to start his proceedings in September. We hope that the matter will be concluded and that he will be able to produce his report by the end of the year. However, the House will understand that that is a judgment which only Lord Justice Stuart-Smith can make in the light of all the representations that he receives.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in addition to publishing the advice that I receive from Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, I will publish all the evidence that is considered by him. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is provisional. I shall do my best to ensure that that is the case, but there may be good reasons—for example, in respect of criminal or disciplinary proceedings—why such evidence cannot be published at the same time as the advice is published. However, if evidence is to be unpublished, I shall make that clear at the time.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether there can be examination in public and whether the families and others would be able to make representations. The answer to the latter part of the question is yes. As the House would expect, the exact proceedings of the scrutiny are
28
matters for Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to decide, and he will base his decision on his long experience as a senior member of the judiciary.
The fourth issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was whether, when the advice is received, I would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the matter of a debate. Of course I shall do that.
Maria Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I also congratulate Granada Television and Jimmy McGovern, whose efforts have brought this matter back to the attention of the House. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the families who have fought for so long will have the opportunity of legal representation to enable them to present their cases, whether orally or in writing, to the Lord Justice? Will they receive some financial assistance to enable them to do that?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and for her welcome for the statement. The costs of those who have to travel to appear before the scrutiny will be met by my Department. My hon. Friend asks about legal representation. That issue has not been raised by me during my discussions with the families. I understand that they already have legal representation. If a further issue arises, I shall, of course, consider it.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary aware that Liberal Democrat Members welcome this focused re-examination of the evidence, including recently found evidence, on these terrible events, which have been etched into the minds of all the people who saw the television coverage at the time and etched dreadfully into the lives of the people who lost family members; but will he confirm that it is very unlikely—and perhaps impossible—that police discipline proceedings could be reopened as a result of what might be found in the inquiry?
Does he recognise that the public find it difficult to understand how police discipline proceedings can be brought to a halt when retirement on health grounds takes place before the hearing has begun? Given that Lord Taylor's main recommendation was that, although there were many factors, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control, that will leave questions in the public mind, which will pass beyond the inquiry into what can be done when conclusions are reached.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my statement. He asked me to say that further police discipline proceedings would be very unlikely. That is to anticipate the view that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith may or may not come to, and, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not do that. He also invites me to make general comments on police discipline regulations. There may be an occasion to debate the generality of such regulations, but I do not believe that now is the time.
I say only that the police discipline regulations exist and have been approved from time to time by the House; they are statutory regulations. It is, of course, open to Secretaries of State and to the House to change them in the light of circumstances.
Helen Jackson: I am sure that the Home Secretary realises that the most tragic

29
trauma of the event was suffered by the families of the Liverpool fans who attended the match, but it was also one of the most traumatic events in their history for the people of the Hillsborough area of Sheffield—the links that they have made and maintain with families in Liverpool bear witness to that. While he considers the evidence that, I believe, he is rightly having another look at, will Lord Justice Stuart-Smith consider in detail the lessons to be learned both for the communities living around big football stadiums and for the policing of football matches?
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend said: this tragedy went beyond the people directly affected who were supporters of Liverpool football club and traumatised the people living around Hillsborough and all the people in Sheffield and in south Yorkshire as well. We should not forget that, on that day, there were many individual acts of great courage by people from south Yorkshire, by people in the police, fire and ambulance services and by many other ordinary citizens.
My hon. Friend asked me whether wider lessons, including lessons about the policing of football matches, can be considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in his scrutiny. The answer to that, I am afraid, is that we do not anticipate that they can be. The scrutiny will look at new evidence that has come forward since the earlier inquiries, to find out whether that evidence is sufficiently significant to trigger either a new public inquiry, ordered by myself, or action by the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief officer of South Yorkshire police. I do not believe that, at any stage since the late Lord Justice Taylor reported, there has been any criticism of his wider recommendations, most of which have been implemented, on the policing of football matches and on crowd control.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that no hon. Member would challenge the judgment that the Home Secretary has come to today, but will he confirm that, in his statement, he said that, on the evidence submitted to her, the Director of Public Prosecutions had concluded that nothing justified fresh criminal investigations? Could he give two undertakings to the House: that, in due course, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will make it clear what new evidence he is considering that was not available to the Director of Public Prosecutions in making that judgment, and why that evidence was not available earlier?
Mr. Straw: I can confirm exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I said that the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the material so far presented to her would not justify fresh criminal investigations. I also referred to a judgment made by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but I ought to make it clear that, as I understand it—as I am informed—he based that judgment on information other than that which arose following the television programme screened last December.
It is in the nature of asking a senior and highly respected judge of the Court of Appeal to look at all the fresh allegations and the fresh evidence that he may come to a different view from that which the Director of Public Prosecutions has so far come to on the evidence that she
30
has available. That is not in any sense to imply any criticism of the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr. Andrew Miller: On behalf of constituents of mine who were so tragically affected by this event, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the fresh inquiry will bring about some consideration of the way in which the coroner's court conducted its affairs during the inquiries immediately after the deaths? Does it constitute the possibility of fresh evidence—evidence that should have perhaps come to the coroner's court earlier—now becoming more widely available?
Mr. Straw: There has been continuing concern about the way in which inquests generally are conducted. There was a working party report into large-scale disasters and inquests, which recommended significant changes, including a change whereby if there were, God forbid, a disaster of a similar scale and nature in the future, there would be one inquiry similar to that conducted by the late Lord Justice Taylor, which would be the general public inquiry and also take the form of an inquest, so that the relatives would be spared going through the agony caused by two separate inquiries.
The issue of the way in which the first inquest was conducted was the subject of great consideration by the divisional court when there were proceedings for judicial review. It is a matter for Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, but I expect that he will not wish to go over that ground but will instead, as part of his scrutiny, wish to consider with great care the new allegations of evidence not put before the inquest—especially, as the House is well aware, arguments about the time of death which, in the view of the relatives and programme makers, the inquest was not properly able to take into account.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the measured and sensitive way in which he outlined his plans. I take the point about the issue of police discipline in respect of this inquiry, but will he nevertheless undertake to consider a re-examination—not necessarily in the light of these events, but more generally—of the police disciplinary code, which provides that, once an officer has retired, any matters under investigation lapse? Does he agree that that should be reconsidered, and will he undertake to do so?
Mr. Straw: Yes, without reference to this particular case, I accept that many members of the public regard it as odd that, when an officer retires, that is the end of all disciplinary processes. However, one of the things on which I am currently taking advice is the fact that, as I understand it, regulations expect chief officers not to permit the retirement of officers on grounds of ill health where disciplinary proceedings are still pending. There is, therefore, an issue not only of whether disciplinary regulations should be changed, but of whether chief officers of police are properly fulfilling the terms of existing regulations. Both these matters are subjects that I wish to investigate.
Ms Louise Ellman: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, in that it opens up the

31
possibility of justice for the families whose lives have been so cruelly devastated. Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that, while the inevitable legal considerations take place, he will keep in mind the prime consideration of the feelings of the families involved and their belief that they have been denied justice, in that information was not brought forward at the appropriate time?
Mr. Straw: Of course I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I made the decision to ask Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to conduct further scrutiny because I felt that there was fresh evidence that required proper and independent examination. In reaching that decision, of course I took full account of the profound distress and grief felt by relatives of those who lost their lives. As I said in my statement, those feelings have been compounded by a belief that some aspects of the tragedy—its causes and the culpability of those whose actions may or may not have led to the tragedy—have not been fully examined.
Mr. Damian Green: I am sure that the Home Secretary will be aware that, although the events of that day were particularly traumatic for the people of Liverpool and of Sheffield, they were traumatic also for football fans across the country. He will also be aware that, in the past 12 months, after years in which the incidence of hooliganism at and around football matches was declining, there have been worrying signs that hooliganism is beginning to increase. In the light of his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will not be able to consider the wider issues arising from the Hillsborough tragedy, will he tell us whether, ultimately—should the incident be examined by a public inquiry—a public inquiry will be able to consider the wider issues of crowd control and policing at football matches?
Mr. Straw: For well over the past 10 years, I have taken my children to football matches. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, since implementation of Lord Taylor's recommendations, there has been profound improvement in football fans' behaviour at and around football grounds. The recommendations have led also to significant improvements in policing football matches. Now—as we saw during Euro 96—it is a pleasure to take anyone, including one's children, to football matches. Ten years ago, as I know for certain, it was often a frightening experience. I have received no representations that there need to be changes in the criminal law to deal with crowd control at football matches, although I will consider any such representations that might be made.
I should make it clear that the purpose of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny will be to consider the fresh evidence that has become available on the Hillsborough tragedy. I cannot anticipate the full terms of reference of any full public inquiry that I may establish. As I said earlier in answer to my hon. Friends, however, what is clear and beyond peradventure is that no one has criticised Lord Taylor or the way in which he conducted his inquiry, particularly on crowd control at football matches.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I again express my condolences to the Hillsborough families?
32
Those of us from Merseyside know that, to this day, the nerves are still raw and the pain is still tangible when Hillsborough and Leppards lane are mentioned. I should therefore like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) that, in the previous inquiry, the feelings of Hillsborough families were shamefully neglected.
May I pursue that point and ask my right hon. Friend whether Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's terms of reference will extend to consideration of past and possible future governmental support for those families? Although very strong support was provided—particularly locally, but also nationally—to those families in their grief, the amount of Government support was pitiful. Will the Lord Justice's terms of reference extend also to examining certain newspapers' disgraceful accusations about the behaviour of fans who were killed, at a time when their families were feeling such pain?
Mr. Straw: I understand entirely the feelings of my hon. Friend, expressed on behalf of his constituents. He asked me whether the terms of reference extend to future Government support to the families. They do not. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I make no apologies for that. The scrutiny by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith is to ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough stadium that was not available to the Taylor inquiry, the inquest, the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of criminal prosecutions or the chief officer of the South Yorkshire police. As has been said, it is a focused scrutiny, led by someone who is senior and respected on the Court of Appeal bench to carry out a specific task that I believe the families have asked us to do.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the statement as a Merseyside Member, at the end of a line that connects most supporters of Liverpool football club. From what I remember—I was in the House at the time—many people said that they had recollections of what happened, but never came forward because they were terrified to give evidence. Can we make an appeal—from the House or through the lord justice—to ordinary people and ask them to stretch their memories once more and, if they were frightened to do so at the time, to come forward now with any new evidence? That is a crucial part of the procedure.
Mr. Straw: If there are any individuals who have material evidence that was not produced at the inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor, at the inquest or in relation to the police disciplinary investigation by West Midlands Police, I appeal to them to come forward.
I did not properly answer the second part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) in relation to allegations by newspapers. Although I shall not go into that, let me make it quite clear that Lord Taylor's report dismissed entirely the allegations made by certain newspapers and clearly came to the view that the principal reason for the disaster was the failure of police control. I hope that remains a matter of reassurance for the families.
Mr. Joe Ashton: I declare an interest as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club and an eye witness to the event who was no more than 50 yards away

33
before and after the game. The only other hon. Member who was an eye witness was Eddie Loyden, who has since left the House. Sheffield Wednesday football club has the deepest sympathy with the victims and will be happy to co-operate in any way with the inquiry.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, will the evidence be given on oath? There is a great interest in that. Secondly, he will recall that the previous inquiry cost some £250,000, excluding compensation. Will the Government pay for the inquiry and refund all the expenses to the parties concerned, including the witnesses and relatives of the victims? Will it be possible to reopen the matter of compensation? Can he give us some information about that?
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, especially given his position as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club. He asked whether evidence before the scrutiny by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will be given on oath. We are not planning that that should be the ease. If Lord Justice Stuart-Smith considers that he has inadequate powers to conduct the scrutiny, I shall actively consider any such representations from him, but I do not expect that it will be a problem, given the nature of the scrutiny that we are asking him to undertake in respect of the new evidence.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government will pay the costs of the inquiry. We shall certainly pay for the cost of the inquiry itself and will refund the travelling and incidental expenses of those who appear before it to make representations. I dealt with the issue of legal representation, which is a much wider issue. So far, I have had no calls for legal aid. That would involve some large decisions to which I cannot commit myself. With respect to my hon. Friend, the issue of compensation for trauma suffered does not arise as a result of this scrutiny.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a short time before the general election, traumatised policemen were awarded substantial sums because they had witnessed the horrific events? It is well known that many of the Liverpool families of the victims
34
have not received anything. I take it, from his answer today, that compensation will not be dealt with by the inquiry. Will he give a guarantee that, if the results of the inquiry lean in the direction that many of us hope for, consequential payments could be made to those Liverpool families?
Mr. Straw: The issue of some police officers receiving compensation while some of those who were on the terraces have not is not a matter for this scrutiny—not because it is unimportant, but because it is not directly related to the need for the scrutiny, which is to examine allegations of new material evidence. If that new material evidence is found to exist, it should trigger a new public inquiry or action by the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief officer of the police.
I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the payment of compensation to police officers and its unavailability to others who were there. The issue could be raised in the debate that I promised to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in response to the shadow Home Secretary.
Mr. Mike Hall: I represent a number of families who lost loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster and a number of people who were severely injured there. I am sure that the Hillsborough families support group will welcome the independent review of the evidence. Will that review look at the events that took place between 3.15 and 5.30 pm? The issue is very important for many of my constituents. I hope that what my right hon. Friend has announced today will lead to a full public inquiry.
Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is an unequivocal yes. One of the major issues raised by the Granada Television programme and by the families, support group is the time of death—whether it was 3.15 for all those who died or whether it was later for some. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will examine that critical issue.

Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on Friday, have you had time to complete your consideration of the letter that he sent you about the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Wales and its implications for the rights of Members of this House?
In particular, as the further public utterances of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) are so contradictory that they cannot both be telling the truth, and given the Prime Minister's categorical assurances to the House last Wednesday, is it not paramount for the reputation of the House and the rights of its Members that the Secretary of State for Wales should make a personal statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?
Madam Speaker: I have now seen the letter written to me by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). As the House will understand, I do not divulge details of correspondence between myself and individual Members. I have responded to him today. I have no comment about the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, as the full facts are not available to me. As a matter of principle, however, I say clearly that freedom of speech is one of the most cherished privileges of parliamentary democracy. I expect Members to exercise that fundamental right at all times to the fullest extent.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate to ask you, about half an hour before the end of British rule in Hong Kong, to express on behalf of the House two thoughts that are probably strongly in the minds of all Members of Parliament—those who have been privileged to go to Hong Kong and those who have not? First, very simply, will you pay tribute to all those who served the Crown and the people of Hong Kong during the past century and a half, including those in the legislative council? Secondly, will you express the hope of this Parliament that the democracy that has been cultivated in Hong Kong will be able to continue from midnight tonight throughout the years ahead?
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that was not a point of order. But it is a very exceptional day for this country and for Hong Kong, and I appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter with me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet finished. I am still on my feet.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Manners!
Madam Speaker: Yes, let us have some courtesy and a few manners.
I say simply that I know that the thoughts of the House are with the people of Hong Kong, particularly today. We certainly wish them success and all happiness in the future.
I should like to pay my own personal tribute to the work of the elected legislative council, which I had the pleasure of visiting a couple of years ago. From this democratic institution, which is often known as the mother of Parliaments, our thoughts go to Hong Kong, as do our best wishes for the future.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, we heard accounts of the failure to declare certain trips and other things by hon. Members who—I think—are now members of the Government. Will you guide me and the House on whether the matters will be looked into automatically by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges, or whether any further action is required in order for him to consider the very grave matters that emerged in the press over the weekend?
Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, such matters are not automatically referred to the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges. It is for an hon. Member to refer them. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, I think that it would be appropriate if they were submitted to the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges.
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance in that, during Social Security questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked the Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), about an estimated £300 million-worth of taxpayers' money that is expected to be involved in the welfare-to-work programme. The right hon. Gentleman side-stepped the issue, although quite clearly from his body language, he knew exactly what my hon. Friend was talking about. On reflection, has the right hon. Gentleman contacted you with a view either to seek to amend the Official Report or to make a statement to make it clear that he knew exactly what my hon. Friend was talking about concerning the costs?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Member has not done so. Nor is that a point of order for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good try."] It was not even a good try.

Scottish Grand Committee
4.32 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move,
That—

(1) during the present Parliament, Standing Orders Nos. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) and 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(i) in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 99, for lines 19 to 30 there shall be substituted—

"(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) four at the disposal of the government;

(b) two at the disposal of the leader of the largest Opposition party in Scotland; and

(c) two at the disposal of the leader of the next largest Opposition party in Scotland:"; and

(ii) in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100 there shall be substituted for the word "twelve" in line 21 the word "eight".

(2) the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion to vary the provisions of this Order, and proceedings thereon may be disposed of after the time for opposed business.

I welcome the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to their new Opposition Front-Bench positions. I am not entirely clear at this stage what those positions are, but I am sure that it will become evident over the next few weeks and months. I certainly extend my good wishes for their work in the House.
The motion will enable new arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee to be put in place. They flow from the fact that there are now no Scottish constituencies represented by members of the official Opposition. The Government have carefully considered what role the Scottish Grand Committee should play in the next year or so prior to the Scottish Parliament coming into being. We have taken into account the views of the other two Opposition parties that have members who represent Scottish constituencies.
The previous Government had their own reasons for reinventing the Scottish Grand Committee as a forum for Scottish issues. Those reasons need not detain us; what matters is what we have inherited. The Scottish Grand Committee can debate matters that relate to Scotland, and all members of the Government can contribute to those debates. Lords Ministers, including the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, can also attend to make statements and answer questions. Second and Third Readings of Scottish Bills can be held in Scottish Grand Committee whenever it makes sense to do so. Scottish questions are now a regular feature of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: Was any consideration given to limiting the length of speeches at Scottish Grand Committee meetings? My question is prompted by the prospect of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is a fine man, with a penchant for long speeches, becoming the leader of the Opposition in Scotland.
Mr. McLeish: The Standing Orders governing the debates in the Grand Committee allow the imposition of a time limit on speeches. The Chairmen may have failed so far to take up my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.
38
Over the past few years, we have also experienced other changes. The Scottish Grand Committee has met much more frequently, up to 12 times a year, and most sittings have been held in local venues the length and breadth of Scotland, often outwith the central belt. The travelling roadshow, as some of my hon. Friends have described it, may have had its inconveniences for Committee members, but there is no doubt that it has struck a chord with the general public. Far more people turned out to watch the Scottish Grand Committee in action in Aberdeen—fighting their way through a snow storm to do so—than would ever be likely to come to see us at work in the House. There is no doubt that the travelling roadshow has stimulated public interest in the workings of government in Scotland.
This Government are keen to see the Scottish Grand Committee continue to operate as a forum for all Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to consider matters of relevance to Scotland, whether by means of debate, questions or statements. We intend that the Scottish Grand Committee should operate in the future much as it has done in the past. Precisely because of that, we are opposed to any change to current Standing Orders to add a few token English Conservatives to the Committee. We believe that they would have no locus in the Committee's business.
No doubt there will be opportunities in plenty for official Opposition Members to state their case on constitutional and other matters. That is as it should be.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks about the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me. In view of the nil representation of Labour Members in Northern Ireland, what representation does the Minister think it would be appropriate for Labour to have on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that different Standing Orders cover the appointment of additional members to the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Grand Committees. The Standing Orders prepared and implemented by the Opposition, when in government, do not give the Scottish Grand Committee that opportunity.
The Scottish Grand Committee is a forum for all Members from Scottish constituencies to consider issues of relevance to Scotland. The official Opposition have no Members from Scottish constituencies and they therefore have no place on the Scottish Grand Committee. The motion amends current Standing Orders to delete reference to the official Opposition, and to provide instead for Opposition day debates to be divided between the two Opposition parties that have Members for Scottish constituencies.
The motion also reduces the maximum number of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee annually from 12 to eight. That reflects the reality of the extent to which Scottish business is likely to dominate business here at Westminster in the coming year. The Government's top priority is to establish a Scottish Parliament; in the short term, sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, valuable though they are, will have to take second place. For the same reason, we expect the bulk of the sittings in the coming Session to be held at Westminster. We recognise,

39
however, the value of continuing to take the Scottish Grand Committee to venues around Scotland, and that will also be accommodated in the forward programme.
Of the eight sittings in the programme, the Government propose to share those out on the basis of four Government days, two Liberal Democrat days and two SNP days. We expect the full range of business—debates, questions, statements and legislation—to continue to be handled in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The overall shape of the programme will be as follows. On Tuesday 8 July, there will be oral questions and a Liberal Democrat debate on the implications for Scotland of the Budget. Before the summer recess, there will be a debate on a Government subject, which will be held in Scotland. There will be a debate on an SNP subject before Christmas. In the spring, there will be three further Government debates, and two further debates chosen by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP respectively. All three Government debates during that period will be held at Westminster.
To sum up, the Government propose to continue the Scottish Grand Committee in the way developed by the previous Government. We take the view that major change is unnecessary, and in any event inappropriate, given our plans to establish a Scottish Parliament as quickly as possible. The Scottish Grand Committee will continue to be able to call the Government to account on all issues affecting Scotland. It will continue to provide a working forum for parliamentary handling of Scottish business.
From time to time, there will be opportunities to take the Scottish Grand Committee north of the border, so that the people we serve can see how we serve them. The changes set out in the motion are sensible, minimal changes to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to continue to get on with its work. I commend them to the House.
4.39 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Minister of State for his good wishes on my appointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to our Opposition positions. I was a little puzzled by the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend about a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and the Standing Orders being different. The Welsh Grand Committee has met today with no Conservative presence—although the Standing Orders allow for it—because the Government decided in the Committee of Selection to make sure that no Conservative was allowed to take up the place available. I am not sure that his answer held water, although we shall leave that matter for now.
In light of current political affairs in Scotland, the motion might appear innocuous—that is what the Minister said—but it is important that we have this chance to debate it, because there are political implications of a constitutional nature which go far beyond the idea of good housekeeping. I must concede that, given the current state of parliamentary representation in Scotland—and therefore on the Scottish Grand Committee—I would find it hard to insist that the official Opposition should retain the right to nominate motions for the Adjournment when we have no Member entitled to take part in the debates. However, deeper constitutional implications must be considered.
40
The Scottish Grand Committee is, after all, a Committee of this House and of the United Kingdom Parliament, in which we are the official Opposition. For the moment, that constitutional reality cannot be given practical effect in the Scottish Grand Committee—hence the motion. I would like an assurance from the Government that when we win back parliamentary representation in Scotland at by-elections—as we can confidently expect in the nature of things—the motion will be reviewed and reconsidered to reflect the fact that the official Opposition are represented once more within the Grand Committee.
Without such assurances, today's motion would be a dangerous slide away from the constitutional framework within which this United Kingdom and Parliament have operated. It would undermine the Union and could be seen as the first step on a slippery slope toward the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McLeish: I am trying to share the optimistic note struck by the right hon. Gentleman about the Conservatives winning by-elections in Scotland. Paragraph 2 of the motion allows for the Standing Orders to be considered and amended, and his point will be taken care of by that provision.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for that assurance, and I take it that it goes further than the "maybe" that is implied. I hope that, if we were to win a by-election, the Minister would accept my argument. He is nodding, for which I am grateful.
I am dismayed to find that the number of sittings of the Grand Committee is to be reduced from 12 to eight. Contradicting the Government's much-vaunted concern for Scottish affairs, we see a continuation of a pattern that seeks to downgrade the consideration of Scottish issues in this House. There is now less time for Scottish questions and fewer Grand Committee debates. What next? With the Government increasingly determined to close down the opportunity to scrutinise Scottish affairs or bring them to account, I fear that we can expect more motions of this kind.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether this is the beginning of the dismantling of the Grand Committee, even before the people of Scotland have had the chance to declare on the question of the future governance of Scotland. What are the Government's intentions for the Grand Committee? When Scotland says no in the referendum, do they intend to review those intentions? Why will they not await the outcome of the referendum before making these moves? Do they cynically believe that downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee will increase the pressure for a yes vote? I can tell them that, if they do, they will be mistaken.
What are the Government's long-term intentions for retaining a strong voice for Scotland within this Parliament to ensure cohesion within the United Kingdom? We are becoming accustomed to the disdain with which the Government treat both Parliament and the spirit of democratic accountability. Even today in another Grand Committee, the voice of democratic opposition to Welsh devolution has been deliberately excluded, contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders.
The Government may believe that, because of their majority, they can do what they like, but they tamper with constitutional proprieties, at great risk to the careful

41
balance of democratic accountability that is essential to the working of our democracy. That the voice of dissent is heard and that the structures for hearing it are cherished are central tenets of democracy. Anything that undermines those structures undermines democracy, and the Government should be careful that—in their arrogance—they do not destroy precious and hard-won rights.
Mr. John Maxton: For the right hon. Gentleman—the Minister who took the poll tax legislation through the House—to talk to us about accountability and democracy in Scotland is outrageous.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may recall that he was leading for the Opposition at that time and he had every opportunity to voice his dissent.
Mr. Maxton: On a guillotine motion.
Mr. Ancram: I am talking about a reduction of opportunities to voice dissent. I remind him that the guillotine came very late in the Bill, after much discussion—largely by the hon. Gentleman.
The motion is, in practice, hard to resist, but nevertheless raises serious concerns. One swallow does not a summer make and the motion is one of a line of swallows, beginning with the deliberate gagging of debate on significant democratic and constitutional issues during consideration of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. It is part of a pattern that is profoundly disturbing to those of us who cherish our democratic principles.
It may be that this gagging of dissent and curtailing of debate—the Government's blustering approach—are part of a strategy to force through constitutional reforms such as devolution in which the Government have lost confidence in their own arguments and proposals. If so, it is even more cynical and even less acceptable.
In conclusion, we will not sit idly by and watch our constitution be so abused or our democratic procedures so callously manipulated. Today's motion is a minor element, but it is a step on a slippery slope which the British people would reject were they to see it. We will make sure that they do see it, for it is their constitution that is challenged.
4.45 pm
Mr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) presents a somewhat confused perspective on devolution. If, on a Monday, he is in Belfast, he argues passionately for devolution. If, on a Tuesday, he is in Glasgow or Cardiff, he argues against political devolution. If he returns to Belfast, he becomes once again a keen advocate of devolution. He is a little confused on the matter, and as a Member who departed Scotland not long after the introduction of the poll tax, he ought to be circumspect when talking about constitutional change. I believe that the poll tax was the beginning of the end for the Conservatives in Scotland. If he were to accept my argument on proportional representation, he might find that there were Conservative Members in a Scottish Parliament.
I hope that the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee take place mainly in London and Edinburgh—if we are not to meet in Greenock, Wemyss Bay or
42
Gourock. If we must meet in Inverness—a favourite town of mine, where my wife and I have spent frequent weekends in the spring, summer and autumn—can my hon. Friend the Minister avoid holding such meetings in the depths of winter? Following the last meeting, some of us had enormous difficulty in returning south from that delightful highland town. May I ask also who is to chair these meetings? Such information ought to be given to the House.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the meetings of the Committee in Aberdeen, and said that they were well attended by members of the public. He may recall that I argued at that time in a brief intervention—all my interventions are brief—for a complete boycott of the travelling circus. I was one of the first to call it a travelling circus. Michael Forsyth—the then Secretary of State for Scotland—used the Scottish Grand Committee and its meetings, which were scattered around Scotland, in a ruthless way. When we were in Inverness, he offered us the prospect of a university of the highlands—despite the fact that that had been a matter for debate among people in the north of Scotland for many years in relation to the Open university.
I have no objections to the reduction in the number of meetings or to the two Opposition parties sharing Opposition days; indeed, I look forward to that. I am a little concerned about the speeches that will be made by my hon. Friend, if I may so call him, the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). There should be a time limit on speeches. From the moment the Front-Bench speeches end, the contributions of Back Benchers should be restricted, perhaps to 10 minutes. Why not restrict Front-Bench performances—that is what they are sometimes—too?
Mr. Maxton: To five minutes.
Mr. Godman: No, not to five minutes—to 15 minutes, say. That would make matters more equitable for Back Benchers.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay particular heed to my request that the meetings be shared between London and Edinburgh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman, and relieve the Minister of a responsibility that he does not hold, to say that the chairmanship of the Scottish Grand Committee is a matter for Madam Speaker.
4.50 pm
Mr. Donald Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats are happy to support the motion. We have had amicable discussions with the Scottish National party and the Government about the allocation of days, which we believe has been done fairly. We believe in collaborative politics to get things done, but we shall certainly oppose the Government vigorously, as I am sure the SNP will, and call them to account at the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. It is reasonable to have fewer meetings, because there is likely to be a great deal of Scottish business if the Scottish home rule Bill is introduced; obviously, if it is not, we can think again.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was sensible not to push his case for inclusion in the Grand Committee too far. There is a clear distinction between

43
Scotland, where the three main United Kingdom parties and the SNP contest elections vigorously, and Northern Ireland, where the politics is different and none of the three largest United Kingdom parties has any representation.
It is sensible to support the Government's proposals. If the Conservatives have no members of the Committee, it is foolish to suggest that they should have any say in its agenda; they seem to have accepted that argument. If there is an argument that the Conservatives should be added on, because they were in some way badly treated in the general election, it should be noted that it is my experience and that of other hon. Members who won seats from them that, in addition to getting support for our party and, we hope, for us, we got support from the other two non-Conservative parties because the electors wanted to defeat the Conservative candidate.
That was clearly the predominant feeling: the voters wanted the Conservative out. In my case, I got support from people who normally voted for Labour or for the SNP, and in my constituency those two parties' votes were lower than—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Although I have allowed a certain latitude up to now, I need to draw his attention, and that of the House, to the terms of the motion, which is about the meetings and not about the issue on which he is now speaking.
Mr. Gorrie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to argue why I felt that it was right that the Conservatives should not have the opportunity to dictate what the Committee should debate. I am sorry if I strayed from the point.
If the Conservatives accepted the logic behind proportional representation, they would have a much better case for better treatment. They do not support proportional representation and benefited from the existing electoral system for more than 18 years; they ruled the country with minority support, and now the game has gone against them. If one is losing, one cannot bite off somebody's ear.
The Conservatives should seriously consider supporting proportional representation; that would give them a logical position from which to claim some say in Scotland. At the moment, they have no such position: those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and the Conservatives do not deserve any say in the Scottish Grand Committee; the voters have voted that they should not have a say.
4.55 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I am somewhat reluctant to participate in this debate, as one of the people whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has in his sights as a by-election possibility. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has raised the possibility of biting in the boxing ring, I am even more reluctant to speak.
The motion is clearly a technical one, and I am glad that the Government are not proposing any inappropriate exceptions to what we would expect to happen as a result
44
of the general election outcome on 1 May. We certainly agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the settlement on Government and Opposition days is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
It is encouraging to know that we will not be subjected in the Scottish Grand Committee to listening to some of the things to which we have had to listen in the House from the Conservatives since 1 May. I went along to the other place to observe part of the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, and the arguments were a little more coherently expressed by the Conservatives there—who included some of my constituents—than by the Conservatives in the House of Commons.
I would not be expected to complain about nothing in a debate such as this, as nothing is ever perfect in the House. The Standing Orders applying to the Scottish Grand Committee say that the largest Opposition party is defined by the number of seats. On proportional representation, there is cross-party consensus among the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Edinburgh, West and me, and we should reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party polled 22.1 per cent. of the vote in Scotland in the general election, compared with 13.1 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. We should bear that in mind when we settle the roles of the Opposition parties in handling scrutiny of Government business.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Devizes that my party certainly does not intend to sit back and ease off on scrutiny of the Government, their legislative proposals or the matters that they bring before the Scottish Grand Committee. That Committee is a forum in which we have the opportunity to keep a close eye on what the Government propose for Scotland.
Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but does it not therefore disturb him that the number of days on which he will be able to exercise that scrutiny is being diminished from 12 to eight?
Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) expressed concern about the time available for Scottish questions in the House on a monthly basis. The number of days is limited in comparison with the previous Session, but we accept the Government's argument that the amount of Scottish legislation to be introduced has to be borne in mind in the timetabling of events.
On the subject of timetabling, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde made some remarks on the length of speeches which were no doubt fair. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I remember that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland made an extensive speech on one occasion that prevented members of my party from participating in a debate, thus denying the House and the Grand Committee the opportunity to hear all sides of the argument.
This debate is all very well, but the real debate is about how we bring real power, and real scrutiny of Scottish legislation, back to Scotland. In my view, that will be done only by a fully powerful Scottish Parliament deciding all Scotland's affairs. As we work towards that objective, we accept the Government's proposals.
4.58 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It was of course the Conservatives who made the Scottish Grand Committee what it is today: a forum for questions and debate that brings the Government of both Scotland and the United Kingdom closer to the people of Scotland. It was Ian Lang who introduced a Question Time for Scottish Ministers and opportunities for ministerial statements, expanded the consideration of primary and secondary legislation, and enhanced the scope for general debates, including Adjournment debates at the end of each sitting. It was Michael Forsyth who extended the scope of Question Time to any Minister, including even the Prime Minister, and enabled the Scottish legislative programme to be expanded by taking the Second and Third Readings of non-controversial Bills in Grand Committee.
Most relevant to this debate, it was my noble Friend Lord Younger who made the Committee the exclusive preserve of Scottish Members in 1981. That is what makes the Grand Committee the true heir to the Scottish Parliament that was prorogued in 1707. Then the Scottish Parliament elected 16 peers and 45 Members of Parliament from among its membership to be incorporated into the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster.
We therefore have no dispute with the substance of the proposed changes in Standing Orders for the Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee is the United Kingdom Parliament's Committee of Scots for Scots. It would not be appropriate for the official Opposition to specify subjects for debates, as envisaged in the current Standing Orders, until we have regained representation on the Committee.
That is not to say that we have no concerns. Changes to the Standing Orders specifically to exclude the official Opposition are unnecessary. We would have been happy to give a commitment of forbearance until such time as there were Scottish Conservative Members once again, but this trust-me Government wish to leave nothing to trust. Yet again, we find something of the high-handed rather than the high-minded in the actions of new Labour. We have no choice but to trust them to be true to their word, if and when circumstances change.
What of the future of the Scottish Grand Committee? Each and every one of the changes made under the Conservatives was welcomed. Before the proposals in the motion, the Committee played an increasingly important role, dealing with more legislation than ever before and being able to summon the most powerful in the kingdom to account: the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain excise duty on whisky; the Secretary of State for Defence to justify the threat of Labour's defence review to Scottish regiments and jobs; and even the Prime Minister to give account of his conduct of Government.
To judge from recent Welsh events, Government Back Benchers would be wise to pause before asking such questions. The Government machine was never more geared to the Scottish interest and to the Scottish dimension. That was never to have been the last word on the Committee's future. Michael Forsyth was always interested in developing its powers and function.
Have the Government considered how the Committee's role could be further enhanced, rather than reduced as in the motion? As the governing party also has the majority on the Grand Committee, is there not almost unlimited scope for the delegation of powers to it? Have the
46
Government considered how all stages of uncontroversial Scottish Bills could effectively be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee? Under such circumstances, would it not be sensible to increase the number of sittings in Scotland so that more matters affecting Scotland could be debated on Scottish soil? Should the Committee have a permanent home in Scotland? A regular meeting place and a regular time in the calendar would enable the rest of Parliament, the press and Scottish public opinion to become increasingly used to it.
Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman's arguments nudge remarkably close to those advanced by the former Member for Eastwood at the Conservative conference at the weekend. He suggested that if the Union was unsustainable—after 1 May, I think that we all agree on that—the arguments for independence were unassailable.
Mr. Jenkin: I am not here to answer for the former Member for Eastwood. I am asking the Government questions, which is the Opposition's job.
I doubt whether the Government have asked the questions that I put forward. They do not want to know. The Minister paid lip service to continuing the work of the Scottish Grand Committee; but, with fewer sitting days and meetings mostly at Westminster, it is clear that the Government want the Scottish Grand Committee to go to sleep as quietly as possible.
What is their political purpose in downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee, now of all times, long before a Scottish Parliament has become a certainty, let alone assumed certain shape or form? What better forum could there be for the discussion of Scotland's future at this time than the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Government even have the comfort of a controlling majority? Is Scottish democracy to be mothballed for the convenience of the Mandelson publicity machine? What sort of preparation is that for Scotland's democratic future?
The truth behind the motion is that the Committee's success is an embarrassment to the advocates of devolution; for if the Grand Committee continues to develop its role, what need for a Scottish Parliament, except to levy a tartan tax and to promote nationalism by stealth? That is what the motion is really about. It surprises me little that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) spoke with such enthusiasm for it.
Whenever people complain—I am coming to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—that the Grand Committee could not have challenged the ultimate authority of Westminster, I wonder whether they realise what they imply. There is no way that a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh can be established by an Act of this Parliament that cannot be subsequently amended by this Parliament. That is the basis of our constitution, based as it is on the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. We had that from the Prime Minister's lips when he explained that ultimate sovereignty rested with him as an English Member.
The Secretary of State knows that that is true, but then I respect him as a Unionist, albeit a misguided one. The case made by some of his more enthusiastic colleagues suggests that they do not know it. There should more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the question, not fewer meetings. That is the danger of establishing a Scottish Parliament based on the Claim of Right, instead of enhancing the Committee's powers.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: No.
No one should dispute the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their future, but to choose to express that right through elections to a separate Scottish Parliament is to encourage denial of the very basis of the Union of the Crowns and of the Parliaments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during his first time as a Front-Bench spokesman, but the thread connecting the motion with his remarks is very thin and I suspect that it is getting ever thinner. I ask him to move back within the terms of the motion.
Mr. Jenkin: The Scottish Grand Committee could serve an ever larger role, expressing the will of the Scottish people but at the heart of the Westminster system. We want Scotland to be at the heart of Britain, not progressively isolated from the mainstream of the discussions that are so vital to Scotland's interests. A Scottish Parliament, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee, could never cross-examine the United Kingdom Prime Minister as an equal.
Until this motion, the Grand Committee represented a form of devolution that could have worked better and better, that raised no West Lothian question, that would not have cost millions of pounds to establish, and did not threaten the Union. The changes to the Standing Orders and the decision to confine its meetings represent the start of its demise. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution should at least come clean on that. The last thing that the Government want at Westminster is a rival pole of attraction to the forthcoming Scottish Parliament, which by comparison will be a constitutional pantomime horse. As comic or tragic as it turns out to be, it will cost Scotland dear.
5.8 pm
Mr. McLeish: With permission, I wish to add some concluding remarks.
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not want the debate to range wide and far, but it has in some respects. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) is a clear illustration of a reality that the Conservatives simply fail to grasp.
The Grand Committee was compared to a possible Scottish Parliament. We have heard it described as the real heir to the Parliament that existed before the union of the Parliaments in 1707. To be extraordinarily charitable, that is simply wide of the mark. If the election result on 1 May told us nothing more, it said that the Scots want a measure of constitutional change. There are certainly differences of opinion over what form that should take, but the overriding issue was settled—change had to be on the agenda. Unless and until Conservative Members start to appreciate that, they will make no progress in Scotland or in this House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is extremely revealing that the hon. Gentleman feels that his devolution proposals have
48
to satisfy the nationalists on the Opposition Benches, rather than the Unionists. Does that not suggest the direction in which his proposals are taking his country?
Mr. McLeish: What must astonish right hon. and hon. Members is that since 1 May, we have not had a hint of humility, a crumb of contrition or a smattering of any sorrow for the plight that the Conservative party faces in Scotland. That is a matter for the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches. In my own way, I am always trying to be helpful, but no matter the level of help offered, nothing seems to be taken on board.
To return to the Scottish Grand Committee, which is the focus of this debate, the motion is not a downgrading of the Committee. As I said earlier, we are endorsing the fact that the previous Government made progress in taking the Grand Committee to other parts of Scotland. We are continuing to have the meetings.
Mr. Jenkin: Lip service.
Mr. McLeish: We believe that, on the central question of strengthening accountability and democracy in Scotland, we are taking a much bigger step. That is why, through the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, we want to make substantial progress on that aspect of accountability and to strengthen the government of Scotland.
At the start, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked what would happen if there were a Conservative win in a by-election, however ridiculous that might seem at present. First, the Conservative Member would automatically become a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. Secondly, the Standing Orders could be amended. I use the word "could" because, in a sense, the motion allows that possibility, but what is equally interesting is that Standing Order No. 99—again, devised by the Opposition when they were in government—states:
"For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member".
The Standing Order goes on to confirm that three Members—in this case, Conservative Members would have to be elected, to trigger the review of the situation. It is unhelpful for the Government to be criticised for merely using what has been put in a Standing Order that was written and agreed by the Opposition when in government.
Mr. Ancram: This is a matter of some seriousness. Perhaps we are reading the Standing Order differently. As I read it, the requirement for three Members relates to the largest and next largest Opposition parties, which under the current motion, which is being amended, exclude the Leader of the Opposition's party. As I pointed out earlier, once a member of the official Opposition is back in the Scottish Grand Committee, I hope that the Minister will review the Standing Order to restore the status quo.
Mr. McLeish: Our interpretation is right—it is about three Members being elected. I have given the assurance that, if a Conservative Member is elected, we will review the position. On the other hand, the Standing Orders were

49
discussed, debated and agreed in the House and they mean that the Conservatives will have to try a little harder than merely having one Conservative Member elected in any forthcoming by-election. It is crucial that the Opposition appreciate that. They are hoist with their own petard.
The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned our attempt to gag. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, it is important—to be fair, the Opposition have been measured in accepting the reality of 1 May—to point out that the Opposition have no case to argue and we have no case to answer on the decisions that we have made and that are contained in the change in the Standing Order that is before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a point about cohesion, democratic debate and accountability. It becomes a little wearing listening to Opposition Members talking about those when, during their 18 years in government, they often paid lip service to anything that could be described as accountability. My hon. Friends have made some telling points in that regard during our brief debate.
The right hon. Member for Devizes also said that the new, limited-in-number Conservative Opposition are the custodians of everything democratic in the House. Suffice it to say that the House simply will not wear that, and it certainly will not be worn the length and breadth of Scotland.
Pessimism and cynicism are not part of Our agenda for change in Scotland. The changes that we are making to the Standing Orders for the Scottish Grand Committee are purposeful and reasonable in the circumstances and will continue to allow the Committee to undertake the work that it has been doing. My hon. Friends made other points about the future of democratic debate. Apart from on the Conservative Benches, that has been secured in terms of the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), we want to consider weather, seasons and geography when we consider having Scottish Grand Committees in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party can each select
50
two debates. Where those might be held is very much a matter for them, in discussions with the Government. That is a fair point.
The motion will adjust the Standing Orders that govern how the Scottish Grand Committee operates. The adjustments are required because the official Opposition have no Members representing Scottish constituencies. The adjustments to the Standing Orders will achieve the change. They wipe out the reference to the official Opposition because their Members have been wiped out from Scottish constituencies.
The adjustments will also reduce the total number of sittings from 12 to eight in the light of the expectation that a Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament will dominate Scottish business in the coming year. I look forward to debates in the Grand Committee, in this House and elsewhere on a Scottish Parliament. The key issue is that we are here as the Government to strengthen democratic accountability in Scotland and to ensure that legislation is adequately scrutinised. It would be helpful and more meaningful if the Conservative Opposition would learn a little from 1 May and start to participate constructively in Scotland's future.
Ordered,
That—

(1) during the present Parliament, Standing Orders Nos. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) and 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(i) in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 99, for lines 19 to 30 there shall be substituted—

"(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) four at the disposal of the government;

(b) two at the disposal of the leader of the largest Opposition party in Scotland; and

(c) two at the disposal of the leader of the next largest Opposition party in Scotland:"; and

(ii) in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100 there shall be substituted for the word "twelve" in line 21 the word "eight".

(2) the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion to vary the provisions of this Order, and proceedings thereon may be disposed of after the time for opposed business.

Northern Ireland
5.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, Which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
The order will extend for a further 12 months the so-called interim period during which the government of Northern Ireland is carried out under "the direction and control" of the Secretary of State. So far, that temporary arrangement has lasted for 23 years. I regard that as a sorry state of affairs.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve political structures that are more accountable to them and more responsive to their needs. The Government are determined to put power back into the hands of the people throughout the United Kingdom. Our approach is based on principles of openness and local accountability and those hold true in Northern Ireland too.
Quite apart from those general arguments, bringing power closer to people in Northern Ireland could play a significant part in healing divisions and encouraging people to work together. It is widely acknowledged that any new arrangements for Northern Ireland must involve power and responsibility sharing among representatives of all main sections of the community there. Devolution of power on that basis could be an important symbol of partnership and working together, giving positive leadership in the interests of all in Northern Ireland.
It has long been recognised that any successful settlement must address the totality of relationships within these islands. We want to move to a situation in which real power is exercised in a co-operative spirit by and for the people of Northern Ireland; a positive and constructive relationship between the two parts of the island of Ireland produces mutual benefit; a consensus on constitutional issues settles old fears and further enables Britain and Ireland to work closely together; and both main parts of the community in Northern Ireland can express their different national identities without appearing to threaten the other.
Such a political settlement is possible, and I am determined to facilitate progress in that direction. That will be our goal in the months ahead. Is it possible that, by this time next year, I shall be able to tell the House, with confidence, that the interim period which has lasted since 1974 is coming to an end? I look to hon. Members from Northern Ireland for encouragement, but, like them, I know that achieving that goal will be far from easy.
At least the machinery for making progress is in place. The multi-party negotiations have a further year to run. Nine of the 10 elected parties are there. Independent chairmen have been appointed to facilitate relevant aspects of the negotiation and have won the respect and confidence of both Governments and of the Northern Ireland parties. We are grateful to those independent chairmen. Rules of procedure have also been drawn up and agreed. The time has now come to use that machinery intensively to make real progress over the coming months.
The Government are determined to do all that we can to aid that progress. Obviously, we want the talks to take place in a peaceful atmosphere. We want Sinn Fein to be there, representing its electorate, but, as my right hon. Friend the
52
Prime Minister has made clear, a political settlement of the kind that I have described is an urgent necessity—whether or not Sinn Fein is involved in negotiating it. As we have said so many times in the past couple of weeks, the ball is in Sinn Fein's court. We have been straight with Sinn Fein, as the published aide memoire shows, but the republican movement now has to make up its mind. The whole world knows that. If its representatives cannot rise to the challenges of democracy, they can have no place in shaping the future arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The issue now under consideration in the talks is the difficult and sensitive one of decommissioning illegal arms. It is a complex and emotive subject; however, it has been under detailed discussion since mid-October last year and, in my view, the time has come to bring the issue to a determination and move on. I told the talks on 3 June that we wanted to see the matter resolved to the satisfaction of the participants "within weeks". The British and Irish Governments have, in an effort to facilitate agreement, tabled a joint paper setting out a series of "possible conclusions".
Agreement would enable us to set a firm date for the launch of substantive political negotiations—a date on which the settlement train could definitely leave the station, whether or not Sinn Fein was on board. I shall not now go into the detail of the paper as it remains under consideration in the talks, but I can say that the two Governments' proposals are entirely consistent with Senator Mitchell's report and its "compromise approach" under which
"some decommissioning would take place during the negotiations, rather than before or after".
The two Governments, in the joint paper, commit themselves to working to achieve progress on decommissioning alongside progress in the substantive political negotiations.
Positive movement in the talks towards a political settlement would help us make progress in other highly contentious area, such as the parades. In the run-up to this year's marching season, I have been trying to make progress, talking with representatives of both the marching orders and the residents' associations. I and my officials have been trying to identify areas of common ground and explore the extent to which local accommodation might be reached—the only approach whereby we can ensure that violence will not be part of the scene in the next two weeks.
I cannot say yet whether those efforts will have a successful outcome, and we are continuing this week to try to achieve further progress, but I can assure the House that we shall continue to do all that we can to avoid a repetition of last year's appalling events. However, the task of everyone involved in working for a peaceful resolution of the parades issue would be made significantly easier if it were being discussed in a climate of peace and political stability.
Before inviting hon. Members to support the order, I shall set out briefly some of the ways in which we intend to discharge our responsibilities for Northern Ireland. On public spending, all Government Departments will live within the totals announced for this year and the plans published for 1998–99. That provides an opportunity to conduct a root-and-branch review of public expenditure to ensure that it aligns with the Government's objectives and secures value for money. That comprehensive spending

53
review will apply to public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We shall examine all areas of spending to ensure that resources line up with our priorities.
Mr. John D. Taylor: When will hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure in Northern Ireland?
Marjorie Mowlam: Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to discuss that matter in the months ahead, because we have made an effort this year to ensure that negotiations and priority setting are not only questions for Ministers. We shall go out to consultation with all the political parties.
Mr. Taylor: So that I fully understand that reply, does that mean that, as in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee which is meeting today in Wales, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure? The previous Government never gave us the opportunity to discuss the issue in any proper forum.
Marjorie Mowlam: Let me elaborate on my previous answer and then I shall answer that question directly.
What the approach that we are adopting will achieve is that Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will be able to have an input, before the decision is taken, in creating the whole picture of how the spending review will take place. That is a useful and valuable input for all Northern Ireland Members.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, as he is well aware, days before Parliament was dissolved for the election, the previous Government introduced several changes to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. We are still reviewing those changes and I look forward to discussing and reviewing them—not in a negative way, so hon. Members need not panic, but in terms of what they cover. As there were changes to the Scottish and the Welsh Grand Committees, I have been looking at how arrangements differ across the Union. The issue is still on the table and we look forward to discussing it with the Northern Ireland parties in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware of current press speculation that there will be a shift of funds in the Department of Education that will gravely affect those schools in Northern Ireland that are the most deprived. That would seem to go contrary to the PAFT—policy appraisal and fair treatment—approach. Will she take this opportunity to deny that?
Marjorie Mowlam: There are no plans to shift money from deprived schools to other schools in Northern Ireland. The PAFT criteria are there and we have repeatedly said that we support them. All we have done is shift £4 million from within budget to ensure we get class sizes to less than 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds and to help many schools avoid sacking teachers. As a result of the cuts introduced by the Tories over the past two years, many schools—both those in deprived areas and others—are hurting badly, so that money has been reallocated. However, there are no plans to deprive deprived schools more than others. We are looking at what we can do to help all schools in Northern Ireland, because they are facing
54
severe financial stringency as a result of the plans put in place by the Tories last year, which are coming forward into this year.
It may help to answer those questions about education if I mention some proposals that we are trying to move into policy as quickly as possible to tackle unemployment and get young school leavers off benefit and into work.
I am pleased to say that figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland are decreasing and that unemployment is at one of its lowest levels for almost 17 years, but we are having trouble getting into work young people who have been unemployed for more than six months. That is an appalling waste of the young people's talents and skills, which they have never been able to develop. We look forward very much to the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will announce this week a comprehensive welfare-to-work strategy, funded from the one-off windfall levy on the privatised utilities. We want to use that in Northern Ireland to break down barriers to the long-term unemployed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Have we an assurance that, in the Budget, a designated proportion of the windfall tax, if it comes through, will go specifically to Northern Ireland—or must we continue to look for crumbs?
Marjorie Mowlam: We certainly will not be looking for crumbs. I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that we shall get nothing less than our fair share—our fair proportion—of the windfall tax. We want to ensure that it is used effectively on training schemes so that young people get a good training.
I know that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have lobbied in the past in support of training schemes that were being closed down. We shall consider those carefully, but we want to be sure of the quality and standards of training schemes that operate in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that answer and encourage the Secretary of State to go down that road, so that we are training not just to keep people off the streets, but to prepare them for jobs that are needed in this modern age—not for some of the things that we have trained people for in the past.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I am sure that he will agree that the one way to get young people into work, once we have trained them, is to ensure that the investment that comes to Northern Ireland stays there. An unequivocal IRA ceasefire would be the best way to achieve that, because that would give us the stability to allow peace to develop and jobs to stay and survive.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I wish the Secretary of State well in her task, because, when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 was introduced, she was just taking over the job that I had done in another life.
During the short period of the most recent ceasefire, the increase that took place in Northern Ireland's tourism industry, with tourists coming from outside Northern Ireland, was an especially encouraging source of employment; it is, and will be, denied to the Northern Ireland until, at long last, a lasting ceasefire can be established.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is right: despite the hard work of the

55
Northern Ireland tourist board, which has been exceptional as usual, the tourist figures are reducing, solely as a result of the instability and the fact that the worrying time of the parades is coming up. People will not visit Northern Ireland at that time. We call on all parties involved to do all that they can to reach an accommodation, because if they do not, they harm the very culture and country that they are trying to protect. We must work together to surmount that obstacle.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State talks about parades, she will recognise the fact that people will fail to come to Northern Ireland, not because of parades, but because they fear the violence that is threatened by Sinn Fein-IRA in the selected cases where they hope to create trouble and encourage the actions that the IRA showed on the streets of Lurgan a couple of weeks ago. Is it not the case that, by pandering to, and believing in, the possibility that the IRA will declare a ceasefire, against all the evidence that is available to the Secretary of State, we encourage that unease to continue?
Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Labour Member panders to any group in relation to the position in Northern Ireland. I agree that the situation in Lurgan and the violence that was evidenced by the shooting of two policemen in the back of the neck are exactly the situations that give Northern Ireland a bad name. I agree that the violence arising from the present circumstances related to the parades causes the problem.
However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until we answer the fundamental difficulty of two competing rights, the violence win not go away? People have a right to march, which I fully acknowledge is a fundamental right to which they are entitled. Equally, people have a fundamental right to live without fear or intimidation. The contradiction between the two, and the way in which we accommodate the two, is the question that we must answer.
All that we have at the moment, with those competing rights, is a growth in fear and tension on all sides. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members, that fear is very obvious now; that is what we must deal with in relation to this problem.
Mr. Maginnis rose—
Mr. Norman A. Godman rose—
Marjorie Mowlam: I give way to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
Mr. Maginnis: Insofar as the Secretary of State poses me the question, I must argue that, as long as we deal with the parades issue on a case-by-case basis, we leave ourselves hostage to fortune and to the wiles of Sinn Fein-IRA. Is it not time that the Government established a proper definition of the fundamental right to assemble and parade, and codes of behaviour against which judgments might be made? On such a basis, it would be much more difficult for those who wish to disrupt to do so.
Marjorie Mowlam: I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but will check Hansard to be sure, because I
56
hear him say that, if there are a set of guidelines and a code of practice which include the cultures of both communities, those are what we must find an accommodation between.
However, I say to the hon. Gentleman, only by an accommodation shall we avoid violence, because, if a local agreement is not reached, inevitably one side will feel that it has surrendered, lost its respect and had its culture denied and that its members have been treated as second-class citizens. That will lead to situations such as those that arose last year, depending on which group perceives itself as the "loser" or the "winner". That is why only by accommodation and common sense shall we avoid situations such as those that we have witnessed.
I will take one more intervention.
Mr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very alert on Northern Ireland.
On tourism, may I say that I hope that a couple of hundred tourists arrived in Ballycastle today on the passenger ferry vessel which left Campbeltown this morning, waved off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Regarding the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the Government will publish their response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement in schools in Northern Ireland? The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), promised such a response; is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the House can catch sight of it?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I, too, welcome the fact that the ferry left from Campbeltown this morning. It was waved off by the Secretary of State for Scotland; it was welcomed by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who happens to be a Scot, but I am sure that his thoughts were with Northern Ireland when it arrived.
I do not know when my colleague will give a response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement, but we are studying the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights report, which is a very full report, and I shall do all that I can to get a response to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland so that the two points are answered simultaneously.
We believe that social and environmental changes, which we discussed during the exchange of questions, are crucial to creating a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland. Settlement and economic growth and training are two sides of the same coin. Further violence and disturbance can only put at risk all the economic progress that people have worked so hard to achieve. Civil unrest would jeopardise the future prosperity that people in Northern Ireland rightly expect.
In the coming year, the Government will do all that we can to combat terrorism and the threat of terrorism; to help build confidence in areas such as policing; to tackle the sources of tension between the communities; and to bring about a fair political settlement. If we are to succeed, we shall need the positive support of all political and community leaders in Northern Ireland—particularly in the days and weeks immediately ahead.

57
I take this opportunity to acknowledge, and to welcome, the new shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I thank him and his colleagues for the support that they have given us during their short time in office. Fur the time being, the structure of direct rule must remain in place. I commend the order to the House.
5.40 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I thank the Secretary of State for her kind remarks. I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, having spent a little more than five years doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. I am glad that there is solidarity among Whips on this occasion, and that the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is in his place to ensure that his predecessor behaves properly. I am delighted to be directly involved with life in the Province again, having spent three and a half happy years in the late 1980s as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
On behalf of the official Opposition, I confirm that we entirely support the draft interim period extension order. Like the Secretary of State, I acknowledge that, although direct rule was intended to be temporary, it has now had to be renewed 22 times. Few observers dispute the claim that it has provided Northern Ireland with fair, efficient and effective government. Yet the fundamental weaknesses of the current arrangements are clear and acknowledged.
Since 1972, no Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office has represented a Northern Ireland constituency. That has effectively excluded all locally elected representatives—particularly Members of Parliament—from being responsible for decisions about local services and priorities such as education, health and industrial development. It means that Northern Ireland suffers from a democratic deficit: the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues exercise powers that, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be carried out at a local level.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the Province's 26 district councils have limited responsibilities compared with equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be honest: most local government functions remain the responsibility of Departments in the Northern Ireland Office. As a result, and within the context of a comprehensive political settlement, we must be determined to re-establish political institutions in Northern Ireland that not only allow local politicians to exercise greater powers and responsibilities, but enable both sides of the community to work together. To this end, we should be prepared to consider any proposals that pass two key tests: they must be workable and, crucially, command widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community.
In the meantime, improvements to direct rule are essential. Although I hope that the overriding objective on both sides of the House is to bring about a comprehensive political settlement, that in no way precludes improving the way in which Northern Ireland is governed under direct rule. I believe that my colleagues in the last Parliament made progress in several significant areas, not least in setting up the Northern Ireland Select and Grand Committees. I hope that the Secretary of State or the
58
Minister of State—who I assume will wind up the debate—will provide an assurance that those Committees will be re-established shortly.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacKay: I have always failed to see—I know that my view is shared by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), whom I heard supporting me—why Wales and Scotland should be treated differently from Northern Ireland. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, through their democratically elected representatives in this place, should be consulted about policy decisions. They should have the right to question and cross-examine Ministers in the same manner as our Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The Northern Ireland Office should be more accountable to the House. The best way to achieve greater accountability is through the Grand Committee, and I look forward to its establishment shortly. I hope that it will be vigorous in cross-examining the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues.
I reiterate the comments about the peace process made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box last week. The bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is very much in place, because we believe that the new Government's proposals are a logical extension of the process initiated by the Prime Minister in the last Administration. However, I wish to emphasise a few points and seek some reassurances.
It is essential that there be parallel decommissioning and that the talks process should proceed at roughly the same pace as decommissioning. It concerns many people that it will take some time to establish the decommissioning mechanism, whereas, if a ceasefire is achieved—we all hope and pray that it is—the talks will commence in September. We believe that the talks process must be halted regularly so that the parties and the two Governments involved in the talks will be able to assess progress not only with the talks but with decommissioning. If need be, any party could withdraw from the talks because decommissioning was not proceeding. It seems essential that those activities occur in parallel.
I echo the words of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister in saying that this must be the final chance for Sinn Fein-IRA. I respectfully suggest that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend must mean it: it really must be Sinn Fein-IRA's last chance. I assure the right hon. Lady that she will have the support of the whole House if the talks process proceeds without Sinn Fein-IRA. They must lay down their arms and start a genuine, deep and lasting ceasefire.
We wish the Secretary of State well in the very difficult weeks ahead—not only in dealing with the marching season but, I hope, in securing a ceasefire and beginning the talks. We shall speak much more about those subjects at the Dispatch Box in future. Meanwhile, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish the right hon. Lady every possible success.
5.48 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her efforts in the past few weeks to try to reach an accommodation on the question of marches in Drumcree and elsewhere.

59
She is—to use the cliche—between a rock and a hard place: she faces some very difficult decisions. I do not accept—as has been argued in some places—that the matter may be left to the police. It is a highly political and highly sensitive issue. At present, we are seeing the re-emergence in Northern Ireland of the same tactics as were applied in 1968, 1969 and 1970: one group says that it will have a march, so another group says that it will stage a counter-march, which places the police in a difficult position. My right hon. Friend faces a harsh problem. I wish her well in her attempts to accommodate those who will not sit down together.
I hope that, whatever decision is made, there will be no acceptance of the view that the right to march and the right not to suffer or fear intimidation are equal. All people have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, communities and societies. That has been recognised in, for instance, the passage of trade union law limiting picket numbers so that people are not intimidated. The right to picket is important and proper, as is the right to march; but the greatest right that a person can have is the right to feel secure rather than threatened. Both principles are important, but the right to safety is more important.
I also hope that, following the making of a decision, a bone will not be thrown to whichever side feels aggrieved by that decision, whatever it may be. It has been suggested, for example, that if it is decided to proceed with the march, the quid pro quo will be that the streets are kept clear, the ports and the airport are still in operation and people can use the roads in safety. That is not a quid pro quo; people should have those basic rights in any event.
It has been argued in some quarters that it will be decided that the march should proceed because that will place less of a strain on the security forces and it will be possible to contain rioting in nationalist areas. Such a decision would, however, be bad and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not thinking in those terms. It has also been suggested that the quid pro quo for allowing the march will be the announcement of a judicial inquiry to re-examine the evidence surrounding the events of Bloody Sunday. I hope that that will not happen either.
In connection with maintaining security on the streets, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government intend to move extra troops into Northern Ireland in the next fortnight?
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on injecting a touch of urgency into the protracted talks process. I understand that we now have a timetable. Sinn Fein is to enter the talks at the end of July, matters that are holding up the agenda at present must be wrapped up in September—issues relating to decommissioning—and, following the discussion of substantive agenda items, the process must end in May.
I think that the two Governments have gone as far as they could have to ease the way for Sinn Fein to enter the talks and that the ball is now in Sinn Fein's court. I did not accept that decommissioning should be a prior condition—I still think that that is a load of rubbish—but both Governments were in a difficult position. It was
60
certainly difficult for Her Majesty's Government—then the Opposition—to retreat from their stance, having adopted it. I believe, however, that they have arrived at an arrangement that will enable Sinn Fein to enter the talks feeling reasonably certain that it will not be ambushed.
Let us consider the worries that Sinn Fein had and the conditions that it wanted. It now has a fixed date on which to enter the talks, which it did not have under the last Administration. It has a timetable within which to finish the talks, which it demanded. It can feel reasonably certain that no further obstacles will be placed in its way—although I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on about in Balmoral when he suggested the condition, almost a precedent, that the Government of the Republic should give up articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, with no quid pro quo.
I consider the decommissioning proposals and the document produced by the two Governments very sensible. I think that they can meet the concerns of both Sinn Fein and the Unionist people. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)—whom I congratulate on his appointment; I remember his being an assiduous parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland—that political progress must always be measured against decommissioning. That is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, but I do not think that it is in the spirit of the demand for some decommissioning during the talks. No timetable was laid down, and no grade specified against which events should be measured as they happened.
Sinn Fein now has an opportunity to accept the offer that has been made to it and to enter the talks. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some questions when he replies. What will happen if, when Sinn Fein has entered the talks at the plenary in July—subject to an unequivocal undertaking to establish a proper ceasefire and so on—the Ulster Unionists still have not agreed on the decommissioning proposals? As yet, they have not accepted them completely. If Sinn Fein, which is worried about that issue, has not entered the talks by July and there has been no ceasefire, will it be allowed to join at a later date? What if Sinn Fein joins in good faith and there is a Unionist walk-out? What will happen to the talks then? Will a settlement be made without the Unionists?
In setting out his timetable, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the outlines for the settlement were there for all to see. Those outlines have been there for 20 years or more; the problem, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, lies in the detail. The devil is for ever in the detail. What if no agreement has been reached by May, when my right hon. Friend thinks that everything should be wrapped up and if there appears to be no possibility of the talks continuing?
What if we experience the same protracted process that we experienced during the Brooke and Mayhew talks? Will the triple lock still apply, or will my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—hopefully with the Irish Government, but perhaps alone—decide what settlement is to be imposed? Those are not hypothetical questions.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.

61
The Government must have examined and thought about all those possibilities because they are in the agenda and the timetable. Parties should know what is likely to happen if some events work out.
Mr. Taylor: I was getting alarmed, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about imposing solutions. Will he confirm that he supports and accepts the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland for any solution?
Mr. McNamara: I am asking what will happen if Northern Ireland representatives cannot come to an agreement. I understand that the Unionists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Basically, they are quite happy about that. That being the case, what will be the situation? The Government cannot sit down and twiddle their thumbs. As the Secretary of State said, they have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to try to get the best deal for them. Presumably that was the policy that was outlined in the framework document, the Downing street declaration and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One would like to see those principles contained in any system that emerges.
What happens if there is not the agreement that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are looking for at the end of July and there is an adjournment without agreement on the decommissioning paper? Is that the end? Will it be wrapped up then? Those are key questions for the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of establishing a timetable is that, if it slips, it is said that the Government are weak. If it is adhered to and the Government act rather abruptly, they are told that they are obdurate and lacking in tact and diplomacy; it is said, "If things had been allowed to go on for a little longer, we might have got somewhere."
I readily understand why the Prime Minister thinks that matters have dragged on for far too long. I also believe that, but while I accept the basis and the nature of a timetable—for which there has been real need over the years—I hope that it will not be so rigid that every little date has to be met immediately because that could prevent what I hope will be achieved; peace and a sensible settlement within the island of Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. As the Chair is now aware that more hon. Members are hoping to speak than was hitherto apparent, and as the time of the debate is limited, may I appeal for brief speeches?
6.2 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber. It was caused by transport difficulties on the way over. I shall try to keep within the terms that you have mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall eschew the temptation to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke with his characteristic disregard for democracy. It is a pity that the House has had to endure—
Mr. McNamara: On a gerrymandered basis.
Mr. Trimble: I shall ignore that sedentary comment and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The hon.
62
Gentleman spoke about some of the proposals for the disarmament of terrorist organisations. I shall not pursue that matter in detail because it will be discussed in another place in some detail tomorrow. I wish to underline some points that are in the paper that was tabled by the British Government and, I understand, the Irish Government last week. I refer in particular to the opening sentence in that paper, which states:
"The two Governments are resolutely committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."
A later paragraph states that this will involve
"adequate mechanisms to ensure that the modalities of decommissioning envisaged in the report"—
the Mitchell report—
"can be implemented as needed and that no delay or obstacle is caused by any lack of Government preparation or provision in this respect."
I trust that, over the next few weeks, the Secretary of State will be able to assure those involved in the talks that that commitment to ensuring that there is no delay or obstacle to the disarming of terrorist organisations will be implemented in fact. That is crucial to the attitude of my party and others to the Government's proposals. If there are to be substantive negotiations, there must be substantive disarmament in parallel; otherwise, the necessary confidence for the process will not be created or sustained.
We are debating the renewal of what is called direct rule. It is atrocious that only 90 minutes are available to consider the imposition for yet another year on part of the United Kingdom an utterly sub-standard system of government, legislation and administration which continues to involve the United Kingdom in a breach of its obligations under international law. It is intolerable that what was originally temporary has continued for 25 years.
Over the last year—indeed, with the arrival of this Government and Parliament—the arrangements for administration and legislation for Northern Ireland and scrutiny of the Government on those matters have deteriorated further. They deteriorated with the implementation of the so-called Jopling reforms, which mean that Northern Ireland legislation—hitherto considered on the Floor of the House for a few hours, but at least considered in the House—now generally goes upstairs where, usually, only one or two Northern Ireland Members are able to debate it. That legislation is enacted not only without the normal parliamentary procedures but with most Northern Ireland Members excluded from the debate on it.
The effect of the Jopling reforms on Northern Ireland legislation is quite unacceptable. Added to that in this Parliament is the significant reduction of the time for Northern Ireland questions, which provide one of the few opportunities for Northern Ireland Members to hold the Administration to account. At the most recent Northern Ireland questions, there was the farce of only four or, if one is generous in enumeration, six questions being answered. That is quite unacceptable, and action must be taken, if not to end direct rule, at least to ensure adequate opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation and for the Administration to be held to account.
The Government claim that they are committed to open government and to transparency in government. It is time that those commitments were implemented. I was most disturbed to note, when my right hon. Friend the Member

63
for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened to query when the Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be running, that there was no clear answer by the Secretary of State. I trust that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will make it clear that the Government are not deliberately dragging their feet. The Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees are up and running and there is no excuse for continued prevarication on this issue.
Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend speaks about accountability and openness in government. We in the party who have to make judgments have, of course, seen the aide-memoire that the Government have provided to Sinn Fein-IRA to enable them to enter the talks process. We have not heard whether there has been any response from Sinn Fein-IRA. How they respond may be a matter of confidence between them and the Government, but the Government have at least a right to tell us all exactly what is going on between them and Sinn Fein-IRA.
After the murder of two policemen in Lurgan, it was said that contacts with Sinn Fein-IRA would cease, but I have reason to believe that contacts have continued. I do not intend to make a judgment on who initiated those contacts, but it would be interesting if the Secretary of State would let us know who is in contact with Sinn Fein-IRA and the mode of contact that has taken place.
Marjorie Mowlam rose—
Mr. Trimble: I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State so that she may respond.
Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that, after the killings in Lurgan, we would not have relationships between our officials and Sinn Fein in relation to the peace process. That has not changed. We have not made any approach. On the second point, so that I am clear about this—I believe in being honest and open—Sinn Fein has telephoned twice the officials that it talked with, asking for further meetings and the answer was no. That is the state of play.
Mr. Trimble: I hope that that exchange is a clear reflection of the situation and that the phrase "not have relationships" is as comprehensive as it appears, because briefings that were given by Northern Ireland Office officials to the press last week seemed to imply that they were open to some form of further communication with Sinn Fein, which of course is contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement, to the exact letter of the assurance given by Lord Richard and to what the Secretary of State has said.
I hope that she will ensure that what she has said is carried out in practice—but then, of course, we have had such assurances before. We had assurances that, in the talks between officials and Sinn Fein, there would be no negotiations yet, when the aide-memoire was published, it was clear that a very strange interpretation of the word "negotiations" was being used.
Marjorie Mowlam: I am not trying to be obtuse; I am trying to be clear and helpful. The Prime Minister said after
64
Lurgan that there would be no contact. There has been no contact. Two telephone calls were made. We said no to both. That is the state of play. Could the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he talks about relationships, because I am not clear and I want to be helpful?
Mr. Trimble: I used the term "have no relationships" merely because that was the phrase that was used by the Secretary of State. I am not clear what that phrase means either; that is why I spoke a little further on it. Does having no relationships mean having no contact and no communication—nothing? I am happy with that and I hope that that is the case. I see the Secretary of State giving me a thumbs-up. We shall interpret that as an affirmative response to my question.
Rev. Martin Smyth: There is a whisper going around in Northern Ireland that someone has initiated video conferencing. We appreciate the response from the Secretary of State, but, ultimately, she would be responsible. Is it possible that someone else in the security services is doing something?
Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend refers to a real concern that has existed in Northern Ireland for a long time—that people not responsible to the Secretary of State are following an agenda of their own.
Marjorie Mowlam rose—
Mr. Trimble: If the Secretary of State is going to clarify that matter also, I will be glad to hear it.
Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to give further clarification to the hon. Gentleman. There has been no video cassette recorder contact between ourselves and Sinn Fein. The rumour may come from the time—to be absolutely straight with people—when we were trying, in the context of the marching season, to get different groups together that would not sit down and talk to each other. We suggested the VCR as one mechanism whereby people would not have to be in the same room but there could be direct communication with them so that there could be some discussion. I do not think that I have revealed any private discussions that we have had with the different groups in the Parades Commission, but I presume that that is where—as with so much in Northern Ireland—that rumour has sprung from.
Mr. Trimble: That does not entirely resolve the matter, because some of the groups to which the Secretary of State refers include individuals who we believe are part of Sinn Fein-IRA and, to a significant degree, those groups are subject to Sinn Fein-IRA's influence, but in any event there would be no concern in Northern Ireland about such matters if assurances that were given at the Dispatch Box were honoured; too often, they have not been. That is true not just of the previous Government or of other Governments; after the publication of the aide-memoire, clearly it is also true of this Government. There has not been the honesty that one would have hoped for.
Before that excursus, we were talking about the need for action to be taken to end this squalid, inadequate system of administration called direct rule and for the Grand Committee to be developed to give some

65
opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland, including Northern Ireland legislation, and to hold the Government to account. We could also refer to the clear need to make progress where it can be made and where we know that it can be made successfully.
The Secretary of State referred to that in her opening speech: she mentioned the development of partnerships in local government and how the experience of giving local government additional powers has been positive. I note the comments made by Lord Dubs on the issue. Admittedly they are of a general nature, but I hope they show that there will be progress in relation to local government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
My next point relates to the inter-party talks and the point that was welcomed by the hon. Member for Hull, North. Last week's statement referred to a timetable for the talks. Of course we all hope that those talks will be able to proceed successfully and that, at their conclusion, we will have what the Prime Minister indicated: a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with sensible arrangements for north-south dialogue. That would not cause problems to my party. We hope that such an assembly will be established and that those elements in the talks that want to prevent that from happening are not able to obstruct progress in the talks.
The timetable in itself is not a problem for us because, as the Secretary of State knows, under the legislation, the forum has only a two-year existence and will cease to exist by May next year. Of course, it has been a fixed position of the Unionist parties that, without a forum, there should be no negotiations, so, unless the legislation were changed, negotiations would never in any event have lasted beyond May next year. However, let us hope that the Government mean it when they say that there is going to be a timetable for the talks. As evidence that they do, are they prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule and to give a clear undertaking today that this will be the last time that direct rule is extended?
There will be time between the end of the talks and the expiry of direct rule for the reinstatement, perhaps in an amended form, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Interruption.] Yes, it would have to be in an amended form. Therefore, if the Government are serious about their timetable, let them commit themselves to a timetable. If they are not prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule, we may be permitted to doubt their attachment to the timetable for talks.
6.17 pm
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I will be brief because I know that hon. Members from Northern Ireland wish to speak, and time is running on.
May I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for her remarkable endeavours in a post that she has occupied for only two months? Despite the fact that he claimed that I was asleep earlier, I also offer my compliments to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). He made a judicious speech and was right to call for the setting up of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I believe that I am right in saying that the Welsh Grand Committee met today and the Scottish Grand Committee will meet upstairs on 8 July.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell that more autonomy should be given to local authorities in Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister
66
of State, Northern Ireland Office will recall that, last week, I said that, in their quest for a modus vivendi, the representatives of the Orange Order and of the Garvaghy Road residents association could do worse than to follow the remarkable example of Canon Sean Connolly, who has suspended Saturday evening masses in Harryville until, I believe, September. Whatever our religious affiliation, we all have readily to acknowledge that that was a remarkable and magnanimous gesture. Others should seek to emulate his public-spiritedness.
Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Godman: I said that I would be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very brief.
Mr. Maginnis: Indeed. The great majority of people from the tradition to which I belong regarded what was happening at Harryville as an obscenity. We had no sympathy for the protests made outside the church. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take no satisfaction from what happened; nor would we have encouraged anyone to cease holding services in Harryville at any time. I believe that part of the reason why the services were brought to an end is that attendance often falls in summer when people go on holiday. We would defend the right of people in Harryville to go to their church, and many of our party members have done so with their presence and support.
Mr. Godman: I was about to thank the hon. Gentleman for a remarkably gracious intervention, but then he mentioned the falling off of attendance at services. I think that that could have been omitted from his otherwise fine intervention. Seriously, though, I am grateful for his comments.
I promised that I would be brief, and I have two questions to put to the Minister of State. First, have he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any plans to strengthen the powers of the Police Authority? Secondly, what initial responses have my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues received concerning the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly? In addition to the opinions offered by the Northern Ireland political parties, has any interim observation been made by representatives of the new Government south of the border in the Irish Republic?
If an Assembly is to be established. I sincerely hope that it will not be based on the system by which we are elected to this place. It has to be by a system of proportional representation—perish the thought that my right hon. Friend would ever dream of introducing the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. I suspect that most Deputies in the Dail would rather have a different system.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the system agreed by members of the Constitutional Convention in Scotland which is akin to the German system—a system which I have favoured all my adult life. Certainly, the first-past-the-post system would be wholly inappropriate for an Assembly in Northern Ireland.
6.22 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: The House should not consider it a slight that so few Northern Ireland Members are here. It is not simply a matter of the

67
inadequacy of the time available to consider the motion; there have been serious difficulties in getting flights to London from Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and some Ulster Unionists attempted to get flights, but were unable to do so.
I wish the shadow Secretary of State well as he takes on his new responsibility. This is probably the first time that the current Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box dealing with a constitutional motion. I hope that she has some more experience of that during her time in office and I hope that any such motion that comes here is capable of gaining the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have been taking part in this ritual since 1979. I remember the early debates when it was intended that such orders were supposed to be a temporary measure. It was to be only one or two years before we had some permanent structures in Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland would have responsibility for a wide range of functions through their elected representatives. That has not been the case. Given the first year of the talks process that I witnessed, I have to say that, if it depends on agreement arising from that process, we might be coming back to renew the motion for many years to come.
The Secretary of State referred to the talks process. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the initiative, if one can call it that, of the Prime Minister when he released the aide-memoire of the discussions that had been taking place under his authority with Sinn Fein-IRA. My understanding was that the Prime Minister had made it clear that the purpose of the discussions with Sinn Fein-IRA was to clarify the Government's position to them so that there would be no misunderstanding.
I thought that, when one clarifies one's position, one clarifies the position as it is; but it is abundantly clear from the aide-memoire that the Prime Minister has developed the Government's position. He has extended it and produced new initiatives in the aide-memoire. I should like the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, to clarify one or two points in the statement.
The first element of the statement relates to the first IRA demand that it needs a clear time scale within which it would be part of the talks process. There has been much talk in the media, and the abbreviation of this condition is that IRA-Sinn Fein will enter the talks six weeks after what is termed an unequivocal cessation of violence. That, however, is not what the document says.
The document says that it will be six weeks before the IRA will be at a plenary meeting in the talks process, but goes on to say that in the period immediately following a ceasefire, for which I must read that same day or the next day, it will have entry to Castle buildings, access to meetings with the chairman, access to meetings with the Government and the opportunity to engage in bilateral meetings with other political parties at Stormont castle. Are we clear that these contacts are to take place not after six weeks but, as the aide-memoire says, immediately a ceasefire is declared? The Secretary of State has not
68
jumped to her feet with her characteristic promptness, but I presume that the Minister of State will attempt to answer at the end of the debate.
The Minister might also like to grapple with the issue of explaining to the people of Northern Ireland how, overnight, or—at best—in six weeks, it will be possible for the Government to assess the genuineness of any ceasefire that the IRA may declare.
The second issue that requires some clarification relates to the time frame. Is the Prime Minister saying in the aide-memoire that there will be no further extension of the talks process and that the process ends in May 1998? I should like to know the Government's view on that.
The third matter that requires clarification relates to decommissioning. It is on this issue that I do not believe the Government have fully clarified their position, perhaps deliberately. To suggest that they embrace the Mitchell report in its entirety is not the same as saying that they believe in parallel decommissioning where decommissioning would be completed by the end of the process.
All that Mitchell requires is that some decommissioning shall take place during the talks process; it does not require all decommissioning to take place and does not specify when it can start. Is it to be simultaneous? Is it to start on the first day? Are guns going to be deposited on the first day that the three-stranded talks begin? Or is it to be left to a body that is subject to an SDLP and Dublin veto to determine the rate at which the handing over of illegal weapons is to take place? If it is the latter, clearly the IRA would be in the process and would not have to hand over any guns during the entire process. The Northern Ireland public deserve a response from the Secretary of State on that issue.
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I do not believe that the Government have to wait until they see the outcome of the process to make further changes, particularly in local government. I listened with some interest to the remarks made by Lord Dubs at the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives conference about how Ministers are examining changes that they might make in local government. One must, therefore, assume that they are examining the issue, regardless of whether they are doing so within or without the context of a settlement in a wider area. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government will do and what their time scale will be in changing local government.
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State about the life of the Northern Ireland Forum—a body which was established by the House under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 and has a specific responsibility. The body was established because Parliament deemed that that was appropriate. I hoped that the Secretary of State and her Ministers would respond more favourably to meeting members of that forum and its committees.
Such meetings have not taken place. I urge the Secretary of State—who seems to be very prepared to go round the country to meet all sorts of people—to spend some time meeting those who have been elected under an Act of Parliament to represent the people of Northern Ireland in that forum. It is important that she should realise that members of that forum feel that she has snubbed and slighted them by thus far not being prepared to meet them.

69
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I think that that is still the name of his constituency—seemed to be a bit concerned about the Prime Minister's remarks about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution. He should not be concerned, because I did not find anything very positive in the Prime Minister's remarks. The remarks indicated not that the Republic had to abandon its territorial claim but that the principle of consent should be enshrined in its constitution. It is, of course, quite possible for the Republic to enshrine the principle of consent within its constitution and still to maintain a jurisdictional claim.
The hon. Member for Hull, North should therefore not be too concerned about the remarks. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has gone the distance that would be required of him on articles 2 and 3, and I certainly do not believe that the Government of the Irish Republic are ready to move in that direction. A fudge by inserting the principle of consent into the Irish constitution would not be satisfactory for the Unionist community.
I should also tell the hon. Member for Hull, North that the triple lock was a device by which agreement would have to be approved by the parties and people of Northern Ireland and by the United Kingdom Parliament. Although he did not say it, I hope that he meant to tell the House that—if he envisages the fall of the talks process, and even if the issue of Northern Ireland's parties' support is not dealt with—he still believes that an agreement must have the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the principle of consent which was enshrined in the Prime Minister's speech.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Member for Hull, North wants to intervene to say that he believes only in the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what he wants to say, I will be happy to give him an opportunity to do so.
Mr. McNamara: I believe that an agreement will have to have the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe also that the people of Northern Ireland, while they are members of the United Kingdom and wish to remain so, must accept the wishes of Parliament, even if they sometimes go against their wishes.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman does not believe in the Labour party's policy that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will be required to make any change. I think that he would much more quickly voice his agreement if it were a matter of attaining the consent of all the people of Ireland.
Like everyone in Northern Ireland, I should like there to be a peaceful marching season. There is absolutely no reason why that should not happen. There have already been indications that, left to themselves, the loyal orders are capable of conducting dignified parades in a responsible and law-abiding manner. As the hon. Member for Hull, North said, there are two sets of rights—the right to assemble and parade, and the right to feel safe and secure in one's own home.
The only outcome of the process has been to demonstrate that there are responsibilities on both sides. The first responsibility is placed on those who participate
70
in parades, which they must do in a sensitive and dignified manner, offering no offence to those through whose areas they may pass.
Secondly and equally, responsibilities are placed on those who live in areas through which parades may pass, to recognise people's right to exercise their cultural rights to demonstrate their own traditions. If people on both sides were prepared to do those things, I do not think that there would be a problem during the marching season. People's right to march is a basic part of our British constitution, and it should not be lost because the IRA designs and works for years to ensure that it is used as a means of conflict.
In the next days, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable will undoubtedly have to make a difficult decision. If they will take some advice from me, they will allow the parade in Drumcree to proceed. They should also ensure that the parade is held in a manner that does not cause offence or insult to anyone. If they do that, any action that might flow in subsequent days or weeks will be clearly seen to originate with those whose only intention in the entire process is to cause tension, division and turmoil in our society.
6.36 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, of course, cannot intervene in my speech. She had intended to offer apologies for hon. Members from Northern Ireland who were unable, because of air traffic delays in Belfast, to get to the House for this debate.
The debate was short, but, none the less, it was constructive and informed. The hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) both mentioned the fact that it has been almost a quarter of a century since Great Britain has had direct rule over the affairs of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bracknell also asked why an hon. Member such as myself, who represents a south Wales constituency, or himself, who represents a constituency in England, should be dealing with the daily matters of government of Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland deserves a proper, good and balanced constitutional settlement and, in this debate, many hon. Members have said the same.
The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Bracknell mentioned problems with the Select Committee, with the Grand Committee and with local government. I should tell them that members of the Select Committee will soon be appointed and that the exact nature and details of the Grand Committee is being reviewed. Only this afternoon, for example, we discussed the Scottish Grand Committee. There is, therefore, no question but that we will soon deal with a Grand Committee.
Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister explain what he means by the word "reviewed"? A Grand Committee has been established and rules of procedure have been agreed and are in the Order Paper. What is preventing the Government from establishing a Grand Committee and referring matters to it, as has been done for Scotland and Wales? Week after week, at business questions, my hon.

71
Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has been asking for Government action on the matter. What need is there for another review?
Mr. Murphy: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no problems in principle with the Grand Committee. As he knows, the previous Government made changes at the very end of the last Session. The present Government are examining the details of those changes, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Grand Committee will be established.
Let me also refer to the problems involving local government and Orders in Council. We regret those constitutional difficulties. They arise because a proper settlement has not yet been reached in Northern Ireland. When that occurs, the British Parliament will be able to say that the people of Northern Ireland will have their own arrangements. That is what the talks in Belfast that resume tomorrow are all about.
The Government's programme includes constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales, where there are to be referendums for the Parliament and the Assembly. Although the pace of constitutional settlement should allow for the inclusion of Northern Ireland, as all hon. Members know, that pace depends on what happens in the talks and in Castle buildings in the weeks ahead. We must move on to substantive issues as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the problems of decommissioning, which will be examined in the talks in the next few weeks. At the end of the day, it will be for the participants in those talks—including all the parties represented—to resolve those matters. The proposals put forward by the two Governments offer the way ahead.
Mr. Maginnis: The Minister oversimplifies matters when he says that it will be for the parties to the talks to decide how we proceed. It is necessary that the disarmament commission should be put in place. That is the responsibility of the British Government in consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic. Can the Minister tell us now whether we have reached the stage of identifying a single member of that commission or whether, in fact, he is contravening article 4(e) of his own decommissioning paper by not having taken a decision on that?
Mr. Murphy: I agree that there has to be swift action regarding appointments to such bodies. That is vital. I also agree that there should be regular two-monthly assessments in the review procedure that we are discussing tomorrow and that all those matters should be speedily resolved. However, all that will depend on the participants in the talks in Belfast. I hope and pray that those decisions will be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made many interesting points. I pay tribute to all his commitment and dedication over the years on Northern Ireland matters. On the specific points he raised, obviously the triple lock applies and the principle of consent is vital to all matters involving Northern Ireland. Consent is vital and the triple lock is built in. They are the essential building blocks of any settlement that we reach.
72
We want Sinn Fein to be involved in the talks, and Sinn Fein knows what to do in order to be there. It needs to renounce violence and unequivocally restore the ceasefire of 1994.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister was responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who referred to a quid pro quo arising out of the Prime Minister's speech on articles 2 and 3. Is there a suggestion, for example, that the United Kingdom should give up any claim on Rockall? There does not seem to be another quid pro quo, as there is no other claim by this nation on the territory of the Republic.
Mr. Murphy: The issue of east-west relations has to be examined properly. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that has to be carried out in all seriousness. I am sure that the issues will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.
All hon. Members agree that the bomb and the ballot box do not mix. The talks will continue—if necessary, without Sinn Fein. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has shown remarkable energy and courage in trying to make progress in regard to the parades. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) said what many of us think—that we should pay tribute to the parish priest of Harryville. I was delighted that he was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We urge restraint on those who think that disorder will resolve the issue. We urge dialogue so that a local accommodation can be achieved and we urge all those who wield influence in Northern Ireland—whether it is economic, political or religious—to use all their skills to prevent confrontation in the weeks ahead.
Our comprehensive spending review provides the opportunity for people in Northern Ireland from all walks of life to let us know where their spending priorities lie. I am hopeful that this week's Budget will contain proposals to take thousands of young people in Northern Ireland from welfare to work.
The next few weeks will be testing ones for everyone in Northern Ireland. They will also be crucial for our country. Although there have been few Members in the Chamber, the world will be watching what occurs in Northern Ireland in the next two or three weeks.
We hope that the talks will move ahead quickly, that they will include all parties in Northern Ireland and that, by this time next year, we shall be well on our way to achieving a lasting and balanced constitutional settlement for everyone in Northern Ireland. I understand the problems of hon. Members on both sides of the House in coming to terms with the difficulties that we all face, but when we meet in Castle buildings tomorrow, and doubtless meet again between now and the recess, there will be a responsibility for everyone at the talks, including the two Governments, to ensure that we reach a resolution on the decommissioning project. Only then will we be able to move on to the substantive constitutional issues that exercise the minds of all who are interested in the future good governance of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Satellite Television
6.46 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
The regulations have been laid before the House under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Their purpose is to implement a judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning the United Kingdom's implementation of articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3(2) of the 1989 broadcasting directive, which is perhaps better known in the House and elsewhere as the "television without frontiers" directive.
In brief, the Court found that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by misinterpreting the basis on which satellite broadcasters fell within United Kingdom jurisdiction, by applying different licensing regimes to domestic and non-domestic satellite services and by exercising control over broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters falling within the jurisdiction of other member states.
This is an opportune moment to debate the regulations, as a revised version of the broadcasting directive was recently adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The broadcasting directive is a single market instrument that governs transfrontier television broadcasting within the European Union. For it to work effectively, it is essential that certain elements are implemented in a common manner by all member states. One such element is the determination of which country should have jurisdiction over a broadcaster.
In the United Kingdom, the Independent Television Commission licenses and regulates all broadcasters that come under UK jurisdiction, with the exception of the BBC and S4C. Other countries operate different systems, but from the European Union perspective, the crucial factor is that each broadcaster should come under the jurisdiction of only one member state. To achieve that, it is clearly essential that a single system of determining jurisdiction is in operation throughout the Community.
That is where a problem arose. The wording of the 1989 directive was ambiguous. When member states came to implement the directive at national level, differing interpretations of the provisions on jurisdiction were exposed. The UK chose to use satellite uplink as the basis of jurisdiction. That was the criterion used in the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier television, which predated the directive and was, to some extent, a model for European broadcasting regulation. Other member states, however, used the broadcaster's place of establishment.
Establishment and uplink are both fairly complex issues, but in simple terms, establishment concerns the place in which an organisation is based. The place of establishment of a broadcaster is generally held to be the place in which it has its head office and where decisions about programming content are made. Uplink is the technical process whereby programmes are broadcast, from a specific transmitter on the earth to a satellite, from where they are subsequently downlinked back to satellite receptors on earth.
74
The situation did not cause too many practical problems, because the vast majority of services uplinked from the UK are by broadcasters also established in the UK. Nevertheless, it was clearly necessary to have a common interpretation throughout the EU to ensure that a member state, or its regulator, would know which Government were the sole licensing authority. Monitoring the implementation of directives, the European Commission considered that, by using uplink as the basis of jurisdiction, the UK had misinterpreted the broadcasting directive. In 1992, therefore, it initiated the legal infractions process.
In responding to the Commission, the Government of the day took the view that the UK had implemented the directive properly. The legal process was pursued through its various stages, culminating in the judgment of the European Court of Justice last September. The judgment recognised that the existing directive was ambiguous, but found that establishment was the correct basis for determining jurisdiction. The regulations implement the Court's judgment by changing the basis of jurisdiction over broadcasters from uplink to establishment.
We now also have the benefit of the revisions to the 1989 directive, including article 2, where the ambiguity to which I referred is removed. The revised directive, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament earlier this month, states clearly that establishment shall be the basis of jurisdiction and sets out a hierarchy of criteria for defining the place of establishment of broadcasters. These regulations can now be read alongside the detailed guidance in the revised directive.
The practical effect of the change is minimal. According to the Independent Television Commission, of the more than 150 broadcasters currently holding satellite broadcasting licences, only half a dozen at most will be affected.
In the second part of its judgment, creating a single satellite licensing regime, the European Court of Justice found that the UK had unlawfully established two licensing regimes for satellite broadcasting in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Domestic satellite services were defined as those that used UK frequencies and were designed for general reception in the UK. Non-domestic satellite services were those that did not use UK frequencies and were intended for general reception in the UK and elsewhere. The Court's judgment found that the distinction between those two regimes was discriminatory and that the UK was favouring its own viewers by imposing a more rigorous content regime on domestic satellite service licensees.
That had not been the intention or the effect of the UK's distinction between the two regimes. The large majority of the more than 150 licensed non-domestic satellite services use non-UK frequencies, but broadcast wholly or mainly to UK audiences. The different domestic satellite regime merely applies to UK satellite frequencies the kind of procedure applied for commercial UK terrestrial broadcasting frequencies—bids for the use of the spectrum and controls on content reflecting the scarcity of the resource.
Nevertheless, under the revised directive the UK clearly must license all satellite broadcasters established in the UK on the same basis. The regulations accordingly remove the distinction between the two types of satellite

75
service. The consequence of the change is to abolish the domestic satellite service regime and to rename the non-domestic satellite service. Licences issued under the new unified regime will be known as satellite television service licences.
Again, the effect of the change on existing licensees is minimal. There are at present no domestic satellite service licence holders—and there never have been. The new integrated regime, removing some of the restrictions applying to the use of UK frequencies, may, however, encourage more services to emerge. In particular, the duration of domestic satellite service licences, which requires broadcasters to plan and broadcast for 15 years, as opposed to 10 years for non-domestic services, may have acted as a deterrent to broadcasters from using UK allocated frequencies.
The Government are fully committed to complying with their international obligations. The regulations will enable the United Kingdom to do so in respect of the European Union broadcasting directive. They will not, however, have any material effect on the thriving UK satellite broadcasting industry. I commend the regulations to the House.
6.57 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: This is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House from the Dispatch Box. I am happy to be able to contribute to the general harmony of this place by agreeing with the Secretary of State and saying that we support the regulations. Indeed, I understand that they were drafted under the last Conservative Government.
I convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is in Hong Kong this evening, witnessing the handover. I have no doubt that he would otherwise have been replying to this short debate.
I do not believe that there is any need to detain the House on the regulations. The Secretary of State correctly explained that the first provision implements the European Court of Justice judgment, changing the basis on which the United Kingdom takes jurisdiction over a broadcaster. It is clearly sensible that that should be agreed common practice between member states. The European system—that jurisdiction is based on the country in which the broadcaster is established rather than the country from which the broadcaster happens to uplink—seems more appropriate. As I understand it, the change will have no effect on UK broadcasters and those broadcasting in the English language into the UK, merely removing an anomaly which could have been abused.
It is also worth noting that there have been suggestions that some other member states might have tried to challenge the UK's regulatory regime in an attempt to avoid having to accept broadcasts on the basis of an ITC licence alone. The change will remove that possibility so that, in future, ITC licences will be recognised without challenge across Europe.
On the second provision, the change is clearly beneficial. It will remove the distinction between domestic and non-domestic satellite services. Such a distinction is purely historic and has no relevance today. As a veteran of the Committee sittings on the
76
Broadcasting Bill, I can say from experience that the distinction was a source of considerable confusion because, as the Secretary of State has explained, no domestic satellite services exist and all satellite broadcasts are defined as non-domestic. On occasion, that has given the impression that those companies responsible for satellite broadcasts into the United Kingdom are foreign and that they may not be subject to regulation.
Neither of those impressions is true. The best-known broadcaster, BSkyB, is a British company, which invests billions of pounds in this country and deserves proper recognition as such. United Kingdom satellite services are also rightly subject to licensing by the ITC and to scrutiny by the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new description of satellite television services is therefore both more accurate and more sensible.
The Secretary of State has explained in detail precisely the way in which the regulations will operate. We have no problems with anything that he has said and, on that basis, we are happy to support the motion.
7.1 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: In the spirit of harmony, I, too, can say that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very supportive of what is proposed. As a new Member, I must confess that the statement was one of the most confusing ever delivered, but I trust that, on reading it tomorrow, I will find it much clearer.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the hysterical press headlines that greeted the European Court of Justice ruling last year that satellite broadcasters should be licensed in the country in which they have their headquarters. One may make light of that, but there was a genuine fear that that interpretation would mean that broadcasting from countries with very liberal—I use that word in its true sense—laws, especially on child and other types of pornography, was allowed into the United Kingdom.
I have only two questions for the Secretary of State. First, will he continue to be able to proscribe a foreign satellite service that, in the opinion of the Independent Television Commission, would offend good taste and decency, as has always happened in the past? Could his answer go on record? Secondly, will he ensure that the provisions of the television without frontiers directive, which protects minors, will be rigorously applied?
7.2 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: With permission, I should first warmly welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new post and thank him for his welcome support for the motion. I likewise thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for his support. I hasten to give him assurances on both the questions that he asked. The answer to both is yes.
As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, it is of course sensible to do two things: first, there should be agreed common practice across Europe in relation to the definitions of where regulation should take place; and, secondly, the impression that domestic services are somehow foreign should be assisted by a much more accurate description—as well as unifying the two disparate definitions that we have at the moment.

77
It may have seemed from my speech that the statement was one of the most confusing that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has ever heard, but I think that when he reads it in Hansard tomorrow morning he will find that it is a model of lucid clarity. With that in mind, I commend the very sensible and worthy regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  CONTRACTING OUT
  That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

Marconi Communications
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
7.5 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of redundancies at Marconi Communications in my constituency. The issue is obviously extremely pressing and urgent for the people of Chelmsford and the mid-Essex area. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) is in his place. With me, he has been involved in the matter over the past two weeks or so, pursuing it at a ministerial level and with the trade unions and companies in Chelmsford.
It is a cruel irony that, when unemployment is falling significantly in the mid-Essex area, unemployment in my constituency is down from the height of 4,600 during the recession in the early 1990s to about 1,600 people, economic activity is picking up significantly and the retail sector is doing so well, once again we face a body blow of devastating proportions. Due to the ending of the cold war, the peace dividend and the world recession in the early 1990s—when the market became worldwide and far more competitive, and contracts were more difficult to win—535 redundancies at Marconi Communications have been announced, as well as the closing down of the Marconi college, with the loss of 46 jobs in the town.
It is true that Chelmsford, like other parts of the country, has paid a very heavy price for the peace dividend over the past few years. In fairness, it should be pointed out that, of all the defence-related industries in my constituency, Marconi Communications is less reliant on defence contracts, because it has been diversifying for many years and has of course benefited from a number of civilian contracts. None the less, due to the peace dividend and the contracting of the world market, it, too, has found it very difficult in the new, highly competitive market to win sufficient contracts to maintain the level of employment that it has enjoyed in the past.
To understand the impact of the redundancies, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town and the surrounding area. Chelmsford has always been associated with Marconi companies. In my constituency, there is Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar and the English Electric Valve company. We used to have Marconi Phone and Marconi Marine, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East has Marconi Research in his constituency.
Chelmsford and Marconi have been synonymous ever since Marconi set up his factory in the town at the beginning of the century. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve employed just over 11,000 people in the town—one of the main employers outside the local authorities based there—providing jobs not only directly but for all the back-up services. Over the past five and a half years, though, we have seen the all-too-dismal repetition of job losses in those companies.
In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phones; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar and 225 jobs at Marconi Communications;

79
in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valves; in July 1993, 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar; in 1994, 180 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; and last year, a further 150 jobs were lost, also at Marconi Communications. In the past two weeks, we have felt the body blow of 535 further redundancies at Marconi Communications.
With the latest redundancies, some 3,500 people will be left working for GEC companies in the town, compared with the 11,000 of 20 years ago. Those figures show the decline in manufacturing jobs in defence-related industries in that time, with some 2,500 of those jobs going in the past five and a half years. Marconi Communications' work force will have been halved to slightly more than 500 when the current redundancies have worked through the system in the next two years. I fear that the redundancies will be front loaded, and a majority of them will occur in the early months of those two years.
Behind that dismal story is a more worrying factor—the erosion of the manufacturing base in the town. The 600 redundancies at Marconi Radar that I mentioned earlier meant the elimination of manufacturing in the town when GEC moved that activity to Leicester. Worryingly, the majority of the redundancies that have been announced at Marconi Communications represents the remaining manufacturing base at that firm. If and when they go, the manufacturing base as we know it will go, and only an assembly line and research and development will remain. That would be a grievous loss for the town and for the industrial base in mid-Essex.
Two challenges face us before the redundancies come into effect. First, we must try to salvage what we can of the manufacturing side of Marconi Communications; secondly, we must provide every assistance possible to those facing redundancy to maximise their potential to get back to work as quickly as possible. I shall deal with those challenges in order.
On the question of manufacturing, I hope that, even at this late stage, Marconi Communications will be prepared to think again. I met the trade union representatives on Friday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East will meet them on Thursday. I have written to the managing director of Marconi Communications requesting a meeting with my hon. Friend, me and the trade union representatives to discuss whether it is possible for the firm to reconsider its decision. I understand that no company makes people redundant lightly. It is done because of economic circumstances. However, because Marconi will continue to assemble products on the site, it is worth asking the company to reconsider its decision.
I wish to suggest a number of options that may provide a way forward, although I know that it is not the Government's role to create jobs per se. It never has been, and it would be foolish of me, simply because we no longer have a Conservative Government, to change my long-held view and start blaming this Government for what has happened. Governments can—indeed, it is a fundamental responsibility of Governments, regardless of their political complexion—create the economic climate in which jobs can be created.
80
If industry and commerce flourish, that will stimulate demand so that people wish to buy the goods or services available, and that leads to job creation. Governments can also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in research and development to identify niches in the market and fill them with new products for people to buy, to safeguard and create jobs.
If it is not feasible or possible for Marconi Communications to reconsider and moderate its proposals, I wish to ask whether consideration can be given to a management buy-out so that manufacturing work can continue on the manufacturing site in the town to supply the assembly lines of Marconi Communications. The people who are facing redundancy are a highly skilled and trained work force, and are used to the ways of the company because they have worked there—in some cases, for many years. Why not harness that expertise and experience through a management buy-out so that the work force can continue to produce the parts and components that Marconi needs for the assembly of its products?
If that is not possible—the management may not wish to invest their redundancy money in a management buy-out—other workers may wish to group together to set up small satellite companies to do the supply work. Other companies in the mid-Essex area already supply the GEC companies and that option could be encouraged. It is a truism, but also a fact of life, that the small businesses of today can become the medium and larger companies and employers of the future. If people can use their skills, with advice, encouragement and help, to set up businesses—as happened to one small company when Marconi Radar made manufacturing redundancies a few years ago—part of the manufacturing base would be safeguarded. I hope that the company will seriously consider those ideas when our meeting takes place in the next few weeks.
The Government have a role to play, even if indirectly, in job creation. As I said earlier, Governments do not have the power to create proper jobs, although they can throw money at artificial jobs, which is in no one's long-term interest. Governments can ensure that the available schemes are used to the maximum effect to help people facing redundancy. I wish to thank the Minister for her prompt reply to a written question that I tabled two weeks ago. She announced that employees from Marconi Communications would have immediate access to the Government's training-for-work programme and that the normal qualifying period of six months' unemployment would be waived. That is greatly appreciated in my constituency as a positive and meaningful step forward to help people who are currently distressed by, and worried about, the uncertainty that they face.
The Minister also mentioned in her answer that further measures are being considered for the action plan, including advice, guidance, training courses, help with job search and assistance to individuals and groups interested in starting their own businesses. That action would dovetail easily with any aspirations to set up satellite companies. The written answer also mentioned help under the KONVER programme, which I remember pursuing vigorously, with my colleagues, when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
That will help, as did the long-term investment for the advanced manufacturing centre in Chelmsford when the last major wave of redundancies was announced in the

81
town. That has done so much to help the people who were made redundant to get retraining and to set up small businesses from a basis of a total lack of knowledge of how to do so. The centre does tremendous work, and has dedicated staff to whom I pay tribute. The scheme was financed with European money, and I subscribe to the old adage that, whatever one's view of a scheme, it is better for it to come to one's constituency rather than go elsewhere.
We are grateful for all the work that is being done to try to help people and to minimise uncertainty, as that is as great a problem for individuals as their redundancy. It is good that the company has hired consultants to help the work force with advice and counselling. I am pleased by the actions of the Employment Service, the Essex Careers and Business Partnership, the Business Development Advisory Service, business link, Essex county council and Chelmsford district council. The advanced manufacturing centre and Essex training and enterprise council are also involved, and I saw the chief executive of Essex TEC on Friday morning.
The swift action from those organisations and the Government's regional offices is heartening, and they have tried to come up with practical help for those people, rather than just sitting around a table and talking in meaningless platitudes. I have seen the programme produced by the TEC for the different activities and time scales of the different organisations and its projections of what they will be doing in the future. That part of the package has been prepared and is greatly appreciated. I should like the Minister to elaborate on the help, advice and training to which she has referred, so that we know exactly what will be on offer and what people can expect. They can then start thinking seriously about the best way forward to maximise their opportunities in securing another job.
Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Procurement—whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East and I visited last week—for his comments on the Government's defence procurement policy. Clearly, this is not a significant matter for Marconi Communications, but it is important to the other companies in the town which are more reliant on defence procurement contracts. Obviously, a great deal of the work of Marconi Communications is in the civilian sector, although there are overlaps with military contracts.
I was pleased by the assurances from the Government that they plan to continue the policy of the previous Government of a £9 billion-plus defence procurement budget, in which about 90 per cent. goes to British companies—or to conglomerates of which 50 per cent. consists of British companies—to safeguard British jobs. Clearly, contracts can be placed only when it is feasible to do so, as the British taxpayer must get value for money and the armed forces must get the best equipment possible. It is heartening that the Government are committed to continue the last Government's policy where it is feasible.
I should be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency mean and how they would impact on defence-related industries. From a philosophical, rather than a narrow party political point of view, there is a potential difficulty which, without knowing the full details about the agency, means that one has to be cautious. We have seen in the past—particularly in the 1970s—
82
well-meaning, although misguided, examples where agencies sought to guide and influence commercial decisions. That failed because business men and their companies know the best decisions to take. I should be worried if an agency were to be seen as interfering in the running of a company.
That may not be the case, and we are in the dark as to the aims, aspirations and purpose of the agency. It would be interesting to know more about how the agency would impact on larger companies, although I can see how it could impact on small and medium companies. Marconi has had the commercial sense in the past decade to see that it was important to diversify and broaden its base. In fairness to the Marconi companies, they have done so. The trouble is, as any business man knows, that when a company seeks to diversify beyond its core business into areas where there are already established companies, it is more difficult entering the new markets. Notwithstanding that, the Marconi companies have made strenuous and successful efforts to diversify their base into civilian markets, and that is a positive thing.
I have said on numerous occasions—when, sadly, I have had debates of this nature—that I am not of the neanderthal school of politics, believing that anyone who is unemployed is a scrounger. That is a travesty. Those people are desperate for work, and they do not want to be reliant upon the state for their income. They want to work and contribute to companies so as to enhance and improve their standard of living.
We are grateful for the help that has been given so far, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to the debate. We look forward to what she has to say, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East and I can tell our constituents what is going on. We want to tell them that they will not become the forgotten people of Chelmsford, languishing in the dole queues with no one giving a damn. They will know that my hon. Friend and I—despite our limited powers to do anything—will continue to pursue the matter to make sure that they get all the help to which they are entitled for retraining, counselling and advice so that they can get back to work as quickly as possible.
7.28 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) on his initiative in obtaining this debate, and I thank him for allowing me to speak briefly in it. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has taken the time to attend the debate.
My hon. Friend has ably represented the town of Chelmsford for the past 10 years. Sadly, he has had some experience of trying to ensure that as much help as possible is given to those who have been made redundant from Marconi.
As the Member of Parliament representing Maldon for the past five years, I have obviously been aware that a number of my constituents in the Maldon district have been affected by the redundancies. As a result of boundary changes, I now represent part of Chelmsford town, so I shall work even more closely in future with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, West on behalf of the people of Chelmsford.

83
I do not want to add a great deal to what my hon. Friend has said about the plight of those who have been made redundant, but I reiterate that I do not expect the Government to dissuade Marconi from its course, which is a matter for the company, operating, as it does, in a highly competitive environment; of course, it has to make its own commercial judgments.
My hon. Friend and I will be anxious, however, to ensure that every possible option is considered before the last option of declaring the redundancies. We will want to be satisfied that there are no alternatives of the kind that he has described. I shall meet the trade unions later this week, and I hope that my hon. Friend and I will both have the opportunity to lead a delegation to meet representatives of the company management in the next few weeks.
I also look to the Government to ensure that every help is given to those who have been made redundant. My hon. Friend has described the help being given by the various agencies that are active in Essex, and I add my thanks to all those involved for the swift and compassionate way in which they have responded to what is clearly a serious blow to the town. In particular, I know that Essex training and enterprise council responded extremely quickly and is active in trying to provide help.
The picture is not entirely bleak. There is no doubt that new jobs are being created in Essex. A few months ago, Boulton and Paul, a company making kitchens and doors in my constituency, sadly announced that it would be closing its facility in Maldon, with the loss of about 200 jobs—that is a serious blow to Maldon—but a few weeks later I visited another company, Keltek EDMS, about 100 yards away, which was about to create a new facility in the town, with 220 new jobs, making printed circuit boards.
Inevitably, there will be change in the employment pattern, but it is not all one way. A week ago, I visited one of the most successful employers in Maldon, Industrial Control Services, which makes safety and control systems. I was told that the outlook for the company was extremely bright, that it was winning orders from throughout the world and that if it had a problem it was the shortage of skilled engineers.
New jobs exist. The task that we have now is to try to ensure that those who have lost their jobs at Marconi are swiftly placed in those new jobs. There are various ways in which that can be made to happen. Already, some of the agencies are trying to ensure that it happens as quickly as possible. I want to hear from the Minister tonight about any additional measures that she can offer the constituents of me and my hon. Friend, to ensure that the period of unemployment that sadly faces them is as brief as possible.
7.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I have listened with great interest to the hon. Members for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) and for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale), and I thank them for the extremely valuable points that they have made. I greatly appreciate the constructive and helpful way in which they have addressed the issue. There is no doubt
84
that both hon. Gentlemen have done a great deal of work with all the interested parties as constituency Members of Parliament, to ensure that this difficult issue is dealt with as sympathetically as possible.
I share the hon. Members' concern about the redundancies, and I hope that the measures that I outline tonight will show that effective action is being taken to improve the employment prospects of those affected. As they pointed out, the redundancies will have a significant impact on the Chelmsford economy, not only in themselves but in the knock-on effect on the many local suppliers.
When large-scale redundancies occur, co-operation between all local partners is essential. I am grateful that tribute has been paid to the parties concerned. Chelmsford borough council convened a meeting of the key players, including Marconi Communications, at which Essex training and enterprise council offered to co-ordinate the efforts of the partnership, and it has drawn up a plan of action.
I have visited Essex TEC and I know how hard it works. It has assigned an adviser and account manager to keep in close contact with the company. I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West has also met Essex TEC and that it will keep him fully briefed about the activities being undertaken.
Business Link Essex is already working with Marconi to identify suppliers whose businesses may be at risk as a result of the planned redundancies. I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of BLE a few months ago. It is offering support and advice to ensure the continued success of those businesses by developing their activities in other areas.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West about the importance of diversification. Chelmsford's great advantage is the skills base of its people. That will do a great deal to ensure that other businesses will grow and flourish.
The Employment Service, together with the Essex careers and business partnership, will provide advice on services and benefits available to those under threat of redundancy, assisting Grosvenor Associates, outplacement consultants engaged by Marconi, in setting up a job shop on the company premises. That will not only have all the vacancies available locally but will offer guidance and assistance to those wishing to make applications for new jobs. Clearly, it will have an important role to play in the area.
For those wishing to go into self-employment, a range of services will be on offer from the Business Development Advisory Service. Support is also available to any start-up businesses set up by redundant workers through the Centre for the Advancement of Manufacturing and Technology in Chelmsford. Essex county council is also offering managed work space as an additional way of supporting those start-up businesses.
In appreciation of the special needs of the redundant workers, the TEC has already waived the six-month qualifying period for access to training for work. It is primarily designed to help unemployed adults to get jobs, including self-employment, as quickly as possible, through an appropriate mix of guidance, training, approved qualifications and structured work experience. The training for work programme in Essex is one of the

85
most successful in the country, with nearly 60 per cent. of those undertaking it immediately moving into employment.
Those measures are designed to alleviate the immediate needs of the area, but, as the hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, Chelmsford faces considerable long-term difficulties. The town has traditionally been dependent on high-technology, defence-related industry, with Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar Systems and EEV providing most of the employment within that sector. As the hon. Gentlemen said, as a result of the peace dividend and the recession of the early 1990s, there has been a general decline in defence-related manufacturing which, regrettably, has resulted in the redundancies announced by Marconi.
The growth in the service sector has to some extent offset the decline of the manufacturing sector. Public administration provides 26,000 jobs. Both the financial services and the hotel and distribution sectors play a significant part in local employment, providing a further 20,000 jobs. Chelmsford is the main United Kingdom base for Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd. and is also the administrative headquarters of the investment managers. M and G Group.
Chelmsford has a growing reputation as an ideal place for new and expanding businesses to settle. As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, the picture is not all gloomy. It has a strategic location, close to London, Stansted airport and the ports of Tilbury, Harwich and Felixstowe, and its work force is well trained, highly qualified and adaptable, so it is clear why companies such as Royal Mail, Royal Insurance and Barclays Bank have recently chosen Chelmsford. I am sure that, given the skills and abilities of the work force, those will not be the only locations and relocations.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West mentioned the KONVER programme. Although the Chelmsford economy has diversified away from defence-related manufacturing, the problems of defence rundown continue. That is why Chelmsford is designated as a KONVER area. Since 1993, KONVER has enabled affected regions to respond to factory closures and deal with high job losses. KONVER funding is already being used to help train and retrain employees of firms dependent on the defence sector in the Chelmsford area. Organisations such as Essex TEC, Essex county council and Anglia polytechnic university have developed a wide range of vocational guidance and vocational training projects. The TEC alone has helped to retrain more than 400 former defence workers since the start of 1996.
More than £1 million from KONVER has been used to establish a regional centre for the advancement of manufacturing and technology, the AMT, whose activities include hands-on experience of modern machine tools, high-level training, technology transfer, prototype development and advice. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West knows, I visited the centre a few months ago and was tremendously impressed by its work. Much knowledge and experience, which can help both well-established and newly established firms, can be found there. The centre clearly enjoys much respect in the local business community.
I am certain that the centre will provide a vital base for re-employment of the well qualified and highly skilled local work force. It helps small and medium-sized firms
86
to develop new products and improve competitiveness through the introduction of new technologies and training. As the Minister responsible for small firms, I am acutely aware of the needs of small and medium-sized businesses and I am working through the network of Business Links to develop support and advice that can be accessed by all SMEs.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West about SMEs, which are essential to Britain's competitive edge and central to the Government's competitiveness agenda. The encouragement of high-tech SMEs is a key factor in our programme. That is why I believe that our programme is in line with the way in which local businesses in Chelmsford, especially local start-up businesses, can be helped. Chelmsford's work force clearly has the skills, know-how and dedication to make SMEs a success.
Over the past year, the AMT has saved more than 200 jobs in businesses threatened with closure and has directly supported growth in businesses providing a further 100 jobs. It has also run two meet-the-buyer events, attracting more than 100 national and international buyers and providing direct sales meetings for more than 600 local businesses.
The AMT estimates that more than £2.5 million worth of business was brought to Chelmsford in that way. Such work is essential in the climate of redundancies. Any encouragement to start-up businesses is important, in that the development of regional supply chains and networks is vital. That may be one subject which the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West could discuss further with the AMT.
The centre will work with its current partners to interview individuals affected by the latest round of redundancies to ascertain their transferable skills and how it can help by customising training courses to suit their future needs.
The hon. Members have drawn attention to the many people who are unemployed in their constituencies as a result of a series of redundancies at defence manufacturing establishments over the past few years. Tackling unemployment is one of the new Government's key priorities, and we intend to tackle it during lifetime of this Parliament. Our first priority is the "new deal" and measures to reduce unemployment among young and long-term unemployed people. Work is already under way to put that initiative into action.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West also stressed the importance of defence procurement decisions to the prosperity of towns such as Chelmsford. As the Prime Minister said, the Government are committed to service. That is an attribute long possessed by our armed forces, which are admired around the globe. Our commitment is to provide them with a longer-term sense of direction and a stable basis for defence policy and planning. The current strategic defence consideration is designed to ensure that our security and defence needs are matched by appropriate capabilities, both for today and for tomorrow's challenges.
Out of that defence consideration will come a procurement policy that will provide industry with the longer-term vision that it needs if it is to realise projects of the highest quality and value for money. If British industry can supply to specification, to cost and to time in a way that represents best overall value for money, it

87
will ensure success at home and abroad. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West had a useful meeting with my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence.
Our commitment to service and to our armed forces requires that we give them the best equipment to do the tasks that we require of them. However, we are committed to a strong UK defence industry that is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort. The industry employs some 360,000 people across the country, wins 90 per cent. by value of our business and, last year, won £5 billion-worth of export orders. That is quite a record.
It is that strength on which we wish to build for the future. We want to maintain strong links between the user and the industrial base. We want a partnership between Government and industry to enhance our economic prospects and our national security. We want to ensure that we maximise the contribution of our defence effort to the wider economy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West that it is important that regional and industrial policy implications are well understood in taking procurement decisions. That is why my Department works closely with the Ministry of Defence on issues that affect the competitiveness of the UK defence industry. My officials ensure that the industrial implications of MOD procurement decisions are taken into account. They work closely with industry to ensure that all matters are taken into full and active consideration.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West asked about defence diversification. We support a strong UK defence industry that is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort. As stated in our manifesto, we believe that some of its expertise could be diversified by extension to civilian use. Nowhere is better equipped for that than Chelmsford.
The objective would be 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. We
88
should certainly ensure that the investment that we make in defence equipment research and technology is put to good use for the economy as a whole.
We are actively considering the establishment of an organisation with specific responsibilities for diversification issues. The aim will be to ensure better co-ordination between Government Departments on issues such as regional policy, training and business planning to develop a positive strategy for industrial regeneration.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 16 June, we will be making proposals in the autumn on how best to give effect to our objectives for defence diversification. Those proposals will include how best to harness the contribution of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to those objectives. I will certainly ensure that the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues as they formulate their policies in that area.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Gentlemen that I fully recognise the problems that the redundancies announced by Marconi will create. I welcome the initiatives that local partners are taking. The speed with which that response has been put together underlines the fact that the matter is being taken seriously.
Considerable efforts have also been made in the long-term restructuring of the Chelmsford economy away from defence-related manufacturing. That accounts for the relative prosperity of that part of Essex. Many local agencies can take credit for that. More work remains to be done, however, and we will continue to support the local partners who can best take that forward.
I fully recognise all the difficulties that the redundancies have caused for individual employees and their families. I appreciate the efforts that the local Members of Parliament have made to work constructively with the company, the trade unions and all the local partners. For our part, the Government will ensure that we do all we can to support their efforts.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expenditure by each police force in each of the last five years for which figures are available devoted to enforcing the Protection of Children Act 1978. [5449]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Child Pornography
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expenditure of the National Criminal Intelligence Service in each of the last five years for which figures are available devoted to gathering information on child pornography. [5451]

  Mr. Michael
  Gathering information on child pornography is only one area of the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) Paedophile Section and it is not possible to separate expenditure for that purpose from the other activities of the Section. Figures for expenditure by the Paedophile Section, available for the last two years only, are as follows:

  1995–96: £53,027

  1996–97: £61,672.

  These figures are based on staff costs and running expenses but exclude costs of accommodation and other central expenditure.

  Other units in NCIS, such as Interpol and Europol, also conduct work to combat paedophilia and child pornography, but their expenditure on such activity is not separately recorded.

  Primary Purpose Rules
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie the proposed retention of the part of the primary purpose rules which requires the couple to prove that they intend to live together permanently as husband and wife. [5627]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The requirement in the Immigration Rules on marriage to which my hon. Friend refers is not part of the primary purpose rule. It is needed to prevent foreign nationals from using sham marriages as a means to obtain settlement here. The primary purpose rule affected genuine marriages.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the funding for victim support schemes; [5982]
  2
  (2) when he plans to make a decision on the provision and funding of a helpline service for all victims of crime. [5984]

  Mr. Michael
  We regard support for victims of crime as a priority. We have therefore made available immediately an additional £1 million a year for the work of Victim Support, taking their annual grant to £12.7 million. The extra money will enable Victim Support to set up a national helpline for victims of crime, and to develop further the work of their court-based and local support schemes. We shall maintain a continuing dialogue with Victim Support about their programme of work and funding.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the feasibility and cost of providing a nationwide victim support service for witnesses in magistrates courts. [5983]

  Mr. Michael
  We have received a number of representations about the perceived need to improve services for victims, witnesses and other users of magistrates courts, although details have not been collated centrally. A draft final research consultancy report commissioned to assess those needs and to recommend realistic and affordable options for improving support is currently being considered by a standing group of officials from the Government departments and criminal justice agencies with an interest in improving the court/trials process. Victim Support is represented on that group. The group's deliberations should help us to determine priorities for improving services for users of magistrates' courts and how these might best be provided.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances plastic baton rounds are used by police in England and Wales. [6116]

  Mr. Michael
  Police forces in England and Wales hold plastic baton rounds for use as a last resort in dealing with serious public disorder. They may be used where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer decides such action to be necessary because of the risk of loss of life or serious injury, or of widespread destruction of property where the damage may lead to serious risk of loss of life or serious personal injury. Plastic baton rounds have never been used operationally in England and Wales.

  Patrick Nicholls
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 510, on the case of Mr. Patrick Nicholls; what part Mr. Nicholls's insistence that he is innocent has played in the Parole Board's decision; and if he will make a statement. [6132]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The reasons given by the Parole Board for their latest decision in Mr. Nicholls's case do not refer to his insistence on his innocence.

  Community Safety
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the report of the 1991 working party recommendations to give local authorities a statutory duty to organise plans for community safety. [5985]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to place a new responsibility on local authorities and the police service jointly to develop statutory local partnerships for crime prevention and community safety and to agree, with the key partners, local community safety targets. Our proposals will be developed on the basis of full consultation with all interested parties. This will be included in the forthcoming Crime and Disorder Bill.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the home Department when he will implement the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. [5974]

  Mr. Michael
  We plan to implement the Sex Offenders Act 1997 later this year and we are currently working with the police and others on the systems necessary to achieve early implementation.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is proposing to tackle anti-social behaviour within neighbourhoods. [5492]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce Community Safety Orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  Courts will be given the power to grant such orders on the application of a local authority or the police. The order will apply to a named individual or individuals and would prevent that person or persons from continuing with specified anti-social conduct.

  A breach of the order will be a criminal offence which would carry stiff penalties— including the possibility of imprisonment.

  Traffic Police
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from ACPO about(a) placing traffic duties within the core objectives for chief constables, (b) the establishment of specialised traffic units and (c) the training of traffic officers. [5432]

  Mr. Michael
  In the current review of the key policing objectives for 1998–99, my Department has been advised that there is some support within the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for a national objective on traffic policing, but I understand that this view is not supported by ACPO as a whole.

  Issues concerning the organisation of traffic units within police forces and the training of traffic officers fall within the operational responsibilities of individual chief constables. My Department has not received representations from ACPO about those matters.

  Convicted Child Sex Offenders
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will take to ensure that convicted child sex offenders, during their prison sentence, are not placed on community work programmes which bring them into direct contact with children. [5491]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Procedures are already in place to identify prisoners convicted of current or previous offences, including sexual offences, against children and young persons under the age of eighteen. In considering applications for release on temporary licence for work outside the establishment, both the nature of the work and the prisoner's offences are taken into account as part of a mandatory rigorous risk assessment process, which includes consultation with the police and probation services in serious cases. These arrangements are designed to prevent the temporary release of any prisoner considered to pose an undue risk to public safety.

  Immigration (Detainees)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 were subsequently granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [5410]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of persons granted leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom who had, at some stage2, been detained was 470 in 1995, and 540 in 1996.
  1 Includes cases where enforcement action was withdrawn or abandoned and asylum cases that were granted or given exceptional leave to remain, indefinite leave to remain or exceptional leave to enter.
  2 Detention period does not necessarily relate to the year of decision.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of detention of persons detained under Immigration Act powers, in the three most recent years for which figures are available. [5413]

  Mr. O'Brien
  Information on the average length of time a person has been kept in detention under Immigration Act powers can be obtained only by examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of persons detained under Immigration Act powers were reviewed at Immigration Service Headquarters level in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996. [5401]

  Mr. O'Brien
  Information on the number of cases of persons detained under Immigration Act powers reviewed at Immigration Service Headquarters level can be obtained only by examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 9 June,Official Report, column 336, what proportion of those currently detained under Immigration Act powers have sought a judicial review of the decision to detain them. [5402]
  5
  Mr. O'Brien
  Information on the proportion of persons detained under Immigration Act powers who have sought a judicial review of the decision to detain can be obtained only by examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers for six months or longer in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [5403]

  Mr. O'Brien
  Reliable information on the historical flow of persons placed into detention and on the length of such detention can be obtained only through examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 9 June,Official Report, column 336, what proportion of those currently detained under Immigration Act powers have at some stage applied for bail to an independent adjudicator. [5404]

  Mr. O'Brien
  Information on the proportion of persons detained under Immigration Act powers who have at some stage applied for bail to an independent adjudicator can be obtained only by examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate Cost.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation has been paid out under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will he paid in the current year. [5809]

  Mr. Michael
  The total compensation paid in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1992–93: £152 million

  1993–94: £165 million

  1994–95: £175 million

  1995–96: £179 million

  1996–97: £211 million (subject to audit).

  Vote provision for compensation in the current year is £214 million. We expect that provision to be taken up in full.

  Member's name

  Appointed

  Qualifications/experience

  Martin J. S. Axtell Esq.

  7 March 1997

  Solicitor, Higher Court Advocate and Recorder.

  George H. Bardwell Esq. CBE

  27 January 1997

  Management consultant and former civil servant. Part time Chairman of the Civil Service Selection Board.

  David Barker Esq. QC

  1 February 1997

  Barrister. [Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB)]

  Dr. Thelma Bates

  27 January 1997

  Consultant (retired) in clinical oncology. Chairman of GMC Health Committee.

  W. Keith C. Beattic Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Group Personnel Director in private sector Member of Industrial Tribunals

  6
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases under the Criminal injuries Compensation Scheme which were decided under the illegal tariff scheme remain to be reviewed. [5814]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Board, under the 1995 tariff scheme. [5810]

  Mr. Michael
  In the period 1 April 1996 to 24 June 1997, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel received 1,020 applications for appeal.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in each of the last five years. [5812]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of applications received was as follows:

  1992–93: 65,977

  1993–94: 73,473

  1994–95: 71,734

  1995–96: 75,667

  1996–97: 75,032 (subject to audit).

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to determine an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme under the 1995 tariff scheme. [5811]

  Mr. Michael
  The 1996 tariff scheme started on 1 April 1996. In the first year of the scheme's operation, the Authority issued decisions in 75 per cent. of all cases within 8 months of the receipt of the application. 13,566 cases were completely resolved in the year, with the average time for resolution in those cases being 6 months.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme lodged prior to the introduction of the illegal tariff scheme remain to be determined. [5813]

  Mr. Michael
  The Board has informed me that some 5,700 cases registered prior to 1 April 1994 still await final resolution. Of these, 5,320 cases are appeals against the original decision.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, dates of appointment, qualifications and relevant experience of members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel. [5116]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is set out below.
  7

  Members name

  Appointed

  Qualifications/experience

  Sir Derek Bradbeer OBE

  1 March 1996

  Solicitor. Member of CICB.

  David Brown Esq.

  1 March 1996

  Businessman, Chairman West Sussex Committee for Employment of the Disabled.

  Miss Lesley Clare

  12 February 1997

  Former Scottish Office Civil Servant. Experienced in victims' issues.

  His Honour Sir Jonathan Clarke

  27 January 1997

  Retired judge. [Member of CICB]

  Ms Linda Costelloe Baker

  6 February 1997

  Management consultant and former Probation Service Manager. Member of Parole Board for Scotland.

  Miss Diana Cotton QC

  1 March 1996

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  Surgeon Rear Admiral Alexander Craig

  16 May 1997

  Medical Director General (Navy Retired).

  Dr. Ann Fingret

  1 March 1996

  Consultant in Occupational Medicine.

  Jonathan R. Foster Esq. QC

  25 February 1997

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  David Gabbitass Esq.

  1 March 1996

  Solicitor. [Member of CICB]

  Sir Richard Gaskell

  27 January 1997

  Retired solicitor. [Member of CICB]

  Edward Gee Esq.

  4 March 1997

  Solicitor. [Member of CICB]

  Dr. Eric Godfrey

  1 March 1996

  GP with mental health and industrial medical experience.

  Alastair M. Hill Esq. QC

  1 March 1997

  Retired barrister. Has worked for the Crown Prosecution Service and is experienced in personal injury matters.

  Frank Howard Esq.

  1 March 1996

  Trade Union Official. JP

  Michael E. A. Innes Esq.

  6 February 1997

  Retired merchant banker. Member of complaints committee of Law Society of Scotland. Accountant

  Michael Lewer Esq. QC

  1 March 1996

  Barrister. Chairman of CICAP [and Member of CICB]

  Miss Geraldine Lindley

  1 March 1996

  Homoeopathist. Trained as Barrister. Founding member of Victim Support in Bristol.

  Crawford Lindsay Esq. QC

  1 March 1996

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  Nicholas F. Lowe Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Accountant, JP, Former National Director of Barnados.

  Harley Lumsden Esq. WS

  1 March 1996

  Businessman. Formerly a solicitor in Scotland.

  John M. Lusby Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Former General Manager of Lothian Health Board

  Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC

  26 March 1997

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  Roderick MacDonald QC

  16 February 1997

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  Mrs. Suzan P. Matthews QC

  1 March 1997

  Practising barrister. Specialist in criminal, civil and family law.

  Dr. G. J. Ross McHardy

  9 February 1997

  Retired consultant physician. Experience in appeals tribunals.

  Alexander E. Mcllwain Esq. CBE WS

  6 February 1997

  Solicitor. Former Scottish Law Society President.

  Major General Anthony L Meier CB OBE

  5 February 1997

  Senior Army Officer (Retired), NHS Trust Board Member.

  Dr. John Miles

  1 March 1996

  Former civil servant and college lecturer. Works for Prince's Trust.

  Terence Molloy Esq. JP

  1 March 1996

  Trade Union Official. Member of Parole Board.

  Charles A. Norris Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Solicitor specialising in personal injury work.

  Miss Erica M. Norton OBE

  27 January 1997

  Former Assistant Chief Constable.

  Michael Park Esq. CBE

  1 March 1996

  Solicitor. [Member of CICB]

  Lawrence Peterken Esq. CBE

  6 February 1997

  Former chief executive Glasgow Health Board, with experience in local government and industry.

  David C. de Peyer Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Former Director General, Cancer Research Campaign.

  Robin Pinto Esq.

  4 March 1997

  Consultant psychiatrist. Experience of Medico-legal work.

  Dame Avril Poole DBE, RGN, RM, RHV,CBIM

  27 January 1997

  Former Chief Nursing Officer, Department of Health

  John Scampion Esq.

  1 March 1997

  Former chief executive of local authority. Commissioner for Social Fund for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  John Michael Shorrock Esq. QC

  27 January 1997

  Barrister. [Member of CICB]

  Amolak Singh Esq.

  1 March 1997

  Dental practitioner and general secretary of General Denial Practitioners Association. Experience of Medico-legal work.

  His Honour Eric Stockdale

  27 January 1997

  Retired judge. [Member of CICB]

  Anthony V. Summers Esq.

  9 March 1997

  Solicitor. Senior Partner specialising in Civil Litigation.

  Mrs. Rosemary E. R. Thomson CBE JP MA

  27 January 1997

  Former Chairman of Council. The Magistrates Association.

  Dr. Frances M. Walters

  27 January 1997

  Senior Partner, General Medical Practice.

  Donald Williams Esq.

  11 February 1997

  Former solicitor, Recorder and Chairman of Industrial Tribunals.

  Austin P. Wilson Esq.

  27 January 1997

  Former Home Office Civil Servant, experienced in Criminal Policy matters.

  Dr. D. Pamela Wills

  10 February 1997

  Child/adolescent consultant psychiatrist. Experienced in Tribunals.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of those asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers were first detained at a time when(a) their asylum claim had yet to be determined by the Home Office, (b) their appeal against a refusal of asylum had yet to be determined by an adjudicator or the immigration Appeal tribunal and (c) they had exhausted all appeal rights; [5412]
  8
  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the total number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by (a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of time in detention, (d) location and (e) immigration status at the time of detention. [5405]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on those persons recorded as detained under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 1997, and who had sought asylum at some stage, is given in the tables.
  9
  I regret that information on the stage at which these persons were first placed into detention could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1. Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Gender

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Male

  297

  334

  49

  680

  Female

  29

  19

  5

  53

  Total

  326

  353

  54

  733

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by stage of application and immigration status

  Stage of application

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Awaiting initial decision

  82

  87

  5

  174

  Awaiting result of appeal

  139

  132

  33

  304

  Awaiting removal3

  105

  134

  16

  255

  Total

  326

  353

  54

  733

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 Includes cases where the result of a further challenge is awaited or where another bar to removal currently exits.

  Table 3. Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention3 and immigration status

  Length

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  0–1 Month1

  77

  80

  8

  165

  1–2 Months

  59

  81

  4

  144

  2–6 Months

  131

  143

  18

  292

  6–12 Months

  48

  44

  19

  111

  12 Months+

  11

  5

  5

  21

  Total

  326

  353

  54

  733

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 In some cases the date a person enters detention may be understated due to the method of recording.

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as being detained12 on 31 May 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  India

  19

  100

  4

  123

  Nigeria

  49

  38

  15

  103

  Algeria

  15

  55

  6

  76

  China

  38

  13

  0

  51

  Pakistan

  21

  23

  5

  49

  Ghana

  12

  12

  3

  27

  Turkey

  16

  5

  1

  22

  Bangladesh

  3

  13

  3

  19

  10

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Cyprus

  14

  2

  0

  16

  Sri Lanka

  8

  5

  0

  13

  Columbia

  11

  1

  0

  12

  Kenya

  9

  2

  1

  12

  Yugoslavia

  10

  1

  1

  12

  Angola

  6

  4

  1

  11

  Gambia

  7

  3

  1

  11

  Poland

  6

  5

  0

  11

  Romania

  1

  10

  0

  11

  Albania

  3

  7

  0

  10

  Liberia

  10

  0

  0

  10

  Uganda

  6

  2

  0

  8

  Jamaica

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Lithuania

  4

  3

  0

  7

  Somalia

  6

  0

  1

  7

  Ethiopia

  3

  3

  0

  6

  Morocco

  1

  4

  1

  6

  Ivory Coast

  1

  3

  1

  5

  Russia

  1

  4

  0

  5

  Sierra Leone

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Bulgaria

  3

  1

  0

  4

  Iran

  3

  1

  0

  4

  South Africa

  3

  0

  1

  4

  Tunisia

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Zaire

  3

  0

  1

  4

  Afghanistan

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Cameroon

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Ecuador

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Lebanon

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Sudan

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Other

  18

  16

  6

  40

  Nationality Doubtful

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Total

  326

  353

  54

  733

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Table 5. Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention and immigration status

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Prisons

  HMP Rochester

  57

  58

  7

  122

  HMP Haslar

  28

  31

  10

  69

  HMP Greenock

  1

  15

  0

  16

  HMP Magilligan

  0

  12

  0

  12

  HMP Birmingham

  1

  7

  1

  9

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  2

  5

  1

  8

  HMP Brixton

  0

  5

  2

  7

  HMP Manchester

  0

  4

  0

  4

  HMP Armley

  0

  2

  1

  3

  HMP Holloway

  0

  1

  2

  3

  HMP Wandsworth

  0

  1

  2

  3

  HMP Bristol

  0

  2

  0

  2

  HMP Liverpool

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Other prison

  8

  6

  5

  19

  11

  Table 5. Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 on 31 May 1997 sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention and immigration status

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Other Places of Detention

  Campsfield House

  68

  52

  9

  129

  Tinsley House

  56

  41

  7

  104

  Hammondsworth

  50

  29

  5

  84

  Police Cells

  18

  61

  1

  80

  Queens Building

  10

  5

  0

  15

  Manchester Airport

  3

  6

  0

  9

  Dover Harbour

  8

  0

  0

  8

  Other place

  16

  9

  0

  25

  Total

  326

  353

  54

  733

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons applying for asylum at ports of entry were detained under Immigration Act powers for one night or longer in each month of(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [5411]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number1 of persons who had applied for asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom and were placed into detention under Immigration Act powers2 3 1995 and 1996 by month

  Month

  1995

  1996

  January

  155

  140

  February

  140

  135

  March

  160

  150

  April

  185

  130

  May

  135

  125

  June

  175

  150

  July

  155

  155

  August

  145

  160

  September

  145

  200

  October

  185

  145

  November

  165

  145

  December

  195

  150

  Total

  1,945

  1,785

  1 Provisional and estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 Includes those placed into detention on the day of their arrival in the United Kingdom, or the following day, but excludes those cases where detention length can be established as being less than one night in duration.

  Singh Shingara Case
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the judgment by the European Court of Justice in the Singh Shingara case for rulings by his Department. [5395]

  Mr. Straw
  The implications of this judgment will be taken into account by the High Court when it resumes its consideration of Mr. Shingara's application for judicial review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom.

  Privately Managed Prisons
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the estimated cost savings attributed by his Department to privately managed prisons is accounted for by(a) lower pay and shorter pay scales, (b) longer working hours, (c) less generous pension provision and (d) less generous provision in respect of sick pay and holidays; and which of these policies he proposes to introduce to the publicly managed Prison Service. [5803]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  A research report published on 29 October 1996, a copy of which is in the Library, showed that on 1995–96 figures, prisons operated by the private sector are 11–17 per cent. cheaper than comparable prisons operated in the public sector. A further study is now under way, with the co-operation of contractors, to define in more detail how the private sector operators achieve lower operating costs. The work is not yet completed, and I will consider the implications of its findings when I receive the final report.

  Asylum and Immigration Act
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) 9 June,Official Report, column 323, which organisations he (a) is consulting and (b) plans to consult, in relation to his review of the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [5406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will consult widely before taking any decisions about the 1996 Act. A number of organisations have already given us their views.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the success of Europol in(a) detecting and (b) preventing the illegal movement and trade of nuclear materials. [5957]

  Mr. Michael
  The mandate of the Europol Drugs Unit to assist member states in tackling serious trans-national crime was extended to cover illicit trafficking in radioactive and nuclear substances in March 1995. Since then, the Unit has received only a small number of requests from member states for assistance in this area. The Unit has also undertaken strategic work on the threat to the European Union from this form of crime.

  The assistance which the Unit will be able to offer member states will be augmented on entry into force of the Europol Convention. A key change will be Europol's ability to pool and analyse intelligence in central databases.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take to co-ordinate the work of voluntary organisations concerned with the prevention, detection and effects of crime with special reference to Victim Support and Crime Concern with those from the statutory authorities with special reference to the Safer Cities Project. [4810]
  13
  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: The Government are committed to reducing crime through the enhancement of local partnership arrangements. That is why we intend to create a statutory duty for local authorities and the police service jointly to ensure that the vital work of all key agencies—voluntary and statutory—is brought together locally within a co-ordinated multi-agency framework.

  The local community—which includes residents, voluntary organisations and the business community—will be involved in identifying local problems of crime and disorder and together will then draw up and implement plans to tackle those identified local problems.

  In this way, everyone's effort will be complementary, mutually supportive and, above all, better focused on local problems.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the balance held by each TEC at the end of 1996–97. [4290]

  Dr. Howells
  A list of Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs), their surpluses and accumulated reserves, as shown in their audited annual statutory accounts, at the end of the financial year 1995–96 is shown in the following table. This is the most recent year for which information is available.

  TECs are allowed to generate surpluses and create reserves by subcontracting training at a lower unit price than that negotiated with the Department. Surpluses are used by TECs on activities in support of their corporate and business plan objectives which are agreed with the Government.

  TECs have provided further information which reports that the total reserves of almost £260 million comprised £51 million for investment in capital assets, £86 million for working capital and £123 million for discretionary expenditure. Of the sum available for discretionary expenditure, TECs report that £102 million was earmarked for planned expenditure in 1996–97 and beyond, for training, enterprise and economic regeneration initiatives.

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96 £

  Reserves 1995–96 £

  Northern

  Country Durham

  (646,364)

  6,413,585

  Northumberland

  475,842

  6,511,028

  Teesside

  437,000

  7,234,000

  Tyneside

  2,101,000

  4,407,000

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  1,590,984

  4,725,925

  3,958,462

  29,291,538

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  897,592

  3,424,783

  Merseyside

  (2,867,096)

  4,455,012

  St. Helens

  (293,520)

  832,294

  (2,263,024)

  8,712,089

  14

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96 £

  Reserves 1995–96 £

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  (238,453)

  3,867,289

  Manchester

  560,301

  5,155,404

  METRO

  213,325

  971,827

  Oldham

  102,240

  1,240,279

  Rochdale

  138,448

  1,932,813

  South and East Cheshire

  1,322,376

  3,808,389

  Stockport and High Peak

  (48,248)

  2,715,158

  Cumbria

  422,291

  3,121,591

  ELTEC

  (74,614)

  3,259,567

  LAWTEC

  (337,754)

  5,626,129

  NORMID

  539,256

  2,996,717

  2,599,168

  34,695,163

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,552,000

  5,948,000

  Bradford

  (436,245)

  2,311,416

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  97,846

  1,986,121

  Humberside

  419,280

  6,229,229

  Leeds

  207,287

  4,228,110

  North Yorkshire

  (132,000)

  5,535,000

  Rotherham

  1,074,660

  4,419,256

  Sheffield

  788,000

  5,717,000

  Wakefield

  500,611

  4,107,933

  5,071,439

  40,482,065

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  392,006

  1,347,628

  Cambs

  378,209

  1,286,849

  Essex

  2,459,798

  7,066,397

  Greater Peterborough

  (75,628)

  1,408,067

  Hertfordshire

  520,000

  3,770,000

  Norfolk and Waveney

  1,372,000

  4,260,000

  Suffolk

  1,158,123

  2,290,854

  6,204,508

  21,429,795

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  817,000

  2,394,000

  Leicester

  1,252,154

  6,472,807

  Lincolnshire

  652,071

  2,295,863

  Northamptonshire

  443,441

  1,991,332

  North Derbyshire

  138,008

  1,238,306

  North Nottinghamshire

  280,867

  3,111,550

  South Derbyshire

  642,000

  3,961,000

  4,225,541

  21,464,858

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,013,000

  3,987,000

  Central England

  255,810

  1,798,394

  Coventry/Warwick

  976,966

  2,835,271

  Dudley

  (277,643)

  940,007

  HAWTEC

  309,857

  1,164,866

  Sandwell

  385,104

  1,691,913

  Shropshire

  497,489

  2,273,100

  Staffordshire

  385,000

  5,629,000

  Walsall

  563,982

  1,254,626

  Wolverhampton

  161,000

  1,700,000

  4,270,565

  23,274,177

  South West

  Westec

  341,000

  4,316,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  (620,000)

  3,465,000

  Dorset

  (264,911)

  2,626,165

  Gloucester

  980,410

  3,619,487

  Somerset

  (48,000)

  2,003,935

  Wiltshire

  28,106

  1,551,212

  416,605

  17,581,799

  15

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96 £

  Reserves 1995–96 £

  London

  AZTEC

  884,679

  4,397,861

  CENTEC

  (22,482)

  2,701,498

  CILNTEC

  54,123

  2,405,603

  LETEC

  2,505,452

  8,530,616

  North London

  802,634

  7,066,973

  North West London

  1,051,535

  2,581,550

  SOLOTEC

  2,575,000

  6,249,000

  South Thames

  0

  0

  West London

  1,383,308

  2,608,221

  9,234,249

  36,541,322

  South East

  Hampshire

  (1,077,933)

  3,758,587

  Isle of Wight

  140,565

  921,777

  Kent

  1,385,448

  6,189,635

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  222,758

  1,151,259

  Heart of England

  (352,446)

  2,340,596

  Surrey

  (56,808)

  2,043,823

  Sussex

  (960,000)

  4,595,000

  Thames-Valley Ent.

  333,309

  5,332,077

  (365,107)

  26,332,754

  Grand Total

  33,352,406

  259,805,560

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges in England and Wales face budget reductions for the financial year 1997–98. [5330]

  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council has determined final allocations for the academic year 1997–98 in respect of 227 colleges. 109 of these colleges have reduced allocations compared to their funding allocations at the start of 1996–97. 202 of these colleges have reduced allocations compared to their estimated out-turn for 1996–97. Final allocations have still to be made for the remaining 220 colleges.

  The responsibility for colleges in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges in England and Wales are currently operating with a financial deficit. [5329]

  Dr. Howells
  Based on audited accounts for the academic year ending July 1996, the number of colleges in England with an operating deficit is 275. The total operating deficit involved is £112 million, equivalent to 2.9 per cent. of total income.

  The responsibility for colleges in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students were enrolled in further education colleges in England and Wales during 1992–93; [5327]
  16
  (2) how many students are enrolled in further education colleges in England and Wales during the current financial year. [5328]

  Dr. Howells
  The figures in table 1 below show the number of FE and HE students in further education colleges in England in the academic years, 1992–93 and 1996–97. In order to provide data on a comparable basis, the 1992–93 figure includes information for sixth form colleges which became part of the FE sector in April 1993. Information for 1996–97 is provisional.

  Table 1: Number of students in further education colleges in England (thousands)

  Academic year

  Number of students in further education colleges1

  1992–93

  1,952.5

  1996–97 (Provisional)

  2,351.8

  Note:

  1 As at 1 November.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he will employ in considering proposed mergers of further education colleges; and if continuity, choice and accessibility of courses will be essential requirements. [5277]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend will normally consider proposed mergers on the basis of a formal proposal from the Further Education Funding Council for England. The Council assesses proposals against criteria which include the benefits to existing and future students in terms of access and choice. It is also a statutory requirement, contained in S.I. 1992 No. 2361, that public notices in respect of proposals shall include the educational provision to be made for those students who have not completed their courses at the time of the merger.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the effects of the incorporation of colleges and of the further education funding council system, particularly as regards areas served by a number of further education institutions. [5315]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend expects the further education sector to continue to be funded by the Further Education Funding Council for England and for colleges to continue to be governed as independent institutions. In areas served by a number of colleges, he would welcome greater collaboration between them.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5359]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to my replies given to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 10 June and 19 June,Official Report, cols. 369 and 258 respectively.

  Both of my advisers are employed under terms and conditions based on the model contract for Special Advisers. In accordance with Schedule 1 (part 1) of the

  17
  model contract, Conor Ryan is advising me on press and policy presentation strategy; school standards; lifelong learning; University for Industry; information technology; Welfare to Work and the Education White Paper. Sophie Linden (part time) is advising me on Nursery and Primary (literacy and numeracy) education; Teacher training; Millennium volunteers; Young People/Pupil welfare and links with Parliament.

  Any additional provision will be directed at the development of employment and employability issues, together with specific support to me in dealing with confidential written material, reflecting the particular circumstances I face in undertaking my job on equal terms with my other ministerial colleagues.

  The Department employed two advisers in the year up to 1 May 1997.

  Pupils, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in Gloucestershire are in full time education in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [5368]

  Mr. Byers
  In January 1997 (provisional estimates), the numbers of full time children in maintained primary and secondary schools in Gloucestershire Local Education Authority area were 46,152 and 34,961 respectively.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary school children in Gloucestershire have been taught in class sizes larger than 29 in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [5369]

  Table 2: Numbers of classes and pupils by class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Harrow Parliamentary Constituencies in January 1997 (Provisional Estimates)

  Size of class

  1–20

  21–30

  31–35

  36–40

  41 or more

  Total

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Harrow West

  23

  321

  181

  5,073

  57

  1,818

  0

  0

  0

  0

  261

  7,212

  Harrow East

  20

  291

  256

  7,031

  58

  1,845

  0

  0

  0

  0

  334

  9,167

  Further Education (Funding)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to review(a) the Further Education Funding Council's funding methodology and (b) its policy of funding convergence. [5325]

  Dr. Howells
  The report of a working group of the Further Education Funding Council on the funding methodology is due to be published shortly. The Council's announcement last month on funding convergence policy followed consultation with colleges earlier in the year.
  18
  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Numbers of pupils in one teacher classes of 30 or more in maintained primary schools in Gloucestershire Local Education Authority Area: 1988–1997

  Position as at January

  Number

  1997 (provisional estimates)

  19,630

  1996

  17,936

  1995

  15,975

  1994

  14,693

  1993

  13,172

  1992

  12,483

  1991

  12,054

  1990

  13,588

  1989

  13,468

  1988

  15,298

  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the average and maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in (i) Harrow, East and (ii) Harrow, West; and how many are educated in class sizes of over 30 pupils. [5352]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  The information in Table 2 puts into context the information on maximum class sizes in Table 1.

  Table 1: Average and maximum class size and number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Harrow Parliamentary Constituencies in January 1997 (Provisional Estimates)

  Average class size

  Maximum size class

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Harrow West

  27.6

  35

  1,818

  Harrow East

  27.4

  35

  1,845

  Further Education (Strategic Planning)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he intends to introduce a system of strategic planning into the further education sector, particularly in areas served by a number of colleges. [5314]

  Dr. Howells
  In order to assess whether it is fulfilling its statutory duties in respect of the provision of adequate and sufficient further education in England the Further Education Funding Council for England requests all further education sector colleges to produce strategic plans covering a three year period.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what form the Government plans to replace DES Circular 909 in order to stop encouraging schools from selling their playing fields. [6080]

  Mr. Byers
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 were replaced last year by the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996, which set out minimum areas of grassed playing field for all schools with pupils over 8 years old.

  We intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold in future.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for the National Heritage are discussing this as a matter of urgency. We are looking at a wide range of options to ensure that all school pupils will have access to proper sports facilities.

  Funding
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the allocation of credit approvals to local education authorities and of capital grant to the governors of voluntary aided schools. [6357]

  Mr. Byers
  I shall announce the allocation of £33 million of credit approvals to local education authorities under the 1997–98 round of the Schools Renewal Challenge Fund and £3.9 million of grant to governors of voluntary aided schools under the Voluntary Aided Schools Minor Works Challenge on Tuesday 1 July. Details of these allocations will be placed in the Library.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the Government's response to the report of the Education and Employment Committee on the operation of the nursery voucher scheme, published on 12 March. [6386]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's response to this report has been laid before Parliament today.

  Higher Education Statistics
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the OECD figures for higher education expenditure per student in each year since 1992 for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each other EU country, (c) Pacific rim countries and (d) the USA. [5131]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: The OECD's Education at a glance figures are at present available only for 1992 and 1993: copies are available in the Library. Comparisons between the figures for these years are particularly difficult because of changes in the basis of some of the calculations. In the case of the UK, these changes account for some of the 20 per cent. decline in the UK's spending per student per year on tertiary
  20
  education between these years. The 1993 figures show that the UK spends more per student on tertiary education than Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Japan and New Zealand; but less than Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia and the USA.

  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 full employment at a high and sustainable rate of growth. [2282]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 June 1997, c.48]: It may clarify the position further if I advise that the government has placed no such minimum figure on the rate of unemployment for adult males. Our aim is a high and stable level of employment, to be achieved by running a successful low inflation economy, with macro-economic stability as a platform for sustainable growth, and by enhancing skills and improving the operation of the labour market to open up job opportunities to all groups in society—men and women, young and old.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Utilities (Regulation)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on regulation of the utilities. [6217]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am announcing today an inter-departmental review of the regulation of the utility industries. My aim is for the review to report to Ministers by the end of the year.

  The Government's objective for the review is to set a long-term stable framework for utility regulation which is seen as fair by all the interest groups involved, particularly by consumers. Without fairness, there can be no long-term stability. We want the regulatory framework to deliver value, quality and choice to consumers while providing incentives to managers to innovate and improve efficiency. The guiding principles must be transparency, consistency and predictability of regulation.

  The terms of reference for the review are to consider whether changes are required to the system of regulation of the utility industries in order to ensure open and predictable regulation, fair to all consumers and to shareholders, and which promotes the Government's objectives for the environment and sustainable development, whilst providing sufficient incentives to managers to innovate, raise standards and improve efficiency.

  The review will concentrate on the regulation of gas, electricity, telecommunications and water in the context of the development of competition in the regulated markets, and against the background of general competition law, where we will be legislating in the autumn. It will also consider whether there are lessons to

  21
  be learnt from this and other regulatory experience, to inform the development of regulatory principles of general applicability.

  In short it is time to take stock to see how the existing framework can be updated, modernised and refreshed.

  Arms length independence of regulators will be preserved, although after 13 years we need to ensure that the balance between Ministers and regulators is correct. Also, while the review will be examining the formula for determining prices, it will not consider rate of return regulation.

  There has been extensive consideration of utility regulation issues. The review will take this into account, together with the conclusions and recommendations recently made to the Public Accounts Committee, the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. This work has already identified many of the key issues, and provides a helpful and well developed starting point for the review. Any further representations to the review may be made in writing by 5 September.

  Ministers will consider advice emerging from the review in the autumn. If changes are contemplated, the Government will consult fully then.

  Collective Redundancies
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals are currently under discussion in the European Union on approximation of member states' laws over collective redundancies. [6089]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A proposal to consolidate the two existing Directives relating to this matter is currently under discussion. It would make no substantive changes.

  Standing Committee on Standardisation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what moves have been made towards the creation of a standing committee on standardisation, pursuant to COM(96)642; and if she will make a statement. [6094]

  Mr. Battle
  The proposal presented by the European Commission for a European Parliament and Council Directive laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (codified version)—COM(96)642—consolidates the text of Directive 83/189/EEC as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC and Directive 94/10/EC. The Standing Committee established under Directive 83/189/EEC meets on a regular basis. At least twice a year it also meets with representatives of the European and national standardisation bodies.

  Genetic Material (Health Prognoses)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the implications for the insurance industry of developments which allow prognosis of an individual's future health based on analysis of genetic material. [5947]

  Mr. Battle
  The Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC) has been established to take a broad overview of developments in human genetics. It has 22
  identified the implications of genetic testing for Insurance as an immediate priority. An Insurance sub-group is taking this forward, and I look forward to receiving the HGAC's advice in due course.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration she is giving to the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee that a Genetics Commission with regulatory powers should be established in its Third report, 1994–95, Human Genetics: the science and its consequences, (HC41); and what discussions she has had on this subject with the Association of British Insurers. [4565]

  Mr. Battle
  Human genetics is a fast-moving field which requires a flexible approach, avoiding undue regulation. I look forward to receiving advice in due course from the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC), which has identified the implications of genetic testing for insurance as an immediate priority.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not yet had discussions on this subject with the Association of British Insurers.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the impact of a national minimum wage set at(a) £3.50, (b) £4.00 and (c) £4.42 per hour on employment in the (i) retail sector, (ii) catering industry, (iii) hotel management industry and (iv) textile industry. [5595]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all economic circumstances, including its likely impact. I will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues. Professor George Bain will chair the Commission and we are currently looking to recruit other suitably qualified members, including individuals with experience of the range of industries and services likely to be affected by the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  International Trade Fairs
  Mr. Green
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to promote United Kingdom participation in international trade fairs. [4737]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 May 1997,Official Report, column 67.

  Reviews
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list by name and subject the reviews initiated by her Department since 1 May. [4591]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 1 May the Department of Trade and Industry has initiated the following reviews:

  The Post Office Review
  To examine the options for granting greater commercial freedom to the Post Office to enable it to meet new challenges and opportunities,
  23
  The Foresight Audit
  To establish the level of Foresight activity currently underway and to formulate plans for improving coordination between departments.

  Export Forum
  To review the effectiveness of current official export promotion programmes and to make recommendations.

  In addition, the Department is taking part in the Comprehensive Spending Review announced by the Chief Secretary of the Treasury in the House on 11 June and has established the Low Pay Commission to examine the options for the nature and level of a national minimum wage.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the reasons for significant variations in average petrol prices between different part of the country. [5628]

  Mr. Battle
  No such particular investigation is currently proposed. However, the Director General of Fair Trading is to review the retail petrol market in the UK. He will look at market structure, profitability and prices throughout the country. The review is scheduled to be completed in the Autumn.

  Business Link Wirral
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the situation at Business link Wirral following Cewtec's decision to request the Government Office for Merseyside to investigate the circumstances surrounding events in 1996. [5817]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: Officials from the Government Office for Merseyside have already begun a detailed investigation as requested by CEWTEC. I have asked for that investigation to be conducted speedily and have written to the Chief Executive of CEWTEC to that effect. When the report is received I will be in a position to consider what action needs to be taken.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) published and (b) unpublished estimates her Department has made of the impact on employment of a national minimum wage set at (a) £3.50, (b) £4.00 and (c) £4.42 per hour. [5616]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all economic circumstances, including its likely impact. I will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues. Professor George Bain will chair the Commission and we are currently looking to recruit other suitably qualified members, including individuals with experience of the range of industries and services likely to be affected by the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to introduce legislation implementing the working time directive. [4914]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: We shall implement the Directive without any further avoidable delay.

PRIME MINISTER

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that pensioners with savings below £16,000 are not obliged to pay residential care home costs; and what representations he has received on this subject in respect of Sefton Borough Council. [5986]

  The Prime Minister
  I am concerned about the implications of the Court of Judgment on the Judicial Review of Sefton Borough Council's decision not to provide residential care for people until their capital has reached £1,500. I understand that Help the Aged, which brought the judicial review, have been given leave to appeal, and they will need to consider the outcome of that. If legislation is required to reverse the effect of the judgment, I am pleased to see that my Honourable Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) intends to introduce a Bill to rectify the position which I hope will receive all party support.

  As far as I am aware, my office has received one representation concerning Sefton Borough Council, which is being dealt with in the normal way.

  Thirty-Year Rule
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with former Prime Ministers in respect of Her Majesty's Government's proposals to relax the 30-year-rule. [5589]

  The Prime Minister
  None. My Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be publishing a White Paper shortly. Any changes to the existing rules would conform with normal conventions of consultation.

  Child Pornography and Paedophile Activity
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 June,Official Report, columns 671–73, concerning the main issues at the next G7 conference, if he will consider adding to the crime agenda the problems of child pornography and paedophile activity and their international dimension. [5977]

  The Prime Minister
  During my statement on 24 June,Official Report, column 684, I said that we would look at the evidence that paedophilia and pornography was being organised across national boundaries. We will certainly consider the problem in that context in the preparations for the Birmingham Summit. It is important that we use every opportunity to co-operate in tackling international crime.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the ministers, officials and advisers in his private office, political policy unit and the Cabinet Office who will be involved in the Strategic Defence Review. [5609]

  The Prime Minister
  Work on the Strategic Defence Review will involve the appropriate Ministers, officials and advisers from all relevant Government Departments.

  Political Appointees
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister which political appointees have been given civil service administrative or secretarial support at public expense; and at what cost. [2859]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) 2 June,Official Report, columns 97–99.

  In accordance with the practice of previous administrations, all Special Advisers, with the exception of those appointed to my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Lord Privy Seal, have been provided with Civil Service administrative and/or secretarial support. The estimated staff cost is £570,000. This will be met from within existing budgets.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister what expenses he has authorised to decorate, refurbish or enhance office accommodation(a) in Whitehall and (b) in official homes within his gift. [2860]

  The Prime Minister
  Decoration and other such work undertaken on office accommodation in Whitehall is the responsibility of individual departments. Within No. 10, two offices have been redecorated at a cost of about £1,500, out of a minor works and general maintenance budget for 1997–98 of £25,000.

  Some offices in the Cabinet Office have been refurbished—principally to accommodate the Constitution Secretariat—at a total cost in the region of £80,000, out of a minor works and general maintenance budget for 1997–98 of £397,010.

  Redecoration or refurbishment of official homes within my gift is a matter for the individual board of trustees or departments.

  Discharged by judge1

  Directed acquittal2

  Year

  Custody

  Bail

  Total

  Custody

  Bail

  Total

  1992

  671

  5,970

  6,641

  497

  3,129

  3,626

  1993

  676

  5,574

  6,250

  386

  2,619

  3,005

  1994

  871

  6,615

  7,486

  402

  2,659

  3,061

  1995

  896

  7,047

  7,943

  481

  2,799

  3,280

  1996

  789

  5,698

  6,487

  424

  2,505

  2,929

  1 Judge orders an acquittal, no jury sworn in.

  2 Judge directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty on a count to which the defendant pleaded not guilty.

  26
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the assessments provided to him by the Minister without Portfolio of the performance of other Ministers. [5416]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: There are no such assessments.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister what system of monitoring of the performance of the Minister without Portfolio he has put in place; and if he will publish the results. [5426]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: The Minister without Portfolio is subject to the normal conventions on accountability.

  Conservative Leadership Elections
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister what response his chief press secretary made to questions received at briefings of the press in Amsterdam about the possible actions of Conservative hon. Members in response to the outcome of the Conservative leadership elections. [5199]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 June 1997]: He answered them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Court Trials
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Crown court trials were abandoned by(a) the CPS and (b) trial judges in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [5701]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question relates to matters which are the ministerial responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and also matters which have been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of the Court Service to write to the hon. Member and the Attorney-General to write directly to the hon. Member, a copy of which will be placed in the libraries of the House.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. John Hutton, dated 30 June 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Crown Court trials abandoned by the trial judge in each of the last five years.
  The figures below show the number of defendants who, on some or all counts have been discharged by the judge or where acquittal has been directed.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform the GP fundholding arrangements. [4286]

  Mr. Milburn
  We mean to work with all in the National Health Service, including fundholders, to develop new arrangements for primary care led commissioning which best meet our objectives of providing equal access to high quality care to all, on the basis of need, cutting out inefficiency and bureaucracy.

  To create time for this, entrance to fundholding has been made biennial, deferring entry to the 8th fundholding wave until July 1999. We have also taken steps to reduce bureaucracy and tackle the financial advantages of fundholders, ensuring that the patients of non-fundholders are no longer disadvantaged.

  For the future, we shall wish to draw on good practice from the range of existing models of General Practitioner activity in this field. We are also mounting a programme of pilot projects for GP commissioning groups, to complement existing models and explore new approaches to meeting our objectives.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to ensure(a) that GP fundholding budgets are spent, (b) that such expenditure is clearly focused on patient care and (c) that underspends are either properly planned and sanctioned or recouped. [5283]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made it clear, in EL(97)33, that savings which arise from one-off windfalls or from random dips in demand should be returned to the Health Authority or held against future budget pressures. It is for fundholders and Health Authorities to work together to determine the underspend value which falls into these categories.

  The application of fundholders' budgets is governed by regulations. These provide that budgets may be used in year only for patient care and the management of the practice; and that audited savings may be used for the same purposes or for a range of additional specified purposes, namely improvements or extensions to premises; material or equipment for healthcare, management or health education; clinical audit; research and development; and training.

  Fundholders' proposals to use savings are set out in their annual practice plans, and those for the additional purposes are dependent on Health Authority agreement that they represent value for money and will benefit patients. Savings must be applied within 4 years or they revert to the Health Authority.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to promote dental registration and regular dental check-ups. [4985]

  Mr. Milburn
  These are important issues which the Government is considering, among other aspects of the provision of National Health Service dentistry services.
  28
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) of 10 June,Official Report, column 423, if he will make a statement on the number of adult dental registrations which lapsed in 1996–97. [4984]

  Mr. Milburn
  4.1 million registrations lapsed automatically in 1996–97. Adult registrations stood at 19.8 million at March 1996 and 19.3 million at March 1997.

  Caesarian Section Births
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of babies were born by Caesarian section in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [5273]

  Ms Jowell
  The caesarian section figures for England for the last three years available are shown in the following table.

  Year

  Caesarean sections as percentage of deliveries

  1992–93

  14

  1993–94

  15

  1994–95

  15

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Questions relating to Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, respectively.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged over 60 years resident in Eastbourne are currently in receipt of free prescriptions under the NHS. [5480]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of prescription items dispensed in 1996 for men and women aged 60 and over by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority, which includes Eastbourne, was 4 million. This figure includes prescriptions written in other health authorities but dispensed by East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority contractors.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners in the United Kingdom are currently in receipt of free prescriptions under the NHS. [5481]

  Mr. Milburn
  All people aged 60 and over are entitled to free National Health Service prescriptions.

  The number of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England in 1996 for men and women aged 60 and over was 213 million.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the provision of care of the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [5870]
  29
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will make a statement on his plans for legislation on long-term care, with particular reference to the establishment of a Royal Commission on the funding of long-term care. [5859]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Suffolk, West (Mr. Spring) on 20 May, at column 58.

  Financial Deficit (Northern Region)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the deficit for each(a) Northern region and (b) Teesside area NHS trust in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the current financial year. [5963]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the deficits for all trusts for 1996–97 has been placed in the Library.

  Information for 1997–98 will be made available shortly following the agreement of contracts and submission of revised financial plans.

  Patient Visit Charges
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy on charging patients for visits to the doctor and to hospital and for stays in hospital. [5626]

  Mr. Milburn
  The comprehensive spending review will review all aspects of Government spending. In the Department of Health, the review will be carried out in the context of the Government's election manifesto commitment which states: "if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live".

  E. Coli
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of cases recorded of human infection with E. coli 0157 from(a) horse and (b) other animal sources excluding conventionally consumed meat, (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in other countries; what assessment his Department has made of the route by which infection is transferred; and what proposals he has to guard against future infection. [5840]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the number of individual E. coli 0157 cases associated with animal contact is not available. The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has identified 3 general outbreaks of E. coli 0157 (general outbreaks involve residents of more than one household) since 1992 where contact with animals was suspected as the source of infection. The results of a case control study funded by the Department of Health and currently undertaken by the PHLS should provide more information on the number of sporadic cases associated with contact with animals.

  The PHLS do not routinely collate information from other countries. Information on incidence in Northern Ireland and Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland respectively.
  30
  Following the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food's 1995 report on "Verocytotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli" the Department of Health commissioned a comprehensive research programme into this organism. The programme includes projects aimed at identifying the sources and vehicles of E. coli 0157 infection and evaluating the relative importance of risk factors for its acquisition. The results of this research should be available over the next 2–3 years.

  Like other forms of food poisoning, the risk of E. coli 0157 infection from non-food sources can be greatly reduced by following simple rules of basic personal hygiene and all suitable opportunities are taken to remind the public of these. In particular advice on avoiding the risk of infection during farm visits has been issued by the Health and Safety Executive, the National Farmers' Union and the Department for Education and Employment has recently sent a check list to all Chief Education Officers.

  Dementia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop with the NHSE a national strategy on dementia care. [5879]

  Mr. Boateng
  The elderly mentally ill are one of the six medium-term priorities for the National Health Service in the NHS Priorities and Planning Guidance for 1997–98. Statutory authorities were issued guidance in March 1997 to help them carry out their responsibilities in the publication "A handbook on the Mental Health of Older People".

  Drug Abuse Treatment
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the past year to the formula for distribution of NHS money for drug abuse treatment, indicating the impact of such changes on the level of funding in areas of need, with special reference to Old Trafford. [5990]

  Ms Jowell
  The formula for distributing the Drug Misuse Special Allocation changed in April 1997. Prior to the current financial year the formula for central allocation was based on that used by the former regional health authorities. From this year, the formula is based on the health authority population aged 15–44, and a further element based on an indicator of need for drug misuse services. The new formula is being phased in over four years, with health authorities receiving their full target allocation from 2001.

  The Special Allocation for drug misuse nationally has risen by over 9 per cent. in real terms in 1997–98, and the allocation to Salford and Trafford has increased by around 5 per cent. in real terms. No assessment of the impact of the changes on individual health authorities has been made.

  Volatile Substance Abuse
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the most recent figures available on deaths associated with volatile substance abuse; and if he will make a statement. [5991]
  31
  Ms Jowell
  Statistics collected by St. George's Hospital Medical School and published today show that there were 68 deaths in the United Kingdom in 1995 associated with Volatile Substance Abuse (VSA). This is an increase over the 58 deaths in 1994 which had been the lowest level of mortality since 1981. We take any death associated with VSA very seriously and are committed to taking action to prevent further tragedy occurring.

  Copies of this report are available in the Library.

TREASURY

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason his Department's file class mark T225/1311, held at the Public Record Office is closed to the public; and if he will make a statement. [5680]

  Mrs. Liddell
  T225/1311 was re-reviewed, under the Open Government Initiative, and cleared for release to the Public Office in 1996. It is available for public viewing.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lower the minimum value of Premium Bond purchases to facilitate regular purchases on behalf of children. [3739]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government regrets that it is not possible to lower the minimum values premium bond purchase. Small purchases of Premium Bonds are disproportionately expensive to administer. National Savings are not in a position to reduce the £100 minimum purchase when, like other Agencies and departments, they must achieve economies in running costs as part of the process of controlling public expenditure.

  Since the return on Premium Bonds takes account of management costs, the relatively higher cost of small purchases would also mean that any reduction in the minimum purchase would reduce the return to holders in general.

  National Savings do recognise the need to offer savings opportunities for smaller investments and savings on behalf of children. These include tax-free Children's Bonus Bonds, which can be bought by anyone over the age of 16 for anyone under 16 in units of £25, up to a maximum holding of £1,000 for each issue of the bonds.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely impact on the PSBR of the release by local authorities of(a) all and (b) half of housing capital receipts over (i) one year, (ii) three years or (iii) five years from 1 April. [3563]

  Mr. Darling
  No such estimates have been made. The release of capital receipts will be phased to meet the requirements of prudent management of the public finances, including having regard to the effect on the PSBR.
  32
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the phased release of local authorities' capital receipts will have on the public sector borrowing requirement. [3329]

  Mr. Darling
  The release of capital receipts will he phased to meet the requirements of prudent management of the public finances, including having regard to the effect on the PSBR.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in council tax necessary to reinstate local authorities to the position they would have been in without the release of housing capital receipts if housing capital receipts are released over(a) one year, (b) three years and (c) five years from 1 April 1997. [3553]

  Mr. Darling
  No such estimate has been made.

  Earnings (Torbay)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in Torbay earning less than(a) £2.50 per hour, (b) £3.00 per hour, (c) £3.50 per hour, (d) £4.00 per hour and (e) £4.50 per hour. [5586]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to he given.

  Letter front Tim Holt to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 30 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on earnings in Torbay.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1996, is given below for the parliamentary constituency of Torbay.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, NES April 1996

  Perrentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  Torbay

  £2.50

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  £4.50

  Full-time

  0.0

  2.8

  5.6

  15.0

  24.3

  Part-time

  4.3

  14.9

  38.3

  51.1

  61.7

  All

  1.3

  6.5

  15.6

  26.0

  35.7

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement his Department has in the formulation of the policy baseline for the Strategic Defence Review. [5578]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 26 June 1997]: The preparation of a policy baseline for the Strategic Defence Review is being undertaken jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Other Government Departments, including the Treasury, will be involved as appropriate depending on the issues that arise.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Theatres (Funding)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which theatres in England have received Arts Council grants in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and how much they received in each case. [5262]

  Mr. Fisher
  Grant in aid funding to building-based theatre companies is channelled through the Arts Council of England and the 10 Regional Arts Boards.

  During 1996–97, 54 building-based producing theatre companies received grants totalling £16,845,664 from the Regional Arts Boards. In 1997–98 53 such companies received a total of £17,006,814. A further four building-based companies received funding directly from the Arts Council of England. This totalled £20,698,000 in both years.

  A complete list of the grants received in 1996–97 and 1997–98 is as follows:

  Grant aid to building based, producing theatre companies by Regional Arts Board

  RAB/ACE expenditure on building based theatre companies

  1996–97 (actual) £

  1997–98 (budget) £

  Eastern Arts Board

  Cambridge Arts Theatre

  50,000

  50,000

  Colchester Mercury Theatre

  220,000

  220,000

  Ipswich Wolsey Theatre

  322,750

  322,750

  Theatre Royal, Bury St. Edmunds

  45,000

  45,000

  Westcliffe Palace Theatre

  45,000

  45,000

  Watford Palace Theatre

  204,500

  204,500

  East Midlands Arts Board

  Derby Playhouse

  273,100

  313,100

  Leicester Haymarket

  858,450

  908,450

  Northampton Rep.

  184,310

  184,310

  Nottingham Theatre

  714,300

  714,300

  London Arts Board

  Almeida Theatre

  408,182

  408,182

  Bush Theatre

  206,500

  206,500

  Gate Theatre

  15,352

  15,352

  Greenwich Theatre

  191,000

  191,000

  Hampstead Theatre

  234,400

  234,400

  Kings Head Theatre

  38,222

  38,222

  Lyric Theatre

  307,300

  307,300

  Orange Tree

  136,557

  136,557

  Polka Theatre

  221,200

  221,200

  Soho Theatre

  119,000

  119,000

  Theatre Royal Stratford

  392,237

  392,237

  Tricycle Theatre

  224,735

  224,735

  Unicorn Theatre

  307,500

  307,500

  Warehouse Theatre Croydon

  39,675

  39,675

  Young Vic

  518,714

  518,714

  Northern Arts Board

  Northern Stage

  639,250

  664,250

  North West Arts Board

  Bolton Octagon

  255,600

  255,600

  Chester Gateway

  148,500

  148,500

  Liverpool Everyman

  210,000

  170,000

  Manchester Royal Exchange

  1,333,250

  1,333,250

  Contact Theatre

  425,100

  425,100

  Oldham Coliseum

  224,400

  224,400

  Liverpool Repertory Theatre

  430,000

  430,000

  Dukes Theatre

  173,850

  173,850

  34

  Grant aid to building based, producing theatre companies by Regional Arts Board

  RAB/ACE expenditure on building based theatre companies

  1996–97 (actual) £

  1997–98 (budget) £

  Southern Arts

  Basingstoke Haymarket

  90,000

  90,000

  Southampton Nuffield Theatre

  328,000

  343,000

  Salisbury Playhouse

  292,900

  292,900

  Newbury Watermill

  20,000

  20,000

  South East Arts

  Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

  125,000

  40,000

  Chichester Festival Theatre

  8,050

  75,000

  Leatherhead Thorndike Theatre

  180,100

  —

  South West Arts

  Bristol Old Vic

  550,250

  585,250

  Gloucestershire Everyman Theatre

  234,830

  234,830

  Exeter Northcott Theatre

  233,000

  233,000

  Plymouth Theatre Royal

  505,450

  570,450

  West Midlands Arts Board

  Coventry Belgrade Theatre

  465,000

  515,500

  Birmingham Repertory Theatre

  870,000

  870,000

  New Victoria Theatre

  399,000

  499,000

  Worcester Swan Theatre

  164,500

  164,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside Arts Board

  Harrogate Theatre

  176,300

  176,300

  Sheffield Theatres

  641,400

  641,400

  Stephen Joseph Theatre

  211,200

  230,000

  York Theatre Royal

  392,000

  392,000

  West Yorkshire Playhouse

  840,750

  840,750

  Arts Council of England

  Royal National Theatre

  11,167,000

  11,167,000

  Royal Shakespeare Company

  8,470,000

  8,470,000

  The Royal Court (English Stage Co.)

  911,000

  911,000

  Donmar Warehouse

  150,000

  150,000

  Total

  37,543,664

  37,704,814

  Compiled from RAB and ACE annual budget.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) who benefits from interest earned by the national lottery distribution fund; and if he will make a statement. [5021]

  (2) how much money for good causes lying in the national lottery distribution fund is committed to projects which do not require the money in (a) the current financial year and (b) the financial years up to (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–2001; and if he will make a statement; [5022]

  (3) what the current balance is in the national lottery distribution fund; and if he will make a statement; [5023]

  (4) how much interest has been earned by the national lottery distribution fund; and if he will make a statement. [5020]

  Mr. Banks
  Proceeds from the National Lottery are held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) and invested by the National Debt Commissioners until required by the eleven distributing bodies. The balance in the NLDF at 31 May 1997 was £2,825,835,638. Investment returns received from the start of the National
  35
  Lottery to 31 May 1997 total £239,291,980. This interest is split between the distributors in line with the proportion of the NLDF attributable to each of them.

  At 31 May, £3.47 billion had been raised by the Lottery for the good causes and this was matched by awards totalling £3.46 billion. The funds in the NLDF are therefore committed to projects that will be developed over the next few years. The majority of these projects will be completed before 2000–2001, but a few will require funding beyond that date.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing a White Paper next month setting out the Government's proposals to deliver our commitments to widen access to the benefits of Lottery, introduce a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to distribution of proceeds and ensure that as much money as possible goes to the good causes.

  Football
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support is available for smaller professional football clubs which secure promotion to higher divisions to improve and increase their seating capacity to cope with higher attendances. [5178]

  Distributor

  Date

  Recipient

  Amount £

  Arts Council of England

  13 May 1997

  South Devon College

  20,000

  Arts Council of England

  19 March 1997

  The Newton Abott Folk Festival

  987

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  21 May 1997

  Torquay Natural History Society

  26,400

  National Lottery Charities Board

  17 December 1996

  Exeter and South Devon Deaf Children's Society

  66,500

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  Acorn Youth Community and Sports Centre

  48,596

  National Lottery Charities Board

  19 December 1995

  Torbay Child Linkline for the Southwest

  45,000

  English Sports Council

  6 June 1995

  South Devon Sports Association for the Disabled

  102,732

  Total

  310,215

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if he will publish the total awards made by(a) the Heritage Fund and (b) the Millennium Commission, by administrative counties in England. [4272]

  Mr. Banks
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 June 1997, c. 322]: The table of awards made by the Heritage Lottery Fund contained some inaccuracies. The correct information is contained in the following table, provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund, which sets out the value and number of awards by English county as at 27 June 1997.

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  HLF Figures to 26 June

  County

  Total number

  Total amount £

  Avon

  12

  2,438,475

  Bedfordshire

  4

  117,300

  Berkshire

  2

  3,865,525

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  1,367,750

  Cambridgeshire

  25

  26,647,329

  Cheshire

  11

  2,065,058

  Cleveland

  8

  6,131,230

  Cornwall

  18

  3,678,535

  Cumbria

  19

  4,102,987

  36
  Mr. Banks
  Financial assistance is available to football clubs for ground improvement and redevelopment work through the Football Trust. I recently announced a £55 million cash injection to the Trust for clubs at all levels of the game. I am very grateful to the English Sports Council for their contribution to this work and to the Football Association and the FA Premier League for agreeing to match Lottery funds pound for pound.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to encourage smaller professional football clubs to develop closer links with their local communities. [5177]

  Mr. Banks
  I am aware that many clubs have already done a lot of good work in developing links with their communities, which I welcome. This is also an area that I have in mind for the proposed Football Task Force, to see what more might he done.

  Lottery Grants (Torbay)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many Lottery grants have been awarded to organisations and groups in the Torbay constituency; and what are the values of those grants.
  [5585]

  Mr. Banks
  At 22 June, 7 grants totalling £310,215 had been made to organisations and groups in Torbay. The details are as follows:

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  HLF Figures to 26 June

  County

  Total number

  Total amount £

  Derbyshire

  14

  3,882,428

  Devon

  24

  7,712,000

  Dorset

  20

  6,559,050

  Durham

  11

  1,208,955

  East Sussex

  12

  2,050,380

  Essex

  13

  7,337,845

  Gloucestershire

  17

  5,775,060

  Greater Manchester

  24

  54,435,410

  Hampshire

  24

  14,327,296

  Hereford and Worcester

  17

  8,907,642

  Hertfordshire

  8

  16,595,075

  Humberside

  13

  1,257,900

  Isle ot Wight

  2

  57,000

  Kent

  36

  9,958,565

  Lancashire

  27

  5,976,362

  Leicestershire

  10

  458,750

  Lincolnshire

  9

  495,739

  Liverpool

  14

  13,803,500

  London

  109

  186,298,303

  Middlesex

  7

  2,177,736

  Norfolk

  19

  5,630,511

  North Yorkshire

  28

  5,132,422

  Northamptonshire

  6

  1,037,550

  37

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  HLF Figures to 26 June

  County

  Total number

  Total amount £

  Northumberland

  13

  699,400

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  15,137,544

  Oxfordshire

  11

  4,806,916

  Shropshire

  9

  2,973,596

  Somerset

  18

  2,623,250

  South Yorkshire

  11

  8,183,710

  Staffordshire

  16

  1,269,775

  Suffolk

  33

  4,506,373

  Surrey

  18

  6,578,519

  Tyne and Wear

  19

  19,260,203

  Warwickshire

  2

  7,506,000

  West Midlands

  21

  9,904,501

  West Sussex

  12

  848,320

  West Yorkshire

  42

  20,857,026

  Wiltshire

  14

  34,757,735

  Wirral

  2

  468,600

  Grand total

  821

  551,871,136

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli, (Mr. Davies) of 2 June.Official Report, column 85, what other personal appointees are working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; what is their status; and if he will make a statement. [5575]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have appointed Dr. David Mathieson as my adviser with special responsibilities for media matters involving party political issues. This appointment is not remunerable from public funds.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the Ministers, officials and political advisers in his Department who will be involved directly in the Strategic Defence Review. [5610]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is closely involved in the Government's Strategic Defence Review, as it is foreign policy led. He involves other Ministers, officials and special advisers as necessary.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it remains the Government's assessment that there is no evidence for the involvement of any nation other than Libya in the Lockerbie bombing. [4566]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The independent criminal investigation concluded that there was evidence to support charges against the two Libyans accused. The investigation has not established evidence of involvement of the nationals of any other country in the bombing.

  Amsterdam European Council
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject areas under(a) the existing Treaty provisions and (b) the proposed new Treaty provisions in respect of which it was agreed at the Amsterdam European Council that co-decision procedure should be extended. [5625]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Copies of the relevant extracts from the provisional version of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam circulated by the Netherlands Presidency have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Presidency is reviewing its contents in consultation with Member States to ensure that it accurately reflects what was agreed at Amsterdam.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Adjournment debate of 11 June,Official Report, columns 1253–60, if he will review his approach to the United Nations policy on sanctions against Libya, on the basis of the film which has been sent to him relating to the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [5854]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The United Nations Security Council resolutions set out the requirements which Libya must meet before sanctions are lifted. These requirements do not relate to the murder of WPC Fletcher.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he plans to include Gibraltar airport in EC air liberalisation measures. [6121]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are prepared to consider any practicable proposal for developing Gibraltar airport which is acceptable to all parties. This would open the way for EC air liberalisation measures to apply to Gibraltar.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the enfranchisement of Gibraltarians in elections to European Parliament. [6122]

  Mr. Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 June,Official Report, column 216.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made at the Amsterdam summit for Gibraltar to he able to enter the Schengen area it it decides it is in its interests to do so. [6120]

  Mr. Henderson
  It is for the United Kingdom as the Member State to decide whether or not to apply to join in any, or all, of the Schengen arrangements.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Katse Dam, Lesotho
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making to seismology research in respect of the Katse Dam in Lesotho. [4503]
  39
  Mr. Foulkes
  DFID provides no direct support for seismological research in respect of this Dam. Seismic activity associated with the project is however being continuously monitored by the Government of Lesotho (Lesotho Highlands Water Authority) and a panel of experts.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects supported by Britain in Sierra Leone in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement on aid to Sierra Leone. [5018]

  Claire Short
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of projects supported under the bilateral aid programme to Sierra Leone between 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  We have suspended all current aid activities in Sierra Leone following the coup and made clear that existing plans will not be continued under a military régime.

  Ghana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects supported by Britain in Ghana in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement on aid to Ghana. [5017]

  Clare Short
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the projects supported under the bilateral aid programme for Ghana between 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  We are working in close partnership with the Ghanian Government and people to support their efforts to achieve sustainable growth and reduce poverty.

  Tropical Deforestation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has evaluated into the links between land clearance for cattle farming and tropical deforestation. [5849]

  Clare Short
  My Department has evaluated substantial research carried out by US and Brazilian institutions, some of which has been commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank and by the World Bank into links between land clearance from cattle farming and tropical deforestation. Staff in my Department use this information when they appraise project proposals.

WALES

  Welsh Office Overseas Trade Services
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of operation of the Welsh Office Overseas Trade Services section; and if he will make a statement. [5696]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: I have recently reviewed the services and work of the Overseas Trade Services in the Welsh Office. My officials are also ensuring that they keep in close touch with the review being carried out by the national export forum. The
  40
  recently formed International Business Services in Wales Steering Group will keep under the review the services provided in Wales to firms wishing to enter the export market.

  Health Bodies (Funding)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of the borrowings from his Department of (i) the Dyfed-Powys health authority and (ii) the Morriston Hospital Trust, at the latest available date. [5644]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: To date, Dyfed Powys Health Authority has received loans totalling £2.510 million from the Department.

  Since Morriston NHS Trust was established on 1 April 1994 it has borrowed some £21 million. The balance of principal outstanding is £16.5 million.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5345]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have appointed John Adams and Huw Roberts as my Special Advisers. The terms and conditions of each appointment are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Both advise me on a full range of subjects under my responsibility in accordance with Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract.

  During the year 1996–97 there was one Special Adviser.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the unitary authorities and for Wales for(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the last two available years (i) the estimated number of farmers and (ii) the estimated number of organic farmers, indicating (ii) as a percentage of (i). [4858]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  As at June 1997, there are 86 farms held on the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (0.3 per cent. of the total number of Welsh main holdings). No figures are available for earlier dates, or for unitary authorities.

  Figures are available for Wales of the area of land registered as organically farmed. These are given as follows:

  Year

  Organically farmed land (hectares)1

  Total agricultural land area (hectares)2

  Organically farmed land as percentage of total land

  1995

  3,058

  1,498,718

  0.2

  1996

  3,287

  1,509,061

  0.2

  1 Figures supplied by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, land in conversion and converted.

  2 Excludes Common rough grazing land.

  Beef
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which health trusts in Wales purchase beef from Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom for consumption by hospital patients. [5987]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is not held centrally. Decisions on the purchase of food lie with each NHS Trust in Wales.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities allow beef to be included on school menus; and what is the policy of each local education authority in Wales on the purchase of British beef for school meals. [5988]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not held centrally, but I am, of course, keen to see the highest nutritional standards in school meals. Local education authorities and schools will wish to take into account parents' views and to offer a choice of dishes whenever possible.

  Persons proceeded against for possession of a controlled drug in a Magistrates Court or in a Crown Court 1994–96

  Persons proceeded against

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Offence

  Magistrates Court

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Court

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Court

  Crown Court

  Possessing controlled drug (inc. attempts)

  397

  9

  492

  18

  379

  39

  Possessing controlled drug intent to supply (inc. attempts)

  54

  23

  90

  48

  45

  158

  Total

  451

  32

  582

  66

  424

  197

  Unemployment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will make a statement on the costs of implementing her Department's proposals to deal with long-term unemployment assuming a scheme to cover 40,000 persons; [5141]

  (2) if she will list the measures available for unemployed people to seek (a) training and (b) retraining. [5139]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to he given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 27 June 1997:
  PARLIANLESTALLY QUESTION No. 5141
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question regarding the costs of implementing proposals to deal with long-term unemployment.
  In the current financial year the Agency will be spending over £37 million to assist people unemployed for at least a year, back to work through the Action for Community Employment programme, the pilot Community Work Programme and Enterprise Ulster. These three measures provide over 6,700 places for the long-term unemployed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drugs
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list by type of drug the number of persons for each police authority in England and Wales(a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against in a Magistrate's Court and (c) tried at the Crown Court for possession of a proscribed drug in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) the last 12-month period for which figures are available. [4795]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide.

  However, the number of persons who were cautioned for the possession of controlled drugs in 1994 and 1995 was 363 and 286 respectively. Figures will not be available liar 1996 until the end of July 1997.

  The following table sets out the number of persons proceeded against for possession of a controlled drug in a Magistrate's Court and in a Crown Court between 1994 and 1996.

  In order to ensure the most effective and efficient use of existing resources the Agency is currently engaged in a review of its measures. The results of the initial stages of the review, which involved a public consultation process, are currently being assessed. Our work is continuing within the wider context of the Government's Welfare to Work proposals and the priority attached to them.
  With regard to projected costs, we are of course currently committed to plan within the limits set by the 1996 Public Expenditure Survey.
  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 27 June 1997:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION No. 5139
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the measures available for unemployed people seeking training and retraining.
  The Agency administers a broad range of programmes to assist the unemployed who are seeking training or retraining. These are:
  Jobskills Programme
  Jobskills is an integrated programme which provides high quality NVQ based training to unemployed persons aged between 16 and 59. There are approximately 15,000 places available during 1997/98.
  Young people aged 16 and 17 are guaranteed a Jobskills training place. Places are available also for adults seeking training or retraining.
  43
  Training Centre Network
  The Agency's network of Training Centres provides for young people and adults full-time training and re-training leading to NVQ level 2 in a chosen skill or tade. On completion of the training, which usually lasts for 12 months, trainees are normally placed with employers to continue their training towards the achievement of NVQ level 3 under the guidance of Training Centre staff. The Centre also provides tailored pre-employment training in connection with new inward investment projects, usually for a period of 6–10 weeks, to enable unemployed people to improve their prospects of getting a job.

  Open Learning Centres
  The Agency also supports the work of 12 Open learning Access Centres which provide flexible job-related training for those for whom traditional forms of education and training are inappropriate. The main client groups for these Centres are the unemployed, women returning to the labour market and those with disabilities.

  Enterprise Ulster
  Enterprise Ulster is a statutory organisation which provides employment, training and work experience for adults, particularly 18– 25 year olds, who have been unemployed for more than three months. Its programmes include training in projects of an environmental and amenity nature. Enterprise Ulster provides an average of 1,260 places each year.

  Community Work Programme
  The Community Work Programme offers long-term unemployed adults employment and training placements of up to three years duration in worthwhile and meaningful work of community benefit. It has been operated on a pilot basis since 1995 and provides 1,000 places which have been filled.

  Action for Comnutnity Employment
  The Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme provides temporary employment, with training, of up to one year's duration for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. The essential purpose of the scheme is to enable participants to complete more effectively for available jobs. ACE employees differ from participants on other Agency programmes in that they are treated as being in paid employment and receive a wage based on the local rate for the job. ACE is providing an average of 5,200 places during 1997/98.

  Bridge to Employment Pilot
  The Agency, with support from the EU Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, is piloting a Bridge to Employment programme under which long-term unemployed adults and those in

  Cigarette smoking among adults, by age and gender, Northern Ireland 1995

  Per cent./numbers

  Males

  Females

  Age

  Percentage of smokers

  Estimated number of cigarette smokers

  Percentage of smokers

  Estimated number of cigarette smokers

  16 to 24

  29

  33,903

  31

  33,636

  25 to 34

  34

  42,384

  35

  44,745

  35 to 44

  32

  33,277

  33

  34,706

  45 to 54

  32

  28,680

  29

  26,738

  55 to 64

  28

  19,298

  23

  17,399

  65 to 74

  23

  12,429

  17

  11,745

  75 and over

  13

  3,790

  9

  5,112

  All persons

  29

  170,317

  27

  171,517

  Notes:

  1. The percentages have been calculated from the NISRA (Central Survey Unit) Continuous Household Survey 1994–95.

  2. The number of smokers has been estimated using NISRA (Demography and Methodology Branch) mid-year population estimates, and the percentages of smokers.

  3. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA).
  44
  danger of becoming long-term unemployed, can obtain the minimum skills necessary to enable them to compete for known job opportunities on equal terms with other applicants. Typical training would be for a period of up to 13 weeks to a specification agreed with participating employers.

  Management Development
  The Agency provides programmes aimed at developing management skills and competencies in recently qualified graduates. Almost 400 places are available in 1997/98.

  New Horizons
  New Horizons provides retraining for experienced managers who have been made redundant. The programme provides 36 places.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the special advisers in her Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in her Department in the year up to 1 May. [5371]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have appointed Nigel Warner and Anna Healy as my special advisers. They are employed under terms and conditions based on the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Mr. Warner and Ms Healy are advising me in accordance with Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract. The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland employed one special adviser between 26 February and 20 December 1996.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of adult(a) men and (b) women in Northern Ireland are cigarette smokers in each 10 year age band; and if he will make a statement. [4760]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 24 June 1997]: Estimates of the number and percentage of adult men and women cigarette smokers in Northern Ireland in 1995 are shown in the table.

  Plastic Raton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary asked for information on the testing of(a) the weapons used to fire plastic baton rounds and (b) plastic baton rounds during his inspection in 1996. [6114]

  Mr. Ingram
  Her Majesty's Inspector was asked to examine the RUC's use of plastic baton rounds, not the baton rounds themselves and the weapons used to fire them. Nevertheless, during the course of his inspection he satisfied himself that all weapons are tested prior to being taken into use and in the event of a complaint being received as a result of an incident involving the use of a baton gun, the weapon is tested to assess the accuracy of its sighting system and to assess that it functions correctly.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary was informed of the results of tests carried out in 1995 on plastic baton rounds when he discussed the subject with officers at all levels during 1996. [6112]

  Mr. Ingram
  At the time Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary carried out his inspection it would have been impossible for the RUC to inform him of the results of tests carried out in 1995 on plastic baton rounds, since they were not aware of them.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Crown Immunity
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Right hon. Member representing the House of Commons Commission if she will make a statement on Crown immunity in the Palace of Westminster. [4833]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: Legislation affecting Crown immunity in the Palace of Westminster is a matter for HM Government.

  However, it is the policy of the Commission, notwithstanding immunities and exemptions provided for in legislation, to apply relevant statutory provisions throughout the parliamentary estate. These include building and asbestos regulations, planning regulations, standards under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (the Palace and outbuildings have now been issued with individual fire certificates) and requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Conditions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals he has for consultation with interested bodies following publication of the report of the 1996 English House Condition Survey: [5144]

  (2) what evaluation of the risks to the health and safety of occupants of living in unfit and otherwise inadequate dwellings will be included in the 1996 English House Condition Survey; [5145]
  46
  (3) what assessment of the costs to the NHS of people living in unfit houses will be included in the 1996 English House Condition Survey; [5146]

  (4) what account the 1996 English House Condition Survey will take of the impact of proposals for amending the housing fitness standard. [5189]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The results of the 1996 EHCS will be widely disseminated. We shall consider arrangements for consultation with those bodies which have an interest in housing conditions when these results are published.

  The first report of the 1996 EHCS, to be published later this year, will show the number of dwellings that were, al the time of the survey, unfit under the current housing fitness standard, and those that were in other respects inadequate. The report will also identify the occupants of poor housing, in terms of their age, income, and other characteristics. Some information on the health of occupants was recorded during the course of the survey and the analysis of this information will he included in future reports.

  There are no plans to include an estimate of the cost to the NHS of people living in unfit dwellings in any report of the 1996 EHCS. Further research is required to identify specific costs to the health service which might be directly attributable to people living in unfit homes.

  The 1996 EHCS will report housing conditions in terms of the fitness standard as it is now defined. However, 1996 EHCS data will be helpful in assessing the effect of any changes to the standard proposed in the current review.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research has been undertaken to ascertain the costs to the NHS of people living in dwellings which are unsatisfactory on grounds of(a) dampness, (b) inadequate fire precautions, (c) poor indoor air quality, with particular reference to radon, (d) hazardous internal design features and (e) homes energy rating (SAP) of 30 or less; [5149]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects on demand on the national health service from increased investment in improving housing conditions; and to what extent health and safety issues are taken into account when local authorities devise their housing strategies. [5150]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The reviews conducted by the Building Research Establishment of Building regulation and health and Building regulation and safety, published in 1995, and Building regulation and fire safety, to be published later this year, give an indication of the relative risks to health and safety of dampness, inadequate fire precautions, poor indoor air quality and radon, hazardous internal design features and cold homes.

  The Department has also contributed recently to the fifth sweep of the National Child Development Study which includes housing and health data and we are currently considering options of the analysis of this material. We have also seen studies made by others in London, Sheffield and elsewhere.

  A common feature of all this research is the lack of reliable evidence of changes in health which follow from changes in housing conditions. However, the Department

  47
  has recently published a research report Housing and Health Research: measuring the health benefits of housing improvements which explores the feasibility of researching the links between health and housing conditions and we are considering with the Department of Health ways in which these could be established.

  In developing their housing strategies it is for local authorities to take account of the needs of all people in their areas and decide on priorities accordingly.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the current definition of fitness used in the review of the housing fitness standard; [5148]

  (2) when he expects to publish the outcome of the review of the housing fitness standard which was announced by the previous Government; and what plans he has for subsequent consultation. [5147]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are looking at the definition of fitness as part of the current review of the housing fitness standard. We plan to publish a consultation paper in the autumn setting out our proposals in the light of the review.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5349]
  48
  Mr. Prescott
  There are three special advisers in my Department. They are employed under terms and conditions based on the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Joe Irvin currently advises me on all areas which are my responsibility. David Taylor advises me chiefly on Regional and Regeneration issues, and Kate Davies advises Gavin Strang on Transport Issues.

  There were four advisers in the Department of the Environment in the year to 1 May (Keith Adams, who started in June 1993, Tom Burke, who started in March 1991, Gavin Barewell, who started in May 1993 and Liam O'Connor, who started in March 1994) and one in the Department of Transport (Lucy Miller, who started in July 1995).

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review planning policy guidance to give greater preference to the regeneration of town centre and district centre shops and retail outlets, as against out-of-town and greenfield retail developments; and if he will make a statement. [5456]

  Mr. Raynsford
  PPG6 already gives strong preference to the regeneration of existing centres and sets tough tests for out-of-centre developments, including retail, office and leisure. My Department is closely monitoring the way in which this guidance is being followed. We have no plans to revise it at this moment.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the price per tonne of recycled newsprint in(a) January and (b) June for each year since 1987; and what steps he proposes to facilitate a stable market for recycled paper collected within the United Kingdom. [5454]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government does not collect these statistics. However, the Paper Federation of Great Britain has collected information on the average prices, paid by British mills, for old newspapers for recycling into newsprint and other paper grades since 1989. These are as follows:

  £ per tonne

  Year

  January

  June

  1989

  39.93

  38.89

  1990

  34.41

  29.44

  1991

  28.77

  28.16

  1992

  28.25

  26.38

  1993

  24.50

  22.98

  1994

  20.93

  21.44

  1995

  46.72

  116.76

  1996

  55.05

  47.40

  1997

  28.53

  1—

  1 Not yet available.

  Average prices for newsprint made from recycled fibres are not available, and are based on private contracts. The Government will consider whether any measures are required to improve the market for recycled paper.

  Local Government Planning
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the practice of some local authorities of seeking planning gain. [5607]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current policy on planning gain is set out in DoE Circular 1/97. If or when my right hon. Friend proposes a new policy we shall issue a consultation paper for public comment.

  Climate Change Convention, Kyoto
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Ministers will represent the United Kingdom at the Climate Change Convention in Kyoto in December; and what submissions the United Kingdom is making for the Conference Agenda. [4499]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, intends to go to the Kyoto Conference, but the full UK Ministerial representation will be decided nearer the time. The Conference will focus primarily on negotiation of an agreement on post-2000 commitments to mitigate climate change, in the form of a protocol to the Convention or other legal instrument. A copy of a draft protocol submitted by the European Union has been 50
  placed in the Library. We expect the UK and the EU to play a leading role in those negotiations.

  Cadmium Disposal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to deal with the disposal of cadmium after the 1998 ban on the disposal of sludge at sea. [4501]

  Angela Eagle
  Those responsible for disposing of sewage sludge containing cadmium will have to comply with the existing requirements applying to incineration, spreading on land or other lawful means of disposal.

  Algal Blooms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he is taking to deal with the problems associated with eutrophication, with particular reference to the spread of algal blooms. [4502]

  Angela Eagle
  Localised adverse effects from eutrophication in inland waters are being addressed by requiring the installation of phosphorus removal at 41 sewage treatment works discharging into 29 designated eutrophic Sensitive Areas in England and Wales, as part of the implementation of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

  The Environment Agency is currently monitoring some 150 additional potentially sensitive inland waters for the first review in 1997 of Sensitive Area designations under the Directive. As a result of this review, additional water bodies may be designated resulting in new requirements for phosphorus removal at sewage treatment works.

  This year we shall also review the position regarding eutrophication problems in coastal waters as part of the implementation of this Directive and the Nitrate Directive. The Environment Agency is currently monitoring 40 potentially eutrophic sites in coastal waters for this purpose.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the Under-Secretary of State's oral statement of 11 June,Official Report, column 1099, if he will make a statement on efforts to reach agreement to prevent the wanton destruction of mahogany. [4563]

  Angela Eagle
  At the recent CITES conference in Harare, the UK and other EU Member States voted in support of a proposal by the USA and Bolivia to list Swietenia macrophylla (Big Leaf Mahogany) on Appendix II of the Convention. The countries present voted in favour of the proposal by 67 to 45, but as at the 1994 conference, this was not sufficient to reach the two thirds majority required to add a new species to CITES. Instead, the conference agreed to set up a working group to protect mahogany from unsustainable logging.

  Earlier this week, at the UN General Assembly Special Session, the Prime Minister argued for an early start to negotiations on a Forest Convention as a means of progressing effective international action towards achieving sustainable forestry management.

  Housing Benefit (War Pensioners)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the formulae for determining local authority standard spending assessments to reflect the costs of granting disregards to war pensioners eligible for housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [5588]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to do so.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Professor Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the decision not to extend the moratorium on CCT for recently formed English unitary authorities. [5880]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An urgent review of the current CCT framework is already underway in consultation with the Local Government Association. This is considering how the existing CCT legislation and guidance might be brought more into line with the principles of Best Value which we made available to this House on 2 June. Amongst the issues being considered are the timetables for recently formed English unitary authorities. We expect to consult on proposals in mid July with a view to laying new regulations and issuing new guidance in the autumn.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each London borough for each year since 1993 the average rent levels of(a) local authority tenants, (b) housing association tenants, (c) housing co-operatives, (d) private sector in receipt of housing benefit. (e) other private sector and (f) housing companies in which the local authority is involved. [4412]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: The available information on average rents in London boroughs for local authority tenants, housing association tenants (including tenants of housing co-operatives) and private sector tenants in receipt of housing benefit is set out below.

  Information on overall average private sector rents and rents for tenants who are not on housing benefit is available only from sample surveys which are not large enough to produce reliable figures for individual local authorities. Data from the 1995–96 Survey of English Housing and Family Resources Survey show that, in overall terms, the average rent in London for households renting in the private sector who are not in receipt of housing benefit was little different from the average rent for households receiving housing benefit. Like all estimates for surveys, the average rent figures are subject to sampling variability.

  No data are available on average rents for housing companies, as none has yet been registered with the Housing Corporation.

  Local authority rents (£ per week)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Barking and Dagenham

  30.65

  34.75

  37.42

  39.71

  Barnet

  48.65

  50.09

  51.44

  52.11

  Bexley

  43.11

  45.39

  49.32

  53.02

  Brent

  50.18

  50.18

  57.55

  69.81

  52

  Local authority rents (£ per week)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Bromley

  40.47

  40.47

  41.28

  42.72

  Camden

  48.35

  51.32

  57.56

  58.71

  City of London

  45.59

  51.56

  54.14

  55.34

  Croydon

  50.93

  51.86

  61.03

  62.10

  Ealing

  62.84

  59.19

  59.15

  59.17

  Enfield

  46.73

  49.63

  51.63

  51.98

  Greenwich

  41.68

  44.58

  48.56

  50.50

  Hackney

  43.91

  46.42

  52.15

  54.79

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  46.45

  48.19

  52.38

  53.77

  Haringey

  52.48

  53.98

  56.87

  57.54

  Harrow

  56.81

  62.97

  64.12

  64.68

  Havering

  36.91

  36.91

  41.84

  44.59

  Hillingdon

  59.48

  59.48

  61.98

  63.24

  Hounslow

  37.57

  39.97

  48.59

  49.81

  Islington

  47.05

  49.95

  54.99

  56.16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  57.10

  60.28

  63.23

  68.72

  Kingston upon Thames

  60.27

  60.27

  60.48

  61.15

  Lambeth

  40.70

  42.11

  48.67

  50.04

  Lewisham

  41.34

  42.58

  44.46

  46.73

  Merton

  49.20

  49.94

  51.89

  52.56

  Newham

  36.98

  39.88

  43.05

  43.72

  Redbridge

  61.30

  63.75

  65.41

  65.89

  Richmond upon Thames

  48.24

  48.24

  51.38

  52.92

  Southwark

  44.36

  44.36

  48.47

  50.07

  Sutton

  41.98

  43.02

  47.21

  50.97

  Tower Hamlets

  35.52

  37.71

  42.75

  45.01

  Waltham Forest

  39.87

  42.40

  43.38

  46.37

  Wandsworth

  55.64

  55.64

  58.97

  59.68

  Westminster

  59.60

  61.43

  62.69

  64.62

  London

  45.72

  47.05

  51.08

  52.97

  Source:

  Housing Subsidy Claim Forms.

  Note:

  The average rent figures are not directly comparable between local authorities as they take no account of differences in the composition of stock, eg size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  Housing association and Housing Cooperative rents at 31 March (£ per week)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Barking and Dagenham

  42.15

  53.47

  59.78

  63.81

  Barnet

  39.62

  42.34

  49.33

  55.07

  Bexley

  38.55

  44.60

  45.14

  48.61

  Brent

  40.92

  45.36

  46.56

  49.94

  Bromley

  39.31

  47.50

  50.45

  53.63

  Camden

  45.35

  46.38

  48.20

  51.55

  City of London

  41.18

  n/a

  41.15

  45.58

  Croydon

  47.68

  53.50

  56.84

  60.48

  Ealing

  39.45

  43.86

  47.12

  52.49

  Enfield

  41.40

  47.93

  52.27

  55.84

  Greenwich

  38.23

  44.08

  49.78

  55.57

  Hackney

  36.46

  40.87

  42.18

  47.08

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  37.14

  38.76

  42.41

  46.12

  Haringey

  n/a

  39.08

  46.04

  48.11

  Harrow

  38.77

  43.73

  50.32

  50.30

  Havering

  38.71

  42.67

  47.05

  49.04

  Hillingdon

  37.60

  44.57

  47.42

  51.55

  Hounslow

  39.35

  43.00

  48.34

  53.24

  Islington

  40.53

  42.39

  43.79

  49.12

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36.24

  37.49

  40.91

  44.11

  Kingston upon Thames

  35.55

  46.23

  47.95

  51.88

  Lambeth

  35.26

  37.39

  42.25

  45.47

  Lewisham

  34.27

  38.71

  41.90

  49.00

  Merton

  41.94

  47.80

  49.13

  54.15

  Newham

  38.49

  43.45

  48.52

  51.58

  53

  Housing association and Housing Cooperative rents at 31 March (£ per week)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Redbridge

  34.62

  45.56

  51.05

  55.50

  Richmond upon Thames

  44.56

  47.56

  50.66

  58.92

  Southwark

  37.82

  39.92

  43.86

  48.37

  Sutton

  36.42

  39.65

  43.68

  49.71

  Tower Hamlets

  40.02

  40.13

  45.73

  47.93

  Waltham Forest

  36.87

  43.28

  46.31

  49.90

  Wandsworth

  45.51

  44.69

  48.46

  52.43

  Westminster

  42.95

  42.18

  44.43

  48.85

  London

  39.90

  42.74

  46.25

  50.28

  Source:

  Housing Corporation HAR 10/1 returns collected from housing associations and Housing Cooperatives with more than 250 dwellings or, if developing new stock, 100 dwellings.

  Note:

  The average rent figures are not directly comparable between local authorities as they take no account of differences in the composition of stock, e.g., size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  n/a=not available.

  Private sector rents—housing benefit referrals to Rent Officers (£ per week)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Barking and Dagenham

  80.77

  85.23

  91.39

  Barnet

  91.69

  100.63

  114.51

  Bexley

  79.92

  85.62

  82.40

  Brent

  69.40

  70.75

  75.64

  Bromley

  78.13

  86.35

  89.32

  Camden

  118.02

  116.81

  120.00

  City of London

  n/a

  n/a

  103.66

  Croydon

  76.75

  85.29

  90.14

  Ealing

  78.52

  81.63

  89.94

  Enfield

  81.62

  88.85

  93.24

  Greenwich

  71.54

  77.33

  83.12

  Hackney

  81.62

  84.00

  89.58

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  99.98

  109.08

  118.06

  Haringey

  82.77

  90.19

  95.57

  Harrow

  92.60

  94.90

  99.35

  Havering

  77.15

  80.04

  87.05

  Hillingdon

  94.56

  94.71

  98.28

  Hounslow

  77.63

  79.85

  90.97

  Islington

  99.04

  97.44

  102.60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  121.65

  127.85

  125.96

  Kingston upon Thames

  81.19

  92.98

  93.06

  Lambeth

  80.75

  81.46

  87.86

  Lewisham

  68.92

  73.42

  79.24

  Merton

  78.21

  86.73

  92.06

  Newham

  78.92

  88.27

  90.50

  Redbridge

  88.58

  96.13

  97.25

  Richmond upon Thames

  98.58

  99.33

  106.85

  Southwark

  79.40

  78.60

  81.45

  Sutton

  81.21

  85.83

  88.49

  Tower Hamlets

  86.29

  97.71

  103.89

  Waltham Forest

  75.94

  82.67

  95.22

  Wandsworth

  84.67

  93.94

  102.10

  Westminster

  123.08

  121.65

  119.47

  London

  87.67

  91.00

  95.76

  Source:

  Rent Officer Statistics.

  Notes:

  The averages are for appropriate rents from 2 January 1996 and determined rents prior to that date. The average rent figures are not directly comparable between local authorities as they take no account of differences in the composition of stock, e.g. size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  n/a = not available.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he intends to set for the revised Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [6159]

  Angela Eagle
  Major changes to the scheme come into force on 1 July and I want to monitor their performance. Accordingly, I have set two targets for the current year: the payment of 400,000 grants, and, for each grant, the achievement of an average energy efficiency improvement of 5 points as measured by the mean Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP). The changes were made by the previous administration, and it is now not practicable to stop their coming into effect on 1 July. But I shall take an early opportunity to review the scheme in order to check that it is meeting the needs of customers.

  Bus Route Tenders (London)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), of 19 June,Official Report, column 278, whether the invitation to tender documents for London bus routes are regarded as commercially confidential. [6119]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for London Transport Buses, which advises me that it does regard invitation to tender documents as commercially confidential.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham of 19 June,Official Report, column 278, whether standards of service in respect of London bus routes form part of the consideration in the tendering process. [6118]

  Ms Jackson
  I understand from London Transport Buses that it does.

  Roads Programme Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to complete the Roads Programme Review. [5961]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We hope to announce the conclusions of the Review next Spring.

  Cycling
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet local government representatives to discuss the contribution of local authorities towards the Government's target of a four-fold increase in cycling by 2012; and if he will make a statement. [5805]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The National Cycling Strategy is not the Government's, though we have given it our early endorsement. We intend to work with other to implement it. The Strategy has a common ownership, having been established by consensus involving a wide range of interested bodies.

  I shall he meeting representatives of local government when I chair the national Cycling Forum on 16 July. We shall he discussing a range of the issues involved in taking

  55
  the National Cycling Strategy forward. That will inevitably focus on progress to implement the targets identified in the Strategy for increasing cycle use.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of incidents involving Channel Tunnel trains colliding with obstacles on the track and the cause of each incident in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [5678]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the responsibility of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to ensure the safe operation of the Channel Tunnel. To assist in its task the Authority receives reports on incidents and accidents from the operator—Eurotunnel.

  During the periods 1995–96 and 1996–97 only one report was received involving an obstacle on the track. Details of this incident are given in paragraphs 70–72 of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report for 1995–96.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the areas of concern expressed by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority over the proposals from Eurotunnel regarding the immobilisation of coaches in single deck shuttles as referred to in paragraph 50 of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report 1995–96. [5675]

  Ms Jackson
  The principal concern of the Safety Authority was to ensure that coaches were immobilised during travel on single deck Tourist Shuttles. Eurotunnel's proposal for the use of chocks, in addition to the application of the coach parking brake, was accepted by the Safety Authority following tests carried out by Eurotunnel and witnessed by the Safety Authority on 1 June 1995 and a special meeting of the Safety Authority to consider this issue on 7 June 1995.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number and cause of incidents involving drivers of channel tunnel trains passing closed markers or signals at danger in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [5677]

  Ms Jackson
  During the period 1995–96 there were seven incident reports concerning drivers passing closed markers. Details of these and the way in which the Safety Authority dealt with these are given in paragraphs 67–69 of the Safety Authority Annual Report for 1995–96.

  Nine further incidents were reported during 1996–97 and will be included in the Safety Authority Annual Report for that period.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of incidents which occurred in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 where coaches carried through the channel tunnel have rolled into the fire barrier at the front of a wagon as referred to in paragraph 56 of the channel tunnel safety authority report 1995–96. [5676]

  Ms Jackson
  The Safety Authority's Annual Report for 1995–96 gives details in paragraph 56 of two incidents which occurred during the two month period immediately 56
  following the decision to accept Eurotunnel's proposal to cease chocking coaches on single deck tourist shuttles. In one of these incidents the coach rolled into the fire barrier.

  No other incidents have been reported since Eurotunnel resumed the chocking of coaches.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates of emergency exercises undertaken in the channel tunnel during 1996–97. [5687]

  Ms Jackson
  There were three emergency exercises in the Channel Tunnel during this period.

  TABLEX III was a table-top exercise held on 9 May. 1996 in Folkestone. The exercise scenario was of a fire in a heavy goods vehicle on board an HGV shuttle travelling from the UK to France.

  BINAT 8 was a full binational emergency exercise which took place during the night of 9 and 10 November 1996. The scenario was of an accidental explosion in a single deck tourist shuttle, followed by a fire.

  There was also a Eurostar evacuation exercise staged to support Eurotunnel's submission to restart Eurostar and Tourist shuttle services following the fire in the tunnel on 18 November 1996.

  A report on each of these exercises will be included in the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report for 1996–97.

  Train Services (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that research undertaken by individual train operating companies will be disseminated to all other train operating companies if it contains important safety implications. [5602]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The results of research commissioned by an individual train operating company would normally be the company's intellectual property and is therefore disclosed at the company's discretion. I understand, however, that if the results of any research are known to have wider safety implications for the railway industry, the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate would expect the information to be communicated to these companies by those who commissioned the work.

  The Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) is developing proposals to ensure that key health and safety information continues to reach all those who need it.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of incidents in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 when contractors have been directed to work on the wrong track, similar to that referred to in paragraph 75 of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority report 1995–96. [5670]

  Ms Jackson
  There have been no other reported incidents similar to that reported in paragraph 75 of the Safety Authority Annual Report for 1995–96.

  School Buses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Traffic Commissioners propose to take in respect of the discovery of substandard school buses by Suffolk Education Authority and Suffolk Constabulary. [5448]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All operators of school buses are subject to the licensing requirements and disciplinary procedures exercised by the Traffic Commissioner. I understand that, following recent checks carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency accompanied by the Suffolk Police, the Traffic Commissioner for the area will shortly be receiving recommendations from the Eastern Traffic Area Licensing Review Board. It will then be for him to decide what further action is appropriate.

  Ozone Layer (Concorde)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what study he is making of the impact of Concorde on the ozone layer relative to that of aerosols and sulphur particles; and if he will make a statement. [4505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The importance of aerosols and particles emitted from aircraft has only recently been recognised and there is still uncertainty about the effects. Some data on emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from Concorde are in the ANCAT/EC Global Inventory of NOx Emissions from Aircraft, in which the UK has taken a leading role. The date are being used extensively by stratospheric ozone researchers and climate modellers internationally.

  Heathrow Airport (Terminal 5)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his Department's policy that the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5 is conditional on the widening of the M25. [5648]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government remains strictly neutral in respect of the planning application by BAA plc for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Arrangements for surface access to the M25 are being considered by the current public inquiry.

SCOTLAND

  East of Scotland Water
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what parts of their area of operations East of Scotland Water propose an embargo on all future developments because no additional effluent can be accommodated in the existing sewerage systems. [4612]

  Mr. Chisholm
  East of Scotland Water has no plans to introduce any such embargoes nor has any power to do so. When the Authority was established last year, however, it inherited insufficient capacity in the public sewerage system in a number of areas which prevents new connections. The areas principally affected are West Edinburgh and South East Edinburgh, and part of West Lothian and Midlothian. The Authority has made 58
  substantial progress in procuring additional infrastructure which should result in the lifting of restrictions in these areas from the year 2000.

  There are a number of other parts of the Water Authority's area, mainly small towns and rural areas, where restrictions on new connections to the public sewer may also apply. In all of these areas, the Authority plans to take appropriate action as soon as possible to resolve any problems.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification his Department receives in respect of the interception of telephone lines by Scottish police forces other than those carried out by the security services under the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985; and on how many occasions in the last twelve months Scottish police forces have intercepted telephone lines of suspected criminals. [5129]

  Mr. McLeish
  Telephone communications may be intercepted only under the personal authority of a Secretary of State. Where an address in Scotland is concerned, it would normally by me right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland whose authority is sought. Information about the number of occasions telephone interception took place is not available in the form requested. But, in 1996, 228 new telephone warrants were issued.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances plastic baton rounds are used by police in Scotland. [6117]

  Mr. McLeish
  Plastic baton rounds have not been used by the police in Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Breeding (Ethics)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to respond to the recommendations of the committee chaired by Michael Banner, Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London, on the ethical implications of new technologies in animal breeding. [4500]

  Mr. Rooker
  Much progress has already been made on the various recommendations in this report, but we will be considering what more is needed.

  MAFF already holds annual meetings on the need to conserve farm animal breeds, maintains a register of breeds and supports research on animal biodiversity. In addition, following discussions with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, a working party was set up last year to look into the role of non-veterinarians in relation to the artificial insemination (AI) of cattle and horses. The results of this exercise, which may affect the way the recommendations of the Banner Committee are taken forward in relation to AI, are currently awaited.
  59
  The Fann Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) has been operating the general principles set out in the report for some time now and has established arrangements for liaison with the Animal Procedures Committee. Additionally, an ethicist has been appointed to the Council.

  Finally, the Government is presently seeking an acceptable outcome from negotiations on the EC patents Directive taking account of the Banner recommendations.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the work of the Institute of Food Research in Reading in relation to E. coli 157 and bifidobacteria; and if he will make a statement. [4504]

  Mr. Rooker
  The project in question began just over a year ago. The work is not yet sufficiently advanced to make an assessment of the potential benefits of the results.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he plans to take to implement the recommendations of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Fourth report, 1996–97, sustainable management of North Sea fisheries, (HL 63) into fisheries research relevant to the setting of quotas, and the provision of data on fish stocks. [4564]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government will be responding to the report in the near future, and I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the response.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest two available years (i) the estimated numbers of farmers and (ii) the estimated numbers of organic farmers, indicating (ii) as a percentage of (i). [4859]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures are available on the numbers of registered organic holdings rather than on the numbers of organic farmers as such. No figures are, however, available for 1980 and 1990.

  Registered organic holdings and total main holdings in the United Kingdom in the latest two available years are given below. It should be noted that because the organic and general figures are collected on different bases they are not strictly comparable.

  Year

  (A) Registered organic holdings

  (B) Total main holdings

  (C) (A) as percentage of (B)

  1995 (June)

  784

  234,921

  0.33

  1996 (June)

  867

  234,268

  0.37

DEFENCE

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of army surplus tents and other equipment sprayed with organophosphates during the Gulf war, indicating whether any equipment was passed on the Scouts movement. [5665]

  Dr. Reid
  As my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has said in another place, what is now known about the use of organophosphate (OP) pesticides during the Gulf War was described in the organophosphate pesticides investigation team report which was published last December. Some of the tents used by British troops were sprayed whilst in theatre with organophosphate-based residual insecticide, which was applied to the outside surfaces. The investigation found no evidence that any clothing, bedding or personal kit was treated with organophosphate-based products, although there exists the possibility that some clothing was contaminated whilst being worn by those using such products for other purposes.

  Many of the tents used by British troops during the Gulf war were subsequently burned or buried in theatre because it was generally thought not to be cost-effective to ship such material back to the UK or Germany. It is not now possible to identify those tents which were brought back from the Gulf; some of them are likely to have been retained by units or at depots, while some others will probably have since been sold as surplus stock.

  The amount of OP pesticide remaining on a treated surface reduces over time, which is why regular re-application is normally necessary to maintain its effectiveness. Beyond this initial period of effectiveness, those traces of OP pesticide that remain break down naturally through exposure to air and water and normally disappear completely over a period of years. The break down process may be delayed if the compounds are used on material that has been treated with a wax finish, as was the case for tents which were used in the Gulf. However, any traces of OP pesticide that remain on a surface after the initial period of effectiveness would be in small and ever decreasing quantities, which would be unlikely to cause a risk to human health.

  Nevertheless, the specific tents which were reported as being a source of illness have been identified by the Scout Association and, at their request, my Department has made arrangements for appropriate tests to be carried out by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. The results of these tests will be made public as soon as possible.

  Beef
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the(a) Army, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy purchase British beef for consumption by service personnel stationed in the United Kingdom; and what are the countries of origin of beef purchased by each of the services from overseas. [5989]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  61
  Letter from J. A. Trewby to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 30 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Question about the supply of beef to the Armed Forces stationed in the United Kingdom.
  The task of procuring food for the Army. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy is contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI). We do not specify the source of origin from which NAAFI should obtain beef (or any other meat), but expect them to seek the best market price for the product. British meat products are considered equally with all others available on the open market. A range of products including sirloin, forerib, minced and diced beef are normally sourced in the UK. However the Armed Forces' requirement is mainly for frozen products and the majority of beef joints are sourced, on cost grounds, from Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the exclusion of representatives of the UK Lockerbie Families group from the explosives test at Bruntinghthorpe aerodrome on 17 May. [4498]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 30 June 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the exclusion of representatives of the UK Lockerbie Families group from the recent explosive tests at Bruntingthorpe since, as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which undertook the tests, this matter is my responsibility.
  The research being carried out by DERA is on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is aimed at exploring what physical effects would result from an explosion in an aircraft at altitude and subsequently what measures might be introduced to contain those effects and limit the structural damage to the aircraft. It was those measures that were being tested in the trial.
  Although the media were allowed to cover the event, both DERA and its customers were concerned to ensure that the trial was reported factually as part of a disciplined and ongoing programme of scientific work. To that end DERA agreed to requests from its customers to make it a condition of entry to the site by media crews that they should not be accompanied by other parties who might seek to broaden the coverage into areas not directly concerned with the trial itself. This condition was enforced rigidly and therefore included representatives of the UK Lockerbie Families group. In fact, before the event, several television companies requested that Dr Jim Swire of the 'UK Families—Flight 103' group be allowed to accompany them to watch the trial and were informed that this would not be possible.
  The position taken over the trial does not indicate any lack of compassion for the victims and families involved in the Lockerbie disaster. Indeed it is precisely the scale of that tragedy that has prompted the research programme which culminated in the trial at Bruntingthorpe and which, we hope, will eventually bring real benefit to aircraft safety.

  Combined Cadet Forces
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount of money received by each(a) state and (b) independent school in support of combined cadet force activities in each year from 1994–95 to 1997–98. [6074]
  62
  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence support to the combined cadet force is principally through access to service facilities and instructors. However, some money is made available to schools with CCFs to defray expenses incurred during cadet activities, and for administration.

  This takes the form of an Annual Establishment Grant, calculated on the following basis. The rates given are for 1997–98
  A flat rate of £252 per contingent.
  A grant of £17.57 for each of the first 40 cadets in each Service section.
  A grant of £12.32 for each subsequent cadet in each Service section.
  An additional grant of £4.90 for each cadet in an Army section.

  The allocation is based on the number of cadets on the strength of the contingent at 1 April each year.

  I am placing a detailed list of the amount of money received by each school in support of combined cadet force activities in each year from 1994–95 to 1997–98 in the Library of the House.

  Plastic Baton Guns
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines for the use of plastic bullets. [6110]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who authorises the use of plastic baton rounds by the Army in Northern Ireland. [6111]

  Dr. Reid
  Normally the use of plastic baton rounds must be authorised by a commander not below the rank of sergeant.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Heckler and Koch baton gun (Model L104A1) was introduced for use in Northern Ireland. [6108]

  Dr. Reid
  The Heckler and Koch baton gun (Model L104A1) was introduced for use in Northern Ireland on 1 June 1994.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who is responsible for testing the accuracy of the plastic baton rounds used by the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland. [6109]

  (2) who is responsible for testing the accuracy of plastic baton rounds fired by the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland. [6105]

  Mr. Spellar
  The baton gun manufacturer was responsible for testing the accuracy of all guns as a part of the manufacturer's acceptance test. The user of the gun is responsible for maintaining its accuracy during training.

  The baton round manufacturer is responsible for testing all batches of baton rounds at the time of manufacture, including accuracy firings, to enable the Ministry of Defence to accept them against the proof specification.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances routine Army foot patrols in Northern Ireland carry plastic baton guns. [6113]
  63
  Dr. Reid
  All routine Army foot patrols in Northern Ireland carry plastic baton guns.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between the strategic defence review and the fundamental expenditure review. [5259]

  Dr. Reid
  There will be one coherent review of defence. The strategic defence review will be the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the comprehensive spending review. It is envisaged that work on the strategic defence review will be completed around the turn of the year.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the present (i) land owning and (ii) leasing arrangements between his Department, AWE and Hunting and Brae in respect of the former AWE site at Llanishen, Cardiff; what proposals he has to(a) decontaminate and (b) redevelop the site; and what consultation he will undertake with the local authority, other agencies and local residents on these proposals. [5499]

  Mr. Spellar
  holding answer 26 June 1997]: The land which forms the AWE sites is owned by the MOD. There are no land owning or leasing arrangements between MOD, AWE plc. and the present operating contractor Hunting-BRAE. The operating contractor's use of the sites is licensed under the term contract between MOD and the company.

  The Cardiff site closed on 28 February 1997, and the process to decommission the facilities has started. There will also be a complementary site decontamination process. All work will be undertaken in a careful and progressive manner, in conformity with all relevant guidelines and legislation and the requirements of the regulatory bodies. The MOD has consulted the local authorities as necessary. The local liaison committee was also kept fully informed of the MOD's plans to close the site. The whole process will take a number of years, following which we intend to dispose of the site.

  Equipment Exhibition, Farnborough
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will invite hon. Members to attend the forthcoming Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition at Farnborough. [5694]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 June 1997]: Invitations to RNBAEE are extended to members of the Defence Select Committee, the Trade and industry Select Committee, and the All Party Defence Study Group. Exhibitors are also free to invite individual hon. Members. While a blanket invitation is not normally extended to all hon. Members, the Government would be willing to host any Members who express a firm interest in attending.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans in respect of the functions of the Child Support Agency. [4341]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As I indicated when we debated Child Support on Friday 20 June, we intend to look closely at all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service. Children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live. My key objectives for the Child Support Agency during the coming year are to sort out cases faster, tackle the backlog of cases, and chase up fathers who avoid paying.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of Child Support Agency orders for payment are in arrears. [4355]

  Mr. Bradley
  The latest figures show that over two thirds of absent parents with a full maintenance assessment and paying through the Child Support Agency are in arrears. This is not an acceptable situation and we are determined to ensure that the Agency improves its performance in pursuing absent parents for the maintenance that they owe.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the workings of the Child Support Agency. [4368]

  Mr. Bradley
  We intend to review all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service. Our key objectives for the Child Support Agency over the coming year are to sort out cases faster, tackle the backlog of cases, and chase up fathers who avoid paying.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures she intends to take concerning the operation of CSA appeals procedures. [4373]

  Mr. Bradley
  We believe that there are a number of changes which can be made to streamline the child support appeals process to provide a better, simpler, more efficient service to clients. We intend to bring forward legislation to improve current appeals arrangements. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will introduce measures to ensure that the basic pension is increased in line with increasing national prosperity. [4354]

  Mr. Denham
  There are many ways in which pensioners can share in rising national prosperity—through contributory pension entitlements, through other benefits, or through the income derived from savings.

  Our review of pensions will consider the central areas of insecurity for elderly people including all aspects of the basic pension and its value. We will retain the basic pension as the foundation of security in retirement and we will increase it at least in line with prices.
  65
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to introduce a flexible decade of retirement. [4356]

  Mr. Denham
  The pensions review, details of which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will announce in due course, will examine all aspects of basic pension and its value.

  Poverty
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her priorities for the reduction of poverty in the United Kingdom. [4358]

  Ms Harman
  Our priorities in tackling low incomes are to help young people, the long-term unemployed and lone parents into work, and to get help to up to a million pensioners not claiming the Income Support to which they are entitled.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve social security office services to those claiming benefit. [4360]

  Mr. Field
  We are reviewing the way that the Department does business to ensure the system is more accessible and more responsive to our clients' needs.

  There are over 400 sites offering a full range of services. Services for job seekers are provided in over 1,000 job centres.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures she proposes to ensure that those entitled to benefit have access to, and are aware of, their entitlement. [4362]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she is taking to increase the take-up of benefits by people entitled to them. [4370]

  Mr. Field
  We are concerned that up to 1 million pensioners currently miss out on the Income Support to which they are entitled. We want to get help to Britain's poorest pensioners and are commissioning research into the reasons why pensioners fail to claim the Income Support which is their due.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to repeal the jobseeker's Allowance. [4363]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believes that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that Jobseeker's Allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to tackle fraud in the benefit system. [4364]
  66
  Mr. Denham
  We will be vigilant in tackling fraud, ensuring value for taxpayers' money and rebuilding confidence in the Social Security system. A number of measures to help prevent, deter and detect benefit fraud will he brought in over the next few months and we shall consider what additional measures are needed.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the level of benefit fraud in the Social Security system. [4365]

  Mr. Denham
  The previous administration estimated about £4 billion of benefit fraud in the system of which £1 billion is detected. We shall be looking at the assumptions underpinning these figures, and at new information from an on-going programme of work and benefit reviews, to ensure we have a robust measure of the level of fraud. Our aim is to tackle fraud to ensure value for tax payers' money and to rebuild public confidence in the Social Security system.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. WcAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received relating to the proposal to restrict housing benefit entitlement for single claimants under 60 years of age. [4369]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have received a considerable number of representations relating to this restriction. These were taken account of in our review of the regulations. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced her decision on 18 June to revoke the extension of the single room rent for claimants between the ages of 25 and 59.

  Mr. Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans for housing benefit. [4371]

  Mr. Bradley
  On 18 June, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced her decision to revoke the extension of the single room rent to those aged 25 or over.

  More broadly, we will be working with other Government Departments to develop a housing policy which does not trap people on benefit and which generates personal responsibility.

  We want a modernised Social Security system which will tackle poverty and welfare dependency and promote work incentives. We will develop a system which supports work, savings and honesty. We will be vigilant in tackling fraud and ensuring value for taxpayers' money. We are, therefore, committed to a review of the Social Security system as a whole, including housing benefit.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's policy to help lone parents into work. [4372]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believes that the best form of welfare for people of working age is a job and we are committed to a package of measures as part of our welfare to work strategy which will help lone mothers to move off benefit and into work.

  Young People
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for helping young unemployed people off benefit dependency. [4348]

  Mr. Field
  We believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our new deal for young people will offer opportunities for work, volunteering, training and education.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans to reform child benefit. [4361]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Modernising the Social Security system is a key priority of the Government. We are committed to retaining universal child benefit from birth to age 16 and to uprate it at least in line with prices. We are reviewing educational finance and maintenance for those older than 16 to ensure higher staying-on rates at school and college, and that resources are used to support those in most need.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she is taking to ensure fair medical evaluation of people claiming disability benefits. [4366]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of our general review of Social Security provision, we will be looking at a number of eligibility issues including the requirements for medical assessment for benefit purposes. A key priority will be to ensure that procedures for determining entitlement are fair and that claimants receive an efficient and high quality service.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the powers of the Independent Tribunal Service in respect of the disability appeal tribunal system with particular reference to the case of Mr. M. McCall of Broughton. [4367]

  Mr. Denham
  We intend to bring forward legislation to improve current decision making and appeals arrangements in the Social Security system. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the mobility component of the disability living allowance is restricted to people over the age of five years; and if she will make a statement. [5590]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to a review of Social Security with the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and to provide work incentives. Provision for disabled people will form part of that review. We will announce the details in due course.

  The mobility component of disability living allowance is paid primarily to help people become independently mobile. Children under the age of five cannot be independently mobile as they need guidance and supervision whilst out of doors.

  Benefits Claimants (Medical Examination)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received on changes to the procedure for DSS medical examinations for claimants; and if she will make a statement. [4357]

  Mr. Field
  I have received a number of representations about DSS medical assessments from a number of groups representing sick and disabled people, other interested organisations and DSS staff representatives, as part of our general review of Social Security provision we will be looking at a number of eligibility issues including the requirements for medical assessment for benefit purposes. Key priorities will be to ensure that procedures for determining entitlement are fair and that claimants receive an efficient and high quality service and that taxpayers' funds are fully protected.

  Appeals
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will set a maximum time for the hearing of appeals to the social security and other related appeals tribunals as part of the Citizen's Charter Initiative; and if she will make a statement. [5993]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Modernising the Social Security system is one of our key priorities. We will streamline services to provide better, simpler more efficient services to clients. We intend to bring forward legislation to improve current decision making and appeals arrangements for all Social Security matters. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to receive the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority's first annual report; and if she will make a statement. [6358]

  Mr. Denham
  We have laid the first report of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) before both Houses today. It covers the first 12 months of OPRA's existence in which it made the necessary preparations to take up its statutory responsibilities on 6 April 1997.

  OPRA has the leading role in helping to ensure that the interests of all members of occupational pension schemes are safeguarded, we are pleased that the efforts made by the Authority during its start up year enabled it to be fully operational from day one.

  In-house Bids
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will allow West Mercia Services to make an in-house bid to continue to provide the services it currently undertakes; [4980]

  (2) if she will allow in-house bids for departmental contracts. [4988]

  Mr. Field
  West Mercia Services are part of the Department's Accommodation and Office Services project. This is one of a range of initiatives the Department of Social Security is engaged in to test the value for money of involving external contractors. We
  69
  will review these initiatives, including Partnerships Schemes, in the light of our objectives for modernising the delivery of the welfare system; the implications for customer service, staff and the taxpayer; our commitment to work within the announced spending totals for the first
  70
  two years of Government; our aim of getting best value for public money; the scope to apply the private sector's expertise, discipline and economies of scale in procuring public services and securing investment; and the flexibility for government to make changes at a later date.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Russia-Estonia Relations
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to persuade the Russian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Primakov, to sign the negotiated border treaty with Estonia.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we welcome the recent agreement between Russia and Estonia to establish a joint commission. We and our European partners will continue to take every opportunity to urge the Russians and Estonians to take further steps towards normalising relations, including the signature of a border agreement.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that the document in relation to the treaty has been awaiting signature on Secretary of State Primakov's table for the last eight-and-a-half months. Will the noble Lord request the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right honourable Member for Livingston in another place, to urge Secretary of State Primakov, when he next sees him, to sign the document as speedily as possible? Will he add that any further delay or prevarication would be counterproductive to the interests of the Soviet federation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met Foreign Minister Primakov on the fringes in Denver, at which
2
time relations with the Baltics were raised. Moreover, he is intending to visit Moscow some time in July. I shall certainly ensure that he bears in mind the issues which the noble Earl raised. A border agreement between Russia and Estonia would be a major contribution to normalisation and peace in the Baltic area.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, what are the implications of delay over the border treaty between Estonia and Russia for Estonia's integration into the EU? Will the Government give an assurance that Estonia's application will be judged on the objective criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen in June 1993 and that, therefore, any decisions will reflect the impressive transformation of Estonia's economy, legislative harmonisation and democratic institutions rather than the geopolitical situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can indeed give the noble Lord that assurance. As he says, both administrative and economic progress in Estonia have been impressive. Its application to join the EU will be considered on its merits. As the noble Earl and other noble Lords know, there will be a Commission opinion on the Estonian application and others in July.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, have all Russian troops and other Russian placemen now left Estonia? Will there be some means of making sure that they do not re-enter Estonia in the new relationship which is being developed with Russia?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the best means of ensuring that there is no military action on the border between Russia and Estonia is to reach agreement on the border issue. The Russian troops are reported to have left, but I am not sure that I can give a totally unequivocal answer in relation to placemen. However, as part of the general normalisation of arrangements, one would hope that those matters can be

3
discussed bilaterally between the Russians and Estonians. We and our European partners will ensure that that happens.

Whisky: Excise Duty Evasion
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to stop the resale to retailers in Scotland of whisky which has been falsely declared as for export, and which has been purchased in bond with no duty paid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not a problem peculiar to Scotland. Most whisky is removed or sold and, I presume, consumed outside Scotland. Under the spend to save initiative, HM Customs and Excise has allocated 130 extra staff who work closely with intelligence staff and use European mutual assistance to tackle excise duty evasion. Combined operational groups work with the trade better to control movements. That is spearheaded by 12 trained investigators dedicated to excise duty evasion cases. That has already closed several illicit outlets.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his encouraging reply. Is he aware of reports in the Scottish press that such fraud has increased alarmingly recently because there are now fewer physical official checks within the European single market? Will the Government intensify the efforts which the noble Lord described to end that illegal racket since it is damaging not only to the Scottish whisky industry but to British taxpayers as a whole?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have seen the article in the Scotsman, to which the noble Lord refers. I believe that elements of it are somewhat alarmist and none of us can know the full extent of evasion. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that since 1st January 1993 single market restrictions have made it impossible for us to continue some of the border controls which were then in existence. That is why the attention to which I referred in my first Answer is being given to intelligence work and to controls within the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to Treasury Questions and again ponder on the whereabouts of the noble Lord, the Minister—
Noble Lords: Here!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will explain why the Minister, whom I am happy to see, is not answering for the Treasury.
Did the noble Lord read in last week's newspapers the report of a trial at Southwark Crown Court in which three so-called businessmen were sent to prison for six,
4
three-and-a-half and five years for the most amazing bootlegging scam? It involved removing alcohol, including whisky, from bond and ostensibly taking it abroad. But in fact they took it to a warehouse in Paisley where it was split up and sold to cash and carry centres. Does the Minister realise that that costs the public purse £20 million? While I am gratified by the judge's sentences, I wonder whether he insisted that the obvious wealth that the businessmen created from the scam was taken away from them and returned to the public purse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome to Treasury Questions. My noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury is the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe in both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. His responsibilities are focused mainly in the DTI and he will speak in the House on DTI matters as DTI Minister. Treasury business will be handled by me.
As regards the noble Lord's substantive question, it is correct that there have been a number of successful prosecutions—one being reported in The Times as recently as Saturday last. It is gratifying to see that such convictions are being obtained. I doubt whether the money is recouped from those who are sent to prison. I wish that it were.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that whisky released from bond is secretly held by the crooks concerned in warehouses in England before being returned to Scotland? Is he aware that much harm can be done to distilleries, more of which are concentrated in the area of my home in northern Scotland than anywhere else in the world, although unfortunately for medical reasons I cannot drink their excellent product?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear that. Diversion—that is the technical term—means that spirits are released from bonded warehouses without duty being paid, it being claimed that they are being exported. That takes place in both England and Scotland, and I shall not distinguish between the two countries. It is a serious problem and requires blatant fraud in the falsification of receipt documents from other countries. It is a problem which Customs and Excise is determined to tackle.

Prisons: Identification of Visitors
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer given by the Baroness Blatch on 13th January 1997 (Official Report, col. 17), whether they are yet in a position to inform visitors to prisons exactly what forms of identification are now required.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Prison Service will publish a revised security manual

5
at the turn of the year. A draft is currently being considered by governors. The manual will specify exactly what type of identification is acceptable and this will be given wide publicity. In the case of noble Lords, the House identity card will be sufficient to gain entry.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. If it had come from the heroic noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I should have regarded it as very satisfying. However, coming from such an esteemed penal reformer as the noble Lord, I must accept it with qualified optimism. It has taken the Government a year to make up their minds about the issue.
Will the noble Lord take it from someone who visits prisons twice a week that some years ago it was much easier for visitors to get into a prison? Is he aware that the situation is no better than it was when I raised the issue in January? In case the noble Lord wonders about my credentials, I received a letter of thanks from no less a person than the former Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard. You cannot say more than that, can you?
Is the Minister aware that on a recent visit to a prison I was escorted in by an officer at the invitation of the governor. The gentleman at the desk refused to let me in. The production of a bus card with a photograph of myself—perhaps not very attractive, but I should have thought compelling—was not good enough for him. He had to ring the governor, who gave the all clear. Is the noble Lord aware of the present difficulties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the present difficulties, not least because the noble Earl was good enough to tell my office about them this morning. It is true that in some circumstances it may well be more difficult to get into prison than it was some years ago. Our aim is to make it more difficult to get out of prison!
Although I find it difficult to believe, I am sometimes told that noble Lords go to prisons on legitimate visiting occasions but forget their passes. When they do so an alternative means of identification must be provided. I believe that that was what the noble Earl did by providing his bus pass. I know that he is a serial prison visitor and I am amazed to think that there could be any creature in the whole of the known world who was not able to recognise the noble Earl approaching a particular prison.
The noble Earl says that the Government have taken their time. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know as well as I that discussions have been taking place for some months. We need to consult the governors carefully. There are fine issues of human decency and human rights about visitors and people who are kept imprisoned. There is also the question of maintaining security. We have consulted a large number of groups other than prison governors. Through the Family Ties Consultative Group we have consulted the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League for Penal Reform and
6
Save the Children. As I said, we intend to have the revised security manual available by the turn of the year which I believe to be not unreasonable.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had difficulty getting in because the man at the desk thought he was Lord Lucan, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said he was.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure what the man at the desk thought. He may have thought that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had been cloned and was therefore taking extreme care to allow only the real article in, and certainly not to welcome into custody Lord Lucan.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I used my House of Lords' pass recently at a prison and it was useful? Would it not be a good idea if everyone had an identity card?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, membership of your Lordships' House is so infinitely unique and valuable that it ought not to be bestowed upon the common people as well.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if membership of your Lordships' House is such a unique privilege, perhaps it should not be trifled with. I always knew—all has now become clear—that the noble Earl displayed a touch of prejudice when he dealt with me across the Dispatch Box. Now he admits that had the same answer come from me it would not be acceptable; however, as it came from the noble Lord it is accepted with qualified acclaim. More seriously, while it is important for people who enter our prisons to know about the systems of inspection, identification and search, will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no exemption from rigorous procedures as regards anyone who enters our prisons, including staff—I include also probation staff—because of the difficulty of unauthorised articles entering our prisons and indeed illicit substances?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, makes an important point. When the Secretary of State visits prisons he is subjected to exactly the same regime as other visitors. I believe that is right. When, in a previous incarnation, I visited clients in prison I expected to produce identification. I was always happy to do so; I found no difficulty in that at all. I did not regard it as insulting. I considered that prison staff were properly carrying out their procedures in what I always found to be a polite and dignified manner.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I had occasion to visit the women's prison in Buenos Aires, Villa Devoto, in 1976 and I was asked to produce proof of identity, the authorities were perfectly satisfied with a British Library reading card? Would it

7
not be sensible if, like their Argentine counterparts, British prisons accepted any document issued by an official body of the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I suppose that a Buenos Aires library reading card might be a useful substitute. I have never been to a prison in Argentina and therefore I cannot comment helpfully, fruitfully or further on the noble Lord's experience in Buenos Aires.

Firearms Compensation Scheme
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on implementing the compensation scheme established under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Firearms compensation section is ready to begin immediate processing of the first claims and applications for ex gratia payment forwarded by the police.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety on the part of the police and those who are shooters and have guns which are subject to the Act? The timescale is short, documentation and guidance arrived late and the police have written to the Home Office expressing their concern. Even the forms are now giving rise to concern. Legal opinion has been sought which has called into question some of the items on the surrender form. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when the implementation scheme begins just tomorrow.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, planning for the exercise of taking in up to 200,000 handguns started in February of this year following Royal Assent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, indicates, we have received representations from police associations and from those officers who will be directly involved in these transactions. Some police forces would have preferred a longer period of notice. We have drawn a balance between speed and efficiency on the one hand and preparation on the other and by and large we think we have it about right.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there appears to be considerable discrepancy in the way that the police are carrying out their duties under the compensation part of the Act? It has been brought to my attention that the Lincolnshire police are ensuring that those who hand in their weapons must do so on a certain day at a certain time. Furthermore, failure to do so may result in the police revoking firearm certificates. I am told that in South Wales the police are insisting that the handing in procedure can be done at one point only. However, by contrast, I believe that the West Sussex police are
8
allowing people to hand in their weapons over the three-month period during weekends and in the evenings. There are eight separate . locations where people can hand in their weapons. Does not the Minister agree that it would be preferable if all police forces were to follow the example set by West Sussex, bearing in mind that those with guns who have been caught up in the 1997 legislation, and indeed the legislation which we are about to debate today, have been caused a great deal of inconvenience?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the thrust of the noble Earl's question. Chief constables have a degree of operational autonomy which we in this country rightly cherish. The problems of a large country force are not the same as those of an urban force. I am aware of the position in South Wales. Bridgend has been nominated as a centre and that appears to have caused no particular problems to the shooting community in South Wales according to the information that I have. It is for chief constables to reach informed decisions bearing in mind operational constraints, the necessity in some circumstances to have experts present at police stations, and of course the overall financial limits that apply in administering their responsibilities.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the apparent criticism of what might be described as the public administration of this operation, and also bearing in mind the difficulties in terms of public administration that have come to the public's attention as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency, can the Government give the House an assurance that the Civil Service as a whole will look at the whole concept of public administration as there seem to have been considerable difficulties arising from the previous administration's conduct of public affairs?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that is an interesting observation but I am not entirely sure how it incorporates itself into an answer to this Question. Of course all publicly administered schemes ought to be run efficiently, with due consideration for the interests of all concerned. I am confident that chief constables will do that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am somewhat disturbed at what appears to be apparent disregard for the interests of individuals who are affected by the Act. What is worrying is that in one part of the country one can be threatened with revocation of a licence, which I suspect is beyond the law anyway, given that there is a full three-month period in which to conform with the Act. It seems that this is an imposed timetable and therefore it is incumbent upon police authorities—even accepting their autonomy—to administer it in a way that is consistent with the intentions of the Act itself.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree that no chief constable should act ultra vires or

9
outside his legal powers. I have no knowledge, or any direct evidence, that that has happened. Should the noble Earl, Lord Peel, wish to take the matter further, I shall consider anything specific he has in mind. I repeat that chief constables are simply citizens in uniform, to use the well-known phrase. They must discharge their duties according to the legislative scheme.
Lord Burton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the difficulty which some police forces have as a result of the shortage of time? For instance, 10 days ago the northern constabulary, which has the largest number of weapons to collect and the largest land area to cover, had received hardly any papers from the Home Office. Surely that does not give it good time in which to prepare.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know the specifics of that. If the noble Lord wishes to provide me with details, I shall look into that aspect as well. I should find it disappointing if documentary material had not gone out at a time at which the chief constable in question, or his designated officers, could deal with it appropriately.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will the Government review the compensation provisions in the Act so that those whose businesses have been wrecked by the legislation will be fairly compensated, as well as those who hand in their Firearms?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, compensation for those who may suffer loss of business is outwith the scheme of the present Act; and there is no proposal to review that.

Law Officers Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.
From tomorrow large-calibre handguns used for target shooting will become prohibited under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, except for certificate holders and dealers for whom the prohibition will come
10
into effect on 1st October. This Bill will go one step further and prohibit small-calibre pistols used for target shooting.
The Government considered and dismissed the case for retaining the licensed pistol club provisions in the 1997 Act. The 1997 Act envisages a complex system of pistol clubs, licensed by the Secretary of State, in which small-calibre pistols can be stored and used. But no level of security would guarantee that pistols could not be removed from licensed clubs. And nor is it possible to offer sufficient safeguards to the public when these pistols need to be removed, for example for servicing or repair, or participation in a competition elsewhere in the country or overseas.
It is worth recalling Lord Cullen's views on the difficulties of gun control. When he deals with the question of separating and storing gun components separately many of the issues also apply to the use of small-calibre pistols at licensed pistol clubs. Lord Cullen cited the views of the British Shooting Sports Council that,
"no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would he a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage".
I refer to paragraph 9.68 of the Cullen report.
The 1997 Act simply does not go far enough. It allows 40,000 lethal handguns to remain available for use. These guns are as lethal as a larger handgun. Some multi-shot versions are very quick firing as well as being easy to conceal.
Before putting forward the Bill the Government had considered whether there may have been a case for exempting single shot small-calibre pistols from a general ban. This was considered in another place and resoundingly rejected on the grounds that it would also create a dangerous loophole. Small-calibre single shot pistols are lethal, easily concealable and, according to evidence presented to Lord Cullen, can be reloaded within five seconds. I refer to paragraph 9.52. The Government's judgment is that we cannot afford to leave any loophole.
In the Labour Party's election manifesto we gave a commitment that there should be a free vote in another place on whether to extend the prohibition to all handguns. That other place voted by an overwhelming majority of 203 for the ban to be extended.
The Bill we have before us is very short; just three clauses. I shall attempt briefly to explain their scope.
Clause 1 extends to small-calibre pistols the ban instituted by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It does this by putting small-calibre pistols in the same prohibited category of weapons as machine guns, semi-automatic rifles and, from 1st July, large-calibre handguns.
The ban leaves in place the narrow range of exemptions already contained in the 1997 Act for people such as vets, slaughterhouse workers, and race officials at athletic meetings.

11
Provided such people can convince their police force of a specific need to hold a large-calibre or small-calibre handgun for one of the stated purposes, then they may do so. In the majority of these cases, a firearm certificate will have to be held with the necessary conditions as specified by the police.
Clause 2 contains a number of consequential amendments to the 1997 Act. These have the effect of bringing the provisions for the surrender of small-calibre pistols into line with those for large-calibre handguns.
The clause also extends the compensation provisions of the 1997 Act to small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment. The compensation scheme is not subject to parliamentary affirmative approval as the Government intend that it will be along the same lines as that for large-calibre handguns and ancillary equipment under the 1997 Act. A copy of the scheme has already been placed in the Library.
Under the 1997 Act, from 1st July of this year, owners of smaller-calibre pistols will be able to surrender pistols and ancillary equipment on a voluntary basis and to receive ex gratia payments for them.
Clause 2 also gives effect to the schedule containing consequential repeals.
Clause 3 deals with the short title, commencement provisions, and extent. The Bill applies to England and Wales and Scotland but not to Northern Ireland.
I spend a moment on the Commonwealth Games. I should like to make clear that the ban will not affect the ability of this country to host the Commonwealth Games in 2002, nor to stage in the future the Olympic or Paralympic Games. Under powers available to the Secretary of State special dispensation under Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act can be granted to the participants in the shooting events involving prohibited weapons.
The Government accept that British participants will not be able to train in this country for some shooting events. That is a direct consequence of the Bill and reflects the strength of feeling in this country for a complete ban on handguns. However not all shooting events involve handguns. Only three out of 15 shooting events in the Olympics will be affected, two out of 15 in the Paralympics, and seven out of 21 in the Commonwealth Games. British participation in the majority of the events involving airguns, rifles and shotguns can continue as before.
The ban will affect the position of some disabled shooters. We accept that there will be some events which will have to cease. But there will be many others that can continue. There will be a transitional period for some shooters, both disabled and able-bodied. Some will choose to switch to other firearm disciplines; some will no doubt give up shooting altogether.
During the debate on the main compensation scheme in this House on 9th June a question was raised about the imposition of a standard response time for processing compensation claims for large-calibre handguns and related ancillary equipment.
12
I gave an undertaking on that occasion that all claims will be dealt with as quickly as possible but explained that it would simply not be practicable to set a guaranteed response time. That will also apply to claims for ex gratia payments for small-calibre pistols. Those claims submitted under options A and B will be able to be processed very quickly, some very quickly indeed, but there will be more than 60,000 claimants whose forms will be forwarded by the police to the Firearms compensation section over the three-month surrender period. The more difficult option C claims will take longer on average to process. The Firearms compensation section has been set up to complete the processing of the claims within 18 months but the majority of claims will have been completed well within that timescale.
I regret that there are perfectly law-abiding shooters who will be disadvantaged by both the 1997 Act and this Bill. The Government's view, endorsed by this House, is that the right to life comes before the right to practise a sport.
This Bill therefore, if enacted into law, will bring into place even tighter controls on handguns than those introduced by the 1997 Act. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the level of controls is commensurate with public safety. This Bill fulfils that commitment and will close a chapter on the worst shooting incident in Britain since Michael Ryan murdered and wounded at Hungerford. I hope that with the will of this House the Bill can be passed quickly so that the full ban can be in place by the end of the year. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, following the dreadful massacre of young children and their teacher by Thomas Hamilton in a primary school in Dunblane, the then Conservative Government commissioned the Cullen Report. The Government then, with the support of the Labour Opposition, passed into statute the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. That Act set out a general prohibition on handguns above .22 calibre. It also required owners of weapons of .22 calibre and below to keep them in secure gun clubs. Any movement of weapons to, from or between gun clubs was to be strictly controlled. In addition, there was a tightening of the administration of licensing. Those measures represented the toughest gun laws in the world. It is also worth repeating that the Act went beyond the recommendations set out in the Cullen Report, much to the chagrin of Members on all sides of this House and in another place.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the many sportsmen and sportswomen, able-bodied and disabled, law-abiding citizens alike, were very powerful indeed. It was not an easy balance to strike. However, I believe that to address both public safety and to preserve the sport was important.
The ink is hardly dry on that piece of legislation. Implementation of the compensation scheme is ill-prepared—today's Question only served to highlight

13
that—and is causing anxiety to the police and considerable consternation to those who own weapons which are subject to the prohibition.
One example is the surrender of weapons procedure. The guidance was issued late and received late. There is an inconsistency between police forces, a point already addressed by my noble friend Lord Peel. Police forces therefore have difficulties in administering the scheme. One police force offers no flexibility whatsoever; names only one collecting point and only one date for handing in weapons; and the tone of its letter is curt and over-threatening. I understand that, such has been the response to the letter issued by that particular force, that another letter has been issued with the intention of being more user friendly—which we welcome—but the threat remains that on and after 1st July merely handling one such weapon becomes illegal. That is not the case. It is not until 30th September that that happens; there is a three-month period during which the surrender of weapons can take place.
Another police force, again mentioned by my noble friend Lord Peel, has named eight geographically spread collecting points, and has issued a helpful list of telephone contact numbers and most helpful guidance as to the availability of collecting points, listing opening times and suggesting an appointments system, to accommodate licensed gun holders.
The Minister's response today was very much on the side of autonomous police forces. We accept that and believe it to be right. But if they behave in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of the Act, we expect the Minister to show some concern for those on the receiving end of that piece of legislation.
Legal advice calls into question the consistency of the surrender forms with the requirements of the Act, and in particular paragraph 7. I understand there is considerable difficulty in requiring people to sign away their rights, which will possibly affect at a later date their right to a proper level of compensation. What are the Government doing to clarify that point?
The very short period following the issuing of guidelines to police forces and the imposed date of 1st July is, as I said, causing anxiety. A very new piece of legislation is juxtaposed with yet another Act of Parliament to introduce a total ban on handguns.
It is incumbent upon all governments to justify legislation as it passes through Parliament. I have read the official records of debates in another place. I find it difficult to detect any intellectual justification for this Bill. This Government have prided themselves on being anti-discriminatory, whether in relation to race, gender, age, sexual orientation or many other areas that I could mention. This Bill is discriminatory. It overtly discriminates against those who engage in the sport of shooting.
It is true that as a result of the 1997 Act there was some curtailment of the range of sporting events by sportsmen and sportswomen. However, the 1997 Act, passed just weeks ago, made it possible for the sport of shooting to continue, albeit under more difficult and stringent circumstances.
14
Apart from enjoyment of the sport and the team and club spirit engendered by it, this country has been represented very successfully in national and international competition. The tally of medals won at the Commonwealth and Olympic Games is most impressive. I recently heard it said by a Member of the Labour Government that, in the event of a total ban on handguns, people can always find another sport or recreation to interest them. But this is where the Bill is mean-spirited and discriminatory, not merely against able-bodied shooters but against those who have disabilities, for whom the Bill will mean a complete end to their sporting activities, and for many an end to an activity that allows them to compete on absolutely equal terms with other men and women throughout the world. There has been no serious attempt by any Member of the present Government to justify that draconian step.
During the passage of the Bill there will be attempts to amend it. Compensation is just one such area of concern—not simply regarding the extra cost of compensating gun owners and dealers who hold stocks of prohibited weapons. Incidentally, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House where the extra money is to come from. If, as we are led to believe, the spending totals—not only overall government spending totals but those of individual departments—are to remain as set out by the previous Conservative Government, what will have to be sacrificed to meet the costs of the Bill? From my time in the Home Office, I know that officials were constantly paring away to make efficiency savings. Are we now to believe that millions of pounds, about £19 million or more, are sitting in the Home Office budget, unallocated? Perhaps the Minister will give us chapter and verse as to where it is to come from.
However, there is another aspect of compensation which is certain to feature in our debates. That is the losses incurred by the gun clubs which, as a result of the total ban, will not even have had an opportunity to conform—even though it might have been difficult—to the rigorous procedures set out in the 1997 Act, in order to allow the sport of shooting to continue. The scenario is rather different from that which resulted from the previous Act. Therefore, I believe that the Government should face up to the issue of a wider compensation scheme. We shall surely return to that at later stages of the Bill.
There was discussion in another place about the possibility of allowing for the establishment of centres of excellence where our most skilled sportsmen and women could continue to practise. It makes little sense if all other countries which will be competing in the forthcoming Commonwealth Games, and even the Olympic Games and any other international competitions which might be staged in the United Kingdom, involving the sport of shooting are allowed to have facilities for their competitors only for them to be denied to United Kingdom competitors.
A ban on .22 calibre pistols also presents real practical problems for the organisers of the Manchester Commonwealth Games in the year 2002. The United Kingdom is committed to hosting the .22 pistol events in the games. Indeed, Manchester finally won the bid

15
for the games because of that commitment. When lodging the original bid, the organisers omitted shooting events. That attempt to exclude shooting was fiercely opposed by other nations—50 out of the 63 countries indicated that they would vote for the inclusion of shooting. That is not surprising since shooting is the third most popular sport in the games and most nations compete in it.
The Bill may put Manchester's obligation in jeopardy. Suggestions were made in another place that the commitment could be met by making special arrangements for competitors from other countries, while simultaneously excluding shooters from the host nation. Not only would that result in complex and bureaucratic procedures but it is also an extremely insulting proposal. As a sporting spectacle, the pistol shooting events will be reduced to a farce. The British home countries, which boast the strongest teams in the Commonwealth, will be forced to watch shooters from other countries winning medals on British soil.
Is the Minister able to say how the Home Office will handle the problem? The law as it stands will require competitors to have a Section 5 licence, as the Minister said, to carry their guns in the country—a licence with requirements so stringent as not to be practicable. How do the Government intend to police foreign competitors who arrive from other countries with very different legal and control systems? By what authority will the police be able to permit handguns to be carried about the country during the competition?
Those and many other points have not been answered in another place, other than by saying that the Bill is in the interests of public safety. But no evidence has been set out to justify the Bill. It is not even possible to monitor the effects of the earlier 1997 Act because, as the House will appreciate, it has not yet come into operation.
Our guiding principle was to protect the public. We believed that it was possible to tighten controls, to take all handguns out of general circulation and for the clubs to be regulated in such a way as to offer protection to the public. We regarded the sport of law-abiding people, both able-bodied and with disabilities, as a serious issue and one of civil liberty. Under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, they could have continued to represent their country in .22 target pistol events. The Bill will make the United Kingdom virtually unique in the world.
I shall quote again the words of the British Paraplegic Shooting Association which said about shooting as a sport that it was,
"a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport".
The association went on to say that it provided disabled people,
"with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world".
The amendments proposed in another place to allow for centres to train our top quality shooters and for a special exemption for disabled shooters were rejected. Allowing the clubs to continue under strict controls with a much
16
improved licensing system and removing all handguns from general circulation would have addressed the issue of risk to the public.
Dunblane will remain for ever in our memories, but this Bill will not enhance public safety. It is expensive, it goes way beyond anything recommended by Lord Cullen and the last Government, who had as central to their thinking the protection of the public. The Bill, as we all know, was flagged up during the election campaign and in the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I shall not oppose this Second Reading. But there has been a feeling of playing politics and opportunism about the issue, ever since my right honourable friend John Major readily agreed, following an approach by the Labour Party, that Dunblane should be kept out of the party conferences last year, ahead of the report on Dunblane by Lord Cullen. The Leader of the Labour Party, at his conference and in his own speech, pressed for a ban on all handguns. Anne Pearston, one of the organisers of the Snowdrop Campaign, was invited to address the conference in a very high profile way. Jack Straw, the Shadow Home Secretary, repeated yet again the words of his party leader at that conference. To his credit, and entirely characteristically, my right honourable friend John Major did not bring the issue into the Conservative Party Conference and at no time did he make it a party political issue.
I can only repeat the words of my right honourable friend Michael Howard, who said, following the publication of the Cullen Report:
"Mr. Straw's support for a total ban on handguns has the merit of simplicity and overwhelming popular support. But before any absolute ban is introduced. MPs should reflect on whether there is a last case for caution. The victims of Dunblane deserve hard thinking, as well as deep feeling",
Subsequently, The Times editorial agreed that Mr. Howard was right to resist a blanket ban on handguns by saying that his approach demonstrated,
"a willingness to balance liberty and coercion, public pressure and policy detail".
If we were only ever to do what is publicly popular, this House and another place would have voted in hanging and have reintroduced the death penalty for those who commit murder. But every now and then governments have to think very hard and balance popularity with what is right. We believed that preserving the sport for all people, able and disabled, was the right balance to be struck with protecting the public. Even at this late hour, I invite the Government to reflect again. This Bill adds to costs, it is unnecessary and deeply unfair to our law-abiding sportsmen and women and will not address public safety over and above the legislation passed only a matter of weeks ago.
3.29 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to remind the House that this legislation comes hard on the heels of the 1997 Act which was passed by her Government. My claim for consistency this evening is that I voted for that Bill to go through the House and I shall vote for this Bill to do so as well.

17
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this debate takes place against events which are both sombre and charged with emotion. I have a seven year-old son who is exactly the same age as the children killed at Dunblane. I go often to his primary school. I do not think there can be any more innocent place on earth than a primary school class. That is why the violation of that innocence at Dunblane shocked the world and made all parents draw their children a little closer to them. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, powerful emotions are not usually the best guide to making good laws. "Something must be done" cannot be the only justification for legislation.
We also know from the correspondence and lobbying prompted by the last government's Firearms Bill that proposed gun controls bring out a wide range of protest from people who do not see themselves as life-endangering or anywhere near the criminal classes. Indeed, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the recognition of pistol shooting as an Olympic sport is proof positive that gun ownership can be a perfectly normal pastime carried out by perfectly normal people.
Therefore, it would be pointless to argue that there is not some element of rough justice in this Bill, as there was in the last Bill so far as gun owners are concerned. I suppose that the only response one can make is that, although this may be rough justice for the gun owners, there was no justice at all for the children of Dunblane. The fact that the perpetrators at both Dunblane and Hungerford owned weapons legally and honed their deadly skills in gun clubs must, as the Minister suggested, tilt the balance away from a fair deal for gun owners towards the tougher gun control now proposed by this Bill.
As the Minister said, there is no doubt that there is a mandate for such legislation and there is no doubt that public opinion is behind the measure. I suspect that in this House, as in the other place, opinion is more divided. In my own party, my right honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Mr. Alan Beith, said:
"My personal conclusion is that a total prohibition of .22 pistols kept in clubs would not make a significant contribution to public safety such as would justify or necessitate the severe limitations imposed on innocent citizens who want to pursue a perfectly legitimate sporting activity under strict regulation".—[Official Report, Commons. 11/6/97; col. 1190.]
So, although great emotions are at play in this debate and behind this legislation, let me make clear that we who support the legislation in no way suggest that those who have criticisms of it are any less stricken by the tragedy of Dunblane than those who take a different point of view. But we do take a different point of view. The experience of Hungerford and Dunblane convinces me that tighter legislation would make a significant contribution to public safety, not only by making it less likely that the Ryans and the Hamiltons of this world could obtain the guns and the skills to commit atrocities but by expressing, in the most vivid way available to Parliament, our determination to reverse the rising tide of gun culture in this country.
A few days ago I read in the newspaper a report about life in our inner cities where, the article said, young men now feel "under-dressed" if they are not carrying a
18
handgun. The research paper prepared for these debates by the House of Commons Library points out that before the Firearms Act 1920:
"anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted".
Yet the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that the use of guns in crime at that time was "very rare indeed". The three-quarters of a century since that Act have shown Parliament intervening time and again to try to stem the rising use of guns in crime.
Those who oppose gun control argue, as they always do, that legislation neither prevents the criminal from obtaining a gun nor deters him from using it. Certainly that is true. The determined criminal can obtain a gun if he wants to. But there is no doubt that we face a challenge in that more criminals and younger criminals are using guns. Even those who defend the right of "normal" people to own guns must concede that the loss of 500 guns a year through theft—and the Minister pointed out that 30,000 guns are in circulation—must raise concern about the interaction of the lack of gun control and the use of guns in criminal activity.
In its evidence to the Cullen inquiry, the Liberal Democratic Parliamentary Party stated that:
"the aim of gun control is to prohibit the use of guns by those who cannot use them safely".
I must confess that I believe my colleagues in another place missed the crux of the debate. We must see gun control as a way of turning the tide of gun culture in our country.
I have said before that when the legislation put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was going through the House I received dozens of letters, most of them from people holding guns as a hobby and for their definition of pleasure. But one letter stood out. It was from an old university chum who has now settled in California. It was a plea from the heart. He wrote that we in Britain still have a chance to stop the gun culture coming into our society. In the United States 35,000 deaths a year are caused by guns. Normal people now carry guns because of the threat that they feel from the gun culture itself. We still do not have that kind of society. We still have a public opinion which does not want to see the police force armed. We still have a public attitude which does not feel that one needs a Saturday night special to go out or a gun under the pillow to feel secure at home.
But the trends are there in our society. The statistics are there and the attitudes are there, particularly among the young. I have listened to the arguments on behalf of Olympic shooters, the disabled and the ordinary gun enthusiasts, but I submit that they do not add up to a convincing argument against the need for Parliament to start taking seriously the gun culture in our society. We have a chance to shut the stable door before the next tragedy.
As I indicated, I shall not be able to promise my party's vote in unity throughout the passage of the Bill. But, as I did with the Bill put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I can say with a rare determination that wherever there is an amendment which seeks to weaken or wreck this Bill, I shall be here

19
in the Bill's support. Beyond the issues that the noble Baroness quite rightly raised and the amendments that we shall all judge on merit, I believe there is a more fundamental principle. This is the drawing of a line in the sand. This is the piece of legislation which can say that as a country we are going to combat the gun culture. I wish the Bill well.
3.38 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, it has been my duty and privilege to sit in your Lordships' House for over 25 years. During that period there have, of course, been disagreements between the major political parties and indeed individuals. That is one of the great traditions of your Lordships' House. However, I have never previously known a Bill which I hold in such contempt. The Bill is a stitch-up by the two major political parties to win Brownie points during the election. There has not been enough hard thinking about what is required and no real plan to try to satisfy those requirements. I feel that both major political parties are culpable. This measure is a travesty of justice and a persecution of 60,000 good people, people who are just as good as the 9,000 good people of the town of Dunblane.
The Bill will be passed in its present form and we must wait and see—it will take a couple of years—what effect, if any, it will have and whether or not it will reduce the number of killings. I wish to put a number of points to the Minister and perhaps I may also ask some questions. First, I feel for the constabulary in this country. An extra burden has been placed upon them and they will have much work to do. Also, I see some danger in that the places of security will pose a real problem. The Minister may not wish to say too much about that, for obvious security reasons, but is it fair that chief constables should be left responsible for safe areas throughout the country? Is it not possible that a small government team could advise and help to ensure that the places are secure?
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, we do not want the police armed but they may have to be armed. Some attractive targets are being built up. They will be seen by criminals and terrorists as possible easy meat. That will be a grave problem.
In my wanderings around the country talking and listening to people, I find anxiety expressed that the word "disposal" appears throughout the Bill. It is a good political word and a good Civil Service word; it gives many options. But perhaps the Minister is not aware of the apprehension surrounding it. I do not see the words "destroy", "destruct" or "destruction" in the Bill.
There is a feeling that "disposal" means that the weapons will not necessarily be destroyed. There is also a feeling that the weapons may be sold so that the Government can claw back some of the £150 million they have to outlay. When good citizens hand in their weapons because of the Bill, they do so with the confidence—although there is not much of it at the moment—that the weapons will be destroyed. They believe that the weapons will not be put on various markets but that they will be crunched and destroyed.
20
Every person who hands in a gun should be entitled to a destruction certificate. He needs proof that his weapon or weapons have been destroyed. I suggest to the Minister that that can be done individually when the firearm certificate is returned; it could be stamped at the bottom indicating that the weapons have been destroyed. Alternatively, the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place can make a public statement to assure the 60,000 people involved that the weapons no longer exist. It is a delicate point but in my view the wording makes many people suspicious.
The compensation form states at paragraph 7(c) that those who hand in their guns will accept whatever money is paid to them. In other words, there is no argument. Again, that arouses great suspicion. If I were to hand in my two handguns, which are worth quite a lot of money and which, in my humble opinion, are in a more secure place at the moment than one of the so-called safe areas, I would receive a £150 cheque, £10, or whatever is being contemplated, for each, and there is no comeback. We need to be told that there will be no fooling and that we will receive the price that appears in the Bill. There is grave suspicion in that area. I ask the Minister to look at paragraph 7(c).
At the bottom of the form one finds a threat. Those who do not hand in their guns by 1st September are told that they could face a large fine or go to gaol for 10 years. I look around for support from noble and learned Lords but my memory is that people of the criminal classes who have been taken to court for possession of illegal weapons do not even receive 10 years. That may be a grave anomaly with regard to justice.
I do not know what the good people of Dunblane believe they have achieved. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put his finger on the fact that, in this country, the problem is one of illegal guns. I have not heard any politician in the other place, from any party, talk, shout or rise to his feet to start a movement to obtain a measure of control in that area. The Minister could walk out of this Chamber now and buy a gun on the black market. If he does not know how to do it, with great respect I can give him some advice.
That is the battle. I was sad when Snowdrop collapsed itself; after persecuting the innocent it did not want to go into battle and persecute those who hold illegal weapons. We are in a dangerous area. Some of our streets today are ruled by the gun. Drugs, muggings and armed robberies—that is where the Government's and our efforts should be put. We must try to remove illegal weapons. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that there are far more illegal weapons in circulation than there are legal weapons owned by the 60,000 now being persecuted.
This whole issue poses grave problems. The Minister in another place has a preponderance of cannon fodder. I am amazed that a couple of working parties have not been formed from that vast number to look at the problem and work it out. It is not a party political issue; it is a national issue. I for one am very sad that that thinking has not taken place in the new Government. They talk about the new criminal Act and so forth, but

21
there is much to be done. We need new laws and tougher sentencing procedures for those in possession of illegal weapons.
What further can be said about the Bill? I said some rude words about it in an earlier debate; I shall not repeat them. But it is a sad business. There has been no long-term thinking. The issue became a gimmick for both major political parties before the election.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and start by stating my conviction which arises from one of his last points. Nothing in the Bill, when enacted, will stop evil people getting hold of guns and committing evil acts of murder. That should be the purpose of the Bill. However, that is not the main issue I want to talk about. As your Lordships might expect, I wish to talk about the effect of this measure on our future prospects of holding the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games.
If I may say so with some immodesty, very few people in this House or in Parliament have spent more time seeking to bring those events to this country than I have. I say that because, with all the affection I have for my noble friend on the Front Bench, which is very considerable, the Home Office brief which he read out amounts to total nonsense, as I shall try to illustrate in a moment or two.
My noble friend, like the Home Secretary in another place, told us without apparently any difficulty that there would be no ability to train for these events even if they were held in this country, so we could have the Commonwealth Games in Manchester but no British shooters being able to train for them. Perhaps I may say in passing that what they will do, as they will be doing this very weekend, is go to places like Guernsey, Jersey and France and train there at great expense to themselves.
This happens to be a moment in time—all your Lordships should rejoice—when British sport is doing rather well. Wherever we look at the moment it is doing rather well. I do not put that down so much to new Labour as to superb training and preparation by our athletes. What my noble friend and the previous government have to a large extent done is to say that we shall have the Manchester Commonwealth Games but no British shooters can train for them. What nonsense! What a ludicrous proposition! How in international sport can you expect your best sports people to arrive at the sports ground ill equipped and ill trained for the competition that is to take place? We have no right to put British sportsmen and women in that ludicrous position. I protest about that aspect of it.
The evil act perpetrated at Dunblane was an obscenity too harsh for most of us to contemplate. But even that obscenity does not absolve Ministers from the duty to apply clarity of thought, and intellectual clarity in particular, to the process they are dealing with. There has been no intellectual clarity about the way in which Ministers have approached the question of sport.
My noble friend repeated what Mr. Jack Straw has said. The best thing I can say is that I hope my noble friend does not believe it. I do not believe that he does.
22
He said that this will not affect our prospects of bringing the Commonwealth Games or the Olympic Games to this country in the future. I am a betting man in a modest way and I am prepared to wager with my noble friend, Mr. Jack Straw or anyone else that the Bill, when enacted, will prevent the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games ever being awarded to this country. That is why I am making my speech today.
Like the noble Baroness, I shall not vote against the Bill. However, if an amendment is put forward at a later stage which sensibly gives the Home Secretary powers to take action to exempt Olympic or Commonwealth Games shooting from the provisions of the Bill, I shall support it. But I very much hope that we can at least persuade Ministers and my noble friend— I join the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this point— to think again even at this late stage. In pursuance of an Act which is in every way commendable to stop illegal guns in this country, I do not want my party so to over-reach itself through a lack of intellectual clarity that it prevents this nation ever again seeing the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games. That is the purpose of my speech.
When I have gone round the world campaigning to bring the Olympic Games or Commonwealth Games here, particularly the Olympic Games, I have found that the lobbying process can be overwhelmingly difficult. All kinds of international crookery goes on. Arguments are used to prevent people voting for the Games to come to this country. That is a fact which no one can deny. No one has yet told us—I do not know whether my noble friend can tell us—what discussions Ministers have had with the International Olympic Committee on this matter. What is the view of the British Olympic Association? It is difficult to find what it is. If anyone should be speaking up, it is the British Olympic Association.
I tell the House that we shall be placing a weapon in the hands of our opponents whenever we put in a bid for the Olympic Games. The first thing they will say is "The British cannot comply with the regulations. An undertaking has to be given that every Olympic sport is held in the country. They cannot do that". Of course the Home Secretary might say, "You can have the shooting here if you like", but our foreign opponents would not think of voting for having the Olympic Games in the country but their shooters not being allowed to train for them. The overseas competitors taking part, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, again said quite rightly, would have such restrictions placed on them in the way they carried their weapons into the country when the competition was being held—that is for a period of at least six if not eight weeks when one takes account of the building up of the Olympic Village and so on—that British attempts to get people to vote to hold the Olympic Games in this country would be easily defeated. That is the logic of the situation.
I understand and agree with my noble friend's remarks about the right to live but I do not think that can be equated with what he said about the right to shoot legitimately under strictly controlled circumstances. We shall not get the Olympic or Commonwealth Games

23
here again—certainly not in my lifetime and I do not believe in anyone's lifetime. Because I passionately feel that based on my own experience, and because I do not really believe that deep in their hearts my noble friend and his colleagues want to achieve that lamentable result, I feel it necessary to ask them to think again, ask them to consult and ask them to protect Britain's sporting heritage which they have just as much an obligation to do as to protect anything else they are trying to protect in the Bill. They should consult, and possibly consult some of us who have experience of international lobbying on this scale; they should certainly consult the International Olympic Committee to find out what possibility there may be for holding the games here if this legislation is put into effect. I hold out a dismal prospect. I make this speech today because I believe that it is my duty to put that realistic proposal before this House and my friends in government.
4 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am bound to say, "Well, here we go again". The only thing I can say is that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, looks much the same from this side of the House as he did from the other. I am sure that his arguments as regards this Bill will be just as hard and vociferous as they were about the last Bill.
I must declare an interest, as I did before, in that I am president of the Gun Trade Association. The fact that I hold that position is not the sole reason why I disliked the last Bill as much as I did. I disliked it because I regarded it as heavy handed, restrictive and penalising a small body of sportsmen who had their sport largely removed. I also disliked it because it largely ignored the recommendations of an extremely distinguished judge. If I were Lord Cullen today I would wonder what on earth did I do wasting my time producing such a report. Furthermore, that legislation involved some very considerable cost to quite a number of people. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I ask the House this question: is that legislation (or indeed this legislation) going to succeed in stopping the kind of tragedies that we all witnessed at Dunblane? The memories of Dunblane will always be with us regardless of any legislation; but until we tackle the question of illegal guns in this country we are never going to deal with the problem in hand.
But what the last Government's Bill created, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, is the most stringent gun control in Europe and probably in the world. But at least it provided something; it allowed the sport to continue, albeit in a fairly strangulated way. At least those people who participated in target shooting with pistols could continue to do so.
But we have in front of us today a very different scenario. I accept and acknowledge that the Bill was in the Government's manifesto and it is important that your Lordships' House respects that. However, that does not detract from my fiercest opposition to this latest attempt to curtail individual rights which, unfortunately, are being curtailed largely by the actions of a madman and I have to say with some distress, by the failure of the police to adhere to the procedures that prevailed at the
24
time. People are losing their sport because of that and people are losing their businesses. Furthermore—and I must ask this question—in view of the very considerable amount of compensation that is going to be paid under both pieces of legislation, would it not have been more sensible to have provided that money to local authorities, which are crying out for finance, to help with crime prevention schemes? Security cameras are now appearing all over the streets of Great Britain. There is a cry for more: they are doing a great deal to prevent crime. The money would have been much better spent if it had been pushed in that direction.
The other question I raise is that of legislating against minority interests. It is something that we need to be very wary of in this country, particularly through the efforts of what I describe as single issue pressure groups. I am disappointed that the party opposite— which I suspect has always traditionally seen itself as being particularly strong in this direction and even defiant—is in this case quite happy to waive the individual rights of the shooters in order to get its legislation through.
The Home Secretary made an interesting comment in the other place at Second Reading. He said,
"We all have to be very careful before we use our power to prohibit actions that were previously lawful and involved no criminal intent. Simple disapproval can never be a ground alone for prohibition".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/97; col. 1164.]
Those are very wise words. I hope that the Government will look at them when they consider other pieces of legislation in the near future which may affect minority groups. Clearly, there is very little that we can do to change this legislation, though I am quite sure that there will be opportunities for careful consideration and for amendments.
This House gave such careful consideration to compensation during the passage of the last Bill about which I believe we were treated very badly by another place and without proper consideration. I cannot believe that it can go unchallenged. During the passage of the last Bill the Conservative Government, after considerable pressure, agreed to compensate owners and dealers for those weapons and their accessories which were deemed to be illegal. However, there remains the thorny question of the loss of business and debt which resulted from the Act. I believe that that issue remains as relevant to this Bill as it did to its predecessor.
Mr. Howard, the then Home Secretary, resolutely refused to give any help to those whose business or personal level of debt suffered as a result of his legislation. He argued his case, as I understood it, on the back of precedent. None existed and he did not wish to create one. I can only assume, having read Hansard at various stages of the Bill in another place, that Mr. Howard, perhaps in anticipation of his new appointment as Shadow Foreign Secretary, had slipped off for a quick and most successful and effective trip to Damascus. I was intrigued to discover that, suddenly, compensation has become the cause célèbre of the Opposition Front Bench in another place. I am delighted at the conversion, but it is a case of too little and too late.

25
My right honourable friend Mr. Howard argues that the situation is different as regards the new Bill as, for example, clubs will be deprived of all guns whereas under the previous legislation they could switch from outlawed heavy calibre hand guns to .22 pistols. Mr. Howard has a point. But as many of us now realise, there are great number of people, clubs and businesses that ceased to operate directly through his legislation. I believe that the compensation figure alone for the loss of business which clubs have incurred is something over £64 million. That does not include retail businesses and individuals who arranged mortgages to secure their businesses and who have been left with large debts. Therefore, whereas I welcome my party's conversion to compensation, I wish that it had considered these issues a little more carefully when it was in office.
This Bill is bound to further the need for compensation. Of course, I appreciate that a fair level of payment is likely to be made when .22 pistols are handed in, and so it should be. But that still leaves a further raft of financial casualties that will pile on the previous legislation. I ask the Government: what compensation will be considered for targeting and range equipment which will now become obsolete under this Bill? I am told that automatic target charges alone are valued at £850. Some clubs have quite a number, so what are the Government going to do to try to minimise those heavy levels of debt and to overcome what I can only describe as a "gross injustice"?
In a supplementary question earlier today, I asked the Minister about the irregularities that appear to be developing in the way in which the police are handling the compensation provisions in the previous legislation. The Minister asked me to provide him with evidence. I shall do so because I would be most grateful if he could deal with the matter as it raises a fundamental point that was aired during your Lordships' discussion of the previous legislation. It provides yet another example of the inconsistencies with regard to the way in which the various police forces in this country implement all Firearms legislation. I ask the Minister to look carefully into this question. I am not necessarily referring specifically to compensation under the previous Act or this Bill, but to the general malaise that exists with regard to this matter which I believe needs to be looked at very carefully.
A number of other issues arise which I am sure we shall debate at further stages. I was going to mention the whole question of our responsibilities with regard to international games and I had been going to refer to the disabled. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, dealt most eloquently with the problem of the Olympics and I concur entirely with what he said. Frankly, if we cannot overcome this problem it will make a mockery of the way in which this country is perceived internationally. I hope that the Government will address the matter seriously. My noble friend Lady Blatch dealt with the question of the disabled and I thoroughly concur with all the points that she made.
In conclusion, as I have already said, I am in total opposition to this second Firearms Bill, which shows scant regard for a collection of citizens of this country who in my opinion—I should add that this opinion is
26
shared by a growing number of others, once they have begun to understand the argument—have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. They have been very badly done by and I do not think that it serves well the democracy in which we live to witness what we witnessed previously and what we are witnessing now. Their sport has been removed. Many businesses have collapsed—businesses which have been built up over many years—and there has been no compensation. That does not read well. Of course, the horrors of Dunblane will never be forgotten and the pain undergone by so many will never go away. But I do not believe that either of these two pieces of legislation is the solution—and more importantly, neither did the learned judge, Lord Cullen, who has been conveniently ignored.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee. As noble Lords have already said, this is a very sad day for pistol shooters in England, Wales and Scotland. This Bill is the final nail in the coffin of their sport. It is the end of law-abiding citizens being able to pursue a perfectly legitimate sport. It has happened as a result of political motives in response to a tragic incident which was allowed to develop because the existing system of safeguards was not properly implemented—a point made by my noble friend Lord Peel in relation to Central Scotland Police—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. But before he continues perhaps I may point out that for 22 years I was a Member of Parliament in the area covered by Central Scotland Police. Will the noble Lord accept that Central Scotland Police twice reported Thomas Hamilton to the procurators fiscal for consideration of prosecution and that on both occasions the procurators fiscal declined to prosecute and ipso facto gave guidance to Central Scotland Police on the way in which it should conduct its Firearms considerations? Finally, will the noble Lord accept that it is grossly unfair to make Central Scotland Police the scapegoat when it was acting under the guidance of the procurators fiscal?
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, but if I read the Cullen report correctly, one of the problems was that from the point of view of Central Scotland Police it was cheaper to allow Mr. Hamilton to renew his certificate than to face an appeal in the procurators fiscal's court. If I remember the report correctly, that was one of the factors which influenced the police's decision.
The Act which was passed by the previous Parliament banning all handguns but rimfire .22 pistols was ill conceived. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, was absolutely right that all parties ought to be ashamed of our behaviour on that occasion. I know that I did not vote against the Second Reading of the main parts of that Bill, but that was because I felt that in the end that Bill would not kill off entirely the sport of pistol shooting. I agree that the skeleton that was left as a

27
result of the previous Government's Bill was very small and that that Bill was grossly unfair, very restrictive and very expensive for small clubs. However, I believed that such was the spirit of the shooting community and the pistol shooters that they would have found a way around it and that, as the leading article in The Times of 16th October stated, the sport would have survived in a very restricted form.
The history of our shooting sports is one of the introduction of new weapons, always more accurate and always more expensive. The enthusiasts buy them and improve their sport. It is a history of new ammunition and of better sights. That is all part of the back-up of the sport which kept a large industry going. If one looks at the Bisley shootings in 1946 at the end of the war over the big ranges of 200, 500 and 600 yards, one sees that the scores achieved some 50 years later were not a great deal better but that everyone had spent a great deal of money and had a great deal more expensive new equipment.
I mention that only because I believe that that is what would have happened again with the restrictive form of pistol shooting that was left to us. We would have had a limited number of highly secure clubs which would have continued with specialised ranges. There is now no future for those clubs. I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Peel has said, but we are now faced with a bigger demand for compensation. On the previous Bill, we argued that there was a need for compensation to cover not only function but facilities. Those facilities are now obsolete. They have no future use. They cannot be used in another other form.
What are we to be left with in the way of handgun shooting? Air pistols are still Olympic weapons, so we shall still have Olympic air pistol shooting. For once, unbelievably, the Government have implemented one of the unimplemented recommendations of the Firearms Consultative Committee. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury will remember that we published a list of some 20 recommendations, among which was the fact that we felt strongly that carbon dioxide-powered pistols should be treated in exactly the same way as air pistols. That has been met in this Bill. It is a considerable help to the really enthusiastic pistol shooter. If one shoots with a CO2-powered air pistol one finds that it has less recoil and a smoother action than an air pistol. That is something for which we must thank the Government.
I suppose that we should also thank the Government for dealing with heritage weapons under Section 7. That refers to pistols pre-1919. One is allowed to keep such a weapon in what is virtually a fortress museum. However, having agreed that people can keep these weapons, the Government then say that you cannot have a competition with them; you can use them only for a demonstration. Whether a demonstration can be turned into a limited form of competition remains to be seen. However, these are two minor points. I thank the Government for the CO2-powered air pistols and for allowing people to maintain their heritage weapons under Section 7. But we are left with a pretty miserable skeleton.
28
It is a sad day. We shall not vote against the Bill. We must accept it because it was in the election manifesto. However, in Committee we shall deploy a good many arguments on compensation and on the disabled. I hope that we shall win the argument even if we cannot win the vote.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, in view of his comments about the procedures of the Central Scotland Police Force prior to the Dunblane tragedy and the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, does he agree that central region has now changed its procedures and that Tayside Police Force, which also followed those procedures at the time, has done likewise? I believe that for the sake of public confidence it is important to have that on the record.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I certainly accept the good local knowledge of my noble friend.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is so soft spoken and reasonable sounding that it makes one regret all the more that the honeymoon period is clearly at an end. It was genuinely pleasant while it lasted. Everybody trod carefully, and compliments, most of which I believe were sincere, flew back and forth across the Chamber. But all good things come to an end, and this grossly unjust and unnecessary Bill marks that point.
I gladly concede that in the past six weeks the new Government have made a number of worthwhile and welcome moves. I refer to the lifting of the ban on trade unions at GCHQ Cheltenham, the reopening of the question whether servicemen executed for alleged cowardice in World War I were treated with unjustifiable harshness and a number of other matters. I mention this only to emphasise that my opposition to this Bill is not based on any knee-jerk political bias— far from it. How could it be so when some of the most powerful and trenchant attacks on the Bill in the other place have been launched from the Labour Benches, notably by Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. Frank Cook? As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, his senior colleague, Mr. Alan Beith, was also highly critical of the Bill.
In addition, the previous Government's hands were far from clean on this matter. It was a disgrace that neither House of Parliament was given an opportunity to debate the Cullen report and that instead excessively draconian panic legislation was rushed through by the use of the Guillotine in the House of Commons against the understandable objections of Conservative and other Back-Benchers. However, this Bill is even more draconian than the Conservative Act, as it now is. Indeed, it makes the Dangerous Dogs Act appear positively wise and statesmanlike. This is all the more strange when one reads that in August, September and early October 1996 prospective Labour MPs were being advised to reassure worried constituents who happened to be shooters that they (the prospective candidates) would be opposing a total ban on pistol shooting

29
provided adequate safeguards were put in place. It appears that a number have been elected on a false prospectus, given that in practice very few people have the time to read through a party's manifesto from one end to the other.
This Bill, if unamended, means humiliation for this country. I believe that the noble Baroness touched on this point. Far more important, it spells terrible hardship for individuals that is wholly disproportionate to the statistical risks, as opposed to the perceived risks, with which the Bill is intended to deal. Ministers have claimed that the Bill is necessary for the protection of the public, in particular children, but just how many children have been killed in Britain by legally owned .22 pistols over the past 100 years? I would be surprised if it is as many as a dozen; it may even be as few as half a dozen.
Of course, the death of any child for whatever reason is a terrible tragedy, but far, far more children are killed by arson attacks on the houses or flats of their parents or guardians. Only yesterday one read of two brothers aged 10 and 14 who were killed in such an attack. It is such a frequent occurrence that it hardly makes the headlines any longer, although it may be shocking to say so. Far more children are killed in that way, yet there is no restriction on the ability of anyone to buy a can of petrol that may be used for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Far more children are killed by falling accidentally into swimming pools, yet there is no obligation to fence them. I believe that in the past 100 years more than 40,000 children have been killed by motor vehicles—probably 5,000 times as many as have been killed by .22 pistols—yet there are no serious attempts to limit the use of these vehicles because too many votes would be lost.
With all due respect to the Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, he was incorrect to claim, as he did in the other place, that .22 target pistols were overall as dangerous as .375 magnums. The Cullen report makes that perfectly clear to anyone who is not already aware of it. It is true that both Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated with .22 pistols, but the assassins came up close to them. If an assassin manages to get close enough to his intended victim he can kill him with almost any kind of lethal weapon. Your Lordships will recall that Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico City in August 1940 by a man wielding a mountaineer's ice axe—a tool that is quite small and probably easier to conceal than a single shot .22 target pistol. It is true that Mossad, the Israeli secret service, use .22 weapons to eliminate enemies of Israel. However, what is overlooked is that they use .22 machine pistols which have been illegal for civilians in this country for many years. A machine pistol is as different from a .22 single shot target pistol as is a Samurai sword from a potato peeler.
For that reason, the fear expressed by the Government that villains will target clubs where .22 pistols are to be safely stored is misplaced. Why should anyone take the risk of trying to steal a low-powered pistol from a secure gun club when, as Frank Cook said from the Labour Benches in the other place recently, he can obtain a much more powerful weapon in most of our large
30
conurbations for £60? As the Evening Standard revealed a month ago, for not very much more one can evidently obtain a machine pistol capable of firing 20 rounds a second, not 20 rounds a minute.
It is claimed that public opinion overwhelmingly supports this Bill. In his introductory remarks the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of the strength of public feeling on this matter. I simply do not believe it. In October 1996 the Sunday Times found that 54 per cent. of the population were opposed to a total ban on pistols, which this Bill would bring in. A later Mori poll, which curiously received practically no press publicity, revealed that 55 per cent. of the population in both England and Scotland←Iet it be noted—believed that the less draconian Conservative Bill would penalise target-shooters unfairly. Only 40 per cent. disagreed with that proposition. So it is hardly likely that the public will judge this much more draconian Bill to be a fair one.
I spoke earlier of humiliation. It is humiliating for the rest of the world to observe that the British Government, almost uniquely, do not trust their own people to own and handle guns, subject to all reasonable safeguards. That contrasts with the situation on the Continent of Europe, in both EU and non-EU countries, where such guns can be held widely by all respectable citizens. One wonders who are now the little Englanders. Even worse, unnecessary hardship is being inflicted upon shooters, almost all of whom are solid, respectable citizens, and, as has been mentioned, upon paraplegics who derive tremendous self-esteem from pistol shooting, carrying off a considerable number of gold, silver, and bronze medals in the process.
Terrible financial hardship will be inflicted upon those gun clubs specialising uniquely in pistol shooting, and which will no longer be able to trade down, so to speak, to pistols of a smaller calibre as the Conservative legislation, bad though it was, at least made possible. Many individuals who borrowed money to enlarge or improve their clubs will be now left financially destitute. It was good to see that all six of the original contenders for the Conservative Party leadership voted against the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, as did the previous Prime Minister, Mr. John Major. Let us hope that an equally firm line will be taken in your Lordships' House.
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the chairman of the Campaign for Shooting. In common with many noble Lords, I accept that this is a government manifesto commitment, and that therefore there is little or nothing we can do to prevent the Bill becoming law. I hope that the Government are prepared to listen to suggestions from both sides of- the House as to how we might make it a trifle better law, because, as has been said by noble Lords, the Bill does nothing to solve the problem. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, we are not addressing the basic problem, which is illegal guns.

31
It was suggested during the passage of the previous Bill that we might approach the whole matter in a slightly different manner. The establishment of a national register, staffed partly by civilians and financed not by government but by shooters themselves, rather along the lines of the national set-up that we have for car and driving licences, was suggested. That was rejected by the previous government. When I heard of the present government's commitment to re-address the problem, I hoped that they might be prepared to come back to it.
I am also concerned that we have not yet heard the full agenda. There is some evidence that senior members of UK police forces are, in principle, opposed to the ownership of guns of whatever kind by private individuals. If that is the case, when the Minister replies will he give us an absolute assurance that that is not part of the Government's agenda?
When we come to the Committee stage, I hope that we shall be allowed to make improvements. I should like to see an improvement in compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Peel said, a number of clubs have been put out of business. I should like also to discuss whether we could not establish centres of excellence for pistol shooting. We have, as noble Lords have said, air pistols and CO2 pistols which allow people to enter the sport. Perhaps we could establish levels of competence which would allow people to make the transition to powdered ammunition for .22 target pistols only at certain centres of excellence. We shall have one such with the new Commonwealth games facility, and one exists already at Bisley. I dare say that it would be attractive to some noble Lords to have one in Scotland and another in Wales.
Those facilities could be made available to the disabled shooter. I imagine that it is relatively easy for the determined and enthusiastic shot to go to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or France, but it is difficult for disabled shots to do so. To establish four such centres of excellence would give them a chance and would enable us to bring forward the next generation of Olympic and Commonwealth games shots.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in an informed speech, told us of the problems that this country would face with major games in the future if we did not have shooting. It is worth adding that, after athletics, shooting outnumbers any of the other Olympic and Commonwealth games sports.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to keep the House informed about the number of crimes committed annually with the use of registered Firearms of all kinds, compared to the number of crimes committed annually with the use of illegal Firearms.
I wonder whether noble Lords have seen or handled an Olympic or Commonwealth games .22 target pistol. It is not a small piece of equipment. It has a long barrel, a complicated stock and a complex mechanism. It is not the sort of thing you could tuck under your mac and take into a bank or anywhere else. I wonder whether the Government are prepared to accept that certain
32
categories of .22 target pistols might be excluded under a Section 5 licence on the personal authority of the Secretary of State. I had hoped that a new, allegedly more libertarian, government would take a more libertarian approach. I fear that we have been disappointed. This is an opportunity that has been missed.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the arguments against the concept of the Bill were argued to exhaustion earlier in the year. I believe that everyone knows and agrees that Hamilton only obtained his licence through misrepresentation and inadequate policing; that the Bill goes far further than anything recommended by Lord Cullen; and that the Home Office decided in advance what it wanted. Evidence of the negative correlation of legally held guns to crime was ignored. The Home Office admitted last month that from 1992 to 1994 there were only two cases of homicide with legally held handguns, and both were domestic incidents in which a frozen leg of mutton would have been equally effective.
The ban will have no effect whatever on pistols held illegally. The Home Office has admitted that to eliminate target shooting would have no effect on crime. Everyone knows that the holders of pistol certificates are particularly careful and aware of their responsibilities and that they obtain their certificates in the first place only with great difficulty and following exhaustive inquiry. Certificate holders are demonstrably law-abiding citizens who are being scapegoated. No other group in modern times has been so gratuitously vilified as the 5 million members of the shooting community.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, not everyone realises that while the immediate reaction to Dunblane was that 75 per cent. felt that there should be a handgun ban, by the beginning of this year 70 per cent. of people believed that there should not be a complete ban. Even in Scotland, 39 per cent. of people felt that pistol shooters were being treated unfairly. Public opinion is no longer in favour of the ban.
The press, at first so hostile to all pistol shooters, has appeared increasingly to oppose an absolute ban. An article in the Independent on Sunday in October 1996 stated:
"There may be no reason to think that a political issue could be dealt with in the same way in the future; no reason to fear that another minority might find themselves so brusquely set aside … But something unusual and powerful has happened and it is as well that we should recognise that it is a bad model for policy-making in a democracy".
An article in the Evening Standard stated:
"If such a measure is passed, Britain will have the most draconian gun laws in the world and will be obliged to renounce participation in the whole range of Olympic shooting sports, unless a British team is to be represented solely by policemen and criminals. It is the duty of government to keep its head, and a sense of proportion, even in the face of tragedy".
An article in the Express stated:
"Why ban an Olympic discipline at which we have excelled for a century? … But let us not confuse it [a pistol ban] with just, considered and impartial law-making. That it is not".

33
Therefore, there is no justification in logic for the withdrawal of pistols and this ban or, for that matter, for the Bill.
The sport of pistol shooting was invented in Britain. It has been dominated by Britain for more than 100 years. We have brought back 23 medals in the past 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, have covered the question of the Olympics very much better than I can. I hope, however, that the Minister will say just how the Home Office intends to administer the control of weapons brought in by foreign competitors. Should pistol shooting become impractical due to the draconian controls, that will undoubtedly have very severe consequences on any future bid for the games to be held in this country.
The paraplegics are particularly upset. Disabled people go to Stoke Mandeville to see whether they are able to participate in certain sports. Pistol shooting is the one sport in which they can compete on equal terms with the able bodied. It takes a lot of hard training. We can boast to be the only shooters in the world to have won three gold medals in three consecutive Paralympics. In the 1994 world games, we won two gold, two silver and two bronze medals. In 1995, we won one gold, two silver and one bronze.
Pistol shooting helps the disabled with balance and confidence and provides them with a quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world. The Bill is a disaster for the paraplegics. As a result of it, Britain will be the only country banned from pistol shooting competitions. We are always mouthing lip service about what we can do for the disabled. This Bill is not much of a contribution.
The question of compensation was covered extremely well by my noble friend Lord Peel. The prohibition of even .22 target pistols will increase the cost of compensation for ancillary equipment well beyond the figure of £150 million in the previous Bill. It seems extraordinary that a government trying to find money to carry out various schemes are prepared to double the amount of compensation to be paid in what is purely a cosmetic exercise. It is no more than that.
Most disastrous is the lack of compensation for the clubs. Seventy-one per cent. of all clubs would have been forced to close under the previous Act; now 100 per cent. will have to close. I should like to give some examples. The Derby Rifle and Pistol Club will lose £100,000 from its land and facilities; in Chesterfield, the club will lose £128,000. The club in Aberdeen has a rent for 21 years at £70,000 per year.
The 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club was founded when the government stood down the Home Guard. The government gave instructions for ranges to be established to which the public should be admitted. The club rented the land, which it eventually bought, and built a club house. The land had a covenant so that it could be used for that purpose only. The club has a Sports Council grant and loans which will now have to be repaid personally by the trustees.
34
The owner of the Nottingham shooting centre has seen his personal investment drop from £400,000 to £1,000. There are many other cases. The situation is clearly unacceptable and compensation should be paid, as happened in Australia. The Australian government paid the difference between the value of the business premises before legislation—after the incident at Port Arthur—and the value afterwards.
The Government have a huge majority and there is no hope of stoping this legislation. But equally, it is not necessarily the case that all those people who voted for a Labour Government were necessarily voting for every detail, including this Bill.
The matter of handing in weapons was covered by my noble friend Lord Peel. I am extremely concerned about the demand of the Lincolnshire police as to exactly when and where the weapons are to be handed in. It ill behoves the police, whose incompetence led to this dismal Bill, now to treat pistol shooters as criminals and without consideration.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, remarked, I have changed from one side of the House to the other. But my position has not changed. I opposed the government from that side of the House and I oppose the Government now from this side of the House in relation to legislation which I believe is odious and not becoming to a British administration.
I remind the noble Baroness, whose speech today was very welcome, that during debates on what became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, she was warned, and the Government were warned, by people who are now behind her and by me that that legislation was the thin edge of a wedge. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, raised the spectre that perhaps before very long, nobody, but nobody, will be able to hold legally any firearm at all in this country. I hope sincerely that the noble Baroness— and I sympathise with her—and the people who supported the previous Bill will now realise what sort of an awful road they embarked upon by introducing that ill-considered Bill.
I shall not reiterate the opposition which I expressed on 16th December and subsequently. That would take too long. I believe still that it was a bad Bill, as is the Bill before us today which punishes the innocent for the sins of the guilty. What is more, it imposes a system which is alien to this country, its institutions and heritage; that is, collective punishment on a group of people because of the sins of a single individual.
I fear, however, that it really is a bit of a waste of time speaking here. The Government refuse to listen; Ministers stick rigidly to their briefs. It seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. But, of course, things may change. We have had a change of government and therefore, it may very well be that Labour Ministers, new Ministers, will listen to what is being said, particularly by people who are expert like my noble friend Lord Howell who made an exceptional speech about the sport that is about to be destroyed completely.
I expected to see an Opposition amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, the same sort of amendment which was tabled in the House of Commons; that is, that

35
there is no justification for the Bill and for a total ban on handguns. Unfortunately, it is not there apparently because the Opposition believe that they are bound by the so-called Salisbury convention. I was tempted to table the amendment myself, but I thought that I would not receive sufficient support to carry it. In any event, as we have heard today, some amendments will be moved and, I hope, carried. Certainly, I shall support them.
Even if an item appears in the manifesto, there is a duty of proper consideration and consultation before legislation is brought forward. There has been no such consideration and consultation. We had a Bill within four weeks of Parliament sitting after the election. It was rushed through the House of Commons in less than two-and-a-half days. It takes away the livelihoods of certain people and a sport which they have enjoyed for decades, if not centuries.
What about legislation which is not in the manifesto? We never hear about that, yet my Government—the Government which I support—without consultation and without even informing the electorate within a few days of taking office decided to hand over monetary policy to the Bank of England. What do we say about manifesto commitments under those circumstances? Perhaps we had better think more carefully when bringing manifesto commitments in defence of the Government's unwarranted action in such a short time.
There is a possibility of amendments being tabled to improve the Bill, including better compensation for gun owners and traders and, it is to be hoped, gun clubs, too. I sincerely hope that if I spend time with other Members in this House agreeing and voting for amendments the House will stick to them and that it will not be intimidated by the House of Commons. If Members believe that the amendments are right and proper and will improve the Bill in spite of threats from down the corridor I hope that they will say, "They are right and we are going to stick to them." That is their right and it is their duty to the people of this country who believe that we have a bicameral and not a unicameral system of government. Therefore, I hope that we will stick to our guns. I really did not mean that!
The Prime Minister says that we have a moral duty to the children of Dunblane. That is a very emotive statement. I say to him that we had a moral duty to the people and the children of Dunblane, but when the authorities failed properly to enforce the law that Parliament had passed to control the ownership of handguns the authorities failed in their moral duty. It was not Parliament which failed in its moral duty; it was the people who failed to carry out the role of Parliament. Those people have not been punished for their neglect and failure, but they have arranged for innocent people to be scapegoated, demonised and punished to assuage and misdirect public outrage about the Dunblane massacre.
There is no evidence that the Bill will prevent future Dunblanes. It gives no guarantee that there will not be future tragedies such as Dunblane and its predecessors. Indeed, it is highly probable that during the past decade
36
there have been more killings by the police than by people using .22 pistols. That should be taken into account and the police should remember it.
Like its predecessor, this is a disgraceful and odious Bill. It is the kind of Bill expected from corrupt and authoritarian governments. It is not the kind of Bill that I expect from my right honourable, honourable and noble friends in a Labour Government. I hope that they will reconsider its contents very seriously indeed. I cannot wish it anything but ill passage and failure.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am the current chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee. It would indeed be strange if I were to welcome the Bill, having spoken strongly against its predecessor. However, I fully realise that the Bill is a manifesto commitment and therefore there is little we can do about it. Having said that, both the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, my noble friend Lord Peel and others have spoken about illegal weapons, which indeed are a sore on society. That is where government efforts should be channelled—to reducing the number of illegal weapons that are held throughout the United Kingdom. They are the real problem.
In my opinion, neither this Bill nor its predecessor will have any significant benefit for the safety of the public. All the arguments were addressed in the previous Session and I will dwell on them no longer. I urge the Government to make every possible effort to widen the scope of all compensation to address the dramatic and severe financial hardships which many small specialist manufacturers, individuals and clubs are experiencing through the effects of the previous Act, and which will be made considerably worse under this Bill. In many cases people, through no fault of their own, have had their livelihoods stripped away. That is a disgraceful situation in a country such as ours which is proud of its democratic history.
Many of those affected have substantial mortgages, loans and other borrowings which enabled them to run and expand their viable businesses and clubs when the threat of closure from legislation was never an issue. Now the threat of bankruptcy hangs heavily over them; indeed, many have already been bankrupted. Such people are suffering extreme hardship. Therefore, I put the strongest possible plea to the Minister for a widening of the Government's financial assistance to the genuine cases.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what safeguards are to be exercised to prevent unscrupulous persons from benefiting from the compensation scheme. I have in mind an allegation made to me a few days ago that some people are purchasing handguns, often old and virtually unusable, for little more than scrap value prices in order to attempt to benefit from the fixed compensation figure. That would be wrong. The money, if it could be saved, could be used to assist people who really need it in compensation for the small businesses they have lost and for the clubs that are closing.

37
Finally, it would be difficult to let the moment pass without saying how pleased I was to read in the Official Report of the other place the words of my right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, when he said that the Bill was,
"unnecessary and unfair".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/97; col.1173.]
Doubtless that breathtaking change of heart from Mr. Howard will provide much comfort to those outside Parliament who had their hobbies, their sports and perhaps their businesses taken away from them and have suffered grievous financial loss. One could say in response to Mr. Howard's statement, "Well, we tried to tell you at the time but you simply wouldn't listen". But being gracious in the great traditions of this noble Chamber, I put it down to the fact that I never have and never will understand the science of politics.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I think this is the first time I have seen a Bill with a different heading to its Title, because its main heading is "Firearms (Amendment)" but its Title quoted in Clause 3 is
"the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act".
All this Bill does is to prevent any British citizen having any handgun, and has removed any British citizen from taking part in any Olympic pistol shooting competition in Great Britain, which I feel is sad. No one in the United Kingdom will sponsor an Olympic sport which is illegal in this country.
Had Her Majesty's Government introduced legislation putting the offence of carrying an illegal gun in the same category as trafficking in drugs, it would have been most welcome. In Clause 2 the new addition of subsection (3) of Section 15 of the 1997 Act is almost incomprehensible. It states, as I read it,
"This section applies in relation to small-calibre pistols with the substitution",
of Section 1 of the 1997 Act by making it read Clause 1 of this No. 2 Bill. However, Clause 1 only removes the words "a small-calibre pistol" from Section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act but still allows muzzle loading pistols and air pistols. This paragraph (aba) was inserted by the 1997 Act. What has happened to Section 9 of the 1997 Act which deals with expanding ammunition?
In subsection (3), which adds a new subsection (4) to Section 16 of the 1997 Act, it seems to me that I can put off handing a gun into the police until 14th May 1997. But the trouble is that that date has passed and yet this Act has not yet come into force. How can the general public know what to do? I think that the Minister mentioned July and I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned 1st September. Therefore I feel that there is a little confusion here. In new subsection (4)(b) what happens to Section 9 of the 1997 Act which deals with expanding ammunition? If I use a rifle to kill a rabbit or a deer I want to be able to use expanding ammunition to be sure that I kill the animal. With solid ammunition the animal may escape and die slowly from its wounds, and that is the last thing I want.
38
In the schedule to the Bill a muzzle loading pistol appears to be permitted, because in Section 5(1)(aba)— inserted by the 1997 Act—the only words being omitted are "a small-calibre pistol" but a muzzle loading gun is included in the present legislation. Also in the schedule the repeal of Section 57(1A) of the 1968 Act and Section 1(9) of the 1997 Act—both meaning the same thing—seems to permit an air gun or pistol to be able to fire bullets larger than .22.
In the repeal of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act by this No.2 Bill, I am concerned about paragraph 3(1) of this schedule which states,
"The delivery of the pistol into police custody does not affect the validity of any firearm certificate authorising the holder to have it in his possession".
Let me assume I have a .22 pistol, an Army 45 pistol, a .243 rifle and a .270 rifle. Without the protection of Schedule 1 I may have to apply for a new firearm certificate to keep my rifles.
Finally, in assuming that muzzle loading pistols are permitted under the No.2 Bill, with the repeal of Part II of the 1997 Act (licensed pistol clubs)—in other words Sections 19 to 31—it appears to be possible for the owners of muzzle loading pistols to form themselves into a club without requiring any licence.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I want to say very little on this Bill. It is a Bill that I like even less than I liked its predecessor. Many of your Lordships have expressed concerns on important counts. One of those, as has already been mentioned today, has been the rushed reaction to a problem which neither the 1997 Act nor this Bill can possibly resolve.
My involvement with the earlier Bill was confined to an attempt to allow serving police and military shooters to continue to practise in their spare time with large calibre weapons—usually of the kind they are used to being issued with while in service. It seemed, and still seems to me, that the public interest was in no way being served by disallowing practice by serving officers while off duty with such weapons. The next Dunblane, as I said, may be one in which the quality and accuracy of police and military shooting may be crucial to a successful outcome; in a hostage taking position, for instance. To place an unnecessary restriction on police or military willingness and ability to improve with practice in their spare time, and at no cost to the taxpayer, could be thoroughly deleterious.
This Bill may well put the lid on any realistic possibility of improving that balance. I deplore it. However, there is another aspect which now needs highlighting—and some of your Lordships have done just that—that is, what I hope is not the start of a trend: the prevention of law-abiding minority groups from pursuing a diversity of activities which may nevertheless not be to the public taste. I neither fox hunt nor shoot with pistols, but I strongly deplore any oppressive majority use of its undoubted power to stifle such minorities. I hope we will see no more of this vindictive kind of legislation. I feel particularly helpless. It seems to me that one of the functions that your Lordships'

39
House should be vigorously pursuing—the defence of minority groups—is not a course open to it in present circumstances. And that I regret.
May I finally say that this unsatisfactory state of affairs, brought very much to the forefront by this Bill and its enacted predecessor, has triggered a display of political courage from some of your Lordships in a House I very much admire, not least because of such displays. I particularly have in mind the lone stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. His courage in taking the line that he did on firearms has been, and is, self-evident. That he should stick up for minority interests and for fairness and reason in the way that he has stands him very high, if I may humbly say so, in my own regard and, I am sure, that of others.
I very much hope that his example and that of others will remind noble Lords of one of the reasons why your Lordships' House stands so high in the public esteem— fair consideration of the subject matter; and that regardless of the risk of unpopularity.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, occupies at present a seat which is roughly equivalent to that from which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave many memorable deliveries. There must be something special about that Bench. However, joking apart, I have no interest to declare other than as a user of a shotgun. I do not use or own a handgun. My views are entirely my own and not those of any group.
Clearly the Government have a majority in another place; and they are fulfilling a manifesto commitment for a free vote. Therefore, although I question how free that might be in the light of comments made by senior politicians before the election, there is no point in obstructing the Bill. The chief effects have already been put in place under the terms of the 1997 Act. I should like to see the matter put behind us.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—to whom I add my tribute—I, too, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when the previous Bill was going through this House, and warned her that the rot starts here—or words to that effect. But with that feeling of déjà vu, I have to say that neither the size of majorities nor the strength of manifesto commitments makes this Bill right or good law. While a promise of zero taxation and improved benefits will no doubt attract many votes, it might also be economic suicide. So good government must at least equate with the ability to distinguish between public opinion on the one hand and legitimate public interest on the other, and the two are not the same.
However, political reality apart, I believe that, taken with the 1997 Act, this Bill is unreasonable, disproportionate and the subject of unproven and almost certainly false claims about public safety. We have heard much this afternoon about the number of illegal guns. There also seems to be a good measure of political opportunism if not spite. I refer to the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, on that point.
40
A wave of understandable public concern has resulted in a measure of what I can only describe as self-righteous indignation being used to pillory an admittedly law-abiding, innocent and regulated minority. What I feel is so palpably unjust is the inadequacy of compensation for those who have been peaceably conducting their businesses and who have taken part in running and organising clubs. Two wrongs do not make a right. Those people will feel cheated and bitter, and the principle underlying the Bill will be as unpalatable to them as infanticide is to others. That may seem an awkward analogy but I believe that it is a fair one.
The inference is that justice does have a price tag; and I very much regret that inference. Justice has to be done and to be seen to be done as regards compensation. I hope that in later stages of the Bill those points will be pressed because I see great social danger in the implicit assumptions that lie behind the current approach.
I could query further the question of public safety. All I say is this. I do not believe that the public safety benefits claimed are quantifiable. I am the father of three children, the youngest being five. I am not clear that I would feel any more comfortable about that youngest child going through the Channel Tunnel than being in a primary school perhaps without the benefit of this legislation. There are many more pressing matters concerning public safety. What about mountaineering, tobacco, alcohol, or people smoking while driving down the M.25, and so on? I could mention many more.
In common with many other noble Lords, I have a number of minority interests. As have other noble Lords, I ask myself what is to stop the Government of the day seeking to eliminate one or more of those activities at the behest of a pressure group. Is this perhaps the modern version of the witch hunt or the auto-da-fé?
In his opening remarks, the Minister confirmed what his right honourable friend said about the possibility of issuing special dispensations to foreign competitors, for instance to the Commonwealth Games. I heard his right honourable friend making those comments on, I think, the BBC's Radio 4. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, put his finger on what I agree is an absurd situation. The message is that Britons are less reliable, more prone to gun abuse and cannot be trusted within a free democratic society under a system of regulation; but overseas visitors carry no such stigma. That is not sticking up for Britain; it is discriminatory and prejudicial to national interests. It is very unfair. Apart from anything else, it looks bad.
The Minister will need to explain how it is that public safety and reassurance of the nation is served by this rather unequal, if not partial, approach. I again refer to the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in that respect.
What we have before us is a collective failure of Parliament to put head before heart. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to this point. It applies to both Conservative and Labour Parties. From these Benches I believe that I can comment without fear or favour. In opposition, the Labour Party advocated reference of many issues to a royal commission or a formal

41
commission of inquiry. I believe that there is now a case for removing the ability of short-term political reaction to govern the legislative process by a system of referral to an expert committee on the appropriate legislative response which can be debated in both Houses of Parliament. In the light of his party's previous contentions while in opposition, I wonder whether the Minister will care to comment.
In his opening remarks, the Minister also referred to the right to life coming before the right to a sport. With respect, that is comparing apples with tintacks; and I do not mean to demean or reduce the gravity of what he said. Life, risk, expectation and fulfilment are not susceptible to being rendered down to comparisons of that nature. If we are not to leave a durable and bitter taste of lasting nastiness and division in society, we in Parliament and in the governance of the nation in general need to be much more proficient in the handling of a response to irrational, violent behaviour against members of our community and in particular the young. A tit for tat response, rather like the biblical eye for an eye, is no answer. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the indecent haste of all this legislation, both as regards the 1997 Act and this Bill. I agree with him. It does not look good.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the culture of guns. That has worried me for a considerable time. But when I see computer games advertised as the "Ultimate shoot 'em up experience" I know that the rot within society is a good deal larger than the matter of licensed versus unlicensed guns; and our international role and trade mean that the problem is larger than the United Kingdom and indeed Europe. In that context this Bill and the preceding Act amount to gesture legislation. I would support them both if I thought that they would procure the objectives claimed for them. But I fear that they will not, and I feel it my duty from these Benches to stand up and say so.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, several noble Lords referred to the number of illegal weapons in circulation. It is vital that police management of firearms is addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, sought to cast the blame for Dunblane upon the Procurator Fiscal. But why did a very senior police officer resign if the police were not to blame?
The drafts of the thematic reports on the management of firearms by the Scottish police were submitted to Lord Cullen. That valuable piece of evidence was requested by a number of Members of Parliament, both in this House and in the Commons. The Scottish Office Ministers at that time, so I am informed by the former Lord Advocate, chose not to publish the drafts. The thematic reports for England were available. Please can the Scottish reports now be provided in the Library of the House?
I and others have raised this matter before, and we were fobbed off with various excuses. But with this further legislation we should be given the information that is in the reports. We should then be able to give an answer to the noble Lord. Lord Ewing, as to the
42
competence of the Central Police, who after all for 11 years had a chief constable who never set up proper procedures in Central and who has since then prepared a draft firearms Bill. This legislation, and the Conservative law that preceded it, seem to contain many identical phrases to those prepared by that chief constable. I therefore wonder how much Home Office officials have taken out of that draft Bill.
A small but quite important detail of compensation has come to my attention. Speedloaders and spare parts not on a certificate are not covered by the compensation regulations. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have agreed to make compensation available for those items? If other anomalies come to light, will these be covered by compensation?
The Minister will remember that during our debate in this House on 9th June I asked whether the police were satisfied that they could implement the instructions being debated in the order before the House, and I expressed doubt as to the feasibility of that. My noble friend Lady Blatch later expressed the same doubt.
Were there not requests from the police for a six- to eight-week extension on the time allowed for taking in the weapons? Was not the reply that the Government were content that the scheme could be up and running on the date specified and that it would run with reasonable efficiency? In view of the chaos that is already evident in relation to the distribution of documentation required by the police, does the Minister still believe that that answer was correct? Will he please now consider giving additional time to the police to collect the weapons?
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, I shall he brief, as the Government have a clear mandate to do as they like—although I hope that they will do what is just. The Bill before us has been cobbled together with undue haste. The police evidently agree with that point since in some forces they complain that the forms for compensation were received by them only 10 days ago. Does the Minister agree that the time limit for handing in weapons should be extended, as requested by those police forces? There are those who possess a firearms certificate but do not possess a driving licence. How are they to deliver their equipment—by bus? The form that shooters have been asked to sign is unsuitable; by signing it, a gun owner not only signs away ownership of the weapon before any compensation has been made to him, but also agrees to accept any compensation that the Government choose to offer. That could be nil if they so desire.
I also hope that disposal of the weapons by the police will come under some form of independent supervision in order either to make sure that the guns are thrown into a furnace and are all accounted for, or that they are disposed of in some other appropriate way.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel, who pointed out the gross hypocrisy and insulting attitude of the Government towards shooters in allowing foreigners permits to compete in the Olympic Games and Commonwealth sports but denying our own shooters the

43
right to compete in these competitions. Even the disabled are so denied. Shooting is one of the few sports in which people in wheelchairs and those who cannot get about like the rest of us can compete, and do so extremely well. We heard earlier that three gold medals were recently won at the Paraplegic Olympic Games. Setting aside how many or how few competitions are denied to these people, the fact is that this is an insult to our competitive shooters.
The Act does not increase public safety one jot and has damaged many small businesses and clubs, which are now having to close. The compensation that they are being offered is, frankly, derisory. This whole business is a step down the road towards taking away freedom and personal responsibility from our citizens through legislation. This legislation is inappropriate and very sad.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest, as I did previously. I am a life member of the National Rifle Association, president of the Bucks county rifle association and the holder of a firearms certificate. Many of the points I had intended to make this afternoon have already been made more eloquently and in a better informed way than I could have made them. Therefore I shall merely touch on two aspects.
The first is the suggestion by the Government that British competitors should travel overseas to train. That is practical only for those living near the Channel—let us say, those living in the south and those who are comparatively wealthy. That seems a curious effect for a Bill sponsored by a Labour Government.
Secondly, I wish to elaborate briefly on one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, on the effect of the Bill in another direction. In another place Ministers made much of the policies of the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association being in favour of a total prohibition on pistols. They even went on to allege that the Association of Chief Police Officers is either moving, or has moved, to a similar view. However, that was not the case only a few weeks ago.
One might be excused for thinking that that means that police officers who use pistols, and know a good deal about them, hold the same view. In fact, they do not. A good police shot is one who is interested in pistols. Such people often privately possess a number of such arms and frequently practise in civilian clubs. They, too, are to lose their private pistols; and they, individually, are as upset and disillusioned about what is happening as are many servicemen in a similar position. Police shots who so suffer under this legislation are puzzled that their views are not listened to. Their efficiency cannot but be impaired by the legislation.
The Government may say that chief officers are satisfied that the deficiency can be made good. They omit to say at what extra expense to taxpayers and ratepayers. It is, however, the view of many serving officers who use firearms that there will be a reduction in efficiency; and, all too often, that means a greater risk
44
to public safety. Reflecting what many noble Lords have already said, it is ironic that legislation intended to enhance public safety may, in certain aspects, reduce it. As we have often heard this afternoon, it does nothing to reduce or check the inflow of illegal pistols to this country, estimated by the police at over 2,000 a week.
Our family motto is nec prece nec pretio, neither by entreaty nor bribery. Nevertheless, I entreat those in another place to have another think about the Bill.
Finally, I have already been properly reprimanded for breaching the conventions of the House once this afternoon and I am afraid I shall do so again. When I put my name down to speak I understood that the debate would be limited to two hours, and it was initially. I said that I would host a reception in the Attlee Room at 6 o'clock, therefore I ask the indulgence of the House if, having spoken, I do not remain as I normally would until the end of the debate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, this afternoon your Lordships have demonstrated serious and deeply held convictions which demand the utmost respect. Arguments have been advanced as to the effect of a complete ban on handguns for sport and for the innocent sportsmen who practise the sport. Your Lordships have also been concerned about the knock-on effect for our position in international games. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, it may make a mockery of us in the eyes of other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, stated, with some seriousness, that banning handguns may by dint of international "crookery"—I think was the expression he used—deny us the Olympic Games in the future.
I also understand your Lordships' concerns about the disabled, for whom shooting is clearly a useful activity. Skills are involved with hand and eye co-ordination, which I must confess I do not possess. The test of those skills under the stress of competition is no doubt what it is all about. But there is no legitimate purpose other than sport for the possession of handguns.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that the legislation was the thin end of the wedge and that nobody would be able legally to hold a firearm in this country. However, there is a distinction between handguns which are used only for sport, rifles which are used for the purposes of culling and shotguns which are just a tool in the hands of the farmer or landowner. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that his statement was a little extreme.
But we must balance the use of handguns for sporting purposes against the danger to the public of handguns in the wrong hands. There is no other sport in the Olympic Games where an implement is used which has featured in criminal activity. I do not recall a javelin being used for that purpose, nor anything in archery or other implements of that nature. The general cry has beenߞ
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? Perhaps I may correct him

45
on the last point. Bows and arrows are used seriously in the countryside for the poaching of deer. It is a criminal activity, especially using cross-bows.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. There has been a general cry that the illegal possession of guns must be tackled and it is the illegal possession that is the problem. However, no one in the debate this afternoon has suggested how that should be done. I agree with my noble friend Lord McNally, who said that we must reverse the rising tide of the gun culture in this country and that gun control is the way to do it. If it requires the toughest gun laws in the world, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, so be it. Britain should lead on the issue and not follow. For example, we should not follow the United States where, as my noble friend pointed out, some 35,000 deaths from gunfire occur on an annual basis. We certainly do not want trigger-happy police officers. It would surprise your Lordships to know how many guns are issued on a daily basis in the London area to plain clothes policemen for carrying out their proper activities.
Dunblane was a terrible tragedy. It was even more terrifying because the perpetrator of the tragedy was a man who was a registered holder of guns and had been trained at a gun club. But the fact that the tragedy happened—and it was not an isolated event—must not conceal the fact that guns are used increasingly. When the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, opened the debate, he correctly pointed out that handguns are lethal and that even .22 guns and lower are quick-firing and easy to conceal.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the assassination of Robert Kennedy and President Rabin. He said that we must distinguish between those cases because those men were assassinated at close range by people who came up to them and shot them at point blank range. From my own professional experience, I can think of a number of cases where precisely that happened.
The first example that came to mind when the noble Lord made that remark was not a case in this country but in our former colony of Hong Kong. At a goldsmith's shop in Nathan Road, a man walked up to the two armed guards who were carrying shotguns outside the shop. He produced from his belt a handgun and assassinated the two guards at point blank range.
Lest it be thought that that is something which only happens abroad, I can recall another case in Liverpool about 18 months ago. In a busy shopping centre at lunchtime on a Saturday in the Aintree area, a man walked up to someone sitting in a car and shot him through the head. A third example that comes to mind is more recent, within the past 12 months, in Birmingham, where the act of stepping on a man's toe led to a quarrel
46
where the people concerned went outside. One man produced a handgun and shot at the other, fortunately not killing him.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, on those three occasions, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the guns were legally or illegally owned?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that is the precise point I seek to make. One must start by reversing a rising tide of gun culture in this country. There are more armed police, more armed robbers, and more people who are ready to use guns, particularly in the large metropolises of the country. One must start somewhere to tackle the problem. Making the holding of guns altogether illegal is a first step which I commend to the House.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I suggest that the proper place to start is with the illegal gun trade, not with legally held guns.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that is the question that I seek to address. Although the point was made by a number of noble Lords in today's debate who are rightly concerned about the loss of their sport, no one has put forward any practical step to attack illegal possession of guns. What does one do?—search every house in the country to find out where arms are hidden? That is impractical. One has to say that guns must cease to be held in this country, handguns which are lethal—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He made much of a rising gun culture in this country, as did his colleague. Does he agree with greater censorship? It is my view that a great deal of the cultural promotion of violence comes through video, television and film and not through law-abiding people going about a legal sport.
Further, given that the noble Lord made much of the point, and he cites evidence, does he have evidence that there has been an increase in crime with the use of legally held guns or even guns that were held legally which have been stolen to be used illegally?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness figures on that. I have to rely on my own experience over many years to inform your Lordships that there is a rising tide of gun culture, particularly fuelled by the drugs trade. But perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. She—or at least her department—promoted in the previous Parliament a Bill for banning knives. Knives were thought to be something which had to be tackled, although they could be used for legitimate purposes—for diving purposes and for hunting purposes. Nevertheless, one of the last Acts of the previous government was to ban the possession of knives. One could say equally in relation to those knives that one has to start somewhere. One has to change the culture that carrying knives will produce with people.
If the problem is approached from that angle and not from the sporting angle, which I entirely respect—I respect the views that have been put forward—the

47
balance firmly comes down against sport and in favour of the safety of the public. That is the public perception. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who said, in the course of the debate—at least it was the view that he expressed—that it was a stitch-up by the political parties to gain Brownie points with the electorate. Maybe the parties were joined together, because the public perception was that guns must be banned, weighing the sporting element against the need to deal with the gun culture that is rising. I also say that the noble Viscount's suggestion of a destruction certificate which would not result in the creation of armouries was an excellent one, which I hope the Government will consider.
This is not a party matter. As my noble friend pointed out, the Liberal Democrats have not advanced a particular party position on it. But I, for my part, fully support the Bill.
5.42 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before making any comments on the Bill, I should like to say that my heart still goes out to the families in Dunblane. What worse disaster could befall a small town.
When Parliament last looked at this matter, possible courses of action were constrained by public opinion being that "something had to be done"—that is clearly true—and that it had to be done before the anniversary of the Dunblane disaster. My right honourable friend in another place who was then Home Secretary had the unenviable task of striking a balance between the two interests while being under extremely effective political pressure from the Labour Party in the run-up to the general election. One was to satisfy the public's proper sense of outrage, which could not, of course, be vented upon the perpetrator; the other was to keep as much viable sport as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, pointed out that some sport was retained under the existing arrangements of the 1997 Act.
But, as a result, Parliament and in particular this House were not able to take a holistic view of the firearms legislation for which many had argued. Because of time constraints, your Lordships' House decided not to send the whole matter upstairs to committee. There is little point in doing so with this Bill because its Long Title, for good reason, is tightly drafted. Parliament also decided that disassembly was not the right solution, largely because of the judgment that public opinion would not be satisfied. It is interesting to recall that in your Lordships' House the then Opposition had some sympathy for one particular dismantling scheme.
Opening the debate, the Minister gave me some cause for hope. He claimed that a single shot pistol is too dangerous to permit. Perhaps he can explain why a single shot .22 pistol is more dangerous than a shotgun when it has been illegally modified to be a sawn-off shotgun.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his interesting speech, pointed out with characteristic vigour the difficulties facing the organisers of the Olympics and
48
Commonwealth Games. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, amplified those difficulties in his excellent speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, made the point concerning the destruction of handguns.
The Minister will claim that the police are above all suspicion. I have to remind him of the article which appeared in the Evening Standard on 2nd February last. It concerned the case of a police constable who appeared in court charged with seven counts of stealing various guns. It took three years for the offences to come to light. What kind of checks and controls did the chief constable have in place?
Given the concerns of the noble Viscount and others, perhaps the Minister can be tempted to agree to allowing partial destruction before guns are handed in. At present, the Minister claims (in correspondence) that that would be illegal. What guarantee can the Minister give that surrendered guns will not be exported, other than in very small quantities to museums?
Given that the Bill now before us honours an important manifesto commitment and is supposed to be popular and wise, it is a little surprising to note how few noble Lords from the Government Back Benches have spoken in support of the Bill. In fact there has been none. It reminds me of the time when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in winding up at Second Reading, was extolling the virtues of the 1997 Act. If my memory serves me aright, he had only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for company. Thankfully, the Minister enjoys a little more support today, but it is not from his own Benches.
After all this legislation has been implemented, Parliament will want to measure its success or otherwise. We shall ask questions to measure the dramatic falls in gun crime and injuries that many supporters of the Bill claim will ensue. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will look forward with interest to the figures, as will my noble friend Lord Stockton.
Throughout the passage of the 1997 Act, the Labour Party was remarkably consistent in demanding even tougher legislation, including a complete ban on handguns. It was in its election manifesto as a specific commitment and is trumpeted as the Labour Party's answer to the problem of illegal use and possession of firearms. Its position, as I understand it, is that if legal handguns are banned, then in some miraculous way, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, illegal ones will disappear. If that is not enough, public opinion, at least for the moment, clearly believes the Government's claims for the Bill. In these circumstances, the Salisbury convention will click in. Consequently, we on these Benches will not oppose the question that the Bill be read a second time, despite the fact that we believe it is a rotten measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that these Benches should oppose the Second Reading, as was done in another place. He also complained that the debate in another place was truncated. He makes a very important point. But although we cannot attempt to stop the Bill, we can debate it properly, as we did with the

49
1997 measure. There is even the possibility of the House agreeing amendments, which is also rather unlikely in another place.
These Benches will not table wrecking amendments. However, my noble friend Lady Blatch outlined our very serious concerns regarding the compensation amendments. From what we have heard today it seems that the Government will have to reconsider the whole matter of compensation, as so many businesses and clubs will have to close. If this measure is a moral imperative, it would seem to be immoral to drive its blameless victims into bankruptcy.
Not only do we have the problem of bankruptcy; we also have one in the surrender scheme. The Minister's response to the Starred Question from my noble friend Lady Blatch was far from reassuring. We are told that the scheme will work well and on time. The reality is that the Home Office keeps changing the paperwork which is making it difficult for the police to ensure that they will be able to implement the scheme properly. For instance, documents from one force invite certificate holders to sign away their rights when there is no obligation to do so, as so well described by my noble friend Lord Haddington. If police forces had been given more time to consult and implement, they might have been able to avoid those pitfalls.
Although the various police forces are independent, as is the nature of our policing system and as was pointed out by the Minister at Question Time, one would expect some consistency in approach. However, impressions are mixed. One police force appears to be abusing Section 29(1) of the 1968 Act to impose a blanket condition on certificates by means of a letter that the holder attends with his hardware at a specific time— which happens to be within working hours—at the police headquarters only. That specific police force covers one of the largest counties in the land.
The attitude of the letter was extremely hard and authoritarian and not user friendly. There was no suggestion that alternative arrangements could be made. That contrasts with the pleasant letter from another force which explains the background, draws attention to the compensation scheme and asks the certificate holder to attend at a reasonably local police station. Furthermore, the letter makes it clear that alternative arrangements could be made.
Sadly, I am told that the chief constable of that force is abusing his position by refusing to grant variations to certificates which only relate to handguns. That means that the certificate holder will have to outlay another £75 or so if he would like to move to rifle instead of pistol shooting—a point picked up by my noble friend Lord Balfour. That does not sound either fair or efficient. Bearing in mind the Minister's comments at Question Time, does he feel that it is reasonable not to grant variations to a certificate?
The reason for the difficulties is that the Minister is attempting to impose the surrender scheme before it is properly developed and tested. Quite why officials have not devised a satisfactory scheme in the time available is a mystery. At Question Time the Minister pointed out that officials have had since February to perfect the scheme.
50
Not only are we faced with those problems; there is also a cash flow problem that goes to the heart of the Government's ethos on business standards. When we discussed the compensation order two weeks ago, the Minister was not as helpful as perhaps he would have liked to have been. I should like the Minister to commit himself to paying all claims within 30 days from receipt of the hardware, complete with valid claims, under both the 1997 Act and this Bill. That would fit in well with the Government's policy on business ethics. However, he may not be able to do that and I therefore ask this question, of which I have given notice. Will he pay all valid claims within 60 days of the end of the handing-in period or will it be by the end of the calendar year or perhaps the financial year?
My noble friend Lord Stockton mentioned the possibility of further firearms legislation. I hope that this is the last piece of firearms legislation that we see in this Parliament, for two reasons: first, it ignores the need for the holistic approach to which I referred earlier; secondly, I understand that there is no manifesto commitment to make further changes. In conclusion, we think this Bill a rotten one but will not oppose the principle.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made which have been full, detailed and often informed. I gather from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that he now supports the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I carefully described the difficulties the then Home Secretary experienced in devising legislation that would meet the aspirations of the public and the shooting world. I do not accept the view that the Minister put forward.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take it that the noble Earl, speaking for the Opposition, therefore does not support the former government's production of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It must be one or the other. Do I take it that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says that the compensation scheme which the former government—the present Opposition—brought in under the 1997 Act was appropriate or not appropriate?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the compensation scheme is a different matter altogether.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, how is it different? It is allegedly an integral part of the scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spent some time in his winding-up remarks complaining that the Government had been derelict in setting up the compensation scheme in practice. What is his attitude?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on the point in relation to the compensation scheme. The compensation scheme is now set in a very different scenario. Under that Act there was at least an opportunity for gun clubs to survive, albeit in different

51
circumstances. However, there was at least an opportunity for the sport to continue and the clubs to survive. Under this Bill those clubs have no opportunity whatever and there is no survival opportunity for the sport. Therefore, the compensation arrangements have to be seen in that new scenario.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the one principle on which the Government stood firm was that there would be no compensation in any circumstance for loss of business for traders or clubs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, under that Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, is that a principle which the noble Earl supports?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, under the previous Bill, as the Minister knows full well, .22 shooting could continue—in difficult circumstances, but it could continue—and therefore there would be a viable role for a shooting club. Under this Bill there will be no role whatever for any shooting club that has a range shorter than around 25 metres. The circumstances therefore are completely different.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the circumstances are not completely different. Earlier this afternoon noble Lords said that businesses have gone bankrupt; clubs have had to close down and people have had to take out mortgages because they were unable to fulfil their financial obligations. All that happened before the Second Reading of this No. 2 Bill and therefore it is entirely attributable to the legislation brought in by the former Government—the present Opposition. If I have not misremembered, I understood that the noble Earl was hotly against that. But time goes past and the memory dims.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon maintained his principled objection. He is a purist upon that. I recognise his stance. He does not deviate. He does not blow with the wind and he does not change his mind as governments change. He has been consistent throughout. I admire him for that, though I happen to disagree with his approach on the principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right when she said that it is a matter of balance, and that was the approach put forward by noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is a conclusion about which people can disagree.
A large number of detailed questions have been asked. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, inquired about the difference in lethality between a .22 rimfire handgun and a sawn-off shotgun. The answer is plain, so I shall offer it. A sawn-off shotgun is a prohibited weapon already. The maximum penalty for possession is 10 years' imprisonment. The mere act of shortening a shotgun is itself an offence which carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment. Anyone who has had anything to do with practising in the courts knows perfectly well that if such a weapon is used—for
52
instance, in a burglary or a bank robbery—the mere fact of possession is always treated by judges, rightly I suggest, as a severely aggravating feature.
Other questions were asked, some of which were detailed and others of which were rather more panoramic. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked why the inspectorate report for Scotland on Firearms licensing has not been made public. My understanding, subject to further research and correction, is that the report was in draft form at the time the events in Dunblane occurred. It was thought thereafter that the Dunblane inquiry had overtaken the report.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I think that is yet another excuse.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not an excuse. It is an answer to a question. I have answered that question as courteously and fully as I can.
I was asked how those who possess handguns will be able to deliver their weapons to police stations if they do not have driving licences. I would guess that most people involved in target shooting travel to their clubs to shoot. I imagine that they have to transport their weapons to the clubs. In fact, I know that to be the case from personal experience. One should have thought that the problem of travel would not be insuperable.
Related questions were asked about the police and the time given for collection. As I said to your Lordships on the last occasion, we have agreed with ACPO and ACPO (Scotland) that three months is sufficient. We do not think it appropriate to change the arrangements at this very late stage. It ought to be possible. given goodwill, for all owners and possessors of handguns to be able to find a convenient time to hand in their weapons. It has been said that chief constables have differed. I hope that no chief constable has sent out an aggressive, harsh or impolite letter. I entirely agree with noble Lords that the tone of letters is important, particularly bearing in mind that former legal owners of property are to be dispossessed if the Bill becomes an Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked a specific question relating to speed loaders and spare parts. I confirm, as he asked me to, that although not covered by the compensation scheme the Government have agreed to make ex gratia payments for speed loaders and speed loader pouches surrendered by certificate holders and dealers. Ex gratia payments will be made to dealers who surrender quantities of spare parts for handguns.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, asked a specific question relating to the device, which is what it would be, of buying old, virtually unusable guns. I am happy to deal with his question. The compensation is payable only for handguns possessed lawfully on 16th October of last year. That will be evidenced on the individual's firearm certificate. I well understand the noble Earl's question and I hope that I have been able to reassure him on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about range and target equipment compensation. There are no plans to compensate clubs for range and target equipment. The

53
full list of items which will be compensated for was debated in the House on 9th June. Details have been circulated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to a police force which I think she was suggesting had behaved unlawfully. The advice given, as I understand it, is that from 1st July it will be illegal to possess a large calibre handgun unless the person in possession is a firearm certificate holder or registered dealer. In those cases the period for surrender continues until 30th September. On the best of our information, although I am always grateful to have further detailed corrections, police forces and their chief constables understand that.
A number of noble Lords said that unnamed police officers or police forces do this, that or the other. I cannot conceivably reply to assertions of that kind. However, I stress, as I said to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, earlier today, that if there are specific questions I am more than happy to have correspondence and to deal with matters as fully as I can.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may help by giving him the actual words from the letter from one police authority. The letter states:
"In order to ensure the orderly hand in of Firearms and ammunition which will become unlawful from the 1st July 1997".
I believe that to be wrong.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I can have the full letter then I repeat my assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that I shall do the best I can, as appropriate, to chase up that matter.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as I said to the Minister earlier, shooters who are having their guns taken away from them as a result of these various pieces of legislation have already been greatly inconvenienced. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that point. Therefore, it seems to me essential that he and his department instruct the officers of police in their various areas to make this whole process as easy as possible for the shooters to hand in their guns. I gave one example of there being only one point in south Wales where guns could be disposed of. In another instance the local police were insisting that the shooters hand in their guns on a specific day at a specific time. I do not think that is acceptable. We must make every effort to ensure that people can hand in their guns at their convenience as well as that of the police. That is all I am saying. I have received too many examples where the police have been far too stringent. Some consideration must be given to those people who have been greatly inconvenienced already by these two pieces of legislation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of what the noble Earl has said. As I tried to say earlier this afternoon, if people are to be dispossessed as a judgment of Parliament, they ought to be treated with decent consideration as all people should be who have to come into contact with public administration in any circumstance. I repeat that if I am given chapter and verse I shall do my best to take what
54
steps are appropriate within the relationship that there is between central control at the Home Office and independent, autonomous operational decisions by chief constables.
I do not think there is anything between the noble Earl and myself about what the proper approach should be. I entirely sympathise with the feelings shooters have that they have been dispossessed unfairly. I do not agree with them but I fully understand their views. I am familiar with people who enjoy handgun practice. I am familiar with police gun ranges. I know how involved people become within their sports. That is a judgment which Parliament has made on an earlier occasion and may make again on this occasion.
The noble Baroness asked me where the money would come from. At Second Reading in another place on 11th June (at col. 1164 of the Official Report) my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated that the additional sums would be met from within the Home Office budget. The additional sum is a relatively small amount compared with the total compensation that was to be provided by the present Shadow Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, asked a number of questions relating to security. The police have the necessary expertise in dealing with security. They have the present task of vetting existing clubs. They have to make decisions about how clubs, dealers and individuals store their weapons. Where a chief officer of police may need extra advice he is perfectly entitled to look for it either from the Armed Forces or from the Health and Safety Executive.
The noble Viscount also asked about the destruction of weapons. There is no question that weapons handed in for compensation will be sold abroad in the generality. All weapons will be destroyed by police under local arrangements. A few guns will be retained by chief officers of police for training purposes or they may be taken by museums for public display. For destruction certificates to be handed out by the thousand to individuals would place a wholly intolerable burden on police forces and add unnecessarily to bureaucracy.
The question regarding the claim form has led to certain misunderstandings. I shall read the declarations on the claim form,
"(a) I hereby declare that by surrendering to the police on … (date) the item or items described in Part C of this form, I have relinquished any entitlement to the ownership or use of the said items.
"(b) I will accept any payment made in relation to any items claimed for under Options (A) or (B) as a settlement of my claim in relation to those items."
Nothing could be simpler and it is perfectly plain. It means that the declaration, if it is read and understood, applies only to claims made under Option (A) and Option (B). It does not apply to Option (C) claims. Therefore, the declaration in paragraph (B) simply makes implicit in the choice of Option (A) or (B) that the individual is prepared to accept payment either at the relevant flat rate or the listed value for the items. It is as simple as that. If there have been concerns I am glad to put them right and I hope that I have done so.

55
Questions were raised about the power of .22 rim-fire weapons. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned that. Lord Cullen dealt with that at paragraph 9.42 of his report in referring to the evidence of Mr. David Penn. He is a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee and I believe that at the time he gave evidence he was a member of the BSSC. Lord Cullen's citation from that evidence was,
"Mr. Penn added that in terms of pure precision the .22 calibre was capable of levels of inherent accuracy beyond the skill of the shooter".
Perhaps I may deal with the powerful contribution of my noble friend—we still are!—Lord Howell. A certain amount of misunderstanding has crept in and it is very important that I make the position as plain as I can. There is no doubt that the games will take place in Manchester in the year 2002. The contract can only be breached for two reasons—that is to say, natural disaster or lack of proper organisation. I mention this because it may be useful. Manchester's original bid for the games did not include shooting events. They were included only after representations by New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the Falklands. The hosting of the Olympic Games is not dependent on the games containing specific events. The inclusion of individual events is a matter between the host nation and the Olympic committee. It is clearly important to bear in mind—
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps I may assure him, having done this myself, that one has to give a clear undertaking to the International Olympic Committee that all the events outlined in the programme will be held in the host city. That obligation cannot be escaped. I shall be grateful if my noble friend can check on the source of his statement about that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I shall check. If I am wrong I shall write to my noble friend immediately. I repeat, that my information is that Manchester's original bid did not include shooting events.
Lord Howell: My Lords, that is the Commonwealth Games.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I said that in my remarks. I made it clear that the original bid did not include shooting. I also went on to say that 53 out of 60 countries made representations that shooting should be included. It was quite clear that Manchester would have been looked on very unfavourably—there may well have been some boycotting—if it had not eventually succumbed to including shooting in the games. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, it is clear that we shall be put in serious jeopardy in future in bidding for international competitions if we exclude shooting as one of the sports.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, shooting does not have to be excluded. Seven pistol events out of 28 shooting events in the games will be affected, but 21 will not.
56
The position is the same with the Paralympics and the Olympic Games in general terms. More activities will be allowed than will be disallowed.
The noble Baroness asked me specifically about the Section 5 arrangements. The Secretary of State can issue an authority in writing to any person and any such authority can be subject to any conditions specified in it. We do not believe that from our consultations with the affected police force, that there will be any difficulty provided it has the opportunity to put its organisation in hand as soon as reasonably practicable.
The question of legal and illegal guns has been discussed by a number of your Lordships. Lord Cullen said at paragraph 9.98 of his report,
"Given that lawfully held handguns are identified in firearm certificates, the opportunity for them to 'disappear' is much less than if they were not identified at all".
I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, and which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is a multi-faceted question. No single remedy will produce the result. There is a rather macho culture that guns are somehow acceptable in our community. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, a gun crime related to drugs is extremely serious. No one on this side claims or pretends that this is a complete answer. We say that there is very significant public support for the stand that we have taken. It was a clear manifesto commitment. There was a significant majority for the present Government. As recently as 6th June— according to the poll in Daily Telegraph, for instance— 83 per cent. of those polled supported the Government's announcement of a ban on all handguns. That is the fact.
Particular questions were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, about muzzle-loading pistols and air weapons. The exemptions as regards those weapons remain and they are not affected by this Bill. The prohibition on expanding ammunition, together with the exemptions for the lawful shooting of deer, vermin and other animals, are not affected by this Bill. If handguns and rifles are both held on a certificate, the handguns will be deleted and the certificate will then continue relative to the appropriate weapons.
A specific question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, about the effect on the training of military and police personnel. ACPO, its Scottish equivalent and the MoD, were consulted on this point, most recently in February of this year. They did not come to the conclusion that legislation would have a damaging effect on training.
I hope that I have dealt with every question that has been put to me. If I have not, I shall he happy to write. I repeat, that if there has been graceless correspondence on anyone's part I am more than happy to review it. The truth is—and we return to where the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, began—that we have to set a balance of judgment. We hope that such a balance of judgment for which we contend will he supported by your Lordships' House. It was supported by the public in the general election and in another place. That does not determine your Lordships' judgment in the slightest way and neither should it. We simply believe that it is

57
necessary; that it is required and our public duty to go further than the present Act and that is what we aim to do by placing this Bill before your Lordships.
I do not believe that it is right—
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes perhaps I may get one point absolutely certain. The noble Lord made reference to a reduction in the gun culture in this country, and reference has been made to that by a number of noble Lords in their speeches. The noble Lord also referred to the macho image. Is he telling the House that by depriving 40,000 people with licences to conduct themselves as pistol shooters, that he is going to have any effect at all on the gun culture and the macho image of shooters in this country?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, pathetic!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord says "pathetic", but I am not quite sure what he was referring to.
I am saying that we need to attend to serious dangers which affect significant parts of our country; in particular, small children at school. We need to attend to other people who in the course of their everyday employment are threatened by people who are sophisticated criminals who find it easy to get access to guns. Part of that, we believe, is to deal with this particular question in this particular way. I do not suggest for one moment—it would be absurdly simplistic or, to coin a phrase, "pathetic" to do so—that it is a total answer. What we are doing is placing this Bill before your Lordships in the context of what we know: that it was fully discussed and debated at the general election and that the other House has discussed it and come to its conclusion.
I should like one last word: it is wrong to say—I hope that at some stage it may be withdrawn—that the parents of the children of Dunblane and those in the Snowdrop group could in any sense be properly claimed to be persecuting the innocent.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Stonehenge
6.20 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to review the position at Stonehenge.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proud and, indeed, honoured to be opening this short debate on what is a major architectural, conservation and archaeological problem; namely, the future of Stonehenge. Your Lordships have shown by your response in putting down your names to be considered to speak on this issue the importance you attach to it. In fact, I was vastly encouraged that almost as many names were put down to speak to this Unstarred Question as to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. On this side, more than one Front-Bencher is down to speak and I am glad that the official policy of the Opposition is in the capable hands of
58
my noble friend Lady Rawlings. I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord has already demonstrated in this House that he is deeply concerned with environmental problems.
What a saga it has all been! The contemporary debate opened in 1984–85 when English Heritage played a leading role and instigated an important report on the subject. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who was then chairman of English Heritage, for his foresight, tenacity and consistency which at one time seemed to be leading to a consensual solution. O si sic omnes. Since his departure, there has been nothing but muddle, confusion and conflict. Five years have passed but virtually no progress has been made. Debate has dissolved into a welter of fads and fancies, road schemes, visitor centre projects, intemperate language and confusion.
On appointment, the present chairman of English Heritage committed himself personally to solving the Stonehenge problem. Alas, it has not happened. Other things have, however. The distinguished commission, of which I am privileged to be chairman, has been denigrated. I shall not reply in kind. It is part of the small change of heritage life, but what is important is the way in which the civil servants at the Department of National Heritage have been branded as incompetent and ignorant. From my knowledge of working with them, I pay tribute to them for their dedication and knowledge of this cause. I should like also to express my appreciation of the work of the employees of English Heritage. We have always had the most cordial relations with them.
Perhaps I may glance back a few minutes for guidance to facilitate our progress in the future. First, there is the road problem. In one sense, it is simple. There are two roads: the A.303 to the south and the A.344 to the north. Both come too near the stones. One should be closed (the A.344) and the other should be diverted. That is where the rub comes. Diverted where? To the north, to the south, or sunk into a long tunnel beneath the site?
A long tunnel is not the right solution to this problem. That is the considered view of the Royal Fine Art Commission. It is unacceptable on both aesthetic and financial grounds. It would require an eastern portal within the World Heritage Site. It would require link roads, ventilating shafts and a control building, all of which would be unsightly. Furthermore, it would be quite impossible to raise from the Government the £ 300 million that would be required for the project. The obsession with a tunnel has contributed more than anything else to the present impasse. The great Lord Salisbury said that the commonest mistake in politics is clinging to the carcasses of dead policies. I hope that the Minister in his reply will remove the tunnel once and for all from our deliberations. The RFAC' s preferred solution is the northern route since the southern route goes through National Trust land.
Inextricably linked with the road problem is that of a visitors' centre. A visitors' centre is not a blessing; it is a necessary evil. There must be access to the stones, but it must be relieved and regulated. One of the profound problems of our time is how to ensure that people have access to our heritage without destroying the very thing

59
they have come to see. So sites for visitors' centres have multiplied with bewildering prolixity. At one time, eight alternatives were put forward for consideration by English Heritage. They have been moved around so that at times it has been more like a wigwam than a building. First, it was to be at Larkhill. Then English Heritage suggested that there should be two visitors' centres: one at King Barrow and the second at the Countess roundabout, to be linked by a hypothetical train. Then the dual sites were abandoned. The latest hare-brained scheme surfaced only last week: to move the present unsightly car park from one side of the A.303 to the other side of the road. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renfrew will comment from his profound knowledge on the archaeological implications involved. I hope also that the Minister will indicate the Government's attitude in his reply.
Finally, the architect was sacked and the whole mélange was transformed into a private finance initiative proposal and a bid to the Millennium Commission. The peripatetic visitors' centre was sent back to Larkhill at the very moment when the Millennium Commission was nearing a decision. Since the cost was £ 44 million and the private 50 per cent. consisted of a possible £10 million from Tussaud's plus a black hole which nobody appeared willing to fill, the Millennium Commission, which has been much censured, came not unsurprisingly to the conclusion that it could not support it.
So what is now to be done? Perhaps I may with all earnestness suggest this to the Minister. I do not put this forward as my personal view, but speak on behalf of the Royal Fine Art Commission. We offer our full support to efforts to solve the problem because this problem is simply too big, too important and too complex to be left to any quango or private body. There must be a government initiative at the highest level. Will the Secretary of State for National Heritage give the lead? Nothing less than a Cabinet level decision will now suffice.
I go further and suggest that the Prime Minister may help by intervening. After all, Stonehenge is a much better cause than the millennium dome, which is not even a dome; it is a tent. Irrespective of party, I believe that the Prime Minister has won considerable admiration for his vision, energy and willingness to tackle complex problems. If he, the Secretary of State and the noble Lord who speaks for the Government on this subject in this House were to unite together in action this evening this providential project might yet be saved.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, for tabling this Unstarred Question. He has most eloquently drawn attention to the sad state of Stonehenge, which is the most important megalithic monument in Europe and a world heritage site. We seem totally unable to come to grips with the problem of how to protect a monument of this stature, particularly in the days of mass tourism. Stonehenge, which is now called the Gateway to the Wessex Experience—whatever that may mean—is
60
visited by 700,000 tourists a year. The site itself and the visitor centre have been rightly described as a national disgrace by a Select Committee of another place.
Stonehenge stands on virtually an island site, with a main road on each side. English Heritage proposes that the A.344, which runs close to the great stones, should be closed and grassed over and 2,000 acres of Wiltshire downland should be restored to a natural setting. There would be a new visitor centre one kilometre away and most visitors would be required to approach the monument on foot. The scheme, which would cost £44 million, would be financed by £22 million of lottery money and a similar investment by the Tussaud group. This proposal has been turned down most disappointingly by the Millennium Commission. The commission says that it is oversubscribed and that this great plan is in competition with a number of other projects, notably, one supposes, the stately pleasure dome decreed for Greenwich, which one understands is to be only a temporary structure.
The English Heritage scheme may have faults, particularly as the scaled down scheme does not address the long-term problem of the A.303, yet it is an attempt to deal with the present situation. If finance had been forthcoming the scheme could have been approved in detail. At least there would be some action instead of the stagnation that has existed for a number of years, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, has said. This shabby treatment of Stonehenge, which is surely an eminently suitable candidate for the millennium celebrations, is an absolute disgrace. I hope that my noble friend can give an indication that the new Government will do something at last to give this great monument the protection and setting that it deserves.
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the subject this evening. Stonehenge represents a collective failure of government over the years to implement a successful scheme both to provide public access and protect this world heritage site. However, I believe that English Heritage has made huge progress in recent years. The main problem is that, although Stonehenge is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, a successful scheme requires the co-operation of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport. The problem is an inter-departmental one. But it requires more than co-operation; it requires their active support and encouragement. The Department of Transport does not really want to spend any money because this is not one of its priorities. The MOD does not want to become involved with its excuses of bunkers and bangs, but in reality it too has a money problem.
English Heritage put forward a bid to the Millennium Commission but was turned down without any proper explanation. I do not believe that that is good enough. The Secretary of State is responsible not only for Stonehenge but for English Heritage. As chairman of the Millennium Commission, he is responsible to Parliament. If progress is to be made I believe that the Government must come clean and provide an answer. Knowing that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, believes in open

61
government, I hope that he will he able to enlighten us this evening. Was the bid considered unsuitable because it involved PR funding? Was it not "millennium" enough? Was it because it was a pagan and not a Christian monument? Was it not capable of being completed by the year 2000? Will the Millennium Commission spend all of its money in Greenwich?
Endless routes have been proposed to the stones: under, through and round. I believe that the only alternative not yet considered is over. The two routes for the A.303 that appear to offer the best chances are a tunnel, the final estimated cost of which is I believe £80 million and not £300 million; or the northern route, with either one or two short tunnels. I do not argue the merits of either; both have advantages and disadvantages, but at some point we require a decision from the Government. Both will cost a large amount of money and will probably take 10 years to complete. We must now consider what can be done to improve access and to provide a visitor centre with the closure of the A.334. Should a bid now be addressed to the National Heritage Memorial Fund? We require an answer from the Minister.
I remind the House that the bid did not involve the A.303. It involved simply the visitor centre, parking, access and closure of the A.334. I believe that a cheaper temporary alternative is being mooted which involves moving the centre into a dip nearer to Larkhill. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that. I should also like to know whether the Government believe that there should be free access to Stonehenge. I understand that that would cost £0.5 million per annum. That is a small sum when it is considered that English Heritage now sell-generates a revenue of over £24 million per annum.
We believe that the Secretary of State should give a lead. All noble Lords on this side of the House wish him the best of luck. We hope that he will be able to bring forward a scheme. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord St. John that to achieve success will require more than one Minister.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in my five-and-a-half years as chairman of the National Trust I was almost continuously involved with Stonehenge. My first meetings were with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, when he was chairman of English Heritage. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to speak he will agree with me that we worked together well.
Much of the world heritage site is in trust ownership, although the stones themselves are in the care of English Heritage. There are two separate but closely linked problems: the A.303 road improvements and the issue of the visitor centre and the A.344. I believe that the A.303 is the more intractable of the two problems.
The original routes proposed were completely unacceptable to the trust and English Heritage. They would unashamedly have destroyed the very qualities that give the whole area its international importance. The Government withdrew those two proposals. We then worked to find an alternative route to the north. The then Minister, Mr. Stephen Norris, was helpful in getting the
62
MoD on side. The costs were reasonable. However, we allowed ourselves perhaps to be beguiled by the ideal, but hugely expensive, plan of a very long tunnel.
I dispute the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that the cost of that tunnel would be only £80 million. I believe that that figure should be multiplied by at least three. The net result was a rather dangerous stalemate. But we now have a government with new ideas and I ask them to look again at the northern route. It is the only practicable route. It is one which also respects this archaeological jewel. There was not a great deal of difference between us and the Highways Agency in 1995.
I turn now to the visitor centre. The current centre is widely recognised as a disgrace. If Stonehenge is to be respected, the centre must be moved out of the world heritage site or to its edge. At the same time, and for the same reason, the A.344 must be closed as a public highway and grassed over. Everyone to whom we have spoken has agreed with that. Generally speaking, everyone has always accepted that. There is, after all, a good alternative route for the A.344 traffic.
In the past few years—that is to say, during my time on the trust—English Heritage was looking at a site on the A.303 at the Countess roundabout. Land was acquired. Plans were drawn up. A PFI scheme was proposed. A commercial developer had been selected, as has been said. I am not clear why the scheme was turned down by the Millennium Commission. At any rate it was turned down. I have not been able to determine the reasons, although I note what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, said. I hope that the Minister will tell us something. Perhaps it was too big, or too commercial, or kept changing. I do not know.
Nevertheless, the vision of Sir Jocelyn Stevens and others of marking the millennium by turning this wonderful place—this world heritage site—into a millennium park is a good one. We, English Heritage and the trust, need to go back to the drawing board and perhaps approach the problem in a lower key and step by step. We must never lose sight of the vision and the integrity of the site. We need to march in step with the Government.
There is much important detail which I have not been able to discuss. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will endorse the three key points: to reconsider the northern route for the A.303; to relocate the visitor centre away from the world heritage site; and to grass over the A.344.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in welcoming my noble friend's timely Question, I feel strongly that the situation at Stonehenge today is a terrible reflection on our nation. Here we have our most famous international monument treated over the years more like a neglected site in eastern Europe. Ironically, we are the envy of the world in the way that we have looked after our historic buildings and monuments, but Stonehenge is a blot on that reputation, for as decades have gone by successive governments have brushed the problem under the carpet. So in spite of many different plans, basically little was decided—and all this against a background of increasing pressure on the site.

63
Today's public opinion was aptly reflected by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons when it described the Stonehenge visitor facilities as a national disgrace. When I was appointed first chairman of English Heritage in 1984, one of the first decisions of the commission was to set up a study group to investigate the situation and suggest solutions. That group, which represented all interested parties, consulted widely and worked commendable fast but thoroughly, and so by January 1985 we were able to present a report to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The report embraced four main principles laid down by my commission: first, to restore Stonehenge in its natural landscape; secondly, to close the A.344; thirdly, to build an interpretation reception centre and museum at Larkhill, invisible from the monument; and, lastly, to open up a pedestrian access by way of a three-quarters of a mile walk from Larkhill to the stone circle through the historic landscape.
The report was widely welcomed and accepted, but the scheme got bogged down, particularly as a result of objections by the Ministry of Defence to the access road. In order to find an agreed solution, I remember taking a whole series of Ministers to Stonehenge, although none of them remained in office for very long, and one of them was literally promoted to higher office by a mobile telephone call while he was inspecting the site. That was our present Opposition Chief Whip.
When in 1992, with great frustration, I handed on the problem to my successor, I felt that he was right to seek alternative solutions, and I have followed with interest the various plans produced in the past six years. The so-called near perfect solution entailed a very long tunnel, which many felt was not entirely necessary, too ambitious and, worse still, politically unobtainable.
The time has now come to practise the art of the possible and forget about ideal solutions. In my view it is time to go back to the Larkhill solution, but this time to make it happen. No government department or institution can solve the Stonehenge problem alone, however ingenious their proposals. It demands firm political will. There is now no alternative but urgently to ask the Prime Minister to form a Cabinet Committee which should contain Secretaries of State for the Department of National Heritage, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment and Transport, and give them a firm brief to find a solution and fix a programme for its completion.
Most important, it equally behoves all interested parties to be more flexible. The Ministry of Defence must fully co-operate to facilitate northern access to the Larkhill site and the Department of Transport must agree to close the A.344. English Heritage should be encouraged to restart negotiations under the private finance initiative to involve a commercial company like Madame Tussauds to create a proper information centre and museum. English Heritage should be able to contribute some finance, and so it must drop its suggestion that entry to Stonehenge be free. Charging is essential, as Stonehenge will then be able to make a contribution to English Heritage which would be available for investment, together with private resources, to build the reception centre.
64
The National Trust may well have to agree to some compromises and the local authorities and pressure groups must equally be encouraged to co-operate. The striving for the perfect will be an enemy to the good. One thing is certain: no solution can be imposed without upsetting someone. That may include some local people and even some distinguished archaeologists.
Admittedly, any solution will cost money, but I believe that the nation would agree that this was an ideal candidate for lottery money. People are puzzled that Greenwich has been allotted so much money for a temporary exhibition, whereas here we have an opportunity of improving—or perhaps I should say saving—our most visited national monument. There must be no more excuses. The buck has now firmly stopped at the feet of the present Government. The fact remains that Stonehenge belongs to the nation. It is a government problem, not English Heritage's which only manages the site on behalf of the Government.
I conclude by saying: no more cheap compromises; urgently dust off and study the English Heritage 1985 Larkhill plan. With political will and resolution, jointly financed by government, English Heritage, lottery and private resources, the scheme can be in place by the millennium. The nation and the world have waited too long; it now time for action.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley does us all a service when he draws attention to Stonehenge, our greatest national monument, and to the lamentable manner is which it is displayed—a national disgrace and a sordid example of government neglect.
In the 20 years since I have been a member of the Ancient Monuments Board and its successor under English Heritage, we have seen successive Ministers, encouraged by the chairman of English Heritage, now the redoubtable Sir Jocelyn Stevens, for whose energy, commitment and persistence I have the greatest admiration, seek to enlist Cabinet support to overcome the relatively minor practical problems of rehabilitating Stonehenge. But each has been thwarted by inertia, and by those two great founts of inertia and recalcitrance, the Ministry of Defence (in its domestic aspect) and the Highways Agency.
The latter, just a few years ago, announced its intention of widening the main trunk road (the A.303) which runs near and to the south of Stonehenge. It engaged the nation in a whole polychrome cartography of pink routes and green routes and hypothetical tunnels, only to conclude after a so-called consultation exercise that to do anything would be untimely and far too expensive. To place the A.303 in a tunnel so that visitors to Stonehenge are no longer distracted by the sight and sound of vast lorries lumbering by may well be a long-term objective, but it is not the present concern. It can await the next brainwave of the Highways Agency.
There are three main problems facing Stonehenge today: the sordid car park, right beside the monument; the minor road (the A.344) which runs through the

65
monument, separating the heel stone from the Stonehenge Avenue, and the need for an adequate visitor centre to offer interpretation and other facilities for tourists.
There is a minimal solution to two of those problems. There is near unanimity in the archaeological and conservation world—and I speak here with the authority of English Heritage—that the right access point for Stonehenge is from the north, on foot, from Larkhill, some three-quarters of a mile away. There is near unanimity that the A.344 should be closed so as to form a great landscape, uninterrupted by cars, with Stonehenge at its centre and where the numerous other prehistoric monuments—the Stonehenge cursus, the various long and round barrows—could be visited on foot. That could and should be a millennium scheme.
It follows that the right place for the car park is at Larkhill. I agree with my noble friend Lord St. John that the Fargo proposal is an absolute non-runner. Aspects of that have been agreed already by the Ministry of Defence but there is the problem of the access road. It understandably does not wish to afford public access to the military base. But some practical way can surely be found to overcome that problem.
The third problem is the visitor centre. There are arguments for placing it at Larkhill. But to do that would be to build within a world heritage area, and there are legitimate reservations. Perhaps the main visitor centre should be at the Countess roundabout, near Amesbury, the location for the failed millennium bid in its earlier form. But in any event that need not be part of the initial, minimal first phase.
The essential minimal package is to close the A.344; to create a great landscape around Stonehenge once again; and to shift the car park to Larkhill where it could be accompanied by toilets and a modest, minimal sales point, as at present at Stonehenge, but intelligently designed to avoid the present squalor.
Is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State for National Heritage might actually speak with the Secretary of State for Defence and make it possible for English Heritage to implement this modest scheme in time for the second millennium of our era and the conclusion of Stonehenge's fifth millennium?
6.51 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is to be congratulated on introducing the subject of Stonehenge at a critical moment, following the election of a new Government and the rejection by the Millennium Commission of the English Heritage scheme.
Those, such as myself, who have not spoken previously on Stonehenge find the story of the failure to conserve it worthily very depressing reading. Its name, so he has told us, is engraved on the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and possibly also on that of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.
We are now faced with the possibility of entering the next century with an arrangement which is generally regarded as being a national disgrace—tawdry,
66
inadequate and even dangerous. That sense of disgrace will be intensified greatly if nothing is done in conjunction with the millennium celebrations.
The allocation of so many hundreds of millions of pounds to the transient festival dome at Greenwich seems altogether disproportionate. Whatever our personal view about how that portentous moment in time should be recorded, one really would think that Stonehenge would merit the £22 million that it sought.
What I find particularly sad is that English Heritage, in its final proposal, has come up with what seems to me to be the optimal solution. It represents a middle way between doing too much and too little. I am greatly relieved that its original proposal of last winter was scrubbed. Certainly it would have doubled the amount of land to be put back to pasture and its visitor centre would have been 4 kilometres away from the stones and largely underground. But it would have involved also the creation of a theme park of ancient history. I imagine that that would be along the lines of the Yorvik Exhibition at York. The awesome mystery of the stones and earthworks in their lonely setting would surely have been immeasurably diminished by such contemporary animation and commercialisation.
Above all, I deplore the concept of a train system, however well designed, which it was suggested should waft millions of visitors around the area. Under the modified scheme, I admit that the visitor centre is only a kilometre or so from the stones and on National Trust land, but from there visitors will have to take to their feet. They will thus approach the monuments in the only correct way, and I hope that they will get there for free.
Of course, the situation is complicated also by the road problem and the Department of Transport's endorsement last year of the proposed grassing over of the A.344 and the concept of the A.303 long bored tunnel, although it has made a statement that the tunnel, not surprisingly, is not affordable at present. The grassing of the A.344 everybody agrees on. I am reminded that there is a most admirable precedent for it in the grassing of the A.33 along the banks of the Itchen near Winchester as part of the M.3 motorway scheme where for a mile, where there was a road, there is now complete silence. That is what we should find with the A.344.
As to solving the problem of the route of the road, that clearly will take longer. One hopes that at this stage the Government will grasp the nettle and remove the frustration which everybody feels in relation to the question of how to deal with the united suggestions of English Heritage and the National Trust on improving Stonehenge.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in speaking this afternoon, I must immediately declare an interest as a commissioner of English Heritage. I too thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for providing the opportunity to discuss Stonehenge, although I did not altogether recognise his version of events when he described the long and very difficult debate about

67
Stonehenge in the past few years. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the efforts of English Heritage and its chairman, Sir Jocelyn Stevens.
On 13th June, the millennium commissioners turned down the bid prepared by English Heritage in respect of Stonehenge. If that bid had found favour—whatever criticisms one might make—significant public benefits would have flowed. But it did not happen and, as is their perfect right, the commissioners gave no reason for turning down a lottery bid. I make no complaint about that. However, in the absence of an explanation, speculation is legitimate, as it is indeed inevitable.
My strong hunch is that the commissioners felt that in the case of Stonehenge, the private finance initiative route was not appropriate. If that were so, I have some sympathy. I cannot pretend that I have ever been entirely comfortable with that approach.
By any judgment, Stonehenge is a site of epic significance. That feature of our country's past pre-dates even the great pyramids. It is internationally revered by laymen and scholars alike. It is etched indelibly on our consciousness. As a world heritage site, the whole of mankind has a stake in it. But responsibility for Stonehenge is a British responsibility and the world looks to, and will continue to look to, the British Government to discharge that responsibility.
The PFI element of the millennium bid was strong and imaginative. It was an honourable attempt at partnership by an honourable group in the private sector. Yet I am left wondering whether it was not an ill-judged approach. Even if it is beyond the powers of most of us to conjure up a picture of the origins of that great monument, any vision we can bring to mind will portray an ancestry of awesome power, energy, faith and authority. Have we really fallen so low, are we so devoid of a sense of history, is political will and leadership so far decayed that we cannot even maintain, still less feel a sense of pride in, our foremost ancient monument without having to call in a leisure company to shore up the enterprise?
How then was the decision arrived at to incorporate a PFI dimension into the bid? As an English Heritage commissioner, I never challenged that approach for one simple reason: I never considered that there was an option. My understanding has always been and remains that it was an imposed decision.
Let us draw a line. English Heritage has a new proposal to which reference has been made. It is known as the Larkhill solution. In heritage terms, that plan embraces the same vision which underlay the millennium bid. In a sense it is minimal and it is by many magnitudes less expensive. The solution on offer has the support of those who know and understand the site, and the House will have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It has the enthusiastic backing of local authorities.
Stonehenge is a national monument. Its present squalor is a national disgrace. The Government have it in their gift to redeem the neglect of Stonehenge. Such difficulties as they will face will entail, not warding off public opposition, but solving disagreements as between
68
one department of state and another. What is needed is for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to broker a deal between the Department of the Environment and Transport, now under one Minister, and the MoD, which will need to allow access if the Larkhill solution is to succeed.
I was greatly encouraged to learn that the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this issue. I urge the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to play his part in willing the means of a solution to the Stonehenge question. A great opportunity presents itself. It will be a test both of the Government's character and of their will.
7 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord St. John for giving us the opportunity to debate Stonehenge tonight. I declare an interest as an occasional consultant to the British Tourist Authority.
When one arrives in Salisbury by train one is greeted with signs in several languages advising you how to find a bus or taxi to reach Stonehenge, our most visited ancient monument. The locals obviously appreciate its importance to trade, but what a depressing sight it is when one gets there. As the Select Committee in another place pointed out, it is a disgrace.
Are the present arrangements really the best that we can make for a world heritage site? I think all noble Lords who have spoken tonight would answer no. Or should we admit that while hundreds of millions of pounds can be raised for the Millennium Experience we cannot cope with a problem much smaller in size but vastly greater in importance? It is something uniquely British, which the millennium is not; something which has seen three or more millennia come and go and which will still be there for millennia to come. Our visitors come here for culture, for heritage and for the countryside. Stonehenge is all three. It is a jewel in the crown, but we seem unwilling or unable to present it in the manner that its importance deserves.
As has been mentioned, numerous authorities have had their inputs as we struggle to reach a solution. To me, the most positive was that of English Heritage and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu who arguably knows more about tourism management, heritage and presentation than any other speaker tonight. He sets Stonehenge as a priority for action. But, alas, faced with all the interests that have already been mentioned, he is powerless to achieve his solution, practical though it is.
We advise the world on principles for sustainable tourism and promote them throughout the world as best practice. Others we help. But perhaps we should be looking closer to home. And perhaps, as suggested by several noble Lords tonight, we should start again at the top. If the Cabinet Office is involved in a one-off, such as the Millennium Experience, should it not flex its muscles on Stonehenge's prior claim as already being with us and as being millennia ahead of Greenwich in terms of the history of time? Mid-summer and mid-winter remind us of that every year. Either we find a solution or we admit that we cannot cope with a world heritage site of Stonehenge's importance. In that case,

69
we should, I fear, apply to UNESCO for its deletion from the list of such sites. What a setback that would be; what a shame; and what a national disgrace! No, as several noble Lords have said, let us get on rather than get out.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, shortness of time imposes machine-gun style. My declaration of interest, with a small "i", is as president of the Avebury Society. Avebury is the other half of the joint Stonehenge and Avebury world heritage site. The Government have undertaken concrete international obligations in the World Heritage Convention which apply equally to both parts of the site.
You cannot have the visitors centre and the car-park at Larkhill. The car-park will be enormous to begin with and will grow as time goes on. It will glitter because that is rising land. The only way that it can be hidden is by planting. If you plant hard-wood, which will look nice, it will be visible in winter. Cars will glitter through and destroy the whole impression. If you plant soft-wood you probably plant Cypressus Leylandi which provide a solid wall 40-feet high of a disgusting grey-green colour, which is completely out of place.
The car-park and the visitors centre have to be at Countess. It is awkwardly far away, but it is the only safe place for them. You can get access from there up to the top of King Barrow Ridge by any means you like because it is out of sight. From there on, there must be nothing to be seen at all except for the stones and the green grass. You must walk. It is nearly two miles, it is longer than the other way. But let people walk. If they are disabled, whenever there are enough people to justify it let there be a special vehicle going over the grass on huge soft tyres. It will probably not be more than three or four times a day.
The A.303 must go in the deep, long tunnel. You cannot cut and cover. That destroys all the archaeology to the full width of a dual highway and further than that by a long way because of all the subsidiary work that must be done. You must have a deep bore tunnel and it must start east of King Barrow Ridge, otherwise the portals will destroy the whole impression. In my view, those are imperatives.
Is it reasonable to demand them of a government through whatever channels seem to be convenient to the arrangements of the moment? I believe that it is. What do we have lotteries for if not to provide relatively enormous sums of money to do things which otherwise would be difficult to do? I believe that the way forward is to return to what I might call in shorthand "Stevens 1". There have been Montagu 1, Stevens 1 and Stevens 2. Stevens 2 was a rotten idea. I believe that his people were scared off by the millennium heritage people only a week before, and he halved his bid. I understand that that is what may have happened. I hope that under the leadership of the Prime Minister—personally, if necessary—the proper thing will be done, which I have attempted to outline. I also hope that it will be linked with Greenwich. Greenwich is about the future of this country. Stonehenge marks the beginning of Britishness.
70
The two things belong together. I mentioned the Avebury Society, of which I have the honour to be president. The Stonehenge Society is, of course, the British people themselves.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, for tabling this Question. When I saw the impressive list of speakers I had reservations about adding my name, but I have a lifelong interest in archaeology and I have seen the stones at least once a week for the past 16 years and I decided to keep it there.
I was delighted at the failure of English Heritage to win millennium funds for the visitors' centre. That was not because I am against the project—I believe that it is vital—but because I believe that to build a visitors' centre before the route of the improved A.303 is decided must be putting the cart before the horse. The admirable 1993 survey by English Heritage and the National Trust highlighted the options which exist for a site. The route of the road is likely to influence its position. To choose a road must be a priority. Incidentally, selecting the Berwick Down section of the A.303 without a decision on the Stonehenge section seems curious and shortsighted. The two will have to join up and at a logical place.
We need an understanding of vision about Stonehenge. It is a unique stone-age cathedral and should not be divorced from its landscape. The core of that landscape is a half mile circle centred on the henge. The landscape is a cathedral close and it is bisected by a major road needing major upgrading. That provides us with a great opportunity but also a puzzle. The best option—a long tunnel—is very expensive and the surface options will cause unacceptable damage to the landscape. The funding of the tunnel requires some lateral thinking. I do not believe that the taxpayer should pay all of the costs; visitors to Stonehenge should also contribute. One approach would be for part of the capital cost to be converted to a loan payable by the Stonehenge trust—the trust proposed by English Heritage and the National Trust to manage Stonehenge. The trust should draw up a plan to maximise the income from Stonehenge and its surroundings which is compatible with maintaining its qualities.
My next point could be slightly controversial. One significant method could be the holding of festivals. Everyone has said, "Heavens, you cannot possibly do that". However, I travelled past Stonehenge on a number of occasions in the early 1980s at the time of the annual festival. It was rather delightful. The only problem was that the festival was free and it was badly organised and when it was over the field in question looked like a public rubbish dump and stayed like that for the best part of a month. However, the festival at Glastonbury, which is well organised, does not have those problems. Such a festival would bring much income to the National Trust and to English Heritage and would help pay for the costs of the tunnel and would be in keeping with the character of the place. After all, in ancient times there were regular festivals at Stonehenge.

71
Stonehenge has been there for, I believe, 4,000 years. The important point is to get this matter right. If we do not have the visitor centre before the millennium, so what? We have to make the right decision and that requires quite a lot of political will.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I speak as a constant user of the A.303, and as someone who lives near the stones. I have long supported the idea of a long tunnel. However, it seems that the immediate cash is not available. Therefore there has to be an alternative. It is most important that something is done immediately. As everyone has said, the site of Stonehenge and the proposed visitor centre are a disgrace. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, said, the A.344 divides the site. It is monstrous that such a road should be allowed; it should be closed.
The question remains whether we are to have the visitor centre at the Countess roundabout, at Tidworth or on the northern route. With a tunnel, we can have the visitor centre at the Countess roundabout. If there is no chance of a tunnel, that means the northern route with the car park and the visitor centre situated north of the stones. What a good thing if visitors could walk to the site and have some sense of the adventure of arriving at Stonehenge on foot, as our forefathers did. There might even be an element of pilgrimage in that. It is vital that something is done. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, may know that the chairman of English Heritage had a word with Mr. Smith on Friday, I understand. If that is correct, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether he reached any conclusion. I shall say no more because I believe that he may be able to tell us something that we all want to know.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, for initiating this Unstarred Question. Living as I have done in the west country for the past 30 years I have driven past Stonehenge frequently on the A.303. Like thousands of others travelling along this road I have enjoyed seeing Stonehenge as I have driven past. I am afraid that I do not agree at all with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and some others who have said that this road should be put in a tunnel. That would be extremely expensive.
Whatever is eventually decided about the site and the arrangements for people who want to visit the monument and learn what is known about its history, I hope that people driving past will still be able to see the stones. If it is considered necessary because of exhaust fumes—I find it difficult to believe that the stones are at all disturbed by the traffic on the A.303 at 300 yards distanceߞto move the A.303 further away, I hope that Stonehenge will still be visible from that road.
With due respect, I cannot understand the argument of those who speak for the National Trust that because it is National Trust land the road should not be put further south on that land. I believe to argue that is to
72
get into a mind set about various bits of land. Just because land is owned by the National Trust does not mean it is necessarily any different to any other land.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that there is archaeology under all the grass to the south of the A.303 on the Stonehenge plain? By "archaeology" I mean things of interest to archaeologists.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I realise that the whole site is of archaeological interest. That is why it is important to get this matter right. However, it is also important that people can see the stones. Why should they not see the stones as they drive past? It is not necessary to go right up close to them to see them. That is the point I want to make. I can see no reason why this road—if it is moved further south—should not be a dual carriageway. It is only one of a few stretches of the A.303 which is not dual carriageway.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap in the speakers' list. I had intended to put my name down on the list and went to do so but I was distracted and absent-mindedly went away without having done so.
I speak not as an expert, which I am not, nor as a Minister who was responsible for two years for Stonehenge, nor as an Opposition spokesman but as a layman. The remarks I want to make are quite deliberately general in nature and personal in tone.
Every nation has its symbols and icons, many of which are architecturalߞthat most political of arts. They provide a focus for our identity. For example, France has Versailles and Notre Dame; Italy has St. Peters and the Coliseum; we have ours, which include Stonehenge. The place that many of these sites have in our collective consciousness crosses national boundaries. Stonehenge is one such and symbolises more than anything or anywhere else the pre-Roman, non-classical history of western Europe. That is why it has been designated a world heritage site by UNESCO.
For all the debate in Budget week about economic means and shortage of money we must not forget that contemporary Britain is a rich country—one of the richest on earth. We both can and should ensure the health of our icon sites in the interests of the nation as a whole. The concept of re-establishing Stonehenge's setting, placing it in isolation away from roads and the other detritus of contemporary civilisation, is one which is noble and should commend widespread support on its own merits. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew has pointed out, this was the idea behind the most recent proposals for the stones which have run into difficulties.
At this point it is important not to cast about trying to apportion blame. Rather, we should coalesce around what I believe is a hugely exciting and worthwhile aspiration to try to take the matter forward. I mention briefly Stonehenge's relationship with possible interpretation and heritage centres. Never must such places, worthwhile and useful though they are, be permitted to be an alternative or substitute for the stones

73
themselves. Stonehenge after all is not a self-conscious 20th century tourist attraction; rather it is a unique and remarkable survival of our past which quite rightly draws many visitors like me to marvel and to wonder.
Further, the mechanisms for access must accord with the dignity of the site and its inherent importance. The stones and their surroundings must not be impugned or debased by the way in which they are displayed and shown. I believe that the proposal to establish a new setting for Stonehenge, a minimalist setting of open downland framed by the natural skyline and the open sky is right for these magnificent megaliths. I also believe that if the excitement of that vision can be conveyed through the length and breadth of Britain, a huge momentum of support will be generated for it. That in turn will mean that a way will be found to resolve the very serious problems that must be overcome to realise it. After all, where there is a will there is a way; and in the meantime it would, I believe, be wrong for short-term expediency to prejudice the proper long-term solution. To do that would be to sell Stonehenge, the present and posterity, short.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I ask your Lordships' forgiveness for speaking in the gap. I am told that I have a strict two minutes.
I declare an interest as a planner and specialist in cultural heritage conservation, dealing with cities throughout the world. I believe that over time the problem has been management of the development of the idea of what to do with Stonehenge. Many complex subjects are dealt with in your Lordships' House. The subject is reviewed; papers are produced to inform all parties. There are White Papers, green papers, Bills and statutes, and it all comes to logical fruition.
Parallel care is required in managing complex planning subjects. Perhaps I may recommend a formal process, as for any Bill in your Lordships' House. The problem of how to manage the process and to develop consensus among the stakeholders must be addressed. Over 15 years, that has been the problem as regards Stonehenge. There is so much good will and good intention, but has there been a clear management structure on how to deal with a complex subject? There should be an assessment of historic and cultural values, followed by consultation. There should be a development of options and costs, followed by a consultation process. The preferred options should be selected, with consideration of costs incurred and revenues generated to overcome the financial questions, followed by a consultation process to develop consensus.
We are arguing here about basic factors. We are talking about solutions to problems. But quite often the values that we seek to satisfy are not clear. We have talked about solutions when we should have sought better agreement with primary and secondary stakeholders at all stages of the development of the idea.
I recommend observation of the development of Bristol harbourside—it is a project in the UK with which I have been dealing—as a good example of a
74
consultation process over a 15-year period with development of consensus. I hope that we shall review the management process of the past 15 years which has got Stonehenge where it is.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of Haddington: My Lords, I, too, rise in the gap to state my appreciation of the great and wonderful monument of Stonehenge. Whatever moneys are given towards the development of Stonehenge, I hope that it will be left in as natural a state as possible—without signposts and roads around the site. Stonehenge does not comprise just the central monolith. A huge complex of burial mounds and barrows extends for several miles around. With modern technology tourists attracted to Stonehenge can be equipped with electronic listening devices rather than having unsightly signposts stuck around the countryside.
I believe that the planned tunnel underneath the stones would be totally inappropriate. Those who know the stone circles realise that beneath them are blind springs for aquifers which rise up in the chalk. Any tunnel which interfered with that would also interfere with the stone circle.
I hope that the present Government will find the money to do away with the two roads and that Stonehenge will be returned to its original landscape.
7.24 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the discussion is becoming more like a Committee stage of a Bill than a debate.
I much enjoyed and agreed with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, in introducing the debate. I was at Stonehenge on Friday, not by intention, but in passing the site I stopped. It is inconceivable that in a nation of the size and reputation of ours we should have allowed such a site to deteriorate into its current condition, with a tatty fence, a tatty car-park, rubbish everywhere and disconsolate-looking people wandering around clearly without any guidance, probably leaving the site, in the words of the famous song, thinking, "Is that all there is?".
That is half the problem with the site. It led to what I consider to be the mistake of involving the Millennium Commission in the first place. Stonehenge is not like the Tower of London, Hampton Court or any of the great castles around the country. It is a site with a mystical quality which requires a certain amount of effort on the part of those who visit it to appreciate and understand it. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—I understand what he said—that the only way to see Stonehenge is on foot, but that is certainly the best way.
We now are in a similar position to one who invites members of the family to help with a crossword. There comes a point where one has to tear up the crossword because everyone has put in wrong solutions, and you have to buy a new paper and start again. I should like to see us going back to, I think, 1992 when we had what has been described as the Montagu solution. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said. We then had this dreadful millennium thing. (On this issue

75
I do not represent any views from these Benches. I shall find some way of getting out of the country. It will be difficult to escape because all countries will be celebrating the millennium, but I shall go to the country with the least record of alcohol abuse.) The site of Stonehenge is of international importance. We need to keep the site simple so that it attracts people who will come and enjoy it on repeated visits.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned free access. I believe that that is a good idea which should be considered. Larkhill, a kilometre away, is a pleasant site for a reception area and seems ideal. If one is able to, one can walk—noble Lords shake their heads. I have been around the site. I think that the noble Lords who shake their heads are those who favour this extraordinary road solution which will cost at least £300 million. What is the point of moving the A.303? I can see the point of closing the A.344, turfing it over and creating some return to the natural environment which existed 100 or 150 years ago around these incredible monuments.
But surely the solution should be simple. If at some later stage, after we have got over this dreadful millennium, future generations decide that they wish to improve or extend the facilities, let them do so. But, for heaven's sake, let us get on with the process now. Let us go back to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu.
The Prime Minister seems strong on these matters. Let him get to grips with the MoD. That seems something that he as a strong man can deal with where lesser men have failed. Let us in short order hope that the Government will gain access to Larkhill. We can have a simple solution, encouraging people to visit Stonehenge. If they wish to know more about it, they can return at a later stage or read about it. Alternatively, they can go to some place far away where, if they like that kind of thing, there is more of a theme park attitude. But let us leave Stonehenge in its original condition, with its original spirit. Let those who make the effort to visit the site enjoy it. They are not just our own citizens but people from all over the world. As I said to the Minister: do it quickly and do it now.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should first like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to his new government post. It is my first opportunity from these Benches to do so, especially such a distinguished man of this House, who carries great respect on this side of the House. We wish him well.
Like other speakers, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for instigating the debate on a matter of such cultural and historic interest. He introduced it with his considerable knowledge, drawing on his former ministerial experience, and with his usual eloquence. My noble friend has certainly given the Minister, the Government, and indeed all of us, something to consider. The debate was enlightened by several very expert interventions, with a level of expertise which I cannot aspire to match.
76
In the brief four minutes available, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not mention all the points raised by previous speakers or go into the details of the complex arguments, especially concerning the A.303 or A.344. That there were so many speakers is surely indicative of the interest and concern Stonehenge rightly evokes, despite the many previous debates in Parliament (109 parliamentary Questions since 1983 and seven debates since 1992).
The root dilemma is that the problems so rightly identified by many noble Lords involve a number of genuine, legitimate but conflicting interests. In nearly all the questions concerning Stonehenge there is often an environmental issue linked to the particular heritage issues. Moreover, there is usually a local community interest combined with a transport issue.
As clearly demonstrated in the debate today, this is an extremely complex subject, like one of those Chinese puzzles in which all the pieces stubbornly just will not fit together. Stonehenge is Britain's greatest ancient monument and the most famous prehistoric site in the world. It is a world heritage site, no less, with over 750,000 visitors a year.
With the millennium discussions in the forefront of our minds, is this not a propitious moment for us to be seriously considering the precarious future of this prehistoric monument, started some time before 3000 BC? It was interesting to hear the Larkhill proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the National Trust and English Heritage, under the chairmanship of Sir Jocelyn Stevens, have painstakingly put together.
Today's debate really hinges on the basic problem of roads and their cost. Here the admirable 1985 report of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu should not be disregarded. If the road problem could be solved, I believe the rest would fall into place.
However, I fear that the Government's new policy to cut spending on the roads does not bode well for Stonehenge. It will remain, shamefully, the "national disgrace" so rightly described by my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. The Prime Minister said much in support of the environment in Denver and New York. Let us see whether that fine rhetoric can be translated into effective action back home.
Given that this debate concerns the main route to the west, there must be a special environmental case that even within the overall ceiling on road spending this should take priority over other schemes. I very much hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to give us a positive answer and that he will urge the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Prime Minister to solve this problem, perhaps in time for the millennium.
7.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is to be doubly congratulated: first, on choosing this important subject at this critical time; and secondly, on attracting such a glittering list of speakers. Almost everybody who has expertise in this area, whether archaeological, architectural, historical or environmental, has been

77
available to contribute to the debate. Then there is myself, with none of these qualifications, replying at the end.
I yield to nobody in my recognition of the importance of Stonehenge. Without going into any of the other history, I remind the House what being a world heritage site (which Stonehenge is) means. Incidentally, I do so within less than six hours of this country rejoining UNESCO, which it does as of midnight tonight.
Being a world heritage site means two things. At the very minimum it means that there must be protection from harmful development. I believe we can be assured that there is to be no more harmful development—although, heaven knows, there has been enough in the past. It also means that the site has to be better managed and presented than it has been up until now. Noble Lords on all sides of the House gave evidence of that.
The problems relate to the number of interests involved in Stonehenge. The Department of National Heritage is the ultimate owner of the site. Incidentally, I am grateful on behalf of officials to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for his tribute to their work in this area. English Heritage manages the site on behalf of the department; the National Trust owns many hectares of land around the site; as has been said on many occasions, the Ministry of Defence is concerned because of Larkhill garrison situated to the north; the Department of Transport is concerned, with its responsibility for the roads; and the Department of the Environment is also involved because of the involvement of local authorities. I remind noble Lords who praised the Larkhill site that Salisbury District Council refused planning permission for development on the Larkhill site as recently as 1991.
Above all, the difficulty is one of money. That is the difficulty that besets the most intractable problem of all; namely, the question as to where the A.303 should go. I think that we probably all agree that in any acceptable solution the A.344, the northern road, will have to be grassed over.
I remind noble Lords that in 1994 a planning conference examined alternatives for a tunnel and for a southern diversion. Both alternatives were opposed by English Heritage, the local authorities, the National Trust and by the archaeologists. In 1995 another planning conference returned to the idea of a tunnel because the northern route was then opposed by almost the same people who had opposed the previous proposals. The House will see how difficult the issue is.
The Government's aims are very simple, although not easy to achieve. We want there to be worthy visitor facilities and a dignified atmosphere for the stones themselves. As I said, government responsibilities in this respect are devolved to English Heritage. English Heritage has held a number of differing points of view about the site over recent years. Most recently, it proposed the concept of a Stonehenge millennium park, which was the subject of its application to the Millennium Commission. My noble friend Lord Kennet wanted the original Stonehenge millennium park,
78
including the £87 million scheme, for a visitor centre at the Countess roundabout in Amesbury, and presumably £300 million for the tunnel as well—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to give way. He must not identify me with these figures. I do not accept either of them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend does not have to accept the figures. They are the figures calculated by the people who put forward the proposals. As we were told, what went before the Millennium Commission earlier this month was the Larkhill version which, to my mind, still retains the vital ingredients: to have the stones in a downland setting, without clutter, without roads or any intervention from the 20th century; and to have free admission.
I was challenged by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to give reasons why the Millennium Commission turned down the site. I am as much in favour of open government as the noble Viscount, but the arm's length relationship between the Millennium Commission and the Government was set up not by my government but by his. He must recognise that under those circumstances it is not possible for us to say what the individual commissioners or the commissioners collectively thought about the scheme unless they are willing to say themselves. I can ask Chris Smith or David Clark but the noble Viscount will have to ask Michael Heseltine, who is also a millennium commissioner. For what it is worth, my understanding is that the Millennium Commission thought that the proposal was not the best use of funds compared with other bids. There is an extreme demand for millennium money and I understand that in the first two rounds only 10 per cent. of bids were agreed to. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, answered the question which his noble friend Lord Astor put very effectively.
What we must be concerned with is what happens now. I accept that it is the Government's responsibility to act in some sense—bearing in mind all the limitations on our powersߞas animator of the solution which we all want. It is for English Heritage, as the manager of the site, to take the lead in deciding what the solution should be and finding out how to obtain the money for it.
As the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said, the Secretary of State, Chris Smith, and I met Sir Jocelyn Stevens last Friday and I can confirm what he said to us. It was that after much consideration, following the rejection of the Stonehenge Millennium Park, English Heritage will move back to a reduced scale Larkhill scheme. The idea is that there should be not a visitor centre but a car park, refreshments and toilets with the essential provision that after crossing the cursors visitors should go by foot across grass up the hill to Stonehenge. They should see it gradually appearing on the horizon. The A.344 should be turfed over so that there is no obstacle between Stonehenge and the car park. There should be provision of some kind for people with disabilities and, if possible—and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to thisߞaccess to the site should be free.

79
The problem is that English Heritage makes £1.4 million a year out of Stonehenge at the moment and it will have to make up the money somehow if it gives that up. As noble Lords can imagine, we raised the issue with Sir Jocelyn Stevens. It seems likely that that will be the most generally acceptable solution. It was supported by most noble Lords who took part in the debate and I am grateful for that.
Of course it does not solve the problem of what to do with the A.303. I reminded noble Lords of the changes of view that have taken place over time and in the minds of individuals but I repeat that the long tunnel, costing approximately £300 million, is not affordable. There is no assurance that even a shorter tunnel as proposed by Ove Arup would be affordable nor is there an assurance that a new road surface to avoid vibration would be technically possible, even if the National Trust was willing to devote more land to the A.303. So that will be a more intractable, longer term problem. All we can say is that we cannot rule out serious expenditure in due course on the A.303.
Putting that on one side, there are still problems to which noble Lords referred. There is the problem of the Ministry of Defence and its consent which is needed for access to the Larkhill site. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State for National Heritage has already written to the Secretary of State for Defence seeking consultation and discussions on the matter. We shall pursue it with the utmost vigour.
80
Then there is the issue, to which I have already referred, of the potential for conflict between local authorities and the Department of Transport which would only be willing to see the A.344 closed if there were some other traffic management and possibly improvement of the A.303. There is potential for conflict there with the National Trust.
Above all, there is the question of money. Sir Jocelyn produced figures for us, but they will have to be worked out much more formally if they are to be part of a bid. It seemed to Sir Jocelyn and to us that the natural place for a bid would be the Heritage Lottery Fund which, in the right circumstances and for the right proposal, could provide 75 per cent. of funding.
I was faced with many challenges in the debate today. It was proposed by a number of noble Lords, the noble Viscounts, Lord Astor and Lord Falkland, and the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Kennet, that the Prime Minister should become involved. It was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that there should be a Cabinet committee to consider matters. I am not sure that the solution lies with any individuals or any organisational structure. We must recognise the inherent problem of the conflict between the integrity of the site and accessibility for visitors. Having recognised that problem, we must approach the matter with clarity and determination.
I think that today's debate has in a sense narrowed the options and for that the Government are grateful. I hope we have shown that the Government will not sit back and let the matter be neglected for anything like the number of years it has been neglected in the past.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  SOE Records: Release
  SOE Records: Release
  Arms Exports: Payment to Exporters
  Arms Exports: Payment to Exporters
  Arms Exports: Evasion of Controls
  Arms Exports: Evasion of Controls
  Arms Exports to Turkey and Indonesia
  Arms Exports to Turkey and Indonesia
  Child Benefit Centre: Telephone Contact
  Child Benefit Centre: Telephone Contact
  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mixed Sex Wards
  Extradition Requests
  Extradition Requests
  Referendums
  Referendums
  Police and Fire Service Pensions
  Police and Fire Service Pensions
  Buses: EU Directive Proposal
  Buses: EU Directive Proposal
  Train Passenger Capacity: Monitoring
  Train Passenger Capacity: Monitoring
  Voluntary Bodies: Withdrawal of Funding
  Voluntary Bodies: Withdrawal of Funding
  Government Political Advisers: Costs
  Government Political Advisers: Costs
  Atomic Weapons Establishment Sites: Licensing
  Atomic Weapons Establishment Sites: Licensing
  Agriculture Council, 23–25 June
  Agriculture Council, 23–25 June
  Subsidence: Claims
  Subsidence: Claims
  Trend Rate of Growth
  Trend Rate of Growth
  Economic Fluctuations: Figures
  Economic Fluctuations: Figures
  Employment: Figures
  Employment: Figures
  Industrial Base
  Industrial Base
  Sixth Form Colleges: Funding
  Sixth Form Colleges: Funding
  Youth Services: Provision
  Youth Services: Provision
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Communication Skills in Schools
  Communication Skills in Schools
  Education: Spending
  Education: Spending
  School Balances
  School Balances