Sitting of 6 March 1997

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTHAMPTON INTERNATIONAL BOAT SHOW BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Cattle Cull
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of cattle to be slaughtered in Berkshire during the selective cull.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): It is not possible to give an estimate of the number of cattle to be culled on a county-by-county basis.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that because of the indecision and dithering over the cull, some farmers are now likely to go over quota this year, because they simply do not yet know how many of their cattle are likely to be culled—and even when the numbers are known, the valuations have not yet been done? Will the Minister provide compensation for those who go over quota?
    Mr. Baldry: I find that a surprising question, because when the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association asked us to get on with the selective cull, they knew full well the situation as regards milk quota. Farmers have managed to organise milk quota year on year for many years, and if anything, quite recently we tended to be under quota. Of all the many questions that arise from the selective cull, that is not one that I see as a real issue.
    Sir John Cope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the total number of cattle to be slaughtered under the cull has been vastly exaggerated, especially by Liberal Democrat spokesmen, and is unlikely to rise above 100,000?
    Mr. Baldry: One of the characteristics of the whole bovine spongiform encephalopathy debacle has been a gross over-dramatisation of the situation by all the Opposition parties, not least the Liberal Democrats. In fact, less than 5 per cent. of the national dairy herd is likely to be affected by the selective cull—a maximum of 100,000
    1006
    animals. Even that estimate makes assumptions about all the animals that are traceable, and about a full uptake of animals born in the voluntary year. Some of the suggestions that we have heard—from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for example—to the effect that one third of the dairy herd will be affected by the cull, are simply ludicrous.

    Fishing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of United Kingdom fishing relative to current multi-annual guidance programme targets; and what proposals he has to achieve those targets.[17546]
    Mr. Baldry: Definitive figures for United Kingdom performance are under discussion with the Commission. Once the Commission agrees figures for the United Kingdom performance, I expect us to be within a handful of points of our targets for the end of December 1996.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that totally obscure reply. Will the Minister undertake to argue that the level of cuts likely to be demanded of the British fleet is totally unacceptable? Will he undertake to build a blocking minority against MAGP No. 4, which should not be considered until Europe has accepted our proposals to do something about the quota hoppers who now make up about one fifth of the British fleet? Will he further undertake to reject the Commission's latest proposals, which are dominated by Dutch self-interest in an unacceptable way, especially in the light of the huge Dutch fishing overshoot? Will he undertake to ensure that something is done about industrial fishing, and oppose the proposed days-at-sea limit and the proposed 30 per cent. cut to be imposed on us?
    Dr. Godman: Good speech.
    Mr. Baldry: It was a good speech—and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is even wearing a sober tie.
    I do not think that there is much difference between the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and me on the issue. We have made it clear that we will not contemplate any further reduction in the United Kingdom fishing fleet until the issue of quota hoppers is dealt with. What the hon. Gentleman described as my opaque answer meant that we are almost up to our target for MAGP No. 3—we are practically where we should be on that—and we are saying that the United Kingdom does not intend to move forward on No. 4 or to do anything else with it, until the issue of quota hopping is resolved. As the Prime Minister has made clear on several occasions, that is a priority that we seek to achieve at the intergovernmental conference. I hope that everyone on the Opposition Benches will also signal that it is the clear intention of the whole House to ensure that Britain achieves a result on quota hopping at the IGC.
    Mr. John Greenway: Do the guidance targets contain anything about the size of lobsters landed off the north-east Yorkshire coast? Is my hon. Friend aware of a proposal to increase the minimum size landed at Filey

    1007
    from 85 mm to 87 mm? That does not sound much, but it would decimate what little fishing there is left in Filey. Will my hon. Friend promise to look into that?
    Mr. Baldry: That is a bit broad for a question on decommissioning, but I shall certainly look into the issue of lobsters in Filey and, if necessary, I would more than welcome a visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Food Labelling
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that food labelling is comprehensible to the public.[17547]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The law requires that mandatory information on food labels should be easy to understand and that all other information should be true and not misleading. We regularly consult consumer and other organisations and we commission surveys to identify where label information could be improved.
    Mr. Hughes: I accept what the Minister says about consulting regularly. Will she look at the report produced last week by the National Consumer Council, which agrees with my view that most food labelling is twaddle, merely giving a list of chemicals, or Latin, or words that nobody understands? There is regulation for descriptions of nutrition—a claim that a food is low fat, for example, has to be regulated—but anybody can put "gives you a healthy diet" on a product, because health matters are not regulated. Can we start again and produce food labels that ordinary people such as me can understand when we go to Tesco?
    Mrs. Browning: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall study the report with great care. The Food Advisory Committee is also looking at nutritional and health claims, particularly the latter. The issue can be confusing. The Ministry produces some literature to guide people through it. I agree that labelling must be clear and accurate.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is being done at national and European level to provide adequate warning for those susceptible to allergies, such as that caused by peanuts, that can have fatal consequences?
    Mrs. Browning: I assure my hon. Friend that we have pressed the European Commission to propose changes to labelling to help those who suffer from peanut allergies and similar conditions. I am also working on a programme for this year to put more information into the public domain, particularly for food processors. Many people find that there is more labelling for products that obviously contain nuts, but the processed nut is often not immediately obvious. That is the potential danger for people with such allergies.

    Organic Products
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to encourage the production and marketing of organic products.
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As well as aid for conversion to organic production, we provide free advisory services and fund the United Kingdom register of organic food standards, together with substantial organic research and development programmes and around £1 million of marketing grants to date to a range of organic interests.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister's reply is complacent. Instead of allowing people to be poisoned with stinking meat and pesticides, why do we not do more to encourage the growth of organic products? Is the Minister aware that 70 per cent. of the organic food eaten in this country is imported? We are at the bottom of the European Union league on the organic aid scheme, spending less than half the European Union average. What do the Government have against organic food? Why are they so prejudiced against it? Are they prepared to let people be poisoned by rotten stinking food when they could have healthy organic food?
    Mr. Boswell: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman spoils a good case with which I have some sympathy with hyperbole with which I have no sympathy. He cannot rightly assert that the food offered in this country, organic or otherwise, is rotten and stinking. If it were, it would not be permitted. The Government wish to encourage the production, the marketing and the consumption of organic food for those who want it. To that end, in addition to the measures that I referred to a moment ago, I have participated in a seminar held by our market task force on encouraging greater awareness of the market possibilities—an important incentive for the organic sector.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the marketing of British produce, organic and otherwise, that is extremely important and which the Ministry does support and should support? On organic produce, does he also agree that it is up to consumers to decide what they want to buy and eat?
    Mr. Boswell: I could not agree more. I can tell my hon. Friend that within the sector challenge scheme, which has been set up recently, two of the strong contenders going forward for final consideration are for organic marketing aid improvement schemes.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recall that for at least the first half of this century most food was produced with a low level of artificial fertilisers and practically no sprays and that the farming community, encouraged by Governments of all shades, went over to high production through the use of modern fertilisers? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if we are to move back to organic food production, not only profit levels but food production levels will be maintained in this nation?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman makes some fair points. I just about remember the first half of this century

    1009
    when I was a lad, when there was a much lower level of inputs in farm production. The use of science to continue to produce safe food but to a greater intensity has expanded production. More extensive use of the organic sector would curtail production and we need to have all those factors in mind. The relevant points are to offer consumers choice and opportunity so that they can decide what they wish to consume, and ideally, that the British farmer should be able to produce it for them.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to the European Commission on the reform of the common agricultural policy to accommodate the agricultural interests of those countries which have applied to join the EU.[17549]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have regular and frequent contacts with the European Commission and other member states on reforming the common agricultural policy. We have consistently argued that early decisions leading to a more market-oriented CAP are essential to facilitate EU enlargement.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend should represent urgently to Commissioner Fischler for the completion by July of the agricultural review of the common agricultural policy which the Commission is undertaking. It is essential that we move to a system of national support and away from European Union-wide support since the CAP is costing the average family in this country £26 per week in additional taxes and food costs. To do so would be compatible with the entry of the applicant countries to the EU. To maintain EU-wide support in the event of their entry would cost an inordinately large amount.
    Mr. Hogg: That is an important point. I am not in favour of the repatriation of the common agricultural policy, but I agree that there is scope for much more subsidiarity than there is now. I also agree with the point underlining my hon. Friend's question, which is that the European Union really has to address the question of reform speedily and preferably before the negotiations on enlargement begin
    Mrs. Golding: What proposals is the Minister making to reduce the burden on the British people caused by the unfairness of the common agricultural policy? Does he realise that the reason why his Government have made so little progress is that they are as unpopular and distrusted abroad as they are at home?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady misunderstands the position. Within the Agriculture Council there is no enthusiasm for reform of the CAP. In truth, I think only Sweden, the Danes, to some extent the Dutch, ourselves and the Commissioner are in favour of fundamental reform, otherwise there is substantial opposition. It is because of that substantial opposition that we are not making more rapid movement towards reform.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why the common agricultural
    1010
    policy is somewhat distrusted is that there is no faith in the inspections that are carried out nationally, and that as part of the reform of the CAP it would be a good idea for international teams of inspectors to go up farm paths and ensure that the rules are being observed as scrupulously in one country as in another?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, in the sense that there is no doubt that the United Kingdom generally enforces European law, regulations and directives more robustly than many other countries. There is certainly scope for trying, through the Commission and its inspection agencies, to tighten the workings of the common agricultural policy. We, in the context of BSE, for example, have been pleased to welcome many inspection visits from the European Commission and member states.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now forecasts, on the basis of existing policies, the last new case of BSE in Britain to occur.[17550]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: In August, an independent team lead by Professor Roy Anderson confirmed that BSE was in sharp decline and would virtually die out in the United Kingdom around 2001 as a result of measures already in force. It is not, however, possible to predict precisely when the BSE epidemic will be over.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that that prediction was made on the basis of applying to BSE in cows a statistical model derived from the spread of AIDS in humans, and that it must in any event be subject to an extremely wide margin of error? Would not he be wise to add those cautions every time that the prediction is mentioned, to avoid damaging yet further Britain's agricultural industry?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that all predictions are somewhat uncertain. He will find that in my various statements I have tended to use the phrase, "in 2001 or thereabouts", because it is perfectly true that there is likely to be a tail beyond 2001 and we do not know how thick that tail will be. The disease is declining by 40 per cent. year on year and we expect that in all substantial respects it will die out around 2001 or thereabouts, but of course I agree that there must be caveats and provisos.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on a statement that I received today from Mr. Douglas Gascoine of Newark livestock market, of which I hope that I just succeeded in giving him notice, to the effect that, while the European Union has banned our meat, Germany is exporting to us meat from cows more than 30 months old, with the cord attached and including the specified offal? Given the fact that our meat is banned on health grounds, what action can the Ministry take to ensure that those countries that ban our meat do not export to us the very agents that caused BSE in the first place?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me

    1011
    prior notice of what he wanted to ask. He has identified a serious matter. I have frequently said in the House that British beef is the safest and best in Europe, and I believe that to be true; one of the reasons for that is that we have in place a range of measures—abattoir control measures, controls on feedstuffs and the over-30-months rule—that are not to be found universally in the European Union.
    We want the European Union to accept, for example, the abattoir controls on specified offal that we have in place. That would meet my hon. Friend's point, and I regret that the Council did not accept it in December. I very much hope that the Commissioner will make such proposals again in a month or so; if so, we shall support them.
    Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that measures to keep the BSE agent out of our cattle feed were put in place in 1988? Is he aware that the head of his Ministry's beef and sheep division stated that because of the lax controls it was not until August 1996 that we could be certain that contaminated feed was no longer reaching our cattle? Does he agree that as a result of the Government's failure to enforce the measures many more cattle will die of BSE, the dreadful epidemic will last longer and the taxpayer will have to pay a beef tax of £3.5 billion?
    Mr. Hogg: Professor Anderson's report, of which the hon. Gentleman knows, identified 1994 as the date when, in all probability, contaminated feedstuffs were no longer available in substantial quantities to cattle. It is true that from August last year, we made it a criminal offence to possess meat and bone meal on farms. Looking back with hindsight, there are probably a number of things that we could have done between 1988 and 1995 that we did not do, but at all times we acted in accordance with the best advice and tried to make judgments that were both reasonable and proportionate on the basis of the information then available. I do not accept the criticism, but I accept the facts to which I referred.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Fisheries Ministers from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the reform of the common fisheries policy.[17551]
    Mr. Baldry: At the December Fisheries Council, we discussed a number of matters relating to the reform of the common fisheries policy.
    Dr. Godman: The severe restriction of industrial fishing is a long-overdue reform. An outright ban is perhaps impossible. In any case, we can continue fishing grenadier and blue whiting. Does the Minister agree that pout and sprat fishing should be banned completely? When he goes to Bergen, will he argue for a restricted total allowable catch of sand eels in grounds such as the Wee Bankie and Buckie Man's bank?
    Mr. Baldry: I have made my views on industrial fishing known in the House on many occasions. We have had many discussions with the fishing industry and I am pleased that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and others recognise that we need to move beyond a
    1012
    precautionary quota for sand eels to an actual quota in areas such as Wee Bankie. Ministers will certainly propose that at the forthcoming Bergen conference. The evidence of the impact of industrial fishing is such that we need to ensure that it is not destroying the fish chain upon which so many fishermen, both north and south of the border, depend.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend knows that much of the pressure on the common fisheries policy results from people's worries about cheating on quotas. What have Ministers been able to do to secure enforcement of quotas by other countries? Has he anything to say about British fishermen cheating on quotas?
    Mr. Baldry: It is unacceptable if other member states do not apply the rules as rigorously as we do. At our behest, the Commission has been very active in ensuring that we have a Community inspectorate of member states' fisheries that seeks to ensure that the rules are applied as rigorously by other member states as they are by us. We will continue to seek to ensure that the Commission enforces those regulations throughout the European Community; otherwise, a mockery is made of having a common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Morley: On reform of the CFP, I want to return to quota hopping. The Minister said that it will be pursued vigorously at the intergovernmental conference and we support that approach. However, many quota hoppers have legally bought their licences from UK fishermen as part of the free market approach that the Government have supported. Will the Minister support attaching conditions to licences? That might make things more difficult for overseas buyers and make it more attractive to maintain licences in regional fisheries.
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Our difficulty is that the European Court of Justice has deemed that under the treaty and present law, we cannot do that. [Interruption.] No, we cannot do it. The European Court paid far too much attention to the idea of a single market and freedom of association, and failed to take sufficient account of national fishing quotas. That is why we must ensure that there are treaty changes. I welcome the cross-party support for securing that at the IGC. That is the only way that we can be confident of eliminating quota hoppers once and for all.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to bring about the lifting of the EU ban on British beef.[17552]
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards the lifting of the beef exporting ban.[17554]
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the ban by European member states on British beef.[17557]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On 25 February I wrote to Commissioners Fischler and Bonino explaining how the

    1013
    United Kingdom has fulfilled the preconditions laid down under the Florence agreement and I submitted our proposals for a United Kingdom export certified herds scheme, together with a paper setting out its scientific basis. The scheme would be the first step in lifting the export ban. I pressed for urgent and constructive discussion of our proposals at the relevant committees.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the beef rearing industries in Latin America have relied for many decades on obtaining the best breeding stock in the world from Britain. As they have had to rely all this time on second best, and as we have complied with the five principal conditions of Florence, is it not high time that this disgraceful and unfair ban was lifted?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There are perhaps two points worth making. Of course we are against the generality of the ban, for all the reasons that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed from the Dispatch Box, but there is a particular wrongness about exports to third countries. That is what my hon. Friend is highlighting. I could not agree more.
    Mr. Jessel: Is it not ridiculous for the European Commission in Brussels to imply that British beef is safe for British people, but dangerous for people in every other country in the world? The ban upsets the livelihood of our farmers and is costing our taxpayers £3 billion. As the policy was welcomed by the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), is not the moral that we should have as little to do with either the hon. Gentleman or the European Commission in Brussels?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I would want to be quite so unkind as my hon. Friend, but there is a lot of substance in what he says. He makes two important points. One is the enormous cost of this business—£3.5 billion committed over three years, which is powerful testimony to the importance that a Conservative Government attach to British agriculture. When we debated the matter some 10 days ago, it was plain that the Labour party would never have invested that amount of money in support of British agriculture.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much faith British housewives have in British produce, if there is even the slightest suggestion that his Ministry is continuing to obscure basic reports that affect the hygiene of British products, far from protecting our farming community or anyone else, he will constantly undermine the quality of our exports anywhere in the world?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady would be right if what she said was true. There will be a statement after questions, with your permission, Madam Speaker. I shall deal more specifically with the point that the hon. Lady has raised. Our policy throughout the BSE crisis, both before and after 20 March last year, has been to be wholly open and candid with the public and the House, for the kind of reason that the hon. Lady has just identified.
    Mr. Pike: As the Minister is in a conciliatory mood today, does he accept that it is not the National Farmers
    1014
    Union's change of policy but the Government's delay in implementing what they agreed at Florence that has meant that an end to the beef ban is still not in sight?
    Mr. Hogg: I have never blamed the NFU for changing its position. There is no doubt that the selective cull is a serious interference with other people's property or that the cull is extraordinarily difficult to justify in any scientific or objective way. Its only justification is, that if we do not do it, we will not get any progress in lifting the ban. The NFU did not want a selective cull. I understand that. I do not criticise it for that. That was its position for much of the summer. It was only well into the autumn that the NFU came to adopt the position that it now does. I am not critical of it; I am merely describing the facts.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am proud to be wearing my NFU tie at questions today? It was presented to me by farmers on Friday night after a very good beef dinner in my constituency. Does he accept that they told me that they want the European ban lifted as quickly as possible and that they see it as nothing more than politics? They also want to see some fast food joints—if I can use that description—lift the British beef ban. They believe that fast food stores such as McDonald's could show a clear lead if they started selling British beef again.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is a splendid example of how good British beef can be for one. He has a serious point: it is extremely regrettable that a number of major restaurant chains and also public authorities, for a variety of reasons—none of them good in science—have been reluctant to sell British beef. That is nonsense because all beef products of every kind that are sold in the United Kingdom from British beef must satisfy the most stringent tests. In terms of quality or safety, there is no distinction of any kind to be drawn between a British beefburger and a British steak. Both are of the highest quality and of total safety.
    Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that it was the Prime Minister who told the House of Commons that all the conditions would be met for the beef ban to be lifted by November last year, and that the lifting of that ban was in the Government's hands? May I remind him that no part of that ban has been lifted and that the Government dithered and delayed over the implementation of the Florence agreement? Is it not clear that the Government must accept responsibility for the delay in lifting the beef ban?
    Mr. Hogg: We have complied with the five preconditions set out in the Florence agreement. We have discharged our part of the bargain and we have every reason to expect the Europeans to discharge theirs. They now have an opportunity to do so because they are in possession of our export-certified herd scheme proposals.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when farmers in Teignbridge try to make up their minds whether the Labour party has anything to offer them in terms of farming policy, they would do well to remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) approved the imposition of the ban in the first place? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell

    1015
    me what I should say to farmers in Teignbridge when they witness how their businesses have been devastated by the imposition of the ban, while we are still apparently either unwilling or unable to stop the importation of foreign meat products which have not been produced to the same safety standards as our own?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). There is no doubt that we need to get in Europe a comprehensive regime to govern cattle feed rations and the removal of offal; we should also introduce a 30-month rule.
    On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he is right that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)—not just once, but on at least two separate occasions and possibly more—defended the imposition of the ban and expressed the hope that we would have done the same had we been in the position of the French. Should the hon. Gentleman ever be in a position to try to ask for the ban to be lifted, he will be in some difficulty because the French will merely quote his words back to him.

    Quota Hopping
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has recently held with his counterparts in Europe to discuss quota hopping; and what recommendations he will make to the Amsterdam EU summit.[17555]
    Mr. Baldry: We have tabled a proposal in the intergovernmental conference to tackle quota hopping. We take every opportunity to make clear to fellow European Community Ministers the need to find an effective and permanent solution to quota hopping. We shall, of course, do so again at the Amsterdam summit.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister understand that there is a desperate need to have collective discussions within the Fisheries Council, because he earlier mentioned the possibility of treaty changes? Is he actually saying that amendments will be made to the treaty as a result of any representations made by the Government? Will he assure us that there will be a meeting between the United Kingdom Government, the Dutch presidency and the Spaniards to resolve the issue so that we can reach an IGC conclusion?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that we have kept the House fairly well informed on what we are doing. Some time ago, we tabled an amended protocol to the treaty. Those treaty changes will be part of the IGC negotiations; they are not something that is necessarily within the competence of the Fisheries Council. It is something to be determined within the IGC. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that one of our clear negotiating objectives at the IGC is to achieve the elimination of quota hoppers once and for all.
    Mr. Gallie: Difficult though discussions on fishing are in Europe, have there not been some successes for British fishermen, and would not Britain's strong voice on these issues diminish to a Scottish whimper if the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her colleagues got their way?
    Mr. Baldry: It is a self-evident truth on this issue, as on practically everything else, that we are stronger as
    1016
    a United Kingdom than we would be if we were sundered and severed into various parts. There have been successes for the UK fishing industry and we achieved a number of successes at the December Fisheries Council. Only recently, the Commission announced that it had agreed to our proposals for regional committees to investigate fishing and the first of these will be set up in relation to the North sea. For the first time, that will give real fishermen a voice in what happens in the common fisheries policy and it is this Government who have achieved that for fishermen, not only in the UK, but throughout the whole of Europe.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom to date of the European beef ban on United Kingdom exports; and if he will make a statement.[17556]
    Mrs. Browning: The UK beef market has been affected by the European Union ban on exports of beef, together with a fall in beef consumption. Since 1 April 1996 the overall cost of the BSE eradication and compensation schemes amounts to £949 million. Forecast expenditure on BSE-related measures in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is £1,010 million and £580 million respectively.
    Mr. Cox: Is the hon. Lady aware that the figures that she has given are for ever on the increase? That is a clear indication of the total incompetence with which the Government have handled this issue. We have suffered the loss of the European beef market and the cost of the slaughter of cattle; yet despite all the promises and all the talk, there is—as we heard in earlier exchanges—no prospect of the beef ban being lifted. Where do the British agriculture industry and beef industry go from here? What further costs are we to bear?
    Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly: £580 million is clearly less, not more, than £1,010 million and therefore the figures are on a declining scale, year on year. There is a commitment to the industry and to the related parts of the industry chain that we will ensure their future by putting public money behind them. It is a matter of regret that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not consider the industry important enough to support its future in that way.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that the beef crisis was helped or exacerbated by the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), asking whether it was true that members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee were not feeding British beef to their children and grandchildren?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and his colleague the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) played an important role at the beginning of the crisis. However, their attempts to thwart the beef industry have not succeeded and I am pleased to say that many retailers are reporting that domestic beef sales are higher than they were before March last year, despite the actions of the Opposition.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a straight answer, without the usual ministerial wriggles? Is it not true that,

    1017
    if Labour's policy in 1990 of an animal identification system had been in place, there would have been no cull, the taxpayer in this country would have been millions of pounds better off and the BSE crisis would have already ended?
    Mrs. Browning: No—the hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history, as is his custom. Of course we want to have traceability and animal identification—that is an important part of transparency in the industry—but to suggest that those methods could have rewritten history in respect of contaminated feed is wrong.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Sir Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the trend of reported BSE cases in the last three years.[17558]
    Mrs. Browning: The number of suspects being reported reached a peak of more than 1,000 cases a week in 1993, fell to about 800 in 1994 and is now about 120 a week and still falling.
    Sir Colin Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging report to the House. Is it not precisely because of the robust and tough action taken by the Government that outbreaks of BSE in this country, measured in terms of the number of reported cases, are decreasing—not increasing, as they are in the remainder of the European Union? While my hon. Friend is considering that, will she reflect on the fact that throughout the entire BSE crisis the Labour party has not made a single constructive proposal?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear from the way in which the figures are coming down—a 40 per cent. reduction year on year—that the Government's policy of dealing with contaminated feed and dealing with this disease has been absolutely right. Of course there is more to be done, but there are encouraging signs that the disease is now on the wane.
    Mr. Jamieson: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Defence stated in a written answer to me recently that Her Majesty's armed forces eat mainly foreign beef and not British beef?
    Mrs. Browning: The armed forces do eat a good proportion of British beef. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has given me a great deal of information to enable me to take out to the British suppliers the figures on which the armed forces buy their beef to discover whether those figures can be matched competitively, and I regret to say that they cannot. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Ah!" so presumably competitive tendering is not part of the Labour party's policy any more: old Labour, new Labour—they still believe in centralisation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17575]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the "basic pensions plus" proposals announced yesterday not only guarantee the value of the state pension, but offer the prospect of a much improved pension with a valid& of as much as £175 per week to a person on average earnings? Does that not contrast starkly with the Labour party's plan to cut the value of the state pension by £20 per week?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the impact of the proposals that I announced with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday. Those proposals will guarantee that everyone, whether in the new scheme or out of it, will continue to receive at least the basic state pension, increasing in line with inflation. I think that the response that we have heard from some quarters—including some, although not all, Labour Members—shows that those people do not understand what is proposed. [Interruption.] A moment ago, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) asked, "What is this point about £20 being cut off the state pension under Labour's plans?" Perhaps she should consult the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that she anticipated a lower level of basic state pension, to compensate for reducing the retirement age to 60. That cut, unless there is more expenditure—which the shadow Chancellor says that he would not allow—would be the equivalent of £20 per week.
    Mrs. Golding indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Lady shaking her head. That is what her hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Blair: May I put to the Prime Minister two specific questions arising from the report by Mr. Bill Swann on hygiene in abattoirs? First, why was that report not published on 31 March 1996, as Mr. Swann was told that it would be? Secondly, why did Ministers not see the report and act on it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's questions, as he will discover when he hears the statement a little later, are based—[Interruption.] I am assuming that, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's interest, he will be here for the statement; I am making an assumption. The right hon. Gentleman's questions are based on what he supposes is in a report which, I believe, he has not read.
    There is no suggestion of the report being suppressed. It was produced by officials. It was drawn up by the Meat Hygiene Service. It was very widely circulated. It was circulated around the trade and elsewhere. [Interruption.] I am sorry that somebody did not receive it. Ministers did not receive it—that is true. It was a working document. [Interruption.] This is exactly the point. The report was drawn up for the Meat Hygiene Service as part of its

    1019
    work to ensure the highest standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses. It is a routine report, of which there are many, not normally shown to Ministers and not shown to Ministers on this occasion, but circulated to the people who had an operational need to know about it.
    Mr. Blair: That is the most extraordinary explanation. This is Mr. Swann's report. I have read it. It is 54 pages long and contains 81 recommendations. May I point out to the Prime Minister that on page 19 the report states that there is a serious concern about contamination, that the contamination may lead to the spread of the E. coli organism and that action should be taken immediately? If the Prime Minister says that the report was not shown to Ministers, I ask him why not. With 54 pages and 81 recommendations, it was sufficiently serious, was it not? Does he not think in retrospect that, given the seriousness of the report, it would have been better if it had been shown to Ministers so that it could have been acted on in the interests of the public?
    The Prime Minister: The point that the Labour leader perhaps genuinely does not understand—[Interruption.]
    I have got beyond page 81—a very quick read this morning. I think that the right hon. Gentleman may genuinely not understand, so I shall make the point again. The report was a working document, drawn up for the Meat Hygiene Service and circulated to its staff. The Meat Hygiene Service is implementing the recommendations in the report, as the right hon. Gentleman noted.
    This is the way in which such matters have been handled for a very long time—[[Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are huge numbers of such working documents every year. If they all came to Ministers for Ministers to read every one, nothing else would be done. The right hon. Gentleman has been in opposition so long that he does not understand that. The report was circulated to the people who needed to take action and I am advised by those people that they have implemented the action.
    Mr. Blair: Whether the report should be shown to Ministers must depend on its seriousness. If it is serious, it should be shown to Ministers. May I point out to the Prime Minister that Mr. Swann was told that it would be published precisely because it dealt with serious issues?
    The Prime Minister's latest explanation is that the recommendations have been implemented. May I quote to him what Mr. Swann said this morning on the radio? He was asked whether everything that he had recommended had been carried out: answer—no. He was then asked whether some of the recommendations that had not been carried out were important for hygiene and safety: answer—yes.
    This is a serious report which reveals serious problems of contamination. We know about the problems with E. coli, but the report was not even shown to Professor Pennington, who is in charge of the E. coli administration. When will someone in the Government take responsibility for the proper and competent administration of our affairs?
    The Prime Minister: When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he behaves in this fashion, what he does—[Interruption.] I am sorry to say
    1020
    that it is true: he exaggerates problems that exist before he has heard the statement, irrespective of the interests of the meat industry, in exactly the way in which the Opposition have behaved on previous occasions. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that, in advance of the statement, is the height of irresponsibility.
    I repeat for the right hon. Gentleman that the report was provided for the Meat Hygiene Service, which was established to improve safety for the consumer and opposed by the Labour party when we established it. Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up public concerns that are being dealt with by a public watchdog which he and his colleagues opposed when it was established. His party has stood in the way of every change made to improve hygiene standards. That is absolutely true. If the Opposition had had their way, responsibility for slaughterhouse hygiene would still be in the hands of 300 local councils applying the rules in 300 different ways. The hygiene service is raising standards, and the right hon. Gentleman is raising scares.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17576]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the knowledgeable speech given in the House of Lords yesterday in which it was said that our economy is doing rather well, particularly in comparison to the last 18 years—[Interruption.]—and even more so in comparison to the economies of Europe? That speech was by the noble Lord Barnett, the last Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a Labour Government. Did my right hon. Friend note that Lord Barnett said quite clearly that taxes may be increased without increasing the rates? What is more, he said that he expected any future Labour Government to do just that.
    The Prime Minister: The noble Lord Barnett, being a life peer and therefore not threatened by the plans of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party, has clearly let the cat out of the bag as to what he thinks about Labour's spending plans. As a former Chief Secretary, he knows that they do not add up and that there is a £12 billion black hole in the middle of Labour's plans. He knows that the Labour party cannot sign up to Budget book figures and then disown the policies that would achieve those figures unless it plans to put up taxes, cut expenditure or find some other way of dealing with the great black hole in its plans. It is not, as the shadow Chancellor likes to imply, a Tory scare: we now know the truth as a result of what the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17577]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the crisis in the hospitals in the north area of Manchester since

    1021
    four out of five hospitals were closed by the Government? Is he aware that since Christmas the North Manchester General hospital has accepted only accident and emergency cases, and that two weeks ago eight people remained on trolleys for 23 hours because there were no beds available for them in that hospital or in any other hospital in the region? Is that not a national disgrace and a scandal, and what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: One thing that I am doing to improve the quality of the health service is promising to provide extra resources for each year of the next Parliament, as we have done for the past 18 years. I notice that there is no comparable pledge from the Labour party. Year after year, we have dramatically increased the resources made available to the health service. We operate policies such as compulsory tendering, which brings more money into the health service, and we have abolished a whole tier of regional government in order to provide extra money for the health service. All those policies were opposed by the Labour party, which will not provide extra resources for the health service.
    Mrs. Currie: Did the Prime Minister see today the launch of Europe 97 by the all-party European Movement? Will he join me in welcoming this important effort—which has the backing of the unions, major industries, the Confederation of British Industry and the European Commission—to put the facts about Europe and the benefit of our membership of the European Union to the people of this country rather than the fictions about its dangers?
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the document to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will certainly obtain a copy and look forward to reading it. It is important that the important debate on Europe is conducted on the basis of facts, not fiction, and that people fully understand precisely the implications of policies followed across Europe in each individual country and by the Commission and, of course, in our own country.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the relevance to the Lockerbie inquiry of the publication of the report by the
    1022
    United States Inspector General into laboratory practices and alleged misconduct in explosives-related and other cases.[17578]
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the report has not been published. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made clear on 28 February, we understand that there is nothing to suggest that the report will reflect in any way on the Lockerbie case, but if anything relevant emerged froth it, the Government would evaluate the implications carefully.
    Mr. Dalyell: Against the background set out in that Adjournment debate, have the Government asked the Americans how it is that their forensic expert, James Thurman, has been found to have fabricated forensic evidence? If the Prime Minister asked the Americans, what did they say?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have made inquiries about that, as the hon. Gentleman may have anticipated. The United States authorities have confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has transferred Mr. Thurman to other duties while the activities of the FBI laboratories are investigated. However, we are further advised that the case against the two Libyans does not depend in any respect on any evidence that Mr. Thurman may give.

    Engagements
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17579]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the highest number of home owners in the country, at a fraction under 90 per cent.? As we now have low inflation, low interest rates and very attractive mortgage rates, what advice would he give—as we approach a general election—to my constituents and to home owners throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, we have stable prices, low mortgage rates and a rapidly improving economic situation that is unmatched anywhere in Europe. The advice that my hon. Friend should give to his constituents is to stick to the policies that have created that and not put it at risk by following policies adopted on the continent which have led to a quite different outcome.

Meat Hygiene Service (Report)
3.32 Pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg)rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? We have business to conduct here. Minister, when you are ready.
Mr. Hogg: It may be helpful if I make a statement about the report by the Meat Hygiene Service on the state of hygiene in slaughterhouses, which has been the subject of much comment in the press this morning.
The facts are as follows. The Meat Hygiene Service came into existence on 1 April 1995 as a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agency, and took over responsibility for enforcement of hygiene rules in slaughterhouses that had previously rested with local authorities.
One of the targets for the agency, approved by Ministers and announced to Parliament, was to carry out a review of the state of hygiene in each individual slaughterhouse in Great Britain. It was required to complete that assessment by the end of March 1996. The purposes were threefold: first, to create a comprehensive benchmarking of standards and practices within the British fresh meat industry; secondly, to allocate resources to a function previously performed by local authorities; and, thirdly, to drive up standards across the board and in individual plants.
The Meat Hygiene Service conducted its review by appointing hygiene advice teams to visit each slaughterhouse in the country to assess its score and make recommendations for improvements: a mark was given to each slaughterhouse to serve as a benchmark against future progress.
The final outcome was a comprehensive assessment of the state of hygiene that had been found and a long list of recommendations for future action. The report in its final form was always intended as an internal working document, to be used by the enforcement authorities, so it was not formally published. However, it was presented to the Meat Industry Forum—the leading representatives of meat industry organisations, with whom the Meat Hygiene Service holds regular discussions—and was the subject of frequent discussions with the industry and others. The fact of the review was also explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report on the Meat Hygiene Service's first year of operations, which was presented to Parliament on 17 July 1996, and placed in the Library of the House.
I will deal with some specific criticisms which have been made. Was the report turned down? The facts are as follows. Hygiene assessment teams of MHS staff prepared reports on individual plants. An editorial board, chaired by the MHS head of operations, and made up of professional staff who had all been part of advisory teams, asked Mr. Swann to compile a report on red meat.
Mr. Swann's first draft was regarded as rather unsatisfactory and not fully reflecting the views of others who had taken part in the review. Mr. Swann was asked to recast his contribution, but was not willing to do so. The editorial board then asked another senior member of
1024
Staff to redraft the section on red meat. The revised and condensed version covering both red meat and poultry was put to the industry representatives last year. The final report reflected the majority judgment of the professional veterinary staff who carried out the review.
It is said that important recommendations were not acted on, but that is untrue. Individual reports were made on specific plants and were discussed with individual operators.
Meat Hygiene Service staff are present in every slaughterhouse. In their continuing discussions, they are in a position to ensure that necessary improvements are carried out. All their work is carried out under the over-arching supervision of the State Veterinary Service.
One specific point of concern is in relation to E. colinamely that cattle should not be delivered to slaughterhouses in a dirty condition. It is quite clear that concerted action is needed by the enforcement authorities, by slaughterhouse management and by farmers, to ensure that cattle are presented for slaughter in the cleanest possible condition. The MHS has taken action. For example, ante-mortem checks are carried out on all cattle and are being tightened up. Further action is in hand. The MHS is preparing clear visual operational guidance on the standards expected and how to achieve them. It will be issued this month.
Our purpose in creating the MHS—a policy that was bitterly opposed by Opposition parties—was to drive up standards within abattoirs and the slaughtering industry. The preparation of the report and its follow-up is part of that process. Standards are constantly improving, and they are substantially better now than they were when the service was provided, to varying standards, by more than 300 local authorities. That is a tribute to the MHS, and to the Government for insisting on its creation.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Minister accept that, for many years, we have realised how vital it is to have high standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses, and that, following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, it was even more important to achieve those standards because of a possible link with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?
Does the Minister agree that the report produces alarming evidence showing just how badly the Government enforced the controls in our abattoirs to keep BSE, E. coli and other diseases out of our food? Spinal cords were not being removed, bovine specified offal bins were unmarked, and there was a major problem of faecal contamination, which could infect carcases with E. coli, salmonella and other organisms. The report also draws attention to important worries about animal welfare.
Can the Minister confirm that the report is thorough and substantial, and, indeed, that it cost some £1 million to produce? Can he confirm that it makes 81 major recommendations on abattoir practices? Can he confirm that all those recommendations are now being implemented? Can he assure us that the problems identified by the hygiene advice teams are being addressed? Does he agree with the report about the need for a proper national strategy in relation to contamination in abattoirs? When will that strategy be implemented?
May I point out to the Minister that this final report is dated December 1995? He needs no reminding that it was in March 1996—March last year—that Ministers were

1025
advised of the probability that the new variant of CJD was linked with BSE. Surely, against that background, we had a right to expect that Ministers were leaving no stone unturned to ensure that the highest standards were being implemented in our abattoirs. Surely Ministers had a responsibility to examine the situation assiduously, to ensure that all the regulations were being properly enforced—and it should be remembered that the BSE regulations were introduced as long ago as 1989.
If Ministers were carrying out that proper examination, how could they be unaware of this major report? It is not a routine report; it is not a casual document containing a few minor criticisms. It is a devastating critique of practices in our abattoirs. How was it that Professor Pennington, who has been conducting the inquiry into the tragic outbreak of E. coli in central Scotland, was unaware of the report? Why was it never shown to him? How was it that Richard Cawthorne, a United Kingdom abattoir monitor and owner, and president of the European Meat Association—he was on the radio this morning—did not see the report?
We are advised that the report was due for publication in March 1996, but it was never made public. It really is not good enough for the Minister to say in his statement that there was a reference to this major report, which was completed in March 1995, in a document that came from the Meat Hygiene Service to the House of Commons, and was placed in the Library just as the House rose for the summer recess. He has not answered the question—and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not answered the question—why on earth was the report not made public and put in the public domain? How can we be confident that Ministers are acting on these matters if they do not make such reports public?
Why cannot the Government understand that, on food safety matters, we have to be open and up front on everything? Is this matter not further evidence of the need for an independent food standards agency, with food safety as its No. 1 priority? Secrecy only undermines consumer confidence in the safety of our food. Yet again, another episode is leading the public to lose even more confidence in the Government on the subject of the safety of our food.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman did not make the slightest effort to listen to what I said. I shall deal with his general points first, and then his particular points. He said that it is vital that we have proper controls in abattoirs. I entirely agree, and that is why we introduced the Meat Hygiene Service. It is true that, when practices were controlled by local authorities, they were not as good as we would wish. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman voted against the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service, because it is the instrument for a national approach to the problems.
On many occasions, the hon. Gentleman referred to the document prepared by Mr. Swann in December 1995 as the final document. It was not a final report: it was not a report at all. It was a first draft requested by the editorial board, which comprised people who were all—I think—engaged in the assessment that was being carried out.
When the first draft was presented to the editorial board, the members—the professional peers of Mr. Swann—decided that the report was not satisfactory, for the reasons that they advanced, because they had
1026
carried out the assessment. They asked him to redraft it. He decided not to do so. I do not blame him, and I am not trying to be critical of any individuals. His peers asked him to revise it, and they thought it needed changing because it was not satisfactory. That he declined to do.
The editorial board then asked another expert, who had already prepared one of the chapters, to do the chapter on red meat. The chapter on red meat represented the considered view of the majority of the veterinary experts engaged in the assessment. That report was extensively circulated around the members of the industry to whom the matter was relevant, because they sat on the Meat Industry Forum. They had copies of the report, and discussed it on many occasions. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed it and related matters on 22 occasions in 14 months.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), if he had wanted to, could have asked for a copy of the report, because it was explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report, which he clearly has not read. Before he speaks again on such issues, I suggest that he seriously considers what is said in advance, especially given that he had a copy of my statement in advance.
Sir John Cope: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all the criticisms of hygiene and practices in abattoirs disclosed in the report are, in so far as they are the responsibility of regulators, the responsibility of local authorities, which were the regulators until shortly before the report was compiled? The creation of the Meat Hygiene Service brought the practices under the purview of the national Government, and enabled all the recommendations that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned to be put into practice to improve the abattoirs, compared to their standards when they were run by the local authorities.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is wholly right about that. There is no doubt that the control of abattoirs and slaughterhouses, when it was conducted by local authorities, was not as uniform in its application as one would have wished. The desire for national, uniform standards was the reason why the Government introduced the Meat Hygiene Service, which was wrongly opposed by the Opposition parties. The final condensed report that was given to the industry was part of the process whereby the Meat Hygiene Service assessed the nature of the problem with a view to driving up standards. That is exactly what is happening. That is a positive tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service and to the Government who set it up, and a positive condemnation of those who opposed its setting up.
Mr. Paul Tyler: First, I sincerely commiserate with the Minister on his injury. Would he like to take this opportunity to dispel the wicked media rumour that he shot himself in the foot?
Does the Minister agree that the central issue is not whether the report was published in full, but whether its trenchant recommendations have been implemented in full? May I refer him to the particular replies given by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago? He said that the recommendations were drawn to the attention of all those who had an "operational need" to be aware of them. He then went on to say that they were drawn to the attention of all those who "needed to take action".

1027
Why, in those circumstances, did Professor Pennington tell us this morning in terms that he was not aware of the report or its recommendations, and that he had no knowledge that there were any recommendations at all which were relevant to his inquiry into the E. coli outbreak?
Mr. Hogg: Professor Pennington has indeed said that he himself did not see the final report. It is, however, clear from our inquiries that the group was aware of the exercise being undertaken by the Meat Hygiene Service.
With regard to the implementation of the recommendations, a number of activities have gone on in parallel. Perhaps the most important is that, when the meat hygiene advice teams visited each plant, they prepared a plant report which was additional to and different from the other documentation that we have been discussing. Each plant report was discussed, where discussion was necessary, with the plant operators, so it formed the basis of an operation plan within that particular plant. A copy was also sent to the regional managers of the Meat Hygiene Service. Therefore, specific plants were dealt with on a plant-by-plant basis as a result of the assessment.
More general lessons were also learned, and discussed with the industry through the forum, which had the final report in front of it and discussed it on many occasions. Hon. Members have been asking for a national policy to ensure that clean livestock enters abattoirs. That is why we set up the Meat Hygiene Service. It has insisted on that policy through its in-plant controls. This general document, which will be attached to the operators' manual, will be published shortly, and will add to the documentation available.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend thought about the policy of transporting animals substantial distances to the larger abattoirs, which means that they often arrive much dirtier than when they went to the little local abattoir, when the farmer had already hosed them down? Will he consider the policy of closing all our small abattoirs, because at least outbreaks there do not travel over such a wide geographical area?
Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend, because part of the policy of driving up standards in this area has been to ensure that abattoirs and slaughterhouses comply with the rules, and a number of those to which my hon. Friend refers did not comply with the rules, and that is why they were closed down. They did not provide the kind of standards that the Meat Hygiene Service wished to see in our abattoirs and slaughterhouses.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Minister understand that there is a difference between Professor Pennington's team knowing that the work was going on—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has my permission to stand at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he
1028
will not be kept there too long, and that questions will be short and to the point. I know that he will give short answers.
Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is a difference between Professor Pennington's team knowing that the work was going on, and his being sent a copy of the final report and recommendations? Is he further aware that Dr. Ahmed, the consultant in public health medicine in charge of the outbreak control team dealing with the E. coli outbreak in my constituency, has widely been giving the advice that it must be assumed that 20 per cent. of the fresh beef sold in Scotland today is contaminated with E. coli? What action has been taken on the report?
Mr. Hogg: It is for the chairman of any inquiry or review team to determine the evidence that the team wants to receive. It is for him to determine the lines of inquiry that he wishes to pursue. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has always been ready to provide any information, evidence or material to the group. Indeed, I think that a specific offer was made by the veterinary service. Moreover, a member of the ownership group of the Meat Hygiene Service is on the Pennington group, so it is clear that the group was perfectly well aware of what was going on—the report and the fact of the review. It is for Professor Pennington to call for material that he deems relevant to his inquiry, and we would be happy to respond.
Mr. John Greenway: Is not the issue at stake the following: it is extremely unlikely that, had we not created the Meat Hygiene Service, a report of that nature could ever have been prepared, because there was no mechanism at a national level for local authority-supervised abattoirs to be required to carry out such hygiene checks? As for independence, can the Minister assure me that all meat hygiene inspectors are qualified veterinary surgeons, and are being properly briefed on what needs to be done to ensure that there is no outbreak of E. coli in any of our local abattoirs, where none has taken place thus far?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made a serious point. When the controls were administered by 300 local authorities, before the creation of the Meat Hygiene Service, it was not possible to have an overview of what was happening in slaughterhouses—and, a fortiori, it was not possible to have a national policy to improve them. The setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service has enabled us to know precisely what is going on throughout the country, and through that knowledge, and through the existence of the agency, which was opposed by the Opposition, to drive up standards. That is a very serious improvement, attributable to the Meat Hygiene Service and to Government policy.
Mr. John Garrett: Given the increase in E. coli infection foreshadowed by the report, why did the Minister subsequently cut by £2 million the funding for food safety research being carried out by the food research institute in Norwich, which specialised in examining the causes and effects of E. coli poisoning?
Mr. Hogg: We always have to judge at any one time what are the chief priorities for scientific research. As a matter of policy, we have substantially increased

1029
the spending on research into BSE, in accordance with the wishes expressed in the House and with the peer assessment by those who know. I think that that was widely welcomed in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I took part in a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on the Meat Hygiene Service initiated by an Opposition Member? The hon. Gentleman and I reflected the concern and unhappiness felt by many within the meat industry about the cost and the bureaucracy of the Meat Hygiene Service. Is it not odd, therefore, that the Opposition now seek to take what I regard as irresponsible advantage of the situation, in a manner that does no good to the consumer or to the industry?
In fact, perhaps even against my wishes, the Meat Hygiene Service, which has been responsible for revealing the problem, was set up against the wishes of the Opposition. Should we not make that obvious to the people of this country?
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that, after that, questions will be short and to the point. They are much too long; they are comments and speeches, not questions. We must move on. We have another statement after this.
Mr. Hogg: Few hon. Members are more powerful than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He is right to say that the Labour party opposed the instrument by which the facts are being known and the improvements carried out. That is an absurd position for the Labour party.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that Professor Hugh Pennington is not just an eminent scientist, but a truthful and mild-mannered man? He told me this morning that he had no knowledge of the report, had not seen it and was extremely angry about it. Does the Minister not think that the House should believe him? Does he not find it incredible, against the background of 20 fatalities in Scotland, that no civil servant from MAFF or the Scottish Office thought to provide the report to Hugh Pennington? Is that not a comment on the atmosphere of secrecy over which the Government and all ministerial teams preside?
Mr. Hogg: That is nonsense. Of course Professor Pennington is a man of the utmost distinction. If he says that he has not seen the report, I am not saying he has. However, people in his group knew of the existence of the review. It would have been passing strange if they did not, because it is referred to in the annual report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Page 18. I am glad that hon. Members have got it. They will find an explicit reference to the review on page 18, paragraph 4.
Mr. Tony Banks: It does not say what it said.
Mr. Hogg: It was open to the hon. Gentleman to ask for a copy of the review. He did not read it at the time, and he is now kicking himself.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is fatuous
1030
to suggest that any Minister can read every report produced by his Ministry, let alone every report produced by every agency under the aegis of his Ministry? It may be that some of his officials should have drawn his attention to the report or to passages in it, but if he was left in ignorance, it was hardly his fault, was it?
Mr. Hogg: Reference has been made to a report prepared by Mr. Swann. No report was prepared by Mr. Swann. He prepared a first draft, which his professional peers—and nobody else—found unsatisfactory. They wanted him to change it because it did not reflect their views, although they had helped to carry out the assessment. He decided not to do that. Consequently, another report was prepared—shorter and simpler to read—which was widely circulated in the industry. It is referred to explicitly as "the review" on page 18, paragraph 4.
Mr. Alan Williams: I accept that the Minister may not have seen the report, but is he seriously suggesting to the House that, when he and his fellow Ministers came to the House to answer questions and make statements about E. coli, there was nothing in their background briefing on the contents of the report? If there was nothing, should not his civil servants be sacked? If there was, and he failed to tell the House, should not he be sacked?
Mr. Hogg: There is a serious misunderstanding here. The Government have known for a long time about the problem of, for example, faecal contamination of carcases in abattoirs. That was expressly referred to in the other place by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe, when talking about poultrymeat and other regulations. The problem has existed for some time. It is one reason why the Meat Hygiene Service was set up.
We have discussed the recommendations to carry on the various works. I have had discussions with the Meat Hygiene Service, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had discussions with the industry on many occasions.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have a view about why the earlier, and it seems unsatisfactory, draft of the report, which appears to have been lurking around since the end of 1995, should have been given to the press in March 1997? Does he agree that people involved in farming and the meat industry will not easily forgive those who, for purely political reasons, seek to generate a fraudulent panic about the safety of British meat?
Mr. Hogg: I suspect that many farmers and others will agree with my hon. Friend. What is absolutely certain—this is the crucial point—is that there was full discussion of the report, which was the majority view of the professionals who carried out the assessment.
That full report—28 pages of it—was put before the industry forum, which includes the National Farmers Union and others and all those in the meat industry. They had copies of it, and it was discussed. The carrying out of the review is referred to in the annual report, which was laid before the House and which has been placed in the Library of the House. Any hon. Member who wanted a copy of the document had only to ask, and we would have been pleased to send one to them.
Mr. Tony Banks: On the radio this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary said that she had not seen a copy of the report, and that it had not been drawn to her attention. With the benefit of hindsight, to which the Minister referred earlier, does he accept that it would have been better if the report had been drawn to the attention of Ministers?
Mr. Hogg: It is for Ministers to lay down policy. The implementation of the policy is the responsibility of the agency. In this case, the agency was doing three things: first, it established the benchmarks by which one can identify progress in the future; secondly, because it was taking over responsibility for functions previously held by local authorities, it determined the allocation of staff, both regionally and plant by plant; and thirdly, it wanted to use the process as the mechanism for driving up standards. All those things come into the category of implementing policy.
I have the highest confidence in the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service. He knows his function, which is to tackle this sort of problem. He will keep Ministers informed about the detailed implementation to the extent that he deems necessary, but he is primarily responsible for the implementation of the policy, and I have every confidence in him.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my disappointment at the way in which the matter has been reported, particularly on television programmes today? The sight of filthy animals going into abattoirs caused me to telephone Southern Counties and Romford Meats to ask what it would do if it was presented with animals in that condition. I was told, unequivocally, that any such animals would be sent straight back to where they came from.
Mr. Hogg: That is absolutely right. If one looks at the report, which was circulated among the industry and was the subject of discussion within the industry, one can see that great weight is placed upon the ante-mortem inspections. It is made plain in that document that, if cattle are presented in a filthy state, they will be rejected. It is important for everybody in the industry to understand that, if cattle turn up at an abattoir in the state to which some people have referred, they will be sent straight back to where they came from.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On several occasions, the Minister has mentioned page 18, paragraph 4 of the Meat Hygiene Service report. Will he confirm that that survey makes no reference to the report under discussion—either the draft report or the subsequent report—and talks merely about a "national review" taking place? That review could presumably have led to a report later. If that is to be interpreted as a report, why are Opposition Members guilty of not having read the report, when Ministers are held to be innocent for not having seen it or had it presented to them?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not done me justice. I said in the statement that the fact—only the fact—of the review was explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report.
Mr. Tony Banks: We have all got it.
Mr. Hogg: I am glad that everyone has it. The hon. Gentleman should read it. In case he cannot understand it, I shall read some of it for him. Paragraph 4 on page 18 says:
"MHS Hygiene Advice Teams (HATs) involved two-person teams of experienced OVSs and MHIs who, during 1995/96, assessed, through individual plant audits—"
the point that I made to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—
"standards and inspection processes at all licensed premises throughout Great Britain. This national review provided the first comprehensive benchmarking of standards and practices within the fresh meat industry"—
and it goes on. I have never heard of a review that does not generate a document.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Have there been any prosecutions as a result of the report? I believe that there have. If so, is that not evidence of its great value in driving up standards as my right hon. and learned Friend said, and would not reports of such prosecutions have provided an opportunity for the Opposition and anyone else to pick up information about the report? Should not Professor Pennington have done that also?
Mr. Hogg: The report and the process have indeed driven up standards; that is plain from the report that was discussed by the industry forum. I do not know the number of prosecutions offhand, so I shall write to my hon. Friend. I can tell him, however, that I have told the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service that, if the facts justify it, he must not hesitate to prosecute.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister tell us clearly when he read the annual report of the Meat Hygiene Service, a copy of which was placed in the Library before the last summer vacation? Why, when he read it, did he not call for a copy of that damning report? He cannot have it both ways: he cannot argue that Opposition Members should have asked for the report when he himself never asked for it.
Mr. Hogg: I have already made the position plain. Ministers are responsible for policy. In this class of case, the implementation of policy is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service. I am absolutely confident in the quality of that service and in the competence of its chief executive. I am happy to leave to him the responsibility for implementation, which is a role imposed on him by Parliament.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some people in the west midlands and Staffordshire—the owners of abattoirs that have had to close or have had to have a great deal of money spent on them to bring them up to the standards required by the Meat Hygiene Service—will be pretty sick of this debate? They will know that Her Majesty's inspectors went in and made such closures as

1033
a result of that review. Is it not further the case that, if it had been left to the Labour party, there would have been no Meat Hygiene Service and no review?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is true that, if it had been left to the Labour party, we would have had no Meat Hygiene Service, no report, no review, no discussion, and standards would not have been driven up. It is also true—there is a certain irony here—that most of the complaints that I have received are not about low standards and so forth, but about closing small abattoirs because of the higher standards. The plain truth is that we are driving standards up, and, as a consequence, some small abattoirs have been closed.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The charge, surely, is that the annual report of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was published in June last year, gave no warning—least of all to people who, like me, are interested in the matter—that there was anything so bad in our slaughterhouses. I have read the Swann report, and it makes chilling reading. The Minister said that the purpose of the report was to establish benchmarks in the slaughterhouse industry. How many slaughterhouses were not up to standard in December 1995, and how many in March 1996, when the BSE crisis broke? He should have the figures at his fingertips.
Mr. Hogg: The review process had three purposes: first, to establish benchmarking and to take an overview of the state of the industry, which had previously been in the hands of the local authorities; secondly, to determine the allocation of resources; and thirdly, to drive up standards, both nationally through national practices, and on a plant basis, by on-plant discussion with the plant operator, based on the plant report. There is no doubt that the effect of that process has been greatly to improve standards.
If the Labour party had had its way, this business would still be in the hands of the local authorities; we would not be having this discussion; standards would be as they were when they were in the control of local authorities; and we would all be much worse off.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is it not regrettable that some people are willing to use food scares to embarrass the Government, and, in doing so, unnecessarily alarm members of the public? Was there not a typical example of that this afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition stirred it for all he was worth but did not even stay to hear the facts from my right hon. and learned Friend?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister three questions on the report and then walked out, even though he knew that a statement was coming. If he was seriously interested in the matter, and not merely trying to make cheap political capital, he would have listened to the facts. He did not, and the country will judge him accordingly.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I tell the Minister that the Leader of the Opposition is one of the few Members who has read the whole report? The Minister has all his Ministers with him. Did any Minister
1034
or civil servant issue an instruction. write a letter or send a memo to anyone suggesting that this report be given only limited circulation because of the danger of it generating concern among the British public?
Mr. Hogg: I had hoped that, by explaining the process, I would have answered questions such as this. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Swann carried out, along with others, assessments of abattoirs. He was asked by the editorial board, which comprised his peers, to produce a first report. That editorial board found, in its professional judgment, that the draft report was unsatisfactory. It asked him to make changes; he declined. At that point, it commissioned another expert, who was also involved in the assessment—he had done the poultry section—to do the red meat section, and that he did. The report that emerged and that was subsequently circulated to the industry represents the majority view of the veterinary experts who carried out the review, and no other.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a troubling constituency question? West Lothian council and I endlessly, over three years, wrote to and met Scottish Office officials about the outbreak at Redhouse dairy in Blackburn in my constituency, which was the first E. coli 0157 outbreak in recent times. Are we to understand that neither the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), nor the Earl of Lindsay, the Minister responsible for agriculture, nor the Secretary of State for Scotland was alerted to the report?
When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) asked, very properly, about the figure of £1 million, the Parliamentary Secretary shook her head. What were the costs of the report, and why was it not brought to the attention of Scottish Office Ministers, who were faced on a day-to-day basis with the entreaties of West Lothian council and others who were affected?
Mr. Hogg: The cost, speaking off the cuff, was not £1 million. I think that it was £454,000, but if I am wrong, I apologise, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. On the report's availability, the final report—the one that was circulated to the industry—was made available to all concerned, including the Scottish Office.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Am I right in saying that, when the Minister placed the document to which he referred in the House of Commons Library, he assumed that there was another document associated with it? Is he telling the House that that is what the paragraph to which he referred means? Does he ever ask for such documents to be brought to his attention, or has he published a paragraph in that report which he did not understand? Is that not an indictment of him?
Mr. Hogg: I have never said that a copy of the final report was laid in the Library. What was laid in the Library was the annual report, which states in terms in paragraph 4 on page 18 that a review was carried out. As anyone who knows anything about government knows full well, a review generates a report. If anyone wanted the report, he had only to get on the telephone and ask for it. I would have sent him a lordly number.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Have we not seen today a deplorable exhibition of casuistry by the Minister,

1035
who admits that he has received a report in his Department which cost half a million pounds and made the most serious complaints about the state of the meat hygiene industry? He was unaware of the seriousness of the report, and neither he nor his Ministers asked to see the report. Is that not a confession of incompetence?
Does the Minister not think that the country is getting fed up with the weekly promulgation by members of the Government of their doctrine of ministerial infallibility? Why is it that everything that goes wrong is the result of the work of officials, and everything that goes right is the result of the work of Ministers?
Mr. Hogg: Just occasionally, Opposition Members should try to get their minds around the simplest of propositions. Just to encourage them, I will repeat it. Policy is a matter for Ministers. As this is a particular case, the implementation of policy is a matter for the agency. I have total confidence in the chief executive. He has put in hand a process which has informed the industry what needs to happen and is driving up standards. Had the matter been left as the Labour party wanted it, there would have been no improvement of any kind.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Most consumers will have welcomed the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service and its drive for higher standards, and will have noted that its inception was opposed by the main Opposition party. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me and all other United Kingdom consumers that meat and meat products that are imported into Britain are slaughtered and transported to the same high standards that apply in this country?
Mr. Hogg: I have always said, because I believed it, that British beef, as now is, is the best and safest in Europe. The reason for that is the rules we put into place, such as the 30-month rule, controls on cattle rations and controls in abattoirs. I want to see, and I am pressing for, similar regimes in Europe. Until the Europeans have put those things in place, I shall continue saying and believing that British beef is the best and safest in the Community.

Business of the House
4.23 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 10 MARCH—Opposition Day [7th allotted day] (first part). Until 7 pm, there will be a debate entitled "Public Responsibility for Social and Economic Justice" on a motion in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MARcH—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 MARcH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the Scottish Affairs Committee on the removal of tariff rebate subsidy on Northern Isles Freight, followed by a debate on the first report from the Select Committee on Agriculture on the United Kingdom dairy industry and the common agricultural policy dairy regime. That will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, there will debates on motions on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations, the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations, the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order, the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations and the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations. Those are the regulations about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked me last week.
Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [Lords].
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, the spring supplementary estimates, and the defence votes A.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—Debate on future pensions policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
Once again, I am able to give the House only limited information about business for the following week.
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Committee and remaining stages of the Building Societies Bill.
Remaining stages of the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 19 March, there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 19 March:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the limited information that he has, once again, been able to give us. He will recall that, last week, he told the House that the Easter recess would be
"in the vicinity of Easter."—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 452.]
Does that mean that there will be an Easter recess? If so, surely the sooner the dates are announced, the better. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges can meet during any recess?
Last week, the Leader of the House promised to draw to the attention of colleagues our request for a debate, before its privatisation, on the future of the Building Research Establishment. In view of the alarming facts that have been unearthed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) about that privatisation and the contradictions contained in answers to parliamentary questions on the matter, surely we should have such a debate before the contracts are signed.
The Leader of the House has announced that next week the House will debate amendments to the regulations that govern elections. Have the Government considered improving the arrangements in polling stations, to reduce the number of spoilt ballot papers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the general election was held on the same day as local elections, the number of spoilt papers for general election candidates rose threefold, mainly because electors voted for more than one candidate, as they are sometimes entitled to do in local elections? As we know that local elections will be held on 1 May, including those for the new unitary authorities, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the possibility of an unusually high number of spoilt ballot papers, should the general election fall on the same day?
Finally, may I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the debate on pensions, to be held on Thursday of next week, as I had intended to ask him once again whether we could have such a debate? May we hope that the Secretary of State for Social Security will confirm during that debate that the Government's proposals on pensions will mean the abolition of the basic state pension and the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—and that the Government intend to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on privatising the pensions of millions of people? We welcome the debate, because it will be an opportunity to warn the young and the old alike that one cannot trust the Tories on pensions.
Mr. Newton: On the Easter recess, I thought that my statement last week was admirably clear, and I am certainly not in a position further to clarify it this afternoon. On the Standards and Privileges Committee, the hon. Lady knows the answer to her question, as we were together responsible for the regime under which it operates: it can, of course, meet during a recess.
On the question of the future of the Building Research Establishment and the associated points that the hon. Lady made, she will not be surprised to learn that I am not in a position to promise a debate, but I shall ensure that her comments are examined by my right hon. Friends in the relevant field. On the matter of spoilt ballot papers, I am not in a position to confirm whether the general election
1038
and the local elections will coincide, but I am sure that, were they to do so, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office who are responsible for electoral matters would consider her remarks with care.
Lastly, on pensions, to be perfectly honest I am slightly surprised that the Opposition were thinking of asking for a debate on pensions, because it is increasingly clear that they have no policy of their own on pensions. It is also clear that they do not understand our policy and therefore mis-state what that policy is.
Sir Roger Sims: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the correspondence between us on the topic of the report of the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, of which I was a member? Given the importance of that issue and current public interest in it, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find a slot between now and the end of this Parliament, to give the House an opportunity to debate the report and its recommendations?
Mr. Newton: I greatly respect the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in those matters over many years. As he has referred to the letter that he wrote to me, he will recall that I have indicated to him informally that I thought that a Wednesday morning application might be the best way. I ought to admit that I have some slight reservations about whether this is an appropriate time for such a debate, while there is such a large and important inquiry into such matters going on in Wales. It may be that when that report appears—it certainly will not be in this Parliament—would be a more appropriate time for a debate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: If I was right to think that the House might sit until Maundy Thursday and that we might come back for two days on 7 and 8 April to fit in for a 1 May election, would the Leader of the House consider whether we might use that time to the full and pick up the debates that we normally have before the end of the Session, but which we have not yet had? Those debates are: foreign affairs, especially with Hong Kong issues on people's minds; Northern Ireland, in the light of the ending of the talks yesterday; women's issues, which we had last year; and London, which we are promised every year.
Mr. Newton: All I can say is that, were the hon. Gentleman's speculation to become reality, I would consider his and other suggestions.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disgraceful way in which two members of the Labour party tried to destroy the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). In view of the fact that the House has been rising early recently and given that it will doubtless continue to do so on some evenings in the future, will he consider the possibility of the Government taking over the Bill, which the Government have backed and which would have the overwhelming support of anybody in this country who wants to stop Britain becoming a haven for the most serious international criminals?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I understand my hon. and learned Friend's point and I note his suggestion; but he

1039
will be aware that it has been settled policy, not only in my time, but over the past nearly 18 years, that the Government—however strongly they approve of proposals in private Members' Bills—have hesitated, to put it mildly, before picking and choosing about providing Government time for one Bill rather than another.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House accept that, if the Government did change their mind and bring forward that Bill and give it time, they would be giving time to the Government's own Bill, which they handed to a Back Bencher to promote on a Friday? Will he bear it in mind that, if they did that, it would give some of us a chance to explain that we were not against the provisions on drugs or certain other aspects of the Bill, but against the part of the Bill that deals with freedom fighters and that would land them in gaol at the whim of the Attorney-General? If that part of the Bill were taken out, he could have a guarantee from me and other Labour Members that we would give the Bill a clear run.
The Government could not find more than 20 Members last Friday. Within hours of that wonderful Wirral by-election success for Labour, the dispirited forces on the Conservative Benches were apparent to all and, at twenty minutes to 10, this lousy, rotten Government did not even have more than 20 people to carry their legislation through.
Why do not the Government resign?
Mr. Newton: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has just delivered the speech that he would have delivered last Friday, had he not deprived himself of the opportunity to make a speech by the procedural device that was employed. I cannot say that I am happy to have done so, but I have listened—enthralled, as always—to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Has my right hon. Friend seen the results of a recent MORI poll, commissioned by Zee television, an Asian network, which show that 62 per cent. of the Asian residents of this country who were polled by MORI held the view that the current immigration and asylum regulations were too lenient?
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the whole nation—including the Asian community, which has been so successful here—to have a proper debate and discussion about the Opposition's proposals fundamentally to relax the immigration rules, and especially the primary purpose rule? Do we not owe it to everyone to use the House to discuss something that is of real importance and concern?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that we regard the primary purpose rule as an essential safeguard to prevent abuse by people using marriage as a means of obtaining settlement in this country but, beyond that, I would want to emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did in responding to my hon. Friend on Tuesday, that our approach rests very much on pursuing calmly and
1040
dispassionately, in as non-partisan a way as possible, the firm but fair immigration policies that underpin the improvement in race relations in this country.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would the Leader of the House like to come to the House next week with his colleagues from the Department of Transport to make a statement about the reasons for the marked lack of urgency in their approach to ferry safety? It will soon be Easter, which is usually regarded as the beginning of the holiday season, when many people will travel on ferries without being certain that safety standards are being maintained that would prevent a repetition of the appalling Zeebrugge accident. May we have some urgent action on that matter?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, who is expert in those matters, knows that a great deal of action has taken place; as it happens, regulations to introduce a higher survivability standard for roll on/roll off passenger ferries will come into force next month.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Following the earlier question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), may I urge my right hon. Friend to hold a debate on the workings of the new law that we sensibly introduced, to require employers to check that their employees have valid work permits or some other legal reason for working if they are not British citizens? I further urge on him that there is a very grave danger that, were that law to be repealed at the moment when the minimum wage was introduced, we could have what several of our continental partners have experienced—spiralling domestic unemployment on one hand and, on the other, an ugly growth of illegal and dangerous sweatshops, where illegal immigrants were exploited by unscrupulous employers wanting to undercut that wage rate.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes several additional points and comparisons with what is happening elsewhere, but I cannot sensibly seek to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a few moments ago.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Forgive me for intruding into a Front Benches' china shop and, I suspect, a legal mire, but I raised with the Leader of the House a month ago the statements on television, so far unchallenged, of Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed who said, parading banknotes, that Members of Parliament could be hired like London taxis. Although I do not doubt the good faith of the Front-Bench negotiations and the legal difficulties, the House of Commons is in some difficulty. As we go into an election, people see that the statements from Mohammed Al-Fayed, which are deeply damaging to Parliament, are unchallenged. May we have an assurance that an attempt will be made to resolve the matter? The Standards and Privileges Committee can meet during the recess, but is unlikely to do so, for understandable reasons.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations as if that was a usual channels matter between the two principal parties in the House, but it has nothing to do with that. The hon. Member for Dewsbury

1041
(Mrs. Taylor) and I speak to each other, as we are both members of the Standards and Privileges Committee, but much of the material relevant to the hon. Gentleman's comments is currently under examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who will produce a report. I have no doubt that he is working as hard as he can.
On a related matter, the hon. Gentleman may not yet be aware of the fact that a substantial report by the Parliamentary Commissioner, also connected with suggestions made by Mr. Al-Fayed, in this case relating to the Home Secretary, was published one hour and 10 minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman might wish to look at it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an early debate on the terms of reference and competencies of the local government ombudsman? That would enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to judge the strong arguments in favour of strengthening the power of redress of the ombudsman against such malpractices as the advertisement—three months in advance of the public inquiry, let alone the granting of planning permission—of a tender worth £3 million for the construction of social housing on a recreation ground on green chain land in my constituency.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that all I can say is that I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is drawn to what he said.
Ms Janet Anderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that this Saturday, 8 March, is International Women's Day? May I remind him that it has become customary to have a debate in the House at this time of the year about matters of concern to women, and that last year that debate was held in Government time? Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have not been willing to allocate time this year, and will he reconsider, in view of the insulting remarks of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) about women?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has added to the rather long list given to me earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), of subjects that we seek to debate at more or less annual intervals. I shall bear in mind the subject that the hon. Lady wants us to debate in the near future, but she will understand that there are a number of other uncertainties.
Mr. Graham Riddick: May I back up the calls of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for a debate on race relations in Britain, so that I can point out that the firm control of immigration over the past 18 years has contributed significantly to the vast improvement in race relations? For example, an Asian constituent of mine said to me only last week that his community has not had to put up with
1042
the violence and intimidation from skinheads over the past 18 years that was so prevalent in the 1970s, particularly when the previous Labour Government were in office.
Mr. Newton: I shall take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, along with the similar suggestions made earlier by my two other hon. Friends.
Mr. Paul Flynn: As today is the 10th anniversary of the entirely predictable and avoidable deaths of 194 people on the Herald of Free Enterprise, how can the Leader of the House be happy that pretty basic new safety regulations will come into force in a month, 10 years and one month after that disaster?
Is it not horrific that the ferry industry is already trying to circumvent those regulations? Four ferries should have been subject to the new safety regulations this year, but two are to be sent down to the Mediterranean, where they will not be subject to the regulations, and the regulations will not apply to the other two ferries. Is it not a disgrace that the new safety regulations are being avoided? Sixty ferries—which is 60 per cent. of the ferries using British ports—will not have new safety features installed in them for five years, until October 2002. We urgently need a debate on those matters, as ferry transport is the only form of passenger transport in which, when a disaster occurs, the systems are not changed to failsafe, but are allowed to fail in the future as they have in the past, dangerously and lethally.
Mr. Newton: Although I cannot promise a debate, I can point to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, have acknowledged that a wide range of measures has been introduced over the past 10 years to contribute to the improved safety of ferries. In his question he provided part of the answer: clearly, this is a matter in which, if possible, it is best to proceed internationally, which takes a good deal of time. The UK has been at the forefront of negotiations for improved standards. The Stockholm agreement on ferry safety is a major achievement, whose requirements go significantly beyond those applicable in the rest of the world.
Mr. Hartley Booth: Having heard the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), and that of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) concerning a possible debate on women, will my right hon. Friend consider, as an alternative, a debate on children? Children are of enormous importance to everyone and the responsibility of virtually every Department. We frequently receive in our postbags complaints about the Government arising from lack of co-ordination in other areas, but the Government have a fine record on their policy on children. As an alternative to last year's debate on women, would it not be appropriate to have a full-scale Government debate on children?
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge, not least as a former Minister in that area, the importance of the subject that my hon. Friend has raised, but I am bound to say that with the list of requests for debate that I have received in

1043
the past 20 minutes, it is not just the Standards and Privileges Committee that would be sitting during any recess.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On Wednesday, we are to debate regulations on the representation of the people. Would not that be a good opportunity to discuss the state of the electoral register in the run-up to the general election, and to see whether it is in as bad a state as it was last year and whether there are millions missing from the register? In preparation for the debate, will the Government publish the number of people who are on the electoral register?
Answers are being given in connection with Northern Ireland. In reply to a question on Scotland, I was given the wrong figures—last year's. I cannot get the figures for England and Wales until the end of March. I understand that there are five returning officers who have not yet submitted their figures. May we have provisional lists, and could those areas be contacted to find out the details?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I told the hon. Gentleman last week, to which he referred. I am sure that his remarks about the five returning officers will be examined by those responsible for producing the figures as soon as possible.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the training of our national firefighters, so that I could draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 608, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)?
[That this House notes the internal publication of a report on Health and Safety at the Fire Service College, Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire; further notes that the report was in response to recent accidents at the college; is concerned that the report made observations concerning risk to those at the college; agrees with the report that 'burning people, exhausting them or otherwise putting them at risk is not high on the objectives of the training programme' at the college; is surprised that in his Answer of 20th January to the honourable Member for Montgomery, Official Report, column 430, concerning health and safety at the college, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, the honourable Member for Bolton West, made no reference to the report or the problems the report identifies and expressed himself satisfied with the health and safety situation at the college; and calls on the Government immediately to assess the needs of the Fire Service College so that full health and safety measures are implemented.]
The hon. and learned Gentleman scurrilously put on the record and quoted from an internal report that was produced for the Fire Service College in my constituency, without giving any warning to the college or to me as the constituency Member. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would allow me to bring to the attention of the House the outstanding qualities of the Fire Service College, which were recognised in an answer given to me today by the Home Secretary? The finances of the college have been radically overhauled, so it now faces a certain
1044
future and can go out into the national and international market and sell itself on the excellence of the training that it provides.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question gives him an opportunity to make those points about the college. I share his surprise—I think that that is the appropriate word—that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) should have tabled such a motion without consulting the constituency Member or checking the facts with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or the college.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate on the export of live animals for slaughter? In that respect, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 615.
[That this House calls attention to the transportation of sheep from Dover on the MV 'Caroline' on, or about, Friday 7th March; notes that the vessel is chartered by Live Sheep Traders of Dublin and operated by Mr. Roger Mills of Framlingham, Suffolk, who himself has a conviction for keeping animals in an unfit condition; further notes that the old cull ewes will be making a sea crossing of between 9 and 12 hours, subsequently to be moved via Holland or Belgium to the killing fields of Paris where they will be ritually slaughtered for the festival of Eid; believes the journey times, conditions of transportation and method of killing to be unacceptable to public opinion and contrary to EU law; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to prevent this barbarous trade from taking place.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that old cull ewes will be crammed on to MV Caroline and exported from Dover to France, where they will be taken to fields outside Paris and ritually slaughtered? Would he be interested in seeing the photographic evidence that I have of ewes giving birth while their throats are cut and they are bled over ditches? Is not that an obscene and disgusting trade? If we cannot debate the issue, will the right hon. Gentleman draw it to the attention of Ministers, to ensure that the trade does not continue?
Mr. Newton: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I share his general view about the importance of animal welfare matters. Enforcement of the slaughter rules in Paris is clearly a matter for the French authorities, but I assure him that we are in touch with them about it.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that parents at eight out of nine secondary schools in Gravesham and at a further three schools in the borough have voted for those schools to become grant-maintained. May we have a debate next week on grant-maintained schools? I wish to express the growing concern of those parents that Labour would overrule their decision and claw back 15 per cent. of education funds from the schools, to the central bureaucracy of the local education authority.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's best bet is probably the return to this place of the Education Bill from another place.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House may be aware that Imperial Metals

1045
is to close Yorkshire Alloys Ltd., which provides more than 400 jobs in my constituency and more than 200 jobs in Smethwick. Will he note the fact that the company exports to the tune of £25 million a year, which would be a serious loss to the British economy, and is also an important contributor to defence sales in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Ministers are made aware of the situation so that, when I seek an opportunity to raise the matter again in the House, they will be able to provide some answers concerning the reaction of Government Departments—particularly that of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry—to that important occurrence?
Mr. Newton: I certainly take note of such matters myself. I have hastily scanned the rather large number of ministerial colleagues on the Front Bench, who are clearly fascinated by today's business questions, and I am glad to say that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is present to take direct delivery of that point.
Mr. John Marshall: When will my right hon. Friend make time for the annual summer economic debate? Could summer come early this year, so that we may reiterate the statement of the noble Lord Barnett that the economy is doing well, and so that I, as the father of two teenagers, might welcome the fact that job opportunities for school leavers in this country are much better than those in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, where they have been decimated by the minimum wage?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to pre-empt or predict the speech that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make in a few moments, but I should be surprised if my hon. Friend did not hear a little reiteration of Lord Barnett's comments.
Mr. Nicholas Wintertonrose—
Madam Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber when the Leader of the House made his statement?
Mr. Winterton: I was indeed.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry; I did not see the hon. Gentleman. I shall accept his word.
Mr. Winterton: My constituency of Macclesfield has one of lowest levels of unemployment in the country under a prudent Conservative borough council. The United Kingdom has a prudent Conservative Government and what is cited by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission as the strongest economy in Europe. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), could we debate the economy and taxation before the Dissolution of Parliament, so that the House can give mature consideration to those issues and compare the Government's record with what is on offer from the Opposition parties?
Mr. Newton: If I may say so, Madam Speaker, I think that such an opportunity will arise as soon as hon. Members stop asking me questions.

Point of Order
4.55 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have notified the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) of my intention to refer to him this afternoon in relation to his allegation against me last night, which appears at column 960 of Hansard, that I had invited the IRA to the House. As you will recall, Madam Speaker, the allegation was made in connection with admissions by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) regarding references to Ms Roisin McAliskey. I regard the allegation as extremely serious and totally unfounded. I have written to you about the matter, Madam Speaker, and I should be grateful to know what action you intend to take, as I regard the withdrawal of the allegation by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone as most important.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was in the Chair for much of the debate last night, when I heard all the exchanges and the points of order that were raised. I thought that he made his position very clear at the time by way of a point of order. I read the debate this morning, and I am still of that opinion.

Public Expenditure
[Relevant document: Minutes of evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 5 March (HC355).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
4.56 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): No serious commentator can doubt the Government's commitment to containing the levels of public expenditure, while a glance at the Labour Benches shows clearly the total absence of any Opposition interest in the subject. In 1975–76, public expenditure absorbed more than 47 per cent. of our gross domestic product, which included massive subsidies to the nationalised industries. That figure was broadly in line with other European economies, and it went hand in hand with high levels of taxation. We had punitive levels of direct taxation—a basic rate of 34p in the pound, rising to 98p for high earners—and, as one would expect, a level of inflation significantly worse than that of our principal international competitors. The average for the period 1974 to 1979 of 15.5 per cent. sounds like an incredible figure today.
The Government's consistent prime objective has been to lower the level of public expenditure and to provide incentives through the tax system to encourage a faster-growing economy. In the next financial year, we are set to meet our target of reducing public expenditure below 40 per cent. of GDP. On the continent, the figures remain conspicuously higher: 49 per cent. in Germany, 52 per cent. in Italy, and 53 per cent. in France. That contrast has led to a quite different performance in this country from that of earlier decades.
In the 1960s and 1970s, we outpaced only Switzerland and New Zealand of the 25 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the growth of GDP per head. Since 1979, the United Kingdom has grown at a faster rate than Switzerland, France, Canada, the United States and another eight OECD countries. Since 1992, we have enjoyed the longest, strongest and steadiest recovery of any major European economy. Furthermore, according to the OECD, this country is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy not only in the year just ended, but in the next two years as well.
The other hallmark of that period is that, while the Conservatives in government have battled determinedly to achieve those successes, every significant reform that has led to such a desirable product has been resisted by the Labour party. Labour resisted our tax cuts, trade union reform, and each and every privatisation of the loss-making, or, indeed profit-making, nationalised industries. It resisted every change until we have proved that it works.
One can judge the quality of Tory initiatives by the vociferousness of Labour's opposition. If we get a bad headline in the Daily Mirror, that means that we are on a right track. If we get a yah-boo reaction from a Labour spokesman, that initiative becomes tomorrow's policy. Best of all, if we get downright opposition from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to an initiative, it is halfway to being in the Labour party's manifesto.
1048
If I needed any final commendation of the brilliant initiative announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, it was Labour's knee-jerk reaction to it. We proposed to reduce public expenditure by £40 billion a year. We showed how we could increase significantly the funding available for investment, and as a product of that, offer an old-age pension of £175 a week, in a major, far-sighted reform of state pension funding. What do we get? New Labour, old Labour—every variety of Labour—on the airwaves searching for fat cats under the bed. It was a classic and typical response, and the louder they shouted, the more convinced I became.
Contrast our initiative with Labour's exploded initiative for pension reform. The leader of the Labour party lands in Singapore to proclaim that he has found the ultimate stakeholder pension scheme—whizz-bang, all-singing, all-dancing, and, above all else, run by the state. There is a small snag: the rate of return since 1980 on the state-run Singapore compulsory scheme is 2 per cent. above inflation. The rate of return on the British pension funds over the same period is almost 10 per cent. above inflation—collapse of stakeholder pension proposals.
Since the previous election, bruised by the humiliation of one electoral reverse after another, the Labour party has sought to recreate its popular support on the basis of expenditure pledges. So far, by our calculation, there have been £30 billion-worth of them. Not one has been renounced by the Labour party. Hardly any have ever been clearly shown as being funded in any coherent way, with the exception of one or two to which I shall come.
Nobody listening to what Labour has had to say should have the slightest doubt—those are not small commitments lightly given, or Conservative central office trying to misinterpret the words—that those are categoric, black and white statements.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
"We will give Britain a publicly owned, publicly accountable British Rail."
There is no hesitancy, no doubt, no qualification there.
We calculate the cost of restoring the railways to public ownership at £920 million a year. What figure do Labour provide? Or does it now admit that the privatisation of the railways is proving as successful and as irreversible as all the other privatisation measures?
Mr. John Prescott: It is costing twice as much.
The Deputy Prime Minister: If it is costing twice as much, why does not the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) stand and say that the Labour party will halve the cost, and tell us how it is going to do that? The fact is that it has no idea of how to run a railway, or, indeed, a whelk stall.
The right hon. Gentleman has a very clear commitment on a statutory national minimum wage, which we can explore. He told us that—again, this is black and white, no qualification—there should be, and there will be, a statutory national minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman nods his head.
Mr. Prescott: Absolutely.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Right, well let us therefore parade in evidence the right hon. Gentleman's

1049
election address of 1992. Very helpfully, he did something that is rare for the Labour party and costed the minimum wage. He argued for a statutory minimum wage of about £3.40 an hour. He will not deny that. It was in his election address. If there is any doubt—[Interruption.] I had only a little time to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation today, but I have calculated that £3.40 an hour in 1992 would be £4.26 an hour now. Is that the figure, or was £3.40 in 1992 too high and therefore £3.40 today would be adequate, even allowing for inflation? Or is there another figure? Is there any figure? We saw the energetic nodding of the right hon. Gentleman's head—I think that even he knows that when he nods his head it means that he is agreeing with what I am saying—[Interruption.]
Mr. Prescott: That was extremely funny.
The Deputy Prime Minister: It was extremely funny.
The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman has given a whole new meaning to the saying, "Economics first and foremost, stupid". The annual cost of a minimum wage of £4.26 an hour is £3,700 million. I do not say that that is the figure that Labour has in mind, but it must have some figure in mind, so why cannot it tell us what it is?
The shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been helpful again. He said:
"We will offer teachers of long standing a sabbatical period out of school at public expense."
He was quite categoric. Labour must have done some calculations. How many teachers? That is not difficult to work out. How long a period? Anybody can get a slide rule. What is the cost? We think that it is £1,300 million a year.
Then the shadow Chancellor told us that, under Labour, the tax and benefits system and the benefit tapers must be addressed. The cost of reducing the tapers would be £1,800 million a year. Let me show hon. Members how that massive confidence trick is pulled.
About a fortnight ago when I was on television with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, he was asked: "Should anyone, regardless of age, have access to free eyesight and dental tests as a matter of routine?" It was a perfectly reasonable question, and a matter of high politics. I have no complaint about that. He replied: "Yes, I think it should be a right." Anyone listening to that might have thought that yes meant yes, and that if it was to be a right, a Government of which he was deputy leader—and now, as I read in The Sunday Times Secretary of State for the Environment —would give it legal backing.
I hardly said a word on that particular point, but I was amazed a day or two later to read, "Three more Tory lies". I had not said anything. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that it would be a right. The article said:
"Lie one. Labour will spend £216 million on free eye and dental tests. John Prescott gave no such spending commitment. The Tories have deliberately misquoted him. This proposal is not in our early manifesto. New Labour, new life for Britain."
We never said that it was. He just said it a fortnight ago, conveniently in the middle of the Wirral, South by-election.
Mr. Prescottrose—
The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course.
Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister will recall that, in that debate, I was asked by a person in the
1050
audience whether I believe, as he rightly reported, that eye and dental tests should be free in the health service. Those were not the exact words, but that was the intention of the question. I said that that should be the aim of a national health service—[Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister can check the record if he likes.
I said that it should be the aim of a health service that was introduced by a Labour Government who gave those pledges and commitments in 1945. That was what we brought to this country and that should be our aim. I was then asked whether that was a commitment and I made it clear that it was not a commitment, but an aim. When the Government sought to reduce the rate of taxation to 20p, they said that it was an aim, not a commitment. What is the difference?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We have achieved that for a large number of people. The right hon. Gentleman does not even know that we have reduced the rate of income tax to 20p for a large number of people. The shadow Chief Secretary is looking closely at his papers. It is embarrassing for the Opposition when the deputy leader of the Labour party does not even know the minimum rate of taxation. It is no wonder that they keep him under wraps for most of the time. However, the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely helpful and we must take his comments extremely seriously—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends must be fair to the right hon. Gentleman.
It is important that we should not mislead or misquote anyone or omit anything from the record. Helpfully, I have the quotation from the BBC programme "Close Up North" on 20 February 1997. The words are here and I shall put them on the record. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Yes. I think it should be a right."
When he was told:
"You've got to find the money to finance it",
he said:
"I agree, and we have to deal with that particular argument."
If you had been listening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as an elderly person—[Interruption.] I was making no reflection on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was trying to recall the person who asked the right hon. Gentleman that question. If I recall, it was an elderly person who was concerned to find out whether there would be free eye tests under a future Labour Government. If I had asked that question, I would feel that I had been conned by the right hon. Gentleman.
It is a technique. Whatever cuts or adjustments we have made, the Opposition have criticised them. They have made pledge after pledge, amounting to £30 billion, but they never answer the question: where will the money come from?
The Opposition have made one or two interesting commitments. They pledged that income tax rates would not rise under Labour, but that did not fully convince a sceptic electorate, so they made a new pledge that the Government's public expenditure plans would remain in place for the next two years. The fact that they consistently voted against them has been swept to one side. They are now committed to the levels of departmental expenditure set out in the Red Book, with the exception of the deputy leader of the Labour party who does not know the basic rates of tax, but has probably been briefed by the shadow Chief Secretary.

1051
The position is quite incredible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, there is a £12 billion black hole in Labour's expenditure plans. If the Opposition retain our figures, they will have to carry out the reforms that we have factored in and allowed for in preparing the Red Book figures. Their reaction last month to our proposed privatisation of London Underground suggests that new Labour's late conversion to Tory policies still does not embrace privatisation, despite the evidence of the past 15 years. Will the deputy leader of the Labour party confirm that a Labour Government would proceed with the privatisation of the national air traffic service and the sale of other assets that would raise £1.5 billion in proceeds that are included in the Red Book figures?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we step off the underground, can we be told who will pay for all the repairs that are desperately needed to the crumbling tunnels of the underground?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a simple question to answer. The whole point of privatising the underground is to raise the funds to pay for the necessary renovations. If the underground is crumbling, how does the Labour party propose to pay for renovating it? That is the question and there can be no answer unless a Labour Government would proceed with our plans to privatise the underground and use the funds in large measure to carry out urgent repairs and improve standards, as we are determined to do.
Of course the Opposition would have to go further. Last November, they opposed our reforms of the social security system. That is a perfectly legitimate option. The shadow Secretary of State for Social Security condemned the Budget changes to bring the structure of benefits for lone parents into line with that for two-parent families. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke eloquently and I have no complaint about her explanation as to why the Labour party opposed a change that would produce revenues that are factored into the Red Book figures. She said:
"This move will increase the poverty suffered by children in Britain today and will do nothing to help get lone mothers who want to work, off benefit and into work."
That is a clear statement of the hon. Lady's position on the policies included in the Red Book.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has generously asked the hon. Lady many times to clarify her position. He wrote to her and her reply had only one point of major interest: it completely avoided the question. However, the proposal would raise £60 million.
Labour has also opposed our proposals in respect of the private finance initiative in the national health service. The hon. Member for Peckham, keeping at it, voiced new Labour's approach to all the modernisation and described it as
"The latest scheme for privatising the NHS, more accurately called the privatisation initiative."
1052
She appeared to show a sad misunderstanding of the PFI and Labour support for it. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has claimed that he invented the whole idea some years ago.
Mr. Prescott: It is in Cabinet papers. The right hon. Gentleman discussed it and gave it the name "the Prescott option".
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman some credit. He should be proud of it.
What emerged from the hon. Lady's approach is that, deep down, Labour has a gut detestation of anything that involves a relationship with the private sector. She also drew attention to another cost in Labour's plans. According to the Red Book estimates for the Department of Health, nearly £500 million over the next two financial years involves PFI. If Labour is in favour of it I understand that, but if it regards it as some hideous Tory innovation, how would a future Labour Government be able to accept our public expenditure figures?
The Opposition do not speak with one voice on the subject. The hon. Lady might have done well to speak to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). As one would expect, he received high praise from the shadow Chief Secretary, who described his ideas as follows:
"An imaginative use of the public-private partnership has been suggested by David Blunkett to tackle the £3.25 billion school repair backlog."
Let us consider what happens when imagination gets hold of public finances. The hon. Member for Brightside envisaged local authority schools borrowing from the private sector—from the banks—to increase capital spending on schools. The problem is that such borrowing by local education authority schools would count as public expenditure. If it continued for 10 years, it would add another £320 million a year to the costs not accounted for in the Red Book.
Labour's policies are littered with such mistakes. Let me use the example of local authority receipts for house building and the extension of student loans. Labour has set out plans for student loans, but its proposals would make sure that the loans were included within the definition of public expenditure. That would lead to an increase in expenditure of £950 million a year.
Perhaps the biggest and bravest of all the announcements is that which centres on the phased release of local authorities' capital receipts. If the capital receipts that are there were released over five years, they would amount to about £2.6 billion a year. I will not inflict my views on the House; I will give the views of The Economist, which said:
"This is a piece of creative accounting which lets Labour pretend that allowing councils to spend money they have raised selling homes will cost nothing. In fact, if they spent this money, councils would no longer have it to cut debt, and would have to borrow more on the market."
That is a wholly independent and accurate assessment of the position.
The first problem with the proposal is that it actually adds to public expenditure. That is only the start, however. Where are these capital receipts? They are all in the wrong places. Inner cities would not benefit very much. Thirty-six councils have no capital receipts to

1053
release. Although it could be argued that there is plenty of need in Birmingham, there is not a penny to be released there. There is bad news for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and the cupboard is bare in Hackney, Newham and Southwark.
There are, of course, receipts to come in some areas—the prosperous suburbs. That is very convenient for the Labour party, but not, of course, for new Labour. This is old Labour: this is Herbert Morrison. This is called building out into the Tory marginal constituencies. Releasing receipts where the receipts actually are serves a new political purpose—not a social purpose, or an economic purpose. On the assumption that it costs £40,000 to build a council house, Crawley will have 2,200 new council houses, Newbury 1,600, Bromley 1,500, Surrey 1,300, and Malvern Hills and West Dorset 1,000 each. The policy and the targets are wrong.
That leads me to the new panacea. Labour calls it a windfall tax. Perhaps we have been a bit slow: it is not a windfall tax at all, but a tax on jobs, savings and pensioners. I cannot say how much it will be, because Labour will not tell us, and will not tell us which company will be taxed and when. Whenever the tax comes, however, it will affect pensioners, savings, jobs and investment. There is no such thing as a cost-free tax, plucked out of the air without doing any damage.
The fact is that Labour is blithely uninterested in the effect of this latest tax on gas, electricity and water prices, jobs, consumers, pensioners and shareholders. What a dramatic contrast that is with the policies that we introduced so painfully in order to achieve the dramatic results that the country is now enjoying. Today, we have the conditions that are right for businesses to thrive, for investment and for the creation of real jobs. The figures are as eloquent as one could possibly ask. There are 1 million more small businesses than there were in 1979, and we have the lion's share of all the inward investment coming into Europe. There has been a remarkable and continuing fall in the claimant count of unemployed people over the past four years. We have viable businesses, proper jobs and the best outlook for the country for a generation. What is the Labour party offering?
Let us look at what Labour is offering in a bit more detail. It is offering three new policies. There is a programme for the young unemployed, of which the main elements are a job subsidy for the long-term unemployed and the abolition of the 16-hour rule. I confess at once: we all know that it is perfectly possible to pay employers to offer temporary jobs to the unemployed. That is what used to happen in the 1970s. In the nationalised industries, subsidy after subsidy was paid to loss-making companies such as British Leyland and British Steel to keep them afloat, and to enable them to employ more people than the market justified. That was madness then, and it would be madness to revert to it now. Paying billions of pounds in subsidies to employers to take people off benefit for a couple of years, parcelling them up into some new parallel, artificial economy, is retrograde, and would destroy British competitiveness.
Such action is also foolish. What happens when the money runs out? Money has been taken from the utilities and—let us assume that Labour's case is right—new employment for those affected has been created for a short time. The money, however, is supposed to be a one-off—a windfall. What happens when those who have taken it
1054
must face the fact that they have used it? The cycle begins all over again. Where will the new subsidies come from? From the employers, who then say, "We can no longer afford to employ the people whom you have been subsidising"? Will there be another one-off levy on some other sector of the economy that happens to be doing well, or happens to have offended against the ideology of the Labour party? All the young people will be back where they started—back on the dole.
Let us be clear. Labour's policies start by reducing overall demand in the economy. Labour will take money from the utilities, take money by means of the minimum wage, take money from the social chapter, and use it in part to subsidise 250,000 young people. There will be higher taxes, no extra demand, but 250,000 more young people in jobs. What will happen to those whose jobs the young people take, who are displaced because subsidised labour are available to do the work more cheaply for the employer than those currently employed in the companies that would take the young people on? There is no answer to that question. There will be no higher demand in the economy, just a switch from people who are now employed at market rates to a group who are temporarily employed at subsidised rates.
It is not good enough for the state to shovel people en masse into employment, and simply hope that it will be all right on the night. It does not work. We have proved that time and again, and I cannot say how strongly our experience justifies our indignation at Labour's policy. We have been more successful in rebuilding our urban areas in the renaissance of the great towns and cities of this country, and drawing jobs, opportunities and wealth back into those areas, than any other Government in modern times. That can be done only by changing the climate, so that it is attractive to those who can afford to invest—those who can make the choice, and live, build or buy their homes and create jobs in such areas. That is the way in which it must be done, and we have shown throughout urban England and the rest of the United Kingdom how successful it has been.

We shall build on all that. We are already doing so, with the single regeneration budget, city challenge and a range of partnerships between the public and private sectors, which have never been seen in this country during this century. That is a remarkable tribute to the Government's policies. What is Labour going to do? It is not just about some cosy gesture to try to buy a quarter of a million votes from young people; it is much worse than that. Labour's policies for the urban areas—the stress areas—are all about destroying the climate of opportunity: the job-creating opportunities on which those areas depend. Let us take the destruction of the grammar schools. We all saw what happened.
Mr. Prescott: You closed 400.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will keep the grammar schools open? Is he saying that?
If anyone wants to know why we have a vicious circle of decline in the most stressed areas of the country, it is because the Labour party's social engineering persuaded any parent who could exercise choice to leave those areas and move to the leafy suburbs where the comprehensives were just as socially polarised as the old grammar schools

1055
and secondary modern schools were. Hon. Members should not ask me whether that is right or wrong; they should ask the leader of the Labour party, who did exactly the same. He could afford to choose. He did not care about the rancid Labour local authority that he had left behind, with some of the worst levels of performance in factor after factor. He turned his back on it, just like hundreds of thousands of middle-class families have done, leaving stress and a vicious circle of decline. The Tories came riding to the rescue of those declining areas with policies designed—
Mr. Andrew Miller: This is a hustings speech.
The Deputy Prime Minister: These are the hustings—let us have no illusion about it. As I have said before, "You have heard nothing yet."
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Turn round.
The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady wants it full frontal, she is very welcome.
What is the way out for the Labour party? It has said that there will be no increase in direct tax rates. It has said that it will stick to the Red Book, but it is so screwed to the floorboards by that commitment that it cannot meet its genuine ambitions. The shadow Chancellor has therefore come up with the oldest trick in the world. He is going to audit the books. There has never been a new, amateur chairman for the most browbeaten company who did not say when taking over the job of the outgoing chairman, "I am going to open the books and have an audit." Five minutes later, he sucks his teeth and says, "Oh, I never knew how bad it is. I can't believe it is that bad. They never told me. They never warned me."
The fact is that the books are open. We have not had to change our policies once we have set the public expenditure figure. Year after year, the only reason for changing policies is if one wants to cut something or raise more taxes. The excuse will be to try to blame the outgoing Government. That is as stark a threat as any that could be conceived. We stick to our policies and our Red Book forecasts, and there is no need for a new Budget at any time in the next 12 months.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is sometimes helpful, but he should try a little harder. He has said:
"Labour would be absolutely stupid"—
Has the House got that?—
"to give any indication of what tax rates might be."
If I were out there trying to win power in a general election campaign and I intended to cut the rates and put taxes down, it would not be stupid to tell people. It would be sensible to let them in on the secret and share the good news. It would be stupid to tell them only if the tax rates were going to go up.
The right hon. Gentleman carried on being helpful, when he said:
"We are not prepared to make any statements about the matter of allowances and taxes, and it is quite proper for us to do so."
1056
It may be proper for him, but unfortunately it seems improper for his colleagues. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) told us that there would be no increase in income tax rates. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) heard that, he was most helpful and he said of the shadow Chancellor:
"He was careful to exclude other forms of tax".
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: National insurance.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have not come to that one yet. The hon. Member for Oldham, West continued:
"There is capital gains tax, inheritance tax and all the allowances and the share option schemes. So it isn't quite as bleak as it seems."
Labour's deputy Chief Whip has been extremely helpful. He said:
"Gordon has made the position completely clear on the rates."
We understand that. The rates are apparently going to be fixed, but the deputy Chief Whip did not want anyone to get too depressed. He continued:
"There are something like 200 different allowances and he is not going to go through them all, setting them before coming into Government. He has got to have some room for manoeuvre."
That is what he said.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I will not give way, because I have only one more point to make. The country has been clearly warned by the Government and it has been warned by independent commentators, but last night, Lord Barnett added his voice and his experience, as a former Chief Secretary in a Labour Government. He has been through it. He has lived through the experience and he knows what the Labour party is all about. When he warns the country that he does not believe that another Labour Government could stick to the tax levels and achieve their policies, I tell the country, "Listen, before it is too late."
5.34 pm
Mr. John Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear what this debate and the series of Adjournment debates initiated by the Government are about. They are the hustings and the preparation for a general election. Presumably, that is why he spent so little time talking about the Government's record and so much on the Opposition's case. We will enter the debate, because public expenditure is important.
We thank the Government for the third Opposition debate that they have initiated, following the debates on the windfall levy—which the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned—and on constitutional reform. We are debating public expenditure now, and I understand that we shall have a debate on pensions next week. All those critically important issues will be at the heart of the political debate up to the general election. Therefore, it is right and proper to have those debates in the House.
While it is good practice to have the debates and rehearse our election arguments, I am not sure that it is a good practice for the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of

1057
the Government's record. Given their record on taxation, it was a bit much for the Deputy Prime Minister to talk about cons in relation to the Opposition's proposals. The Prime Minister and the then Chancellor said in 1992 that they did not want to see VAT increased or to increase the overall burden of taxation. I will not give the exact quotations, but I have them here.
Those commitments were given at the time of the election in 1992, and if anyone was conned, the electorate were conned by the Government's statements on taxation. We have seen 22 increases in taxation and an increase in VAT, even though the Government promised the electorate that that would not happen. They lied to the electorate, and the verdict given in the Wirral is a clear indication of how people feel about believing what Ministers say.
Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that one of the reasons why taxation increased, including VAT on gas and fuel, was the mistake—which has now been openly admitted—over the exchange rate mechanism. Will he and the Labour party now state that they will never enter the exchange rate mechanism, which brought such terrible tragedy to the British nation?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because it was the Prime Minister who said that he had no intention of devaluing or of leaving the exchange rate mechanism. The Tories were the party of non-devaluation. We were supposed to be the party of devaluation, if one listened to the Tories' rhetoric. Of course they devalued, despite all their promises, and at great cost. The cost was £15 billion, with an overall net cost of £2 billion for the taxpayer.
We have made our position clear on the single currency and the exchange rate. When the decision on the single currency has to be made, we will allow the people to make a decision. I believe that that is the Government's position, although they are divided on the issue. There are many Ministers on the Government Front Bench. The Foreign Secretary is not here, but the Secretary of State for Health is in his place. He told us that he had a confusion of thought about the matter. Clearly there are many different views in the Government and they are now paying the price with the electorate for that confusion.
Today we are debating the important subject of public expenditure. The size of public expenditure and its priorities determine security and progress in our society. Debates about those priorities are the essence of a democratic society. How we raise that money and spend it forms the basis of general elections. But the big political question is how to obtain the right balance. That is the matter to which the Deputy Prime Minister was addressing himself. He had his view of the correct balance, but the Opposition are more concerned about social justice, which is relevant to the arguments on a minimum wage. There are clear differences between us.
Eighteen years of a Tory Government have thrown the public finances into turmoil. We are not yet sure of the full extent of that turmoil and whether we are out of the woods. This year the public sector borrowing requirement is £26 billion, and the party that considers itself to be the guardian of the national debt has doubled it since 1990. Those are not my figures: they are the
1058
results of the Government's public expenditure priorities. Interest payments on that debt alone cost each taxpayer £1,100 a year.
Not only is the nature of that expenditure a matter for concern, but we have witnessed its terrible cost to our communities in the breakdown of social cohesion. We are clearly not a nation at ease with itself, although that might have been one of the declared aims in the early stages of the Government. It is a matter of fact that we have a record level of homelessness, that education and health standards have declined and that crime has doubled. [Interruption.] That is not in doubt, is it? I can understand that hon. Members do not want to believe such figures, but they are Government figures which I want to use for the purposes of this debate.
Poverty has doubled and there is mass unemployment in Britain today. [Interruption.] More than 1 million is mass unemployment, 2 million is worse and 3 million—the Government's record—is an indictment of a Government who say that they are concerned about unemployment. Mass unemployment is millions out of work, which has been the Government's record in their 18 years in office. I am astounded that, despite all their fiddling of the figures, the Government cannot accept that what we have today is still mass unemployment however it is defined.
That mass unemployment has caused massive problems in the public finances because of the cost of welfare expenditure, unemployment pay and social security payments. That is why we have difficulties in our public finances today. They are not the result of economic success, but the result of the failure to achieve the kind of economic growth and prosperity that could result in lower unemployment.
The Labour party's argument is that after 18 years there can be no excuses, no blaming a Labour Government of 1979. What we are asked to judge today is the Government's record. The responsibility lies fairly and squarely with this Tory Government.
This week we have had vivid reminders of the importance of public expenditure. What is important is not just how much is spent but how wisely and how fairly it is spent. Today we have seen in the newspapers alone issues that considerably affect public expenditure and reflect the Government's priorities.
I take as one small example Gulf war syndrome, which was clearly due to public expenditure on insecticides to protect our soldiers. [Interruption.]Yes, that was the judgment at that time, although the truth of the matter has been concealed by the Ministry of Defence. But the Government's treatment of those soldiers has been influenced more by the public expenditure consideration of the cost of compensation for the victims of Gulf war syndrome than by a judgment of what is fair. [Interruption.] Yes, that is at the heart of it.
We have debated in the House the beef scandal, about which we have heard more this afternoon. We put some of the blame for that on the Government's deregulation policy. That beef crisis alone has cost us £3.5 billion of public expenditure.
The Deputy Prime Minister also referred to local government finances. The Government's treatment of local authority finances has been deplorable. The Government have shifted the financial burden of public expenditure on to local authorities. In 1979 the

1059
Government carried 61 per cent. of that cost; today it is 52 per cent. The real effect of that on people's lives has been to force up the council tax and threaten local services. Moreover, the share-out between the councils has lacked any consideration of fairness. If the Government had given every council the same grant per head as Westminster, 94 per cent. of councils would be charging no council tax. That has more to do with party political considerations than social justice.
That is the issue, and it goes a long way to explaining why the number of councils under Tory control has gone down from 235 in 1979 to 13 now. That is the result of decisions taken by the electorate. I presume that the electorate made their judgment on the basis of the Government's role in providing their local services. So definite was their rejection of the Government at national and local level that the Tories now control only 13 councils, allowing the Liberal Democrats to claim that they are second in local authority representation.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Did the hon. Gentleman notice a leader in The Independent last week attacking Labour-controlled local government for spending unwisely? Is he aware that council tax payers in Leeds not only face a doubling of the rate of council tax, but the city's debt is now so huge that it costs more than £60 million—the cost of the royal yacht—each and every year in Leeds? Let us have none of that fiction from the Opposition. That is the reality of Labour in power.
Mr. Prescott: I assume that the Government would not want to put forward their record on the national debt. The Government have been responsible for a worse increase in the national debt than any local authority has in its debt. [Interruption.] That is true and I am quite prepared to defend that statement. Not every local authority is perfect. There are not many Tory-controlled local authorities about which to make judgments. One remaining one is Westminster, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like me to compare Westminster's record with many other local authorities.
Some local authorities are good and some bad, and that is not necessarily a matter of their political control. Some can be efficient and some inefficient. That is the nature of it. I am not concerned with whether some are efficient and some less efficient, or whether that is related to their political control; my argument is that the Government have made it much more difficult to deliver services in the local authority areas as a result of Government changes in public expenditure to deal with the debts resulting from their policies.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): I thought that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Labour Government had a better record than the Conservatives on the national debt. The national debt in the Conservative Government's worst year was better than that in the Labour Government's best year. Had the level of borrowing under the Labour Government continued, the national debt would now be just about exactly twice what it currently is.
Mr. Prescott: I did not say that. [Interruption.] I did not. The point is a fair one. The Chief Secretary is talking
1060
about the debt under different periods of government. Debts are related to receipts, and in the period to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, there were considerable receipts from oil and privatisation. Had the Labour Government had such receipts, they would not have had to borrow. Therefore, as usual, the Chief Secretary tells only half the story which, as we all know, is consistent with his record.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Prescott: Let me make some more points. I have been giving way to hon. Members.
Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
Mr. Hartley Booth rose—
Mr. Prescott: Let me make some progress. [Interruption.] What has the other manager of the Tory party, the Minister without Portfolio, got to say? I will give way to him if he wants. Does he want to speak? No. Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is in control; that has decided it once and for all.
When the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about the pension proposals, which the House will have an opportunity to debate next week, I thought that it was a bit much when he said that the Government's projection was for savings of £40 billion by the year 2040. The Government cannot get their projections right over two or three years. How can the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and offer us a projection about public expenditure savings of £40 billion by 2040? The record is clearly against him when he makes such projections. I shall come to some of the evidence in a moment. First, let us examine the other projections that have been made by the Chancellor and the Government, because they are relevant.
I will take no lectures from Tory Governments about pensions. They are the ones who divorced pensions from earnings—[Interruption.] I am talking about the Government's record. They are the ones who broke the link with earnings. Between 1945 and 1950, Labour brought in the first universal pensions scheme of the kind that we have today. The state earnings-related pension scheme, too, was introduced by a Labour Government. We were the people who established decent pension provision within a welfare system, under a Labour Government. The record of the Conservative Government has always been to undermine the pensioners in this country. That is clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Prescott: I want to finish this point. When we established the Borne commission, the Government made it clear that they were critical of Labour's discussions about the problems facing the funding of pensions. We were attacked for suggesting the possibility that SERPS might be changed. The Government's accusation was that there would be no SERPS in the proposals. Yet it is the Government who have done the U-turn, and are about to ditch not only SERPS but the right to a basic state pension. The Government have always attacked the rights of pensioners, and they are continuing to do so.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has attacked the Government for

1061
bringing to an end the link between average earnings and the old-age pension. Does he mean that a Labour Government would restore that link? If a Labour Government would have no such intention, is it not pretty shoddy and hypocritical to imply that they would?
Mr. Prescott: It is a fact of life that the Conservatives made that break—and every Conservative Member voted for it. Make no mistake, we have not made a commitment to restore the link. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, because, as hon. Members will hear from me, we have decided our priorities for public expenditure and taxation, and the electorate can make a judgment on them.
After 18 years, there are so many things that the Government have undermined. The same point can be made about the health service, prescription charges, and charges for spectacles and teeth. The Government have constantly put a health tax on the people of this country. We could not possibly hope to reverse all the damage that they have done in 18 years. All that we can do is to present to the electorate our priorities for public expenditure and tax, as we are doing now.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Prescott: I have not finished on pensions yet.
When the Government decided to make the first attack on SERPS and allow people to contract out into private pension schemes, it cost us billions of pounds to subsidise the transfer from the public into the private sector. Nearly 3 million pension holders were denied a proper pension because the value of their pensions was reduced. The private sector—
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Prescott: Wait a minute.
The private sector totally failed the pensioners, and the taxpayer paid the price for it. That is always the case with the Tories on pensions.
Mr. Davies: Why criticise the Government for breaking the link between earnings and pensions if the Labour party has no intention of restoring that link? Is that not a thoroughly deceptive way in which to conduct an election campaign?
Mr. Prescott: It is still a fact that the Conservatives broke the link. [Interruption.] We shall have a debate in the House about it next week. The Government have set down a day for a debate on the pensions system, and that is the proper time to discuss it. I simply make the point that, again, public expenditure was involved in another pension fraud by the Government—and now they propose to put even more of our pensions into the private sector, which totally failed the people who were conned into transferring from public into private pension schemes last time. What motivates the Government to propose changes in pensions? As I have tried to point out, it is certainly not a desire to protect pensioners. History is clearly against the Government, and the taxpayer always ends up paying the bill.
The Deputy Prime Minister made certain statements about what savings would be made in public expenditure—the subject of the debate—by the year 2040, but the
1062
Government's record on forecasting and on managing the public coffers is a classic case of incompetence: I do not know how else it can be described. The Government say that they can save £40 billion in 50 years' time, but let us look at their projection record over shorter periods for the borrowing requirements arising out of their public expenditure programme. In 1993 the Government said that the borrowing requirement would be £32 billion; it was actually £45 billion. In 1994 they said that it would be £25 billion; in fact it was £36 billion. In 1995 they said that it would be £19 billion; it was £32 billion. This year it was supposed to be £6 billion, but in fact it is £26 billion.
The Government's sums have been about £60 billion out over just three or four years and those mistakes amount to more than the £40 billion that the Deputy Prime Minister projected would be saved in 50 years' time. He cannot even get his sums right over four or five years, so who could believe anything that a Minister in the present Government says on the subject?
With such a bill, we can see why the national debt has doubled. In 1992 the Government misled the public about the true state of the public finances, and certainly misled them on taxes. It is no wonder that the public in general, and the electorate in Wirral in particular, have lost faith in them, as we saw in the by-election last Thursday.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Prescott: No, I want to make some progress. I have given way to several hon. Members.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Prescott: I never give way to that hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Arnold rose—
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman will not be here much longer.
We have heard lots of talk about a successful economy. But despite all that talk, which we heard yet again from the Deputy Prime Minister today, the past 18 years have not been as successful as he claims. In the Budget debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury attacked what he called the European social model. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of the countries that could be considered part of that model was a bit limited. Nevertheless, I believe that the European social model in the post-war period, to its credit, was the most successful economic model that we have witnessed in any developed economy—successful in growth, in investment and in prosperity, while at the same time securing full employment and social justice. That is to the eternal credit of a European social model that was managed both by the left and by the right. It was not a socialist creation: it was managed by Governments of all political parties, and it secured full employment and social justice.
Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman is making a serious and correct point. When the Germans, in particular, followed the economic advice of Ludwig Erhard, which nowadays would be called Thatcherism, they did extremely well.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman could also look to other European social models under socialist

1063
direction, which were equally successful in the development of their economies. The point that I am making is that that model saw a role for Government that accepted responsibility both for full employment and for dealing with the problems of inflation. The creation of wealth marched alongside social justice, whether the Government were German, Swedish or Danish. Throughout Europe the model was successful.
Of course there are great difficulties for that model at the moment. [Interruption.] I am trying to make a point about that. At the heart of the argument, as with Keynes, is the amount of money that is put into the economy and into public expenditure. What might have been all right in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is in grave difficulties in the 1990s, with a different global economy and all sorts of other factors that are changing.
It is important for us to recognise that fact, because the restraints that affect our public expenditure are considerable when one seeks to balance inflation, employment, borrowing and public expenditure. That is the problem for all Governments today, and I concede that it has changed. However, that model was far more successful than the competitive pre-war model that gave us mass unemployment and great poverty. The deregulated model that the Government are beginning to develop carries with it mass unemployment on a scale associated with the pre-war period.
That argument will go on between us. We are debating the role of public expenditure. I have no doubt that public expenditure—the total amount of it and its quality—can affect prosperity and levels of employment and has some relationship to economic activity in the country.
Mr. Michael Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman complains about the national debt. Is he aware that the entire western world is even now just recovering from the worst economic recession since 1929? I trust that even he does not seek to lay the blame for that at the door of the British Government. Yes, it has been necessary to borrow, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it has been possible only because we paid off most of the national debt during the early years of the Conservative Government?
Mr. Prescott: That is confusing. During three years of apparently successful growth, we have been borrowing more heavily. In the cycle of decline and expansion, a country usually borrows less when it is growing faster. Why has the debt increased at what is claimed to be a time of great growth?
All world economies are faced with considerable debt. In a global economy, there are billions flooding around. There are real problems in dealing with that kind of flexibility. Time and again—
Mr. Booth rose—
Mr. Riddick rose—
Mr. Prescott: No; I want to make some progress.
Time and again, we hear from the Tories that the British economy has outperformed other European models. The argument is that we have discovered the ideal
1064
model, which is far better than the European social model. I recognise that there are difficulties for which we have to make some adjustments.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Fabricant: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like some clarification. I notice that while the deputy leader of the Labour party is talking about the European social model, only half a dozen Labour Back Benchers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fabricant: Are we quorate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Fabricant: I thought that we might not be quorate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Prescott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not losing his hair in this debate.
I should like to deal with the argument that somehow Britain has produced an economic model that is leading the way and is better than what we see in the European economy. I took the trouble to look at some of the figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Eurostat, the House of Commons Library and parliamentary answers. In the latest European prosperity league, we are ninth out of 15. Our growth rate since 1979 puts us 13th out of 15. On investment, we are 15th out of 15. On inflation—the issue on which the Government make considerable claims—the United Kingdom lies 1 1 th out of 15. On long-term interest rates, we are 11th out of 15. Our record on unemployment since 1979 puts us ninth out of 15. On those six key economic indicators, the UK remains in the bottom half, if not the relegation zone.
Those statistics do not reflect the success of the British model. The Government have failed on so many counts that they should withdraw Chris Woodhead from the schools and send the Office for Standards in Education inspectors into the Tory Cabinet to look at its competence. That is what happens in education to those at the bottom of the league.
If Conservative Members do not like those foreign figures, we can draw on the evidence of the Deputy Prime Minister's competitiveness White Paper. It shows that on purchasing power parities, we have fallen from 13th to 16th in the world prosperity league. Those are the Government's figures. That is a great boast. The Government somehow claim that in 18 years we have produced a successful British model and have the audacity to tell the rest of the world to follow it.
Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No, I must make progress. I am already behind time.

1065
Stability is important in modern economies. We all agree that the cycle of boom and bust damages the economy. We have had two deep recessions during the Government's period of office. The February edition of the Lloyds bank economic bulletin says that
"since 1980, the UK has the worst record for economic stability amongst the 14 largest industrial countries."
That seems to be a pretty damning indictment of a Government from a bank that is not anti-Tory. The Tories have had 18 years to put the economy on an even keel. The record is not as given to us by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The one thing that the Tories might claim to have increased is exports. The audacity of that claim is that exports have increased since they devalued the economy. The Prime Minister said:
"The devaluer's option would be a betrayal of our future and it is not the Government's policy."
He called it a soft option. That seemed like a pretty clear policy. Did he con people when he said that the Conservatives would not devalue? Within days of that promise, he devalued the pound. Exports went up, but so did imports, because we did not have the capacity to deal with the demand that came from devaluation. We were taken to the bottom of the trade deficit league, with the exception of Spain. Does the Chief Secretary disagree? No. Okay. However one measures them, the Tories' claims for the economy are far from proven and their policies have been expensive for the taxpayer. The devaluation cost something like £2 billion.
The Government make another great claim on unemployment. I hear Conservative Members making it, as though they can live with this country's levels of unemployment and think that that is a success. They took it to 3 million from 1 million and then brought it down to 1.5 million and claimed great success. Even on their projections, apparently we shall still have 1.6 million unemployed by the year 2000. Presumably they are not attempting to get anywhere near the record of a Labour Government if they are elected for a fifth term.
Mr. Waldegrave: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind us who said that any fool knows that if we have a minimum wage there will be a shake-out of jobs?
Mr. Prescott: I will come to the minimum wage, but I made the quote. [Interruption.] I made the quote.
The Minister without Portfolio (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): You said it.
Mr. Prescott: Did the right hon. Gentleman not hear? "I" means me. I know that he may be getting confused, but "I" means me, John Prescott.
I should like to deal with unemployment first. I promise to come to the minimum wage. Of course we welcome people being able to get a job. If more people have been returning to work, we welcome that. Any fool would welcome that. However, it is hard to accept the Government's claims at face value. What they say is happening to the level of unemployment is hard to determine, because we cannot believe the figures. I believe that there are lies, damned lies and Tory statistics. That is true for most areas. After 32 changes to the count, no less an authority than the Royal Statistical Society has said:
"The claimant count cannot be trusted."
1066
Why should the public believe in figures that even Tory Ministers do not believe in?
Everybody knows that, as employment spokesman, I constantly attacked the figures and whether they could be believed. I offered to agree with the Government on putting some honesty back into the figures. Some changes were made, but even the figures now produced by the Government cannot be believed. The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment made it clear when the most recent figures were announced that we could not believe half of them because of the special reasons that he gave. The employment figures and the level of unemployment are not as Ministers tell us. Apparently, Ministers feel moved to make it clear that we cannot believe the figures that are given. The Minister said:
"The nearest we can come to is that about half these figures we are giving each month are genuine."
The Minister is saying that we should not believe the unemployment figures. I rest my case.
Mr. Barry Legg: I note that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that the unemployment figures are accurate. What changes would a Labour Government make to unemployment statistics?
Mr. Prescott: The first would be to make them honest.
Mr. Legg: What would Labour do?
Mr. Prescott: I have made a number of proposals. The Minister is saying that the Government are having to adjust the figures to project what he thinks is the real level of unemployment. I have given Ministers a number of papers on the technical details of how to make the figures more honest. My record is clear. The fact that we cannot accept the published unemployment levels is one of the problems of getting any kind of movement towards honesty.
Tory Chancellors have often committed themselves to cutting public expenditure, so why have they failed to do it? Despite all the promises through every election, they have not done it. I would be interested to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister why they have not. Did the Tories con the electorate in every election when they said that they would cut public expenditure?
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister can think for himself. Would he care to tell us why he did not keep that promise?
The Deputy Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not true. The level of public expenditure as a proportion of GDP is falling and it is scheduled to reach our target figure of 40 per cent. We are on target for a balanced budget by the end of the century. If there was a shadow of doubt about the validity of our figures, the Labour party would not have accepted them.
Mr. Prescott: My question is based on the Government's figures. They are the same as they were in 1979. I want to know why they promised to cut public

1067
expenditure but did not do so. I have heard that promise constantly from Tory Members, but they have not done it. I could help the Deputy Prime Minister by explaining why they have not kept their promise; they are paying out huge sums for unemployment because of the failure of their policies. It is a simple answer, but it is difficult for the Deputy Prime Minister because he keeps talking about a successful economy.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: I will not give way again. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right then.
Mr. Waldegrave: This is an important point and I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood the figures. Of course the figures have a cycle, which is based on a trend. The trend was upwards until the late 1970s and it is now clearly downwards. The peak was at 47 per cent. in the 1970s, 45 per cent. in the 1980s and 43 per cent. in the 1990s. No statistician doubts that the trend is downwards.
Mr. Prescott: Targets and trends, but in reality things are no different. I believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is the man who told us that he wanted to achieve a figure of 35 per cent. for public expenditure. I do not know in what year he is predicting that that will be achieved, but in 18 years the Government have made no difference to the level. We have had ups and downs, but we have had ups and down in unemployment and every other economic indicator. It is called boom and slump and that is what we have seen from the Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about a black hole in the accounts and the waste of resources. Can he tell us why we are prepared to spend £450 million to privatise the railway system when, only this week, a report showed that it has cost us billions of pounds more than we have got back in receipts? Hon. Members laughed when I mentioned the railways earlier, but the reason for the high cost is that we have doubled the level of subsidy to the private sector. The Government said that that would not happen, but it is costing the taxpayer twice as much and we are paying out more than we get back in receipts. Would not it have been better to use those millions, or in some cases billions, of pounds to invest in the railway system instead of pursuing the ideology of privatisation?
The beef tax cost us £3.5 billion and the poll tax cost us £14 billion. That was a total waste of money. Many promises were made about the poll tax, but it cost us £14 billion. A total of £1.5 billion has been spent on extra bureaucracy in the health service. Those are all examples of waste.
Let me tell the Deputy Prime Minister about the minimum wage and the effect on jobs. Since I made the statement to which he referred earlier, a great deal of work has taken place in America and here which shows that my fears about higher unemployment are not true. If hon. Members want to see that research, I will send it to them.
There is another point about the minimum wage which I would have expected to concern Tory Members. I worked in kitchens as a commis chef and it was a wages council industry. I lived on wages council payments.
1068
The Government abolished the wages councils and deregulated. Despite what the Government have said, in those deregulated industries there has been a fall in wages and it has cost far more to pay for the wage subsidy needed to achieve what the Government have determined is a proper level of income. That has cost the taxpayer £3.5 billion.
Why do Tory Members not find it offensive to have to find £3.5 billion to pay to employers who hire people at rates of £1.50 an hour, telling them to nip along to the Department of Social Security to obtain the subsidy to make up their wage? The same employer under a regulated system was paying more and the taxpayer did not have to contribute. That is the hypocrisy involved in the Tories' view of the minimum wage. If they were concerned about the taxpayer, they should ask those questions.
Mr. Fabricant rose—
Mr. Prescott: I will not give way. I know about this because I have lived it. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.
Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the model in the United States. He will be aware that the US model is a percentage of an average wage in the United States. That would be the equivalent of a minimum wage in the United Kingdom of about £2.50 per hour. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting? What rate is he suggesting? That will determine the rate of unemployment.
Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that the rate will be determined by the minimum wage commission that we will establish. [Interruption.] What is wrong with that? It is employers who have said that they would like to give evidence. They are concerned, as are the trade unions. We will establish a commission and when the rate is determined, we will come here and there will be a debate. We will be the Government then and you lot will be in opposition.
We see the distortion of many of Labour's plans. The Deputy Prime Minister has been talking about a Labour spending plan of £30 billion. Then, the Bill and Ben of the advertising industry announced on posters that the figure was £12 billion, but we are now back to £30 billion. I wish they would decide what the figure is. In our defence, I shall quote what was said by The Financial Times when we offered our rebuttal of the Tories' claims. It said that the charge that it is £30 billion is
"riddled with inconsistencies and exaggeration…with little or no grounding in fact."
We believe that the Tories are wrong to make such accusations about us. We wonder why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury always seems to be at the scene of the crime when these posters and pamphlets are launched. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes has to explain his position, which can be confusing, but I prefer the explanation given recently by the Secretary of State for Health. He made the mistake of talking about the Government's position on the single currency. He said that his "thought processes were blurred". That is a new approach and it could characterise many of those in the Government.

1069
Let me make it clear that there are no hidden Labour spending plans of either £30 billion or any other figure that the Tory party chooses to claim. The real question must be about the Tory figures. The Red Book assumes that there will be £4 billion from privatisation receipts. We do not know where those receipts will come from. The only thing mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister was air traffic control.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: Wait a second. I assume that the Post Office is not to be included.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: I will give way because I cannot have the right hon. Gentleman scratching his head any more.
Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the Red Book. The first £2.5 billion comes from the second-tranche sales of Railtrack. Even if the Labour party was in office, it would get that sum. There is £1.5 billion next year of which £500 million is predicted to come from the national air traffic service. If the right hon. Gentleman was in power, would he sell NATS?
Mr. Prescott: No—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. There is no doubt that the receipts from past privatisations will be part of our Treasury. Judgments about any further revenue from privatisations will be made at the appropriate time. Is the Post Office to be part of the privatisation receipts? I assume that the answer is no.
The Deputy Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: Okay. Is the privatisation of London Underground to be part of the receipts? There is £2 billion involved in that. Are we right to assume that the money raised in the sale of London Underground will be used for investment? That is what was said in a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport to the Prime Minister. Is that correct?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the answers to those questions have already been provided. The London Underground receipts, and any policy consequences of the Royal Mail, are not included in the Red Book figures, but it is clear that significant figures are included—£1.5 billion—so the right hon. Gentleman must either privatise or find the money somewhere else. It is apparent from his speech that he has not the first idea which is the answer.
Mr. Prescott: It is not absolutely clear where all the receipts will come from. No doubt that will be part of the debate in the election.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend might like to know that there is some confusion on the Government Benches. I have just received an answer from the Minister for Transport in London. I asked:
"if he will list the total amount payable to Her Majesty's Government for the sale of Railfreight Distribution."
1070
The answer reads:
"The British Railways Board has yet to finalise the sale of Railfreight Distribution."
Another answer on another specific case reads:
"I will answer these questions shortly."
Far from the confusion being on our side, the real problem is that the people who are selling the assets have no idea what they will get for them.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Secretary of State for Transport, in his letter to the Prime Minister, was concerned about whether the money was to go to the Treasury or to his Department, or to be used for investment; that was the heart of the letter, and we shall watch any developments with interest.
Usually the Government take the line that the private finance initiative principle should be extended. We have all discussed the PFI, but the Government have not been very successful in implementing it, and certainly not on the scale that they envisaged. As I understand it, the financial agreement for the hospital that was announced at the last Budget—we were promised one every month at the time of the Budget before last—has not yet been completed. Perhaps the Chief Secretary can tell us whether the financial agreement for the first hospital has been completed.
Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the process leading to a successful conclusion is imminent, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome it. Let me put the question back to him: is he in favour of the PFI in the health service? The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is not, and has said that it is privatisation. The PFI cannot take capital projects into the private sector unless there is a transfer of management control. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury have both ruled that out.
Mr. Prescott: It is clear that, while there are ups and downs and targets, the target to which I referred has not been achieved. The Tories promised at the Budget before last that there would be a hospital every month under the PH; by the last Budget there had not been one; it was then announced that the agreement had been signed that day; and now we are told that it has not been completed, so we know that it was just a charade and a con.
We have always made it clear that the PFI in the health sector is more concerned with capital and buildings than with clinical services. The Chief Secretary knows the arguments well.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hospital to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the one that will serve my constituents. I can assure him that the contract has been signed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Prescott: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's hospital either: it was in Norwich. The hospital announced by the

1071
Chancellor has still not been completed, and people wait in beds in the alleyways because of the inadequacies to which I was referring.
I have been a fan of the private finance initiative, because it was helpful to use capital investment by private funds in public industries when they were nationalised. I advocated it for quite a time, but it was The Economist that described the inadequacies of the PFI programme implemented by the Government as "a dog's breakfast". The programme has failed to get the important resources from the private into the public sector.
I will pray something else in aid of the PFI. The Chief Secretary must know that in 1994 the Government, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, tried to privatise the Post Office. We ran an effective campaign against that privatisation and the public made it clear that they did not want it.
In November 1994 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Prime Minister about a meeting to discuss how exactly they might privatise the Post Office. They had various options before them, one of which, "the BP option", was to allow the Government to have shares in a company and let it borrow privately. The second option was called "the Prescott option". That is an interesting name for an option on a Cabinet paper. I bet not many people around the table wanted to put their hands up to vote for that. However, the minute makes it clear that quite a few were in favour of it.
The minute says:
"'the Prescott option' would be to allow the Post Office the sort of commercial freedoms proposed by the Opposition, while retaining its full public ownership. This could be achieved without legislation."
Why did the Government reject it? The minute says:
"many colleagues took the view that 'the Prescott option' would seriously undermine our whole approach to privatization in the past and in the future: no-one was prepared to argue strongly in its favour."
They were not prepared to accept that a publicly owned industry could borrow privatization and Treasury rules that prevented it.
The idea is not unique: British Airways did exactly the same thing when the Deputy Prime Minister was Secretary of Transport. The Government haul out different rules for different industries. There is no reason why the Prescott option could not have been accepted.
Mr. Douglas French: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No, I want to make this point.
If the Government's option is no longer to privatise the Post Office, there must be another option. Does that mean that the public sector Post Office can now borrow privately? That was the Prescott option, and if that is what the Government intend to do, it is an interesting comment on what they said last week—that if the public vote Blair, they will get Prescott. Now, if they vote Major, they get the Prescott option on the Post Office anyway.
My proposal is now in a Tory party manifesto. Is that the Government's intention? If so, they could have done that for every public sector industry, creating greater
1072
investment and more jobs and improving public services. Their failure to do so exposes their ideological obsession with selling off assets at great profit to their people in the City, at the direct expense of the taxpayer and at some cost to public expenditure. That is the charge that we lay against them. The Deputy Prime Minister does not seem prepared to give us an inkling of what the formula for the Post Office will be.
The Deputy Prime Minister: There are 20,000 post offices in the country and 19,000 of them are in private ownership.
Mr. Prescott: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman means that a publicly owned company is a plc—a public limited company. It is still publicly owned, is it not?
The Deputy Prime Minister: There are 20,000 post offices in the country and 19,000 of them are in private ownership. That is nothing to do with the Government.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman understands the point that I am trying to make. The Cabinet discussion was not about corner-shop post offices, for God's sake; it was about the Royal Mail and the Post Office as we know it and about how services can be guaranteed and expanded. That is clear in people's minds.
We agree that the Government can get a proportion of the necessary funds from private finances and we have made it clear that a Labour Government will not increase either the basic or the top rate of income tax. With the exception of our windfall levy on privatised utilities, Labour's spending plans do not involve any extra taxation.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I heard the right hon. Gentleman saying two totally different things: first, that income tax rates would remain as they are and secondly that there would be no other increases in taxation. I want to be absolutely clear that that is what he said. As I understand it, the only pledges that have been given involve income tax rates.
Mr. Prescott: We will not increase the income tax rates, including the top rate. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about allowances and other matters, but past Chancellors, the present Chancellor and the Prime Minister have always made it clear that they do not give details of changes before a Budget. That applies as much to us as to the Chancellor and the Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that every other tax level is up for grabs under a Labour Government.
Mr. Prescott: Let me quote the Chancellor, because this is precisely our position. He said:
"People have to wait until the final Budget judgments I make. What I am certainly not prepared to do is go for some ideological theory that at no stage from now on will we ever increase any tax. I have never served in a Government of that kind; I would never vote for any Government that said that."?

1073
That is the position of the Government, the Chancellor, and of anyone with any sense. We have made clear, and the Deputy Prime Minister was fair enough to repeat it, exactly what our position is.
Mr. French: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No, I must wind up; I have been far too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps I should wind up on that point.
We have put forward our proposals, we have costed them carefully and we have indicated our priorities. We have made it clear that the release of capital receipts from the sale of council houses will provide self-financing expenditure for improving housing stock. We have said that the money allocated from the windfall levy will go on jobs and skills for 250,000 people. As soon as they take office, a Labour Government would need to audit the Treasury. The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of that, but it is only right that we should do it because we cannot believe half the figures that we have been given. It is fair to say that there should be an audit.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: I am going to go on.
The Tories tell us that spending limits can be met without raising taxes. None of our pledges requires higher taxes other than the windfall levy to create jobs. In government, we will cut out the waste, inefficiency and wrong priorities in the £300 billion Tory spending bill to meet Labour's priorities.
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: No, I am going to carry on.
As a start, we will use our windfall levy on the privatised utilities to put 250,000 unemployed young people back to work. We think that that is a top priority and we intend to implement it. That will release resources to invest in education and front-line services, instead of increased public expenditure on the welfare bills of failure. Other spending plans will be paid for by re-ordering existing priorities. The bureaucracy in the health service—
Mr. Waldegrave rose—
Mr. Prescott: I have gone on too long. The right hon. Gentleman agreed with me when I said earlier that I would sit down.
On education, we have made it clear that we will cut class sizes to 30 for six and seven-year-olds, financed by abolition of the assisted places scheme. All those arguments were heard during the Wirral by-election. People there gave their judgment. Their message to the Government is: enough is enough and time is up. Soon the people of the whole country will judge us in a general election. What we say today will be judged in that election. This debate, called by the Government to deal with Opposition policy, will only confirm the view of most people that they have had enough of this Government and want a Labour Government to take their place.
6.32 pm
Mr. David Hunt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on a brilliant speech. He set out the ingredients of a winning general election campaign. The economic figures were remarkably robust. Many of us cannot recall such consistently good economic figures for a generation. That would be thrown away if there were a change of Government. He also exposed the inadequacies of the Opposition, which were exemplified by the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We had some fun with him, particularly when he departed from the script carefully prepared for him by my long-standing friend, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
Now and again, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East assumed virtual reality, especially in a series of comments in which he said that, while the Government may have targets, the reality remains the same. He never sought to answer a point that fills me with anger. We may laugh at him, but what he said could be serious for the country.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to pretend that he could walk into a position—we are not sure which—in a Labour Government, were Labour to win, and—against the background of the policies that he set out—would be able to stop the country falling into the economic ruin it fell into under the previous Labour Government. Last time, things were so bad that the Labour party then failed to win a general election for 23 years.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wirral by-election, but the last Wirral by-election was 21 years ago next week. Before my constituency was split into Wirral, South and Wirral, West, there was a by-election. He kept referring to the Wirral by-election, so I shall tell him what happened at it.
The country was in a serious economic mess. The Labour Government had inherited unemployment of 500,000, and trebled it to nearly 1.5 million, without tackling any of the economy's deep-seated problems. Inflation was rising fast towards 30 per cent. That was why Labour changed the link for pensioners from prices to earnings. It was done not to increase pensions, but so that pensioners would not get the increases they should have got for prices that were roaring ahead. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman could desist from calling me a twit—
Mr. Prescott: It was said by another hon. Member.
Mr. Hunt: I heard the right hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that that proves my point about the valuelessness of seated interventions.
Mr. Hunt: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not sought to answer a point raised during the Wirral, South by-election makes me especially angry. I remember the Wirral by-election, because I remember the state of the country at the time. However, during the Wirral, South by-election, he went on the BBC's "Close Up North" programme. He has not responded to the question that was put to him, but I am willing to give way at any stage of this analysis. His only comment in his speech in

1075
discussing free eyesight and dental tests was that Labour would present the electorate with its priorities on public expenditure. He did not seek to explain the context of his remark on television, but merely referred to Labour's public expenditure priorities.
In his last general election manifesto, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would restore free eye tests and dental checks. I am sure that the member of the audience who put the question knew the right hon. Gentleman's track record: that he had always fought for that right—not an aim, but a right, a restoration.
For the sake of accuracy, I have managed to get a transcript. I have a video of this programme, and I offer the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to watch it. I have not found many takers for such an opportunity. I would be happy for him to see it, because he would see that his body language could have left no one in the audience in any doubt what he was saying. The audience member asked:
"Should everyone, regardless of age, have access to free eyesight and dental tests as a matter of routine?"
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East answered:
"Yes. I think it should be a right."
Not an aim, a right. He went on:
"You've got to find the money to finance it".
If I had heard the so-called deputy leader of the Labour party say on live television, "You've got to find the money to finance it," I would have concluded that he was trying to communicate to the electorate of Wirral, South that the money would be found to finance it. That would not have been an unfair analysis. I feel very angry indeed that, following that broadcast, the Labour party issued a statement saying that the right hon. Gentleman
"gave no such spending commitment: the Tories have deliberately misquoted him."
I am a devotee of the election manifesto of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I have a copy here. I saw him shake his head when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman had pledged a statutory minimum wage of about £3.40 an hour. He shook his head and said no. Under the headings "Labour's Way" and "The Economy", alongside some pretty pictures—if I can describe them as such—of the right hon. Gentleman, his manifesto refers to
"a statutory minimum wage of about £3.40 an hour."
The right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to have it both ways. He promises the electorate in his manifesto and promises the electors of Wirral, South one thing, and then comes to the Dispatch Box and says the opposite. If he had wanted to make sure that the electors of Wirral, South and the people watching that television programme knew exactly the position, he could have said, "By the way, this proposal is not in our early manifesto."
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hunt: No. I have said that I will give way to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. For the sake of the record, I should say that I noticed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has
1076
spent much of the debate so far trying to brief the right hon. Gentleman. I seek no apology for that, but will he excuse us if we point the finger at him when we ask who is making the policy of the Labour party, and ignore the deputy leader? We are talking about the deputy leader of the Labour party on live television making a clear commitment without qualification.
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet at the time of the last election. He will recall that the Conservative party had stood on an explicit platform of cutting tax year on year. He was in the Cabinet when that promise was made, and it was broken. He is in no position to lecture anyone.
Mr. Hunt: We were in a recession that had continued for longer than anyone, including the hon. Gentleman, had expected. The context of the world recession has been set out in the speeches that we have already heard. When it came to a balance between cutting NHS and education spending—crucial and critical spending—or increasing taxes, I had no hesitation in going for increasing taxes. The hon. Gentleman seeks to deflect me from my point. I will not be deflected. I shall return to it in one moment. I take pride in the fact that, although there have been tax increases to maintain and increase public expenditure on critical services such as the NHS, there have been 25 tax reductions.
Mr. Darling: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer us to the precise passage in the 1992 manifesto in which it was made clear that the pledge to reduce taxes year on year was qualified to the extent that, if it turned out that there was a recession, the pledge would not be kept?
The Conservatives knew all about the recession at the time of the last election. The Prime Minister is on record as saying the day after the election that he knew that his Government would be deeply unpopular. Where in the 1992 manifesto is there any qualification of that pledge? Is not the truth of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues deliberately misled the British people and fought an election on tax promises which they knew they could not sustain? That is why no one trusts them, and why they lost Wirral, South.
Mr. Hunt: That is untrue and incorrect. There was no question of any such deliberate intention. I have clearly said that, when it came to a choice between cutting public expenditure and increasing taxation to maintain critical levels of spending on crucial public services, I had no hesitation in approving tax increases. Of course we had to increase taxes, in view of the background economic situation.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the significant difference is that the Government faced the realities of coping with the economy under the pressures of a world recession, whereas the Opposition have responsibility for nothing, and their policy changes from one week to the next? The only difference is that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has overruled the deputy leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is difficult. We still have not received an answer from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East on

1077
the specific points that I have put to him. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will be replying to the debate, but perhaps he could have one of his characteristic conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us a reply before the end of the debate.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hunt: I should be happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, but he has not sought to intervene.
I am angry that things were said in the Wirral, South by-election that were patently untrue. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that I am carefully monitoring what electors tell me was said to them by a series of Labour Members of Parliament by telephone and on the doorstep. I have given one example, and the right hon. Gentleman has not sought to deny it. I have the transcript and the video. It is shameful that he misled the electors in that way.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said in his speech that there were great difficulties with the European social model at the moment. According to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that model will be our economic policy under a Labour Government. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has disclosed to the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs that he believes that there are great difficulties with the model, but it is the model that this poor country will face if it were ever to elect a Labour Government.
There is another example of deliberate misleading. I have here a survey by Merrill Lynch entitled "UK economics: weekly perspectives". Under the heading "The Social Chapter: does it matter?", it says that the key question for Britain is whether we should have the social model or the British enterprise model, which has proved so successful. Merrill Lynch poses several questions. It says:
"supporters of membership sometimes also argue that signing the Social Chapter should have little, if any, adverse effect on the flexibility of the UK's labour market."
It says that the claim is made that
"once in, the UK can veto measures it does not support. As Mr. Blair said at the CBI, 'Each piece of legislation will be judged on its merits. I have no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the EU'".
That was from 14 November 1995.
Merrill Lynch then proceeds to analyse over several pages whether that statement by the Leader of the Opposition is true. The conclusion of that independent body is that the statement is "not true". That is a nice way of saying that someone has told an untruth. The paper says:
"Some areas of social policy are outside the Social Chapter, others are subject to majority voting. But on a series of key issues, votes are on QMV and the UK would have no veto. The UK would have to go along with the majority."
I had the privilege to serve in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment, and I attended Employment Council meetings. I know the dangers of signing up to the social chapter, and I shall just give one or two examples from other countries. Indeed, their Employment Ministers
1078
used to share their frustration with me because they were subject to the following provisions of the social chapter. In Belgium, for example, all planned overtime must be notified in advance to the authorities. In Spain, overtime is limited to—
Mr. Prescott: This is not directly to do with the social chapter.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, it is.
In Spain, overtime is limited to under two hours a week, which is equivalent to 80 hours a year. In Sweden, parents are entitled to a minimum of 450 days of paid leave between them following the birth of child.
Mr. Prescott: That is nothing to do with the social chapter.
Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman may shout that from a sedentary position, but when I was Secretary of State for Employment, fighting the United Kingdom's interests in the Social Affairs Council, there was a proposal that we should introduce a parental leave regulation. The acceptance of such burdensome provisions was intended to bring us into line across Europe. I vetoed that proposal. If this country had signed up to the social chapter, I would not have been allowed to exercise that veto.
We always had informal working lunches with our opposite numbers on the Social Affairs Council, when my colleagues used to say to me, "I wish we had a veto. I wish we had the courage of the United Kingdom to stand out against the European social model." The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East admits that there are great difficulties with that model at the moment. Could he please have a word with his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench and persuade them to back off from their commitment to sign up to the social chapter? Indeed, all our partners in the European Union would like us to do that. They, too, would like to resile from the social chapter.
I have met many European partners who have told me, "If only we had the same flexible labour market as the United Kingdom. We would then see our unemployment rate coming down as it has done in the United Kingdom."
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am extremely depressed, disillusioned, and still angry. The sort of nonsense that he is peddling really means that voting Labour at the next election will mean voting people out of a job.
6.51 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Much of the debate so far has been about guessing Labour's future expenditures, but we have the facts about the Government's expenditures. After 18 years, there are a load of facts about how they have projected their expenditures, not necessarily in the interests of the country, and where they have been excessive in their expenditures and not received value for money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) quite rightly referred to the possibility of an audit on the Treasury. When I first became Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury suggested that it could do an efficiency audit on

1079
the National Audit Office—a move which I did not welcome. I countered that by suggesting that perhaps the NAO might first do an efficiency audit on the Treasury. We never heard anything after that.
It might be thought surprising that the Government have given a day to debate expenditure when they are so vulnerable, because the facts are there to see. I understand that an annual debate on expenditure is necessary to determine priorities and to get the views of Members. I agree with the suggestion that we should get rid of the autumn Budget, with its expenditure implications, because that presupposes that we can do a trade-off between revenue and expenditure.
We know that that has not happened, because no one outside the Government can propose increases in taxation. There is no possibility of increasing expenditures, either. One is left with a phoney debate about the relationship between income and expenditure. As a result, we have messed up the parliamentary year. The sooner we revert to a spring Budget, as suggested by my hon. Friends, the better.
I should have thought that, given the facts on the Government's expenditure, they would want to keep them quiet. They might have thought about debating that record on a Friday afternoon, approaching the summer recess, when it would not be exposed. Let us look at the record of Government expenditure. Let us not look to the future, about which very little is known, when we can consider the past and present, about which a great deal is known.
All Governments have expenditures that they have come to regret, but this is the first occasion when a day has been set aside unnecessarily just to consider certain types of expenditure that need to be questioned. First, I should like to refer to central Government net debt interest. In 1979–80, the net debt was £8 billion—I agree that that was in the then current terms—and today it stands at £24 billion. Is a leap from £8 billion to £24 billion a sensible use of public expenditure? The Government have had to spend that money because of the way in which the economy has been run. That expenditure is wholly unacceptable, and not very prudent.
The eighth report of the PAC dealt mainly with fraud and corruption. I was pleased when the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), gave a full endorsement of the report's proposals. I welcomed very much the November issue of "Regularity and Propriety", which contained everything that the PAC wished to see. It is important to note that that was wholly admirable.
It was important that the eighth report should ensure that the levels of fraud and corruption were looked at carefully, but it also drew attention to the inadequate stewardship of public money and assets. We referred to
"Failure by departments to establish effective monitoring of non-departmental public bodies which they fund and sponsor, leading to failure to detect waste and irregularities."
We referred to
"Inadequate oversight by those in authority…failure to ensure that delegation of responsibility is accompanied by clear lines of control and accountability, leading to the waste of large sums of public money."
1080
We also drew attention to the
"Failure to take prompt corrective action when things begin to go wrong."
We made a blanket criticism of many of the things that had gone wrong.
Let us consider the actual detail of what has happened. I will not go back into the long distant past; I will confine myself to something rather more recent. The Pergau dam, for example, cost £234 million of public money. How was the decision made to spend that amount? Did we get value for money? We found out that an assessment of the dam was made by two people, who were sent to Malaysia to study the site on behalf of the Overseas Development Administration. They spent just two days there, and then came back and said, "It's okay." After just a two-day visit, the decision was made to spend £234 million. I am not even certain that they got to the site.
I note, of course, that that project had political overtones. One should not forget the famous note of dissent from Sir Tim Lankester, who pointed out that it represented an unreasonable expenditure of public money. That was his right, and when he came before the PAC he could claim that the fault did not lie with him because he had been overruled. We found that the path led to the Minister for Overseas Development, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. It then became a matter with political overtones. Nevertheless, it did not represent a good example of spending public money.
Then let us consider the Ministry of Defence's management of fire risks. The tale of the major weaknesses in its fire risk policy is almost unbelievable. In 1983, there was a conflagration at the Army store depot at Donnington, when £170 million of Government stores of various kinds went up in smoke.
The elementary fire precautions had not been taken. The PAC produced a stinging report on that failure, and received assurances that there would be improvements. Then, in 1988, another fire occurred at Donnington—the same place, the same sort of fire. There was £180 million-worth of damage this time; it was more expensive because some of the stores had been replaced, although we presume that they would not have replaced those stores that were not quite so essential.
In 1996, we looked at the problem again. There had been two fires in the same place and there had been a failure to take the obvious precautions, yet in 1996 we found that the Ministry of Defence did not even have a full record of the buildings it occupied, let alone whether they were at risk of fire. That, after 15 or 16 years of Conservative government. If the Government were really anxious about public expenditure and the control of public expenditure, they should have been looking at such matters. The Government did not lack reports—the problems did not come out of the blue—but they failed to take the action that had been recommended and strongly urged.
Let me turn now to part of the works programme for the management of the Trident programme, referring to Faslane, the Clyde base which services submarines. Construction of that base was started before the designs were completed—a risky task, which, when involving £1 billion, becomes even more serious. In 1984, the programme was expected to cost £694 million—£1.1 billion at 1994 prices. The total spent up to 1994 was, in fact, £1.9 billion—a stupendous overrun of £800 million.

1081
Why did that happen? It happened because of inadequate management and inadequate practices. The PAC report stated that the Committee was "astonished"— a word that is rarely used by the sober members of that Committee—by the ways in which the money had been spent. The PAC is experienced in the ways of the world, but its examination led to that strong language being used. At the peak of the work, and at one time—this is unbelievable—1,000 consultants from 67 firms were employed, at a total cost of £360 million. How did people get into the base with 1,000 consultants milling around? I could not believe that money had been spent in that way, but the Committee found that it was true.
So there we see another example of public money being wasted by a Government who are supposed to be concentrating on matters of public expenditure. I know that all Governments have made mistakes of that sort, but they do not come to the House on a Thursday afternoon and have a debate on them. They leave the matter quiet, and hope that people will not notice. They hope that, when they say that certain matters will be put right later, we will accept their assurances.
Mr. David Hunt: I recall that the right hon. Gentleman served in the last Labour Government with Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett. Has he had an opportunity to read the speech that Lord Barnett made yesterday in the other place, in which he praised the Government's handling of the economy, and said that Labour would do no better and that it would need more tax?
Mr. Sheldon: My noble Friend did not say that—the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting him. Lord Barnett is my dear friend of long standing; I have a great attachment to him, so I always listen to what he says with great interest. What he said was that, at the moment, the economy is doing well—but what is to come? How can we be sure that that will continue?
My noble Friend speaks as one who, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wanted to increase expenditure on health and education, and he still hopes for improvement. As he rightly points out, improvements are possible without increasing expenditure, but they will be much smaller than he would wish—we must all agree with that. If we want very big improvements, it is obvious that we must increase expenditure; only smaller improvements can be achieved out of the modest increases in expenditure that come from savings elsewhere in Government programmes, but that method nevertheless offers some opportunities.
To return to the subject of the debate, the PAC issues about 45 reports a year, most of which are highly critical of the way in which the Government have spent taxpayers' money. For example, it is an astonishing fact that vehicle excise duty evasion is increasing. It increased by 18 per cent. during the period of the PAC's most recent report, and is now estimated at about £163 million a year.
That is a substantial sum of money, but the problem is made even worse by the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which admits that there are some 23 million unlicensed vehicles on the register. The agency does not know whether those vehicles exist or whether they have been scrapped—it does not know what has happened to them. That makes it difficult to run a licensing organisation of that sort.
1082
There are many other examples that I could quote. During my period as Chairman of the PAC, it has produced about 550 reports, and I shall pick out one or two recent subjects. First, there is the question of organised fraud in social security. That involves not the individual who claims a little more than he or she is entitled to, but bands of criminals going around manufacturing books, whose activities cost about £1 billion a year. We must do something about that. Then there is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is costing about £3.5 billion. Some of those difficulties might have been anticipated and some of the expenditure saved.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I have been listening with care to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he not agree that action is being taken through the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. arrangement to deal with many of the fraud matters to which he referred? Would he also agree that not all the reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office are bad? Some have praised Government expenditure—for example, a recent report praised value for money in respect of privatisation receipts.
Mr. Sheldon: No doubt there have been several in which criticism has been muted or even absent. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the constant criticism of the privatisations. The PAC does not look at policies—we take the policy for granted, and ask whether we got value for money. Again and again, in respect of nearly all the privatisations, we have pointed out that there were ways of getting better value for the taxpayer—for example, by selling the asset in tranches.
One should not sell off the whole of asset at one go; one should take one's time and see what the market will bear, in the same way as one sells one's gilt-edged stocks—the right hon. Gentleman will understand that one does not sell them all on 1 January, but feels out the market and sells according to the state of the market. That method was never used in the privatisations, although it was employed to a certain extent when British Telecom was privatised. So many privatisation issues were made without the full value of the asset being obtained.
In passing, I make the point that the suggestion of selling in tranches came from a Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). We made use of his valuable suggestion; it is a pity that the Government did not use it more fully.
To return to other examples of Government mistakes, there were the expenditures on the poll tax and on the Child Support Agency. There was the scandal of the works of art at the Ministry of Defence, when 200 out of 900 valuable works were missing. I understand that other Governments might have a similar record to the one held by the Conservative Government, but for a Government to hold a debate on the subject when such a debate is not essential suggests that they have something of which to be proud. They have nothing of which to be proud.
The record on the spending of taxpayers' money is not good. If the Government felt that the debate was necessary, they might have kept it a little quieter.

1083
The purpose was to expose the plans of my right hon. Friends, but instead the Government have exposed their own record.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, Ministers heard the Minister of Agriculture give the House the impression that the slaughterhouse document that was the subject of the statement this afternoon had been passed to the Scottish Office. That seemed remarkable, given that the Scottish Office had established an inquiry by Professor Hugh Pennington and that the professor had not had sight of that document. It now appears that Scottish Office officials are briefing the press to the effect that the Scottish Office did not have that document.
There seems at the very least to be substantial confusion between these two Departments as they pass the poisoned chalice to one another. May I expect that on Monday, if not sooner, we might have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture, clarifying the matter and saying who was responsible for not giving the copy of that vital document to Professor Hugh Pennington to assist in his inquiry into E. coli 0157?
Madam Deputy Speaker: As the House will know, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of the words of any Member of the House—indeed, were they to be responsible, I doubt that anyone would be found to occupy the Chair—but I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's words, and perhaps this matter can be pursued another way.
7.10 pm
Sir Archibald Hamilton: I start by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the fact that I shall not be here for his winding-up speech tonight, as I have a long-term engagement that I cannot avoid.
Public expenditure has always been notoriously difficult to control, and it is sad that we still have not got away from the ethos that causes people to believe that a "good" Secretary of State is one who obtains a generous settlement from the Treasury in the public expenditure survey round. The Treasury is always painted as the enemy, and the press does not much help by criticising Ministers who have been seen to lose out in battles with the Treasury.
It is a small regret of mine that during my long and very enjoyable time in the Government, I was never a Treasury Minister, but as a taxpayer I know where my interests lie in this battle, because it must be in the interests of all taxpayers to have a Government who control public expenditure, provide good services and, where possible, lower taxes.
I am always amazed by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). In some remark about the provision of personal pensions, he said that that was an area which had cost the Government money. That is not true. What happened is that people who were prepared to pay money to provide their own pensions received tax relief and kept a little bit of their
1084
money, which otherwise the Government would have taken. Opposition Members' attitude seems to be that all our money belongs to the Government, and they are extremely generous to allow us to keep some of it. That is a major difference in the attitude of the two sides of the House to people's money.
We all know that Britain has an impressive record on inward investment. The total inward investment stock stood at £150 billion last year, and it is a credit to British industry that our investment abroad stood at an even higher figure—£214 billion.
There are many reasons for our great record on inward investment, not least the trade union reforms, which have transformed industrial relations, and a very well-educated work force. There has been deregulation and privatisation. A very important factor has been our relatively low public expenditure and taxation—relative, that is, to western Europe. It must be a matter of congratulation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that our public expenditure is 8 per cent. below the European Union average.
However, we are in danger of being complacent. It has been said many times tonight that we live in a world marketplace. We do trade, and must trade, with countries outside Europe. Public expenditure of 41.5 per cent. of gross national product, although it is reducing to 40 per cent., is not especially good if comparisons are made with many of the other countries with which we trade.
The fact that our western European partners are even worse should be no reassurance. Federal and state taxes as a percentage of GNP are 33.3 per cent. in the United States and 36.2 per cent. in Japan. In many of the young economies in the far east that are becoming extremely assertive, the figure is probably about 30 per cent. I know that they have young populations and do not have the problems of aging people that we have in western Europe, but those are the countries with which we must compete, and it is important that we start to bring our public expenditure down to their levels. I hope that we shall set ourselves new targets. I hope that, having hit 40 per cent., we shall start bringing our public expenditure down to 35 per cent., to enable us to compete with the world at large.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made noises about the social model not working very well in western Europe at the moment. That must be one of the understatements that we have heard tonight—an understatement to beat all understatements. France and Germany are suffering from appallingly high wage costs, very high social costs heaped on top and very high public expenditure. As has been proven in this country, those countries want proper Conservative Governments, because it is crucial to liberate their markets, to denationalise their industries—it is amazing how much industry in France remains in state hands—to regulate their trade unions and to improve industrial relations. It is also crucial that they move much of the burden of social provision from the public to the private sector.
Germany's problems are very great. It is already exporting many of its manufacturing jobs to eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, and those problems can only get worse when those countries eventually join the European Union.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the plans that he has unveiled to reform pension provision. Such reform will have a

1085
significant impact on public expenditure, albeit far in the future. Once again, where Britain leads, Europe should follow, because the pension liabilities of some of our European partners, which will start to come to the fore in about 2015 or 2020, are horrific. Some of them will have to find moneys equivalent to 50 per cent. of gross national product then. They cannot sit and do nothing; they must start taking action now. In Chile, where the pension provision system was changed by General Pinochet 20 years ago, the effects are starting to come through only today. It takes a very long time indeed for such changes to work their way through.
Any Government of this country must limit the totals of public expenditure, and that means that there must be constant pressure to contract out services, with all the political significance that that has. It means that, in many cases where sections of the public sector have been moved into the private sector, there are redundancies, and sometimes people are paid lower wages, but I am afraid that those are some of the consequences of the competitive pressures of the marketplace being brought to bear.
We must continue with the privatisation programme, and I sincerely hope that we shall consider privatising the Post Office, because unless it is privatised, it will go nowhere. It is already falling drastically behind in the world communications market and it needs to invest in a mass of new technology. The money for that investment cannot possibly be found from the public purse. As we have seen, there are vast pressures on public expenditure. The investment that the Post Office needs is so large that it could never be afforded by the public sector. I do not believe that there is some squirmy way of getting out of the problem by creating a hybrid, halfway between the public and the private sector.
The Post Office must be denationalised and opened up. It must be given all the opportunities that were given to British Telecom when it was privatised, to invest in all the latest technology, to expand, to compete abroad and to become a serious international company. If we do not denationalise the Post Office, it will simply die on its feet. There is no alternative.
I am delighted to hear that we are to denationalise London Underground. Once again, there is an organisation in desperate need of investment. There is no way that that investment will come from the public purse. The sooner we get it into the private sector, the better, so that it can receive the investment that it needs.
There is clearly more to be done with prisons and hospitals.

Against that background, it is incredible to suggest that a Labour Government, if there ever were one, could come anywhere near matching the Conservative record on reducing taxes and controlling spending. Labour surprised me by suggesting that it could keep within the control totals set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for the next two years. As has been pointed out already, included in those figures are privatisation receipts of £1.5 billion. Where will the money come from, if Labour is not prepared to entertain privatisation?
It is fallacious to suggest that if £2.5 billion-worth of council house sales receipts are spent, somehow that is new money that does not count against the public expenditure totals. That is not the case. The fact is that if the money is drawn down, it will have to be replaced,
1086
because it represents loans to councils. All local authority spending, on council houses or anything else, goes towards the public expenditure totals. If the money is spent, it will still count and will be extra public expenditure, so it would not be possible to keep within the totals for the first two years.
The minimum wage will have a devastating effect on the public sector. It is usually suggested that the minimum wage should be brought in at £4.26 per hour. That is what everyone seems to think would be a significant minimum wage, if it were to happen. It would be a significant cost to the public sector—£3.7 billion. Once again, that would increase the pressures on public expenditure upwards.
The impact of a minimum wage would be much greater than its effect on the public sector wage roll. It would victimise those in our society who are least well educated and least skilled, and older people who are incapable of learning new skills. I have never understood how it can be argued that a labour market is different from any other market. If one shoves up the price of labour, one employs fewer people, because businesses cannot afford to employ them, or because they use automation and machinery instead. The effect is to push up the cost to the public sector by putting many people who were in employment on to the dole, where they claim income support and become a burden on the taxpayer.
It is incredible to suggest that socialists, whether old or new Labour, have changed their attitude to spending other people's money. Labour councils are some of the highest-spending councils in the country, and have been restrained only by the fact that their expenditure has been capped. Even that restraint would go, if we had a Labour Government. Immense extra sums would be spent by councils, if the capping restrictions were removed.
To anyone who has observed the political debate over the past few years, it is remarkable to hear any Labour party spokesman speak of restraining public expenditure, when all the attacks on my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have focused on the fact that they have been cutting it. We hear nothing but the constant refrain of cuts on this, that and the next thing.
Public expenditure is extremely high in Britain. It is quite wrong for the Government to be accused of cuts, especially as most areas of public expenditure have grown. Moreover, it indicates a mindset. If Labour spokesmen are so concerned about cuts, can they be serious about restraining public expenditure, if they ever had the chance to do so?
What about taxation? What realistic chance is there that a Labour Government would cut tax? We inherited a standard rate of 33 per cent., with 83 per cent. being the top rate, and on top of that an unearned income surcharge of 15 per cent. It is almost unbelievable that some people were paying 98 per cent. of their income in tax, but that is what we inherited in 1979. Conservative Governments brought down taxes by stages. What did Labour do? It voted against every one. When my noble Friend Lord Lawson, in his Budget in 1988, reduced the top rate to 40 per cent., there was an outcry from the Opposition, as if an iniquitous crime was being committed, by bringing our rates down to an internationally competitive level.
It was not only on taxation that Labour consistently voted against what the Government were trying to do. Labour voted against every privatisation brought before the House. When one considers the record of success, it is

1087
extraordinary that the income to the Government from taxation receipts from the privatised industries is greater than the sum that was being paid out in subsidies to those industries before privatisation.
Labour was wrong about privatisation. It was wrong about the sale of council houses, and voted against that. Labour voted against trade union reform, and it was wrong on that. Labour has been wrong on every major decision taken by the Government and by the House. Why should Labour ever be right? Why should Labour ever be trusted by the people of Britain?
7.26 pm.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), who made many fair points in defence of the Government's record, but seemed to be remarkably unconcerned about the social fallout from the massive changes that have taken place during that period. There is a fear among people that constant change, constant privatisation, the constant shedding of labour and the constant attempt to drive down public expenditure, all of which might be legitimate, nevertheless create significant social casualties, to which the Government have at times seemed rather indifferent.
An interesting fact, which brings that into sharp relief, is that the total number of extra people who have been claiming unemployment benefit since 1979, and the cumulative cost of those extra benefits, almost exactly equals the entire value of the taxation receipts from North sea oil and all the privatisation yields. That is why, at the end of 18 or 19 years, the Government's overall tax take is slightly higher than it was under the last Labour Government, and tax cuts have not been achieved across the board.
There have been changes in tax rates, and the burden of taxation and its impact have been changed, but the overall take has not significantly changed. That is because such an upheaval cannot be achieved without both social and economic costs. I am not saying that the changes were wrong or that benefits did not flow from them, but the Conservative party occasionally seems a little unconcerned about the people caught in the maelstrom, who have no control over the situation in which they find themselves.
For the record, I want to point out that my party—the Liberals, as well as the Liberal Democrats and the Social Democrats—did not oppose every privatisation. We did not oppose the privatisation of BP or British Airways. We were concerned about the way in which British Airways was privatised, to the disadvantage of other airlines and with the eventual destruction of British Caledonian and a number of other airlines. Similarly, we did not oppose in principle the privatisation of British Telecom, the electricity companies and British Gas.
However, we were concerned about the lack of competition and the consequences of privatising those companies in a monopoly state. We believe that those privatisations cost us a great deal, and their consequences have not yet been fully addressed. That is not to say that there will not be benefits at the end of the day. Nevertheless, the privatisations could have been conducted in a manner that advantaged the taxpayer: a greater yield could have
1088
been secured, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), pointed out, and the consumer might have also had a real choice.
We actively supported much of the legislation reforming the trade unions—indeed, we pressed the Government for such reform on several occasions. We were ahead of the Government in calling for the abolition of the closed shop. I vividly remember calling for the abolition of the dock labour scheme in this House on a Monday, and the Government announcing on Thursday that that would occur. The port of Aberdeen was then paralysed by a dockers' strike, and the Prime Minister prayed in aid my remarks to justify her decision.
I put those facts on record because, although this is billed as a public expenditure debate, the tax implications and the changes that are taking place are part and parcel of it. I am somewhat intrigued by the Government's tactics regarding business planning. This is the third or the fourth Conservative Opposition day. I do not know how many more there will be but, by the time the House reconvenes in May, I am sure that the Conservatives will be well practised in the art of opposition—which is just as well because they will experience it for many years.
There is consensus across the parties that we need to control public expenditure not just in the interests of regulating borrowing, bringing down inflation and keeping taxation low, but because we know that the efficient targeting of public expenditure enables the effective delivery of public services to those who need them most. A specific aim of Liberal Democrat policy is to continue to bear down on, and control, public expenditure. We have made a commitment to hold non-education and non-health expenditure below the level of real gross domestic product growth in order to allow us to concentrate first on increasing real expenditure on education and health and secondly on reducing borrowing. That clear priority has been costed into the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget, and it will also be costed into our manifesto programme.
Like Conservative Members, we were intrigued—indeed, somewhat astonished—by the shadow Chancellor's announcement that there would be no changes in income tax rates under a Labour Government, and that he would adopt the Conservatives' spending envelope for the next two years. I doubt very much whether the Conservatives really intended to adopt their spending envelope for the next two years—especially as they had tended to review it twice a year.
We part company with both the Conservative and the Labour parties in our belief that certain areas of public service expenditure are now so seriously deprived of funding that they cannot maintain acceptable provision at current spending levels. We accept that quality education and health are not all about money. However, we do not believe that it is possible to see real and significant improvements in standards and to achieve specific objectives without injecting additional resources.
We believe that every three to four-year-old child whose parents wish it should be entitled to nursery education. Both the other parties claim to support that concept, but neither is prepared to fund it. We believe that it should be funded from this year. We want to reduce class sizes, starting with the first three primary classes.

1089
We want to increase expenditure on books and educational equipment and improve the physical quality of the teaching environment in schools.
We have identified that expenditure as totalling about £2 billion a year, or £10 billion across a Parliament. We do not believe that that investment can be delayed any longer or that it can be funded by an increase in borrowing—which we all agree is too high. We believe that that investment could be funded by reversing the decision to cut the standard rate of income tax by a penny, which the Government announced in the last Budget. The Liberal Democrats have made a clear, unequivocal commitment to returning the standard rate of income tax to 24p in the pound in order to fund that expenditure.
I visited Wirral—where I have some family connections—the day before polling. I was interested by the number of people—many of whom were lifelong Conservative voters—who told me, "We shall certainly vote against the Conservatives. We are absolutely determined to get rid of this Government and we shall vote Labour to do that." However, quite a few added, "But we are not sure that voting in a Labour Government will make any difference." The Labour party has boxed itself in to such an extent—in the light of its record, I understand the reasons why—that people wonder whether it will be able to deliver the much-needed extra investment in education. Education was an issue in that by-election.
Those are perfectly honourable debating points: it is a matter of priorities and of legitimate choice. The Labour party is setting out its stall—I do not complain about that—and the electorate are entitled to make their own judgment. I contend that the people of this country believe that it will not be possible to improve the quality of education and maintain the quality of the health service within the existing spending priorities and via the modest changes that are on offer. When one says, "Whichever Government get in, taxes will go up," people just nod; they are resigned to that fact.
The sad thing is that people do not believe any of us any more. Their experience, particularly over the past five years, is that politicians will say almost anything to get elected and renege on their promises once that happens. That is a sad sign of the decline in the relationship between politicians and the electorate. We must try to re-establish that confidence. We should tell people honestly what can and cannot be achieved. I do not take issue entirely with the Labour party: I accept that Labour Members are trying to be honest about what may be achieved. However, there are some gaping holes when it comes to how Labour's pledges will be honoured.
At present, Conservative politicians are fond of attacking the credibility of Opposition spending and tax programmes, which distracts attention from their own policy. However, upon examining the Red Book and reading the speeches of the Prime Minister and his Ministers, I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party has a credible tax and spending programme for an entire Parliament—which is all right, because it will not need one. Nevertheless, I think that the public do not find it credible either. Most Conservative attacks on the Opposition are designed to distract attention from the fact that the Red Book forecasts do not maintain a credible scenario beyond the first two years.
1090
The Conservatives' promises depend on achieving some very optimistic forecasts. That is a significant point. The Chancellor assumes that, between 1992–93 and 2000–2001—that is the basis of his overall working assumption—there will be eight years of continuous economic growth at above 2 per cent. per annum. That has never happened in recorded British economic history.
Mr. Jack: We have never had a Chancellor like this before.
Mr. Bruce: It is all very well to say that. When challenging Opposition politicians, Conservative Members are fond of saying, "First, create your growth." However, the Tories are basing their spending plans on a level of growth that has never been produced. If they deliver it, they will be able to spend it; if they do not, their forecasts and promises are empty. That is the real situation.
There is also an element of modifying the books. When forecasting expenditure commitments, one traditionally assumes a flat unemployment situation—that is, one assumes that unemployment will remain at the same level as the previous year. The Government assume falling unemployment for the first year. I hope that they are right, but a change of forecasting technique has enabled them to claim that there is extra room for manoeuvre; all that they have done is changed the rules, to massage the figures so that they look slightly more acceptable. If they are unsuccessful, their promises will not add up. That is why the public are increasingly disillusioned about what the Conservatives have to say.
We all need to review certain base areas of Government expenditure provision. The Government's big idea on pensions, which they announced yesterday, is not so big really, because all the parties agree in principle that we have to do something about funding the earnings-related aspect of pensions in the long term if we are to deliver it. We all have reason to be ashamed that the basic state pension is inadequate and that it will be unsustainable even to provide an inadequate basic pension for many people who do not have alternative provision. All the parties agree on that. The Governments's proposals—at least with modified details—are within the ball park of what we all can agree.
It is a cheek for the Government to announce, after 18 years, without debate, and six or eight weeks before a general election, "We", one party, "are about to introduce the biggest overhaul in pension provision ever achieved." As they freely admit, they are looking to operate the programme over 30 to 40 years. If there is one matter on which all the parties should co-operate, it is how to fund pensions—something that will have to be managed by successive Governments of different political complexions. It simply is not good enough for one party to claim that it can sort out pensions on its own. I anticipate the debate next week, so I shall not dwell on that further.
We have to review the way in which further and higher education is funded, because the reality is that Government funding has been like a roller coaster: massive expansion, then a panic, then a sudden contraction, which has resulted in inadequate resources. There is nothing in place to ensure the proper management and sustained expansion of further and higher education to the quality that we need.

1091
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, argued about the extent to which the Government have passed on debt to local authorities. Apart from anything else, that has created conflict between central and local government, which is not healthy for the proper delivery of good-quality public services. It is simply preposterous for the Government to suggest that every council in the country is profligate, incompetent and disreputable in its delivery of public services.
The Government know that that is not true, and so do the public. There is a variation in quality in how councils deliver services, but the Government have consistently increased their expectations of what councils will do, while reducing the allocation of funds from central taxation. At the same time, they have reduced the ability of councils to raise their own revenue. Fifteen years ago, councils controlled 50 per cent. of their revenue; they now control 15 per cent. The Government have in effect taken the revenue from councils and used it to disguise their own incompetence, and refused to allow councils a realistic allocation of resources.
The Government have financed much of their programmes by selling off capital assets, but we are running out of capital assets to sell and mechanisms by which to sell them that give a good deal to the taxpayer and a good service to customers. I am prepared, as is my party, to consider any reasonable and realistic proposals. There is a proposal to privatise London Underground, but at a very low price in relation to its capital assets, and that does not answer the question of how one will sustain the service in the long term. If it is to depend on continuing massive taxpayer subsidies, there will be many questions about why private companies should be allowed to fund their profits from taxpayer subsidies.
I do not accept that it is not possible to fund publicly owned enterprises out of the private sector without increasing the cost on the public sector borrowing requirement. Risk-bearing bonds for specific projects are a perfectly reputable, well-established way of financing specific developments that do not need to be charged to the PSBR. It is the Government's ideological drive to privatise but not to explore the ability to bring in the private sector in a risk-bearing but worthwhile way to the mutual benefit of both parties. The job of the private sector is to bring the benefits of management and risk analysis. The job of the public service is to ensure that we deliver adequate services. It is perfectly possible for the two to be combined.
As we move towards a general election, the public will have before them two parties offering something that the public know that they cannot deliver: falling borrowing, falling taxes and rising public services. I have said on numerous occasions that there are not many people on earth who have learned how to walk on water, and none of them is on either of the Front Benches. The reality is that people want a presentation of what the priorities are; how they will be paid for; what can be done; and what cannot be done. That is exactly what they will get from the Liberal Democrats.
7.45 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: Earlier today the House enjoyed a dress rehearsal for the general election debate ahead, although the right hon. Member for
1092
Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be in trouble with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) if his soundbites are as long as his speech.
At the risk of being a party pooper after all the excitement earlier—there is a pervasive air of unreality in the debate between the two Front Benches on public expenditure—I wish to say something about that and then to spell out in detail the implications that it has for higher education, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred in an excellent speech. The unreality lies in the fact that both Front Benches seem to believe, first, that it is impossible to raise taxes, apart from Labour's one-off exception—the so-called windfall tax—secondly, that public borrowing must be reduced, not least to meet the Maastricht criteria and, thirdly, that it is possible at the same time to maintain public services free to their users at present standards or at even higher standards.
I believe that that is, to put it charitably, an unrealistic conclusion because most public services are labour intensive and their nature is such that machinery cannot easily be substituted for human labour. The price of labour in the public sector is largely determined by independent pay review bodies, operating on the principle of comparability with the private sector. Accordingly, the cost of public services will tend to rise roughly in line with those in the rest of the economy. However, if public borrowing is to be reduced and taxes cannot be increased, either the cost of labour in the public sector must be brought down, by abandoning the comparability principle, or the number of public sector employees must be reduced. Either way, the quality of public services will fall if my assumption—that technology cannot so easily replace labour—is correct and the funds for public investment in new technology are tightly constrained.
It is the proud boast of my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product in Britain has fallen to some 41.6 per cent. in the present financial year, and that it is scheduled to fall still further in future years. By ruling out increases in both taxes and public borrowing, the Labour Front Bench has implicitly accepted that Britain will continue to have the lowest public expenditure to GDP ratio in Europe. Well and good. I have no fundamental quarrel with that project, although I am not sure that it will carry public support when the implications are properly understood. As responsible politicians, we have a duty to face up to those implications, even eight weeks before a general election.
In spite of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the European social model, the position on both sides of the House appears to be that Britain's true comparators are not the countries of continental Europe with public expenditure to GDP ratios of roughly 50 per cent., but rather the United States and Japan with public expenditure to GDP ratios of 33.3 per cent. and 36.2 per cent. respectively.
It must surely follow that our aspirations in terms of public services should match those of the Americans and the Japanese rather than those of the continental Europeans. Alternatively, we must resign ourselves to running public services that lack the private sector-driven buoyancy of their equivalents in the United States and Japan and are increasingly degraded and slummy compared with those on the continent.

1093
What is the way forward? If the present Front-Bench consensus prevails, we are surely obliged to look at the way in which health, education and other public services are financed in the United States and Japan. Let me pick out one feature. In almost every case, services which in Britain and elsewhere in Europe are provided at public expense free to the users are funded in the United States and Japan on a mixed public-private basis. In my view, the only way forward consistent with our aspirations to keep a low public expenditure to GDP ratio and to maintain high-quality public services is to put them on a new financial footing based on a mixture of public and private funding.
I do not want to venture any general observations about how it should be done, except to say that we must recognise how astonishingly inept we have been in the past at handling the issue, notwithstanding the recent welcome innovation of the private finance initiative.

Every ideology—left, right and centre—has conspired to produce the result that in Britain services are either wholly private—in which case almost anything goes—or wholly public, in which case the Treasury rules, usually to the most obscurantist degree. We face a real effort of imagination—almost of self-overcoming—if we are to succeed on the road we really must take.
The best that I can do in the time I have today is to turn to one sector of public spending in which we are perhaps closer than in any other to embracing the idea of public-private co-operation: higher education.
In the universities, even at the height of the welfare state consensus, there always remained an element of private finance in the shape of the deemed contribution by parents to the maintenance of their student children. At the end of the 1980s, I had, as a Minister, something to do with the introduction of a further source of private finance through loans to students to enable them to finance part of their maintenance by anticipating their future earnings after graduation. Although the policy was fiercely resisted at the time, it is now seen to have been right and there is a emerging consensus that students and/or their parents should be expected to contribute further. A committee chaired by Sir Ron Dearing is deliberating on the matter and is expected to report in the mid-year—safely after the election.
I now come to what I consider to be the essential issue—whether, as some suggest, increased private contribution to higher education costs should continue to be limited to maintenance costs only, or whether it should be directed to the funding of higher education proper. In line with my previous argument about the implications of the attitude of Members on both Front Benches to tax and spending, I would plead with Front-Bench Members at least to keep the option open during the election campaign.
One reason for my request is that the additional finance that will be required to maintain higher education of an acceptable quality will not be forthcoming simply by shifting into university funding the residual public spending of some £1.3 billion which at present goes to student support, if that were to be the deal on offer. Sir Ron Dearing and his colleagues will make their assessment of what will be required and it would be wrong and, above all, unnecessary for Front-Bench Members to prejudge the matter before the committee reports.
1094
I said earlier that in Britain every ideology conspires to make us bad at managing private-public partnerships. The debate about higher education funding provides a good example in the shape of the widely held notion on both sides of the House that education must be free, so tuition costs at university must always be met by the taxpayer with nothing expected from students and their families. The great principle of universal free university education is absent in the United States and Japan, where the great private universities and the state universities charge tuition fees. It is also a comparatively recent innovation in Britain, where a deemed parental contribution to tuition fees remained until the late 1970s.
The notion that university education must be free to users has no philosophical justification. There is a logical link between the idea of compulsory education and the principle of state funding. If the state imposes an obligation upon parents, it has a duty to ensure that parents—or at any rate poor parents—can meet that obligation. Outside the limits of compulsion, however, it seems to me that there is no moral obligation on taxpayers to pay for education. The only considerations are those of expediency, such as at what price for education do undesirable consequences emerge in terms of participation rates or access by all social classes. Can it really be true, as the exponents of free higher education sometimes seem to argue, that the price of education to the student has to be set at zero to bring about any desired level of participation?
Is university education so poorly esteemed among the working classes, for example, that any price above zero will make it unattractive? One has only to ask those questions to know the answer. Practical experience since the introduction of student loans has demonstrated that requiring students to contribute to their costs while studying is compatible with higher participation rates in general and in detail with higher participation rates from the less advantaged social classes.
Two further fallacies underlie the ideology that although their maintenance might be paid by students themselves, tuition should not. The first is that there is a meaningful distinction to the student and his family, but in practice each student will have only one budget in which what matters is the size of his total outgoings rather than their various purposes. The second is that while tuition is a fixed cost, maintenance is a discretionary variable—as if the geographical distribution of our universities and the range of their courses were such that all students had an equal discretionary ability to save costs by living at home.
That brings me to equity, which must always be a central value in our public expenditure policies. Not only is it inequitable and unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of students have the discretion to continue to live at home; there is also a marked inequity in the idea that the additional contribution we envisage from students should be towards maintenance rather than tuition.
If the entire cost of student maintenance has to be met by student borrowing, the effect will be to eliminate the contribution that is now expected from better-off parents, and amounts to some £800 million. Making students liable for all their maintenance costs would be socially regressive, in the same way as Shirley Williams' abolition of the parental contribution to tuition fees in the late 1970s.

1095
Still worse, if our main concern is to restrain the growth of public expenditure, the policy of requiring the student to contribute more to his maintenance rather than to tuition costs must be relatively expensive, at least until that distant date when income from the loans scheme will exceed expenditure on it.
As such a high proportion of the student body is from better-off families, the Treasury will incur substantial up-front costs as parental contributions are replaced by student borrowing. If, however, the parental contribution to student maintenance were retained alongside a private charge for tuition, most better-off families would continue to use their own resources to assist their student children to pay the bills.
In debates about public expenditure, it is all too easy to frame one's arguments solely in terms of the balance sheet, and that is how I have argued so far. We also have to recognise a deeper truth—that the way in which we pay for services can have implications for the way in which they are provided. Let me again apply that insight about public expenditure to the specific case of higher education.
There is a curious paradox in British universities today. In every other area of public policy, there is a healthy all-party consensus that decentralisation is desirable, that local units should be encouraged to get on with the job and that morale in public services depends on local initiative and local responsibility. In our universities, however, the whole trend of the last 20 years has been in the opposite direction. As the cost to the state of higher education has risen, the state and its agencies have, perhaps inevitably, become more and more directive and intrusive in their relations with the universities. The effects are well known to all who know the universities: a growing sense of powerlessness, and a pervasive demoralisation. The balance sheet may look good to the Treasury—more, much more, higher education at lower, much lower, unit costs—but what, meanwhile, is happening to what we think that we are buying?
Here we move beyond the question of resources to more fundamental questions, about the conditions in which activities such as university teaching and learning survive and flourish. I believe that what is needed is a greater measure of autonomy and local responsibility than the present state-dominated and state-accountable funding arrangements allow. Not only are more resources required for that, but, more fundamentally, those resources should be private, not public, and those who provide them should be accountable not to politicians and bureaucrats but to the users who benefit—or hope to benefit—from what they are paying for.
That is not to say that I am calling for a complete privatisation of the universities. That would be impracticable, and, in view of the importance of the public interest in higher education, it would also be undesirable. What I am pleading for in the funding of higher education is a mixed financial system, analogous to, for example, the system in the university of California. If we are to approximate to the American ratio of public expenditure to gross domestic product, let us at the same time adopt the admirable American system of higher education funding, in which the taxpayer's contribution is complemented by student fees so that the autonomy of
1096
universities is underpinned by the margin of financial manoeuvre that is secured by some 10 to 20 per cent. of income outside state control.
In the interests of social equity, the state should of course act to enable students to pay such fees. The student loan scheme should be extended—preferably outside the public sector borrowing requirement—to enable students to borrow up to a certain overall limit, both to maintain themselves and to pay their contribution to the costs of tuition. Beyond that the state should not intervene, except perhaps to insist that "means-blind" admission policies should be followed as a condition of state funding. In particular, the state should resist the temptation to try to fix the level of student fees. As the purpose of the policy should be to underpin university autonomy, the matter of fees should be left entirely to the autonomous institutions. It should be an essentially private transaction between universities and their students.
I make no apology for taking advantage of a debate on public expenditure to make a speech that is mainly about university finance. Not only is higher education an important branch of public spending in quantitative terms; it is also a striking example of how the way in which public spending works can affect the quality of the services being purchased. Our universities are like the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs. So much do we appreciate the eggs that we are directing more and more effort to their mass production at the lowest possible cost-to-benefit ratio. As a result, the gold is rapidly turning to ever-thinner plate, and we are on course to create a university system that is over-centralised, over-bureaucratised and increasingly lacking in quality. In a country which has to live by its wits, that is unacceptable, and the first step towards putting the matter right must be to recognise the unreality of the assumptions about public expenditure, on both sides of the House, that have brought us to this pass.
8.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow such a thoughtful speech as that made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), although I disagreed with some of his conclusions, especially the one relating to his Californian example. The way in which the economy works in that part of the United States is so fundamentally different from the way in which it works here that I am not sure that it would be possible to import the system. Nevertheless, the House should heed the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful comments.
A few minutes ago, a telephone message was passed to me, consisting of some of my daughter's interim examination results. I am rapidly putting money aside for to fund her university education.
The debate began with what appeared to be a campaign to secure shadow Cabinet places under the next Labour Government. I want to deal with two specific issues, one of which was not dissimilar to a point raised by the hon. Member for Wantage. The first is public funding for science, which used to be—and doubtless still is—of great interest to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the second is the funding of local authorities. There are serious anomalies in the Government's attitude to both.
In his usual robust fashion, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) spoke about the Wirral, South by-election, and made a number of comments about the

1097
European dimension. A week ago today, I attended a party in Hulme hall, Port Sunlight, to celebrate a magnificent victory. The last time I was in that hall, I was negotiating with Unilever on the creation of a European works council—that was during my previous life. Unilever, one of our most successful companies, has agreed to set up works councils to cover the various divisions of its operations, and now recognises that there are benefits to both company and employees in keeping the organisation moving.
I return to the public funding of science. As most people will know, during the past two days, the Science and Technology Committee has been considering the subject of a sheep called Dolly, which has probably had more jokes made about it than any other sheep that has ever existed. Some important issues were raised. In a public hearing today, the Roslin institute gave extremely important evidence to the Committee.
What worries me is that, in our drive to lower the headline public expenditure figures, we are not looking behind that headline and at the detail. As a result, confusing messages are emerging. The Roslin institute has links with not only the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health, and the funding structure is very confused. We were shocked to hear today that the institute, which is doing very valuable work relating to animal husbandry and future medical benefits, is suffering massive cuts. It is rather ironic that the Minister of Agriculture should be limping with a broken limb today, given that one of the 30 per cent. cuts was in bone biology. We are missing the point. A long-term investment strategy should be adopted in such areas to ensure that the public get the best value for money.
One of the great problems—the Chief Secretary will recognise it from his days as a Science Minister—is the long gestation period of such research. It has been especially difficult to create the right financial structure in the United Kingdom to generate private sector companies that will support the type of innovative companies that exist on the west coast of California that do research in, for example, human genetics, and will give more support to the work of the public institutes and the universities. One company, PPL, works closely with the Roslin institute, but such companies are rare in this country.
Our venture capitalists seem to lack the confidence to support research in areas in which the Government might pull the plug. For example, tremendous work is being done with transgenic sheep, an area of research that may yield clear therapeutic benefits for cystic fibrosis sufferers. That will be of great benefit to individuals and, of course, to the public purse, because supporting those who suffer from complex genetic illnesses costs significant sums. Financially and morally, we should try to create the environment in which such research can take place.
Sadly, because headline cuts are needed to satisfy the soundbite politics of the Chancellor, we have not addressed the long-term strategic needs properly. The work that is the subject of the Select Committee's inquiry will receive a 50 per cent. cut in this financial year and is projected to lose all its funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the following year. That is shortsighted, and it will have two effects. First,
1098
it will mean that the Roslin institute has to cut its major research programmes that could be beneficial to animal husbandry and human health. Secondly, people will lose their jobs and, potentially, become a burden on the state. The entire team might be headhunted by countries with a more innovative approach to the public funding of science. The team could go and work on the west coast of the States, because of the different funding environment. I hope that the Government can give some reassurance to those people. The bizarre tabloid headlines of the past week may have woken the Treasury up to the need to continue funding for that research because of its long-term social benefits.
I shall now consider the problems experienced in Ellesmere Port and Neston, which the district auditor believes to be a well-run local authority. Again, the Government are missing the point about some serious problems. Extraordinarily, given the language that we often hear from Tories, the Government are missing the point about the relevance of investment. That shows in a wide range of areas. The Government have deployed various arguments to explain why they have changed the freedom of local authorities to establish their spending base. The Government now decide the total spending, the planning fees that local authorities can charge, and what they can borrow. Local authorities have to compete with other local authorities for additional resources, such as the single regeneration budget. The projects on which SRB money should be spent are also decided by the Government. That is bizarre. I do not understand how someone 200 miles away can determine the best strategic approach for the redevelopment of a town centre.
Last night, the council set a budget figure for 1997–98 that I predicted almost precisely when I commented on the Chancellor's local government figures in the Budget. The increase in the council tax is some 6.4 per cent. The district council collects the money for the county and the police authority, and those two institutions take up some 83 per cent. of the funds collected. Locally, we began the budget process with a Government decision that we needed to spend some 3.2 per cent. less than last year, despite inflation increasing by 2.5 per cent. The reduction of 3.2 per cent. in what we are supposed to spend is almost the highest reduction in the country.
The reduction in spending does not take account of comments made by the district auditor, or of programmes to promote inward investment and to raise housing standards. We all know the correlation between poor housing and poor health. Because of the inflexibility of the funding decisions, the programme of work to renovate pre-cast reinforced concrete properties has been halted, even though it would provide financial advantages for the local authority and the central Exchequer in the long term. If the programme remains stagnant for much longer, the authority will have to demolish properties because they will be beyond economic repair. That is not a good use of public money.
Similarly, there is less flexibility on business rates. Hon. Members who do not live in areas with heavy industry perhaps do not understand the problem. The petro-chemical complex that stretches from Runcorn to Ellesmere Port is a hazard site, and significant funds have to be invested to boost fire service protection and to deal with the environmental health issues that arise from public worries about pollution, yet we derive no benefit from the business rate, which is drawn down to the centre.

1099
The local authority is charged with the duty of collecting it, but it does not get its fair share back. Under the previous rating system, there was an element of equity. I believe that Shell was the biggest ratepayer in the county at the time, and that money was available to help boost the shortfall on fire safety and environmental protection issues. Again, we have found ourselves somewhat disadvantaged.
The result of the financial programme is that repairs have been postponed and staff have been reduced—including, I have no doubt, people from the direct works department, which generates a profit and is certified to BS5750. It has been able to get out into the marketplace and win some exciting tenders, but is being stymied by this process. We expect increased charges, even for services that affect our elderly population, such as bus passes. The programme of minor improvements is slowing down and the issue of balances is close to being a joke because the balances are almost non-existent.
How the calculation works and, as I have suggested locally in the past year, the fact that the Government seek to blame the local authority for its council tax rise, is clear when we see how the council tax calculation is made. Of the average increase of about £19.28, the local authority is directly responsible for only 8p. That is extraordinary when we see the Government again running the headline about the successes that they claim will emerge from the Budget.
All the Government have succeeded in doing in both the examples that I have cited is to pass the buck elsewhere. First, the headline cuts in public science will result in long-term disadvantages to the country as well as potentially higher expenditure on unemployment. Secondly, we are seeing an attempt to blame local authorities for something over which they have 8p in £19.28 responsibility. That is not a fair burden of blame. The real blame lies on the Government Benches.
We have heard today a number of examples of how the iniquities in society have grown worse as a result of the processes with which we are currently faced. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) referred to the minimum wage, but he failed to address the other side of the coin. He did not seek to justify employers squeezing down wages and sending people down the road to gain family credit and income support. That is not a proper use of public money. We should set much higher standards than that.
We have also heard about people's rights. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to deal with what he was alleged to have said in a television interview. My right hon. Friend quite honestly said that he believed that people have rights.
I have referred at length to people who I believe have rights. For example, the people who will benefit from the long-term work at the Roslin institute have rights. The people in my constituency living in poor housing have rights. We as politicians should address those rights. That is where the Deputy Prime Minister missed entirely the point of my right hon. Friend's contribution. We must address the needs of those categories of people and we have a social responsibility to do our best to do that.
8.25 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) paid a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), to whom I thought the House owed a genuine debt for using this occasion for so elegant an analysis of a subject very important to our national future, following so swiftly on the Adjournment debate on the same issue initiated by our mutual hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), at which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage was also present. It is an index of the House's occasional serendipity that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston should have followed on a directly analogous topic. I shall, however, be briefer.
I apologise to the House for my absence from the debate for an hour, of which I advised Madam Speaker in advance. I have for the past 20 years been a trustee of a third-world trust, and chairman for the past 10 years or so, and the timing of our trustees' meetings is dictated by the availability of our director, who is often in the third world. I meant no discourtesy to the House.
This is the first time that I have revisited a public expenditure debate since July 1989. Had that year's Government reshuffle—what I choose to call a shuffle—occurred in September 1989 rather than in July, I should have become the longest-serving junior Treasury Minister since 1979.
Today's are arcane matters, yet they constitute 40 per cent. of our national economic activity. In the third of a century between 1945 and 1979, each ratchet of the economic cycle, regardless of who was in government, found us at the end of each relevant ratchet with the economic indices of inflation and unemployment worse than they had been at the end of the prior respective ratchet. My own public expenditure responsibilities during my four years in the Treasury were restricted to assisting the then Chief Secretary in certain regards detailed in the document "Ministerial Responsibilities" of that era. My role was essentially that of Oddjob, the title assigned by the noble Lord Healey to his then Chief Secretary, the noble Lord Barnett, in 1974.
However, I derive vicarious pride, taking a long perspective, from the fact that the high point of public expenditure in the mid-1980s was down to 45.5 per cent. as a percentage of national income and is down to 43.5 per cent. so far in the 1990s, by comparison with 47.25 per cent. in the 1970s. That is a wholly beneficent trend, markedly different from the post-war third of a century that I mentioned earlier, and reflecting the admirable control of public expenditure by Conservative Governments since 1979.
In terms of the current public expenditure plans, I will dwell for a moment on education where, in succession to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and a little before my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, I served as Minister with responsibility for higher education in the early 1980s. I have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has said that his party's priority is education, education, education. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I inherited from the Labour Government an age participation rate in higher education of one in eight. It is an index of the economic success and the imagination of the Government that, despite our rigorous control of public expenditure, the higher education ratio has now

1101
reached one in three. I share with the Leader of the Opposition an enthusiasm for expenditure on education, but I would respect him the more if he gave occasional credit for the scale of the achievement by the higher education sector over the past 18 years.
Earlier this week, I attended a rather scrappy conference put on by some bishops, about what they called the forgotten 30 per cent. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), who spoke there, when I call the conference scrappy. That description is a reflection of its unfocused format.
I am proud that the Government have increased public expenditure per pupil by 50 per cent. in real terms over the past 18 years. I hope that, in the coming years, the increased spending on schools in the present plans will lead to an improvement in performance by the bottom 30 per cent., to match the advances by the top 30 per cent. that I have just mentioned.
Sadly, the commonplace objection to selection in schools—that it condemns many to secondary modern education—has not insured us against an unsatisfactory level of performance among the bottom 30 per cent. in comprehensive schools.
In Northern Ireland, where there is 34 per cent. selection, deliberate attention to the bottom 30 per cent. achieved, at least for a period, an improvement in that sector swifter than any such improvement in Great Britain. That proves that improvement at that level can be effected by the application of intelligence and effort.
I have one last thing to say about the present public expenditure plans. I realise why my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary finds it necessary to cut public expenditure in small Departments in the same way as in large. Large Departments would complain if he did not. But value for money is a key motivator of the Government, and my right hon. Friend will recall his time at the old Department of Education and Science, which I mentioned earlier.
I do not know about my right hon. Friend, or, indeed, about my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, but during my time there, my detailed knowledge about expenditure in the area of my responsibility was far greater than it could ever have been when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I dare say the same might have been true when my right hon. Friend was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or at the Department of Health.
Because of the greater familiarity with what one is spending, and thus the ability to be much more in control, in a small Department, I share the unhappiness of some of the clients of small Departments, because cutting those Departments causes them disproportionate damage, yet makes very little difference to the greater sum of things.
Having been rigorously objective about the Government's plans, I shall allow myself a moment of self-indulgence to comment on the public expenditure plans of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I appreciate that "plans" is an imprecise word to describe the aims and aspirations to which Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen periodically allude.
1102
Earlier tonight we heard the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), deliver an exegesis of his views on eye tests. As Lewis Carroll wrote:
"'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,`it means just what I choose it to mean'".
It is noticeable that some of the pledges from which the Opposition claim that they have resiled have been repeated not once but twice, many of them since November last year, when they originally alleged that they had not been pledges at all. We cannot reasonably be blamed if we recall the words of the Bellman, another of Lewis Carroll's characters:
"What I tell you three times is true".
The line that clear statements about the Opposition's intentions, with clear spending implications, were simply jeux d'esprit, or thoughts collected in a ramble through the woods, does not retain credibility if the risk-laden words are spoken time and again. Nor is disingenuousness about public accounting rules, as in the case of council house receipts, halfway to being an amulet. Labour spokesmen may convince themselves that they are protected by Humpty Dumpty definitions, but it is certain that the financial markets would exact an instant punishment for such disingenuousness.
Of course I acknowledge the fact that Treasury Ministers must make assumptions. Conservatives see virtue in learning from the past. In 1974, the Labour Government made assumptions that underestimated by £4 billion, in 1974 sterling, the level of their public sector borrowing requirement, on which they built their spending plans. From that, so many of their subsequent difficulties flowed. It is unreasonable of the Opposition to deny the Government the right to make assumptions about the Opposition's stated intentions of substance.
The Labour Government did not learn from their mistakes. After everything that they had done between 1974 and 1976, their public expenditure White Paper dated February 1976 began:
"we intend broadly to stabilise the level of resources taken by expenditure after 1976/77".
Those words are worth recording in the light of what happened later that year, and worth measuring against the pious words that the shadow Chancellor has latterly been uttering about his present intentions.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the privatisation of London Underground. The responses of the Opposition on the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that were embarrassing. They were inept, irrelevant and primaeval. However, all was explained within a week, when Conservative Members received a letter from Mr. Jimmy Knapp explaining why he was against the privatisation. His very opposition has implications for the public finances.
The vacuum on health policy in the Labour party is equally embarrassing, and this time it cannot be covered up by promises about increasing public expenditure. The vacuum has been there a long time, but it was previously concealed by public expenditure promises. As was once said of Mr. Asquith:
"his well known lucidity of style was a positive disadvantage when he had nothing particular to say".

1103
As for pensions, the Opposition's knee-jerk reaction to the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was the vividest of demonstrations that, to mix my metaphors, beneath the skin-deep pieties, the leopard has not changed its spots.
The Opposition will say that, despite their policy vacuum, they enjoyed the confidence of the electorate in the Wirral. They have paid us the compliment of adopting, hip and thigh, the commanding policies of the Government on economic management—but their attitudes to markets remain profoundly ambiguous.
The Opposition's imprecise statements about public expenditure have smacked of a communitarianism from the other side of the Atlantic, and of Michel Albert's propositions from this side of it, with their moral feel-good factor. However, the trouble with those theories is the fact that they blunt the rigour of markets, and are incapable of accurate calibration.
I appreciate the fact that those theories are, in part, a reaction to the wilder intellectual propositions of the new right in the United States. Forty years ago, in a course at the Harvard business school entitled, "Business Responsibilities in American Society", I was brought up to believe in the tenet that a private corporation has responsibilities to customers, to employees and to the community at large, as well as to shareholders. All hon. Members have in their constituencies hundreds of companies that pursue exactly the same policies, from many motives, of which intelligent self-interest is not the least.
It is, I fear, the miasma of communitarianism towards which a patently under-prepared Opposition seek to seduce the country. That is why this debate, and the Deputy Prime Minister's powerful exposé, has been so valuable.
When I was in the Treasury, we had a saying that that which could not be measured did not exist. That proposition was once put to the test by the Foreign Office, which we all know and love, when there was concern about whether Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was then Foreign Secretary, would be able to get through the doorway between the main spare bedroom and the main spare bathroom in the Brussels embassy.
A telegram was sent to London saying:
"Please verify diameter of Secretary of State".
The reply demonstrated what many of us had long feared—that the Foreign Office is more literate than numerate:

"Unable verify diameter but circumference is 60 inches".
An inability to measure precisely is a hazard in the public finances, too. I quoted earlier the Bellman in "The Hunting of the Snark"—whose ending the House will recall. It is because the Opposition are pretending to be a Boojum, but we suspect that they are really a Snark, that we shall revisit this subject time and again before polling day.
8.38 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I am pleased to be following the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I was
1104
pleased, too, that he drew attention to the conference that he and I attended at Central hall, Westminster, earlier this week, which addressed the issue of the forgotten 30 per cent. Whatever the defects of its format may have been, it directed attention to a proper concern about the state of our nation.
The stark central fact facing the next Government, as they consider their policies for public expenditure, will be that Britain is more unequal today than it has ever been this century. The very rich have done brilliantly since 1979, but the hardest-up 10 per cent. are 17 per cent. worse off. That inequality is getting worse. Britain is becoming more divided and more troubled every day. At the coming election, the question facing every voter is whether to let that situation carry on getting worse, with the Conservative promises to scrap inheritance tax and capital gains tax—which are paid overwhelmingly by well-off people—or to elect a different Government who will put fairness first and will stop the huge handouts to the rich.
There is no doubt about the size of the task that we face. Study after study has found a growing gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest in Britain. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found in 1994 that the gap between the highest and the lowest wages in the United Kingdom was the biggest since records began. It reported that the wages of the top 10 per cent. of male earners rose from 1.67 times the median wage in 1979 to twice the median in 1993. Meanwhile, the wages of the lowest-earning 10 per cent. fell over the same period from 69 per cent. to 58 per cent. of the median.
Since 1980, earnings inequality has risen faster in Britain than in any other industrial country apart from the United States. We have the third highest proportion of low-paid workers after the United States and Canada. The top 20 per cent. of earners take 67 per cent. of total income, while the proportion taken by the bottom 20 per cent. has fallen from 14 per cent. to 9 per cent. The bottom 10 per cent. take just 2.5 per cent. of total income.
In a survey last year, 90 per cent. of people, including a majority even among the highest-earning groups, said that they believed that the gap between the highest and the lowest incomes was excessive. People know that that inequality is wrong. The Catholic bishops' recent document, "The Common Good", pointed out that a society in which the gap between the top and the bottom is so great is not meeting the common good. Having engineered the conditions in which inequality flourishes, the Government have stood aside and watched, refusing at times even to admit what has happened.
The Government's policies on public spending over 18 years have left a deeply divided nation. Crime flourishes as legitimate economic opportunities become scarcer and young people turn to other means to earn a living. The Deputy Prime Minister said—12 years ago, admittedly—that
"Against a background of high unemployment, the invitation to crime becomes more appealing. Idleness becomes a resentment that gives crime an indefensible normality."
He was right. I hope that he is as concerned as I am that in my borough of Newham in east London, 39 per cent. of young people under 25 are without a job and 45 per cent. of households contain nobody in employment.
The heart of my argument is that that yawning inequality harms everybody, not just those at the bottom of the scale. Through our taxes, we all pay for

1105
unemployment and the price of economic failure. We all suffer if people are scared to go out at night because they think that they might be mugged. We all have to pay for the extra security to protect our homes from burglary. It is a remarkable fact that, whereas in 1979 we spent twice as much on education as we did on the costs of unemployment, today we are spending more on unemployment. We must shift that priority back. The central objective in our public expenditure policy must be to address the deepening inequality.
I was interested to see an article in Monday's Financial Times by a former United States Secretary of Labor. Under the heading, "The menace to prosperity. Widening inequality poses a threat to the US and other societies", he rightly pointed out that
"there is no escaping the underlying moral question, which is also a political one … Are we, or are we not, still in this together?"
I have three central criticisms of the Government's public expenditure policy over the past 18 years, which has brought us to the position that we are in. First, too little has been spent on investment and too much on consumption. Secondly, too much has been spent on welfare and too little on education. Thirdly, in a rather different category, there has been too much secrecy around the decisions on how Government finances are spent.
There is a striking graph in last month's Bank of England inflation report, showing the proportion of gross domestic product committed to fixed investment in each year since the 1950s. It shows that since 1992, the proportion spent on fixed investment has been at its lowest levels since the mid-1950s. We have a desperately bad record on investment.
Mr. Brooke: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is talking in absolute sums, but I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that the absolute sum does not necessarily determine the return on the money.
Mr. Timms: I entirely accept that. My point is that the proportion of our GDP that goes in investment has been very low, particularly since 1992. That has made a big contribution to the problems that I am describing. My right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party pointed out—I think that I heard him correctly—that we are 19th out of 19 for investment in the OECD.
That is particularly true of public expenditure. The point has been made tellingly recently by Yvette Cooper of The Independent. Although the overall level of public spending as a proportion of GDP has not changed much in the past 20 years, the composition of it has. We are spending far less public money on investment—that can be explained only in part by privatisation having reduced the need for public investment—and far more on current consumption.
Yvette Cooper points out:
"Such low levels of investment (in both public and private sectors) are brewing up problems in the long term. Across the board from physical infrastructure to teenagers, from council houses to social insurance, money that could have been invested to give a return has been diverted to current expenditure instead. Sooner or later that was bound to cost us more."
On privatisation, she goes on:
"when assets were sold income streams were lost too, yet the money raised was not invested. Privatisation proceeds were used for tax cuts and to meet current spending bills instead. The gap between the value of the state's physical assets and its financial liabilities … has deteriorated badly as a result".
1106
After what has happened, it is no wonder that Britain has had trouble meeting its bills and that the Government have been forced to raise taxes significantly since 1992.
The Government's principal response to the problem of inadequate publicly sponsored investment has been the private finance initiative. There are many questions about the way in which that initiative has been implemented and its effects so far. I have a number of questions for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Treasury Committee said in January that it was sceptical about whether the £2.5 billion due to be spent under the PFI in the coming financial year would be achieved, given that by December only about half that amount had been committed. How much of that £2.5 billion has now been committed? According to the Red Book, even assuming that that figure of £2.5 billion is achieved, total publicly sponsored capital spending is due to fall by £300 million next year. Will the figure be even lower, because the £2.5 billion of PFI expenditure will not be achieved?
Another problem with the PFI is the undue secrecy that surrounds the deals. I shall come back to that point later when I talk more generally about the way in which the Government conduct the economy. I believe that hon. Members need to see the details of the deals that have been done, to establish the extent to which value for money has been achieved and to scrutinise properly the spending of taxpayers' money. The excuse for withholding the details from Parliament on the ground that the negotiating position of Departments' future deals would be compromised, is a licence for unnecessary secrecy.
I wonder whether the Chief Secretary will be able to say more about how the Government can justify that defence for secrecy. Will he confirm that the details of the Treasury building PFI redevelopment project will be released as soon as the final contract is signed? Many questions are being asked about that project.
In an earlier intervention, the Chief Secretary haltingly confirmed that not one of the major hospital PFI projects that have been announced has completed the financing deal. At the same time, transport projects under the PFI are surging ahead and apparently yielding 15 per cent. savings, which I welcome. That raises a concern about the extent to which spending priorities are being distorted by the PFI process. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary is concerned that some Departments where projects are well suited to the PFI model, such as Transport, are able to grab the lion's share of investment, while other key Departments are left starved of the necessary investment.
I am also concerned about the monitoring of future PFI commitments. The Department of Health said that it is not collecting the details of PFI commitments incurred by NHS trusts. If that is so, how are the commitments being monitored?
The fundamental problem with the PFI is that far too many square pegs are being bashed into round holes. We need a well-defined set of project types for which private finance is appropriate and those for which it is not—it must be understood by contractors and Departments—instead of the present assumption that everything should be privately financed unless it proves impossible to do a deal.
Another failing to which I want to draw attention is the fact that we spend too much money on welfare and too little on education. In 1978–79 we were spending

1107
6 per cent. of our GDP on education and training and 2.5 per cent. on income-related benefits. Last year we were spending 5.6 per cent. on education and training and 5.5 per cent. on income-related benefits. Given what was said about education by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, I believe that it is important to emphasise that the proportion of our GDP being spent on education has fallen. This year, we shall be spending more on income-related benefits than on education and training. Those figures eloquently make the case for a windfall tax. We need to make a serious investment to shift people off welfare and into work, so that we can reduce the amount of GDP being spent on benefits and increase the amount going to education and training.
My third criticism is about the undue secrecy in the process. I believe that I am right to say that it was the current Secretary of State for Defence who announced in 1992 the process of fundamental expenditure reviews. We have only the haziest idea about what has happened to those reviews since that time. Very little has been published. The Treasury has published the results of its review and I congratulate it on doing so. The Department of Social Security has published a couple of background papers from its review, but beyond that, hardly anything has appeared.
There are big choices to be made about the future of our nation. We need a debate about what should be funded through taxation. Why are such debates permitted only in a closed Cabinet Committee? That is in nobody's interest. The Chief Secretary agreed with me yesterday in the Treasury Committee that there should be material in the public domain from the fundamental expenditure reviews, but it has not happened.
The next Government must do things differently and be much less secretive about such processes, because better policies will result. We could avoid such half-baked proposals as those which emerged yesterday on pensions. Pensions is a topic on which there needs to be consensus, not the bouncing about of semi-finished proposals.
I hope that we can go further and employ techniques such as citizens' juries or surveys using new communication technology and the world wide web. In that way, we can solicit proposals and views, to ensure that our policy proposals on spending are balanced, well thought through and, where appropriate, based on consensus.
Geoffrey Hulme of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy proposed recently that there should be the publication in early summer of information on departmental spending performances and plans. It could include information on how much average households in different income bands contribute to taxation and what they receive in services. Select Committees could comment on how the priorities should be adjusted.
It would be a bold step to publish the key elements of the dialogue between the Treasury and spending Departments, but discussions between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England are now published, which would have been unthinkable a short time ago. I hope that the new steps that I have suggested could be taken, because there would be great benefit from wider parliamentary and public discussion.
1108
The problems that I have identified with Government public spending policy are that we have had insufficient public investment and too much consumption, too much spent on welfare and not enough on education and far too much secrecy in decision making on public spending. The consequence of those problems is the deeply divided Britain that we have today. We need to set a new course for public spending policy, so that we can start to repair the damage that has been done.
8.56 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), who delivered a typically thoughtful speech. I shall return to one or two of his comments later.
As many hon. Members, at least those from the Opposition, have observed, today has been another Conservative Opposition day. Two weeks ago, we had the Prime Minister debating our policies on the constitution—a debate in which we were happy to join—and this week it is public spending. Next week, we were to debate another Opposition policy, that on pensions. It is an indictment of the Government that, rather than debate their policies, their record or their proposals if they were to secure a fifth term, in the dying days of this Parliament and possibly the dying days of this Government, they are reduced to debating our policies.
The fact that the Deputy Prime Minister opened the debate speaks volumes about the Government's current negative approach to politics. One might have thought that the Chancellor would expound the Government's position on public spending, but we got the Deputy Prime Minister instead. A good proportion of Ministers was with him—not in their Departments running the country or preparing for the future, but as part of a crowd scene, a large doughnut for a tired and uninspiring performance.
It is no surprise that, over the past few months, the nation has been treated to the sight of a tired lion lying down on a poster: clearly, the picture was taken in Conservative party central office where the lion had listened to what was going on and, having drawn its own conclusions, was simply waiting for the Conservatives to fade into opposition. They have given up and are fading away.
The contribution of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), who is sadly no longer here, was perhaps typical of the Conservatives' attitude: they simply deny the past and deny their record. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman took his lead from an article that the Prime Minister wrote in the Financial Times about 10 days ago. The article was not by a Tory Back Bencher or a junior member of the Government, but by the Prime Minister, no less, yet it simply denied the past and the Government's record to try to claw back some ground.
The Prime Minister said that we had a low-tax environment, even though the Government have increased taxes on 22 occasions since the last general election. He had the gall to say that he had broken the trend towards big government, yet, as we have heard many times this evening, the share of Government spending has remained remarkably constant over the past 18 years at 42 per cent. of gross domestic product. He went on to say that he had put the growth of social security benefits on a downward path, yet they have increased by 88 per cent. since the

1109
Government took office. He said that the debt burden was under control, yet he has doubled debt since becoming Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister then repeated the same old bogus Conservative allegations about our proposals and said that we had not denied or withdrawn them. He knows full well, as does the Chief Secretary, that the bogus allegations about our policies have been denied right from the start, because they are nonsense, and the Tory party knows it.
My understanding is that the Tories' starting point was to get a figure that they could use against us and then to look around for a way of validating it. That is typical of the way in which they attack us. Last November, they had a figure of £30 billion; it dropped to £12 billion 10 days ago; and now it is back up to £30 billion. Their attacks have no credibility and their entire credibility is flawed because no one believes what they say on tax or about their own spending record. It is not surprising that no one believes the Conservatives when they attack our record.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said in an excellent speech that we do not have to use our imaginations or to fantasise because we know the Conservatives' record. To use his phrase, a load of facts are there for everyone to see. Let us compare what the Government said in the past about public expenditure with their record.
In 1979, the Conservative election manifesto said:
"The state takes too much of the nation's income; its share must be steadily reduced."
The share that the state takes today is 42.5 per cent. and it was 42.25 per cent. when we left office.
In 1996, the present Chancellor pledged that he would get public spending down. He should examine his record: he has never achieved that aim. The only time that the Government reduced the share of public expenditure was during the three years of the unsustainable Lawson boom of the late 1980s.
In a rare moment of candour—I understand that it was a semi-private occasion—the Prime Minister said in Chelmsford last October that the
"economic blot on the horizon"
that concerned him was
"the size of the fiscal deficit. That is a problem."
Indeed, it is a problem. All the evidence shows that to be true. The under-performance of the economy has pushed up the cost of social security and other public spending programmes associated with economic failure. That is why the share of public spending is almost exactly the same as it was 18 years ago.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said, public investment programmes, which are essential to underpin a successful economy, have been cut to stave off an even worse deterioration in the public finances. The private finance initiative—the partnership between the public and private sectors, which I and my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party so warmly endorse—has not effected a reduction in public spending because of the Government's failure to manage the programme.
The result of that failure has been that the tax burden has grown. On present plans, it is set to rise up to the end of the decade. The surge of borrowing in the 1990s over
1110
which the Prime Minister has presided has left us with a legacy of vastly increased debt service costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, during his excellent chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, has drawn attention not only to economic failure, because of the failure of Government policies, but to a legacy of Tory waste.
My right hon. Friend gave some examples, and I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two about which we did not hear much from the Deputy Prime Minister. The BSE crisis cost the taxpayer £3.5 billion. The poll tax cost nearly £4 billion in administration alone. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has something to say about that. I understand that one of the ways in which he worked himself back into favour with Lady Thatcher was by being one of two Ministers who were willing to write out on the back of an envelope a replacement for the rates system. We got the poll tax.
The British public had to pay for those failures, whether in agriculture, taxation or the cones hotline, which perhaps sums up the Prime Minister and will be his enduring contribution. That is a testament to the failure of the Prime Minister and to the inability of the Conservatives to control public spending or manage it appropriately. Imagine, a cones hotline that resulted in each telephone call costing £5,000; what an indictment of the Government.
Capital spending also suffered. It is worth reflecting that, under the last Labour Government, £1 in every £6 was spent on investment. Under the Tories, investment has accounted for only £1 in £13. That is an indictment of the Government, because public sector capital spending is one way in which Government can assist economic activity. In 1992, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), claimed that he was protecting capital programmes, despite cuts in other expenditures. However, the Government's record shows that he did not live up to his promises. Publicly sponsored capital expenditure will be 12 per cent. in real terms, below its peak in 1992 and 1993.
The Government have broken their promises on investment and we are paying a heavy price for it, because the cost of economic failure has to be met by higher taxation and higher borrowing. The Government have no positive proposals on that. Instead, in the brief moments that we touched on our proposals to get people off welfare and back into work, which must be good economically and socially, the Government would not engage in the debate. They are not interested; they are prepared to write off a generation and pay the cost of that failure; or rather they expect the British people to pay it.
The cost to the country has been dear. Our borrowing has increased substantially. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, it is worth bearing it in mind that the Government have had to borrow £66 billion more than they promised to borrow at the time of the last general election. In each year since that election, the Government have failed miserably to meet their borrowing targets. No wonder people do not believe their promises on borrowing, taxation or spending. That is a testament to failure.
I admire the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for his loyalty, which is no more than one would expect from a senior Member of

1111
his stature. However, if he cared to look at the Government's record over the past few years, he would see that we are paying a heavy price for the failure of their economic policies. The interest on Britain's debt means that we are spending more on servicing debt than on defence. What an indictment of a Conservative Government.
Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: In a moment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will attend to this question as he faces the electorate, as I believe that he intends to. How will he explain to electors that each household in his constituency is paying, on average, more than £1,100 to service the debt that his colleagues have run up over the past few years?
Mr. Brooke: Given the comparison that the hon. Gentleman made between debt and defence, does he recall that, under the last Labour Government, more people were employed by the Inland Revenue than by the Royal Navy?
Mr. Prescott: That is even truer now.
Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend says, that is probably truer now, especially as the largest cuts in the defence budget were made by the Conservatives. Despite everything that they have said about defence being safe in their hands, rather like the national health service, they have sliced into the defence programme.
The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South must know that probably the second largest demonstrations in the past 18 years—the largest were those against the poll tax in places such as Tunbridge Wells—were those against the cuts in the regiments. I particularly remember those in north-east Scotland. He did not answer my point about debt. The Government's failure to keep their promises on spending has resulted in increasing borrowing, increased debt servicing costs and, of course, a major increase in taxation.
In the old days—when I first became a Member of the House and, I am sure, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East became a Member—whenever a debate took place on the economy, the one thing about which every Conservative Member spoke was tax. We have not heard a word about it tonight. No wonder, because taxation has become rather an awkward subject for the Conservative party.
In 1992, the Prime Minister said that the difference between the two parties was clear; the Conservatives would cut direct taxes. That did not happen. He said, in a memorable phrase:
"We have no plans and no need to increase the impact of VAT",
but VAT has now been imposed on domestic gas and electricity. No wonder people around the country take with a large pinch of salt the Government's claim that they do not want to extend VAT to food or anything else. At the last election, they said that they would not extend VAT, yet they did.
The Prime Minister said that he did not see any need to increase the burden of taxation. Yet the House will recall that he admitted the day after the election to his
1112
closest circle of colleagues that, within 12 months, the Tory Government would be deeply unpopular. He knew it because he knew that the prospectus on which the Government had fought the election would not stand up. He knew that they would have to put up taxes. Yet the Government did not tell people that that was what they proposed to do.
The Government's own Red Book confirms that the burden of taxation has risen since 1979 when they took office from 35 per cent. to 36.25 per cent. this year. Indeed, most people earning less than £70,000 a year will be paying more tax under the Tories. The tax bombshell that the Tories were proud to warn about at the last election has blown up in their faces. That is one of the reasons why they are losing by-elections and heading for defeat at the next election. They stood explicitly on a platform of cutting taxes, yet they increased taxes. More tax on income, more tax on spending and more tax in total. After 22 Tory tax rises, a typical family is paying more than £2,000 more in tax.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has not been in all night. As he has taken the trouble to come in for the closing speeches, perhaps he would like to get his name in the credits.
Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman support the European social democratic model?
Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made the important point that if one compares Britain's growth record in the past 18 years with that of other countries in Europe, one sees that many of our competitor countries have done much better than us. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, France and Germany have particular difficulties at the moment. We had particular difficulties four or five years ago. What people in Britain find dispiriting and depressing is how much Conservative Members now gloat about the difficulties that other European countries have.
I remind those Conservative Members who are still here that we trade with the rest of Europe. It is not in the interests of Britain to see Europe remain in recession. The sooner it recovers, the better it will be for Britain. What sort of a Government are so torn by internal fighting within their ranks that they invite the British people to delight in the misfortunes of other countries? What sort of outward-looking country is that?
Let us return to tax. Those of my colleagues who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Finance Bill will recall that we were deeply disappointed that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not see fit to join us this year. As I did not see him around the House and found that he was not included by the Tory party chairman in the line-up at press conferences called to denounce us, I took the trouble to smoke him out. I went to his constituency to try to find him. He was not there. They were all crying out, "Where's Wally?" There was no sign of the Chief Secretary.
I did find something. I found the last copy of the Chief Secretary's manifesto from the last election. It is a collector's item. It is so valuable that I have brought only

1113
a copy into the Chamber. The original is now in a safe. There is only one copy because he has retrieved them all. I know why he did that, because his comments at the last election typify the difficulty that the Tory party has got itself into. The House will recall that, then, all the Conservatives said that they would cut taxes, but the Chief Secretary went a little bit further than that. He said not only that tax would be cut but that it would be cut
"with 5 pence more to come".
How wrong can one get it? The Government put taxes up by '7p, so to get tax down by 5p more, they would have to make cuts for many a year. That typifies the Government's attitude—promises lightly given, with no intention of delivering them.
Although the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to the high penal rates of taxation over which Governments of the past of both political colours have presided—very much in the past—he had little to say about the high penal rates of effective taxation that face people coming off benefit into work. Is there not a contrast between the unfunded pledge of the Tory party to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax at a cost of £4.5 billion, with half the gain going to fewer than 5,000 people—that is the Government's promise to the British people—and our objective to lower the starting rate of income tax to reduce the barriers in order to get people off benefit into work? That is good for them and extremely good for public finances because people will stop claiming benefit, and start paying tax. That makes for a better and more efficient country.
The costs of economic failure are substantial. The deep feeling of insecurity which permeates all levels of society, no matter how people are placed and no matter what their earnings, is having economic as well as political effects. Nearly 11 million people have had a spell of unemployment since 1990. People know that they should worry about their future, partly because the Government are simply drifting along with no clear sense of where they are going or what their role is, let alone the role of the country in the future.
Of course people are quite right to be worried about the Government and what they would do if they carried on creating economic failure. Before Christmas, the Chief Secretary and I took part in a television programme when the right hon. Gentleman said:
"There's no secret that the Conservatives, right back to 1979"—
have preferred to raise tax through indirect taxation. The lessons are quite clear.
As for the future, the Chief Secretary is, as ever, helpful. No doubt the House will be familiar with the interview he gave to "Milton Keynes on Sunday" a short while ago. The reporter asked:
"Are you going to tell us: 'Read my lips; no new taxes?'
Mr Waldegrave said: 'No, I won't do that. One cannot tell what may happen which would need some action.'"
He has learnt since the last election—no more promises of 5p more to come. Now he says that he cannot tell what may happen—indeed he cannot, because he knows the Government's record. He also knows something else. We have heard a lot about spending commitments, and it is worth reminding the House that the Tory party has been making a number of spending commitments, but it cannot say where the necessary funding will come from.
At the end of January, the Prime Minister announced what he called a "sharematch" initiative, which is meant to extend employee share ownership. I support that,
1114
but where will the £50 million come from? He has also said that he intends to reduce the uniform business rate, but that could cost anything between £500 million and £1.5 billion. The Government's decision on the royal yacht told us a lot about their strategy and their attitude to public spending. That decision was designed, as the Secretary of State for Defence said, to wrong-foot the Opposition, but that was something else that blew up in his face. The Government want to extend the number of cadet corps in schools, but that will cost £1.5 billion. Where will the money come from? [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary says that they have given no costings for that. The Government are always attacking us and claiming that we have given no costings.
Mr. Waldegrave: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a second?
Mr. Darling: Do not worry, it will be just for a second, but in a moment. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact cost of implementing the proposal to extend the number of cadet corps in schools? Where will that money come from?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is not that it has not been costed, but that we have made no new policy in that area.
Mr. Darling: It was in The Daily Telegraph. The Government have made no secret about it; it was all over the news outlets. Talk about hinting, giving an impression and failure to deny. The Tory party was quite happy to give the impression that it wanted to extend cadet corps. Perhaps it is an aspiration. Perhaps it is an aim. Whatever it is, we do not know the cost of it.
That is typical of the Government's attitude to tonight's debate. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister have on numerous occasions on television and radio made bogus allegations against us, yet when we ask them where money is to come from—for example, to fund pensions with a cumulative cost of £150 billion, to fund the royal yacht, or to extend all the schemes that the Conservatives come up with and will continue to come up with between now and the election—they cannot tell us. In their heart of hearts, they know that the game is up and that no one will ever ask them again where the money will come from. They know that what awaits them after the election is not running the country but squabbling among themselves and fighting for the succession to whatever is left.
I was surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister did not treat us to his usual exhortations and encouragement, saying that we face the best economic prospects for a generation. I do not know of what that generation is—a normal generation is 10 or 15 years, but he might be talking about a generation of fruit flies for all I know. The fact is that, when we compare this country with others in Europe and the rest of the world, we realise that we are not doing as well as the Conservatives would have us believe.
We have one of the highest inflation rates in Europe—our long-term inflation rates are higher than most of our competitor countries. Yes, unemployment has been falling, but only one person in three coming off the unemployment list has actually found employment. The Conservatives claim that living standards are rising, yet

1115
the Chief Secretary admitted last year that people's take-home pay had fallen over the previous few years. In addition, there is the overlay of job insecurity—it is only the President of the Board of Trade who says that that is simply a myth. We are told that we have the fastest growth rate in Europe, yet if we look at the record for the Conservatives' period in office, we see that growth has been less than was achieved by the last Labour Government. A substantial part of inward investment comes, not from new companies coming in and setting up, but simply from takeovers of privatised utilities.
By staging this debate, which has now petered out, the Government have demonstrated their bankruptcy of thought. They have nothing more to say. They continue to make wild allegations and empty promises, but they are doing so before an increasingly sceptical public who know that their record on growth, inflation and borrowing is one of failure. After 18 years, people are entitled to a change: they are looking for a Government who have a clear idea, not only of the role of the Government, but of the role of the country in Europe and in the world; a Government who are prepared to end the drift; a Government who are prepared to enter into partnerships between public and private sectors; and, above all, a Government who have at heart the interests of the many, rather than the few. People do not believe the Conservatives and they do not trust the Conservatives. They are looking for a change and that is what they will get with a new Labour Government.
9.22 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) overran his speaking plans by about 85 per cent., which I suppose will be the sort of overrun in the expenditure plans if he ever becomes Chief Secretary, so I shall not emulate him in that respect. He might profit by reading the speeches and articles of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the truth about security of employment and pensions—a subject to which I shall return later. The hon. Member for Birkenhead has the sense and the courage to recognise that the measures introduced yesterday are basically right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) made the point that the fundamental shift that has occurred during the course of this Government is that the worsening cycles that took place during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have been reversed. In every one of those cycles, unemployment was higher at the worst point and inflation was higher at the subsequent recovery point than in the previous cycle. In 1975–76, Mr. Peter Jay, the then son-in-law of the then Prime Minister, wrote a series of famous articles in The Times warning that if that worsening widening of the cycle continued, we would face catastrophe. I believe that his then father-in-law began to pay attention, because there was a change in atmosphere towards the end of that Government—a change in which the present Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), probably played a part.
1116
Since then, that worsening series of troughs and peaks has steadily evened out. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South—
Mr. Darling: Central.
Mr. Waldegrave: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we should take no delight in the problems on the continent of Europe, our major trading partner. The quicker that a recovery is found there, by a return to the roots of liberal economics on which those countries established their success after the war, the better for all of us. They now find themselves in the position in which we found ourselves once upon a time: each trough is deeper in terms of unemployment, each recovery higher in terms of inflation. We have reversed that trend in this country. It is part of my argument that part of the reason for that is that we have turned round the trend in the growth of public expenditure.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is extremely skilful at focusing on the short term. I want to direct him to the wider picture. As my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South said, under Labour and Conservative Governments in the 1950s and 1960s, the trend of public expenditure was up, as it was in other countries. It works equally well whether one measures that growth from peak to peak or trough to trough or draws the average line. The peak in the 1950s was 37 per cent., that in the 1960s was 42 per cent., that in the 1970s was 47 per cent., that in the 1980s was 45 per cent. and that in the 1990s was 43 per cent. The troughs reveal the same pattern. Unquestionably, there has been a long-term turn-around in that trend line.
Other European countries marched in step with us upwards and continued upwards after 1979. That is why they now find themselves with public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product at 50 per cent. and in some cases 60 per cent., with the big countries at 50 per cent. or slightly higher, whereas we have separated from that pack and have returned to a clear trend line, which will be continued if a Conservative Government are returned to power.
Through the 1980s, the underlying level of spending fell by about 4 per cent. of GDP—about £28 billion. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, laid before us a strategy on these matters. It may be my fault, but it was the first time that I had heard it. It was a clear strategy—relatively clear, at any rate. He said that he wanted to hold the growth rate of all public expenditure programmes, except two, below the trend growth rate of the economy. If the growth rate of the economy is about 2½ per cent., which may be slowly but surely increasing, most programmes should be kept below that. The hon. Gentleman would finance the remaining two—health and education—with higher taxes, but their trend growth should be higher.
Broadly, I take it—I may be simplifying slightly—that the hon. Member for Gordon believes that the proportion of GDP spent by the public sector should be broadly in tune with overall growth in GDP as a whole, with some programmes growing more slowly but two programmes growing faster. I may be putting words in the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but perhaps that means that Liberal Democrat policy is that public expenditure should broadly

1117
shadow the growth in the economy, so it should stay at about 42 per cent. That is a perfectly legitimate policy; I shall posit some arguments as to why it is not a good one, but it is at least a policy.
As usual, the Labour party obscured things. Labour Members made brilliant debating points on the short term—brilliant knockabout stuff about what someone said on Tuesday that was contradicted by someone three years before, and so on—but presented no underlying policy.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has a policy all right, because he, I believe, is a proper socialist. I guess that he wants the public sector to take a bigger role. I do not think that I would be putting words in his mouth to say that. [Interruption.] I just happened to notice the hon. Gentleman there, and I thought that I would record for his constituents the fact that he was there. I suspect—I may be wrong—that he is someone who actually believes in the public sector.
Nobody knows what the policy of the Front Bench is. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gordon says that the hon. Member for Kingswood is deeply offended at being accused of being a socialist. I apologise for that. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, however, has no policy. He did not match the commitment of the hon. Member for Gordon. He did not say that he thought that the share should be roughly what it is now, that it should go up, that it should go down—he did not say where it should go. We are, as usual, at sea with regard to the fundamental philosophy and principle of the Labour party on this matter, as on practically every other matter.
Our policy is clear, and I will state it. We will continue what we have undertaken since 1979. We will continue with that downward trend in public expenditure. Of course the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central can point out that at a certain point in the cycle it will be higher than at other points, but there is a clearly downward-trending line.
Mr. Darling: Can the Chief Secretary tell us the percentage of spending that he is aiming for? That would be helpful.
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall return to that. There is a difference between short-term targets and what one intends in the future, but I would hope that the growth of public spending could be kept below the growth of the trend rate of the economy as a whole over time.
Mr. Miller: What percentage?
Mr. Waldegrave: That depends how far ahead one looks. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central thinks that he is being frightfully clever by trying to prove a difference between me and the Chancellor. He thinks, rightly, that I said that it would be splendid if we could achieve 35 per cent. whereas the Chancellor spoke about 40 per cent. next year. There is nothing clever about that. We will achieve 40 per cent. and then we will go on with the trend line.
Mr. Darling: I am not trying to be frightfully clever, as the Chief Secretary puts it. He will recall that two or three years ago he said that he was one of those in the Tory party who believed that the figure that should be aimed at was about 35 per cent., and that the Chancellor
1118
referred to those people as being from the slash and burn school. There is a significant difference between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. We are entitled to hear from the Chief Secretary where he wants to get to in percentage terms. Does he still adhere to his figure of 35 per cent. or not?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is not rational to talk about a fixed end target. One must examine the growth of the economy over time, and the relationship. I am speaking the same sort of language as the Liberal Democrats, who were not trying to score silly points, but were setting out a policy.
Mr. Miller rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I was going to refer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). We have heard two kinds of speeches. We heard thoughtful and interesting speeches about the nature of public expenditure and the relationship between public expenditure and the economy—for example, from the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), but outstandingly from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South and from my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is no longer here and has explained to me why he cannot be present.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, if I may say so, made a more old-fashioned speech. He took two areas of spending which he likes and lobbied for them. He said that he wanted more spending on science. We have a good record on spending on science. It will encourage him to know that research and development expenditure in the United Kingdom is 2.19 per cent. of GDP. The figures are from 1994, which is the last year for which the comparative figures are available for all the other countries. The UK figure was above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 2.15 per cent. and above the European Union average of 1.91 per cent. Spending on the science base has been protected and has increased in real terms.
The speech of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was a bid for more local authority spending and more science spending. Fine. It showed the difficulty that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central would have if he ever found himself in my office, because no one speaks from his Back Benches, as my right hon. and hon. Friends do, with an instinctual commitment to the control of spending. All his Back Benchers speak for lobbies and for increased spending—quite honourably, but that is what they came into politics to do.
Mr. Miller: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read my speech in -Hansard. My argument in the context of the Roslin institute is that the Government structure for that institute means, first, an increase in health costs; and, secondly, other problems such as unemployment. The key to the institute's success must be creating the right financial infrastructure that allows the public and private sectors to work together successfully. That structure has not been established, yet we are seeing cuts now.
Mr. Waldegrave: As always, the hon. Gentleman's argument requires more money. If he were to sit in my chair for a week or two, he would find that every spending

1119
bid was couched in those terms—I expect that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne remembers that. When I was in the private sector, my company used to sell things to the Government. We would argue, "If you don't buy our products, people will be unemployed and it will be more expensive for you." That seemed to be a jolly good way of trying to sell our products. However, the Labour Government at the time were not much convinced by our arguments, and I am afraid that the Opposition would remain unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman's assertions.
Our belief in cutting spending does not derive from the advice of our public relations people. Labour's PR people have advised it that Labour lost the last election because it was perceived as a high-spending party, so Opposition Members now try to disguise their underlying beliefs. Our belief in low spending derives from our fundamental philosophy: we believe that the index of spending by Government is a good indicator of whether the balance between Government and the individual and Government and private institutions is correct. When spending gets too high and goes on growing, we believe that it damages individual liberty and independent institutions.
We believe also that it is economically beneficial to diminish the weight of public spending, and there is increasing evidence in support of that view. An interesting paper published by the International Monetary Fund in 1996 showed that the best and safest way of balancing budgets was achieved not by increasing taxes, but by cutting spending. That delivers longer-term balance to fiscal affairs, with all the attendant benefits. A separate IMF study—I shall be happy to send these publications to any Labour Members who wish to read them—made the more fundamental point that small Governments exhibit greater regulatory efficiency and inhibit less the functioning of labour markets, the participation in the formal economy and the innovativeness of the private sector. To put it in ordinary language: they produce more jobs.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, the bishops and everyone else that job creation lies at the heart of the debate about the proper way to run an economy. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister completely demolished the Opposition's old-style, subsidised jobs proposal. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central claimed that we would not debate that issue, but it was debated to such good effect this afternoon that my right hon. Friend demolished the Opposition's argument totally and there was no comeback possible from the deputy leader of the Labour party on that point.
In the first half of my political life, I watched Labour Governments trying to subsidise jobs and creating long-term unemployment. The trick did not work then, and it will not work now. The Opposition argue that they would somehow miraculously turn history upside down and tax one group of companies—which would inevitably destroy jobs in those companies—in order to invent subsidised jobs elsewhere. They could not do that. They would go down the social chapter route, destroying jobs with the minimum wage—as the deputy leader of the Labour party had the honesty to admit—and destroying jobs by joining in a whole range of job-destroying
1120
initiatives that come from central Europe. They would end up with higher unemployment, and thereby the central core of Labour's argument would be destroyed.
The argument as to who is better at creating jobs is almost being proven experimentally—in so far as we could ever have such an experiment. We watched countries in Europe—especially Germany—lead the way after the war with good, basic liberal economics, as the deputy leader of the Labour party said. That is what Ludwig Erhard said and what he stood for. However, when asked about this matter at the end of his life, he said that he regretted confusing the issue by talking about the social market. He said, "I wish I had not said that, because markets did the magic in Germany," and that is true.
Germany has now got itself into a cycle where it has placed such weight on its employers and put such costs on employment that it is destroying jobs, not creating them. The head of the German BDI—in the presence, I think, of the leader of the Labour party—made a famous speech contrasting the difference between the Government in Germany and the Government in Britain, to the favour of the latter. He knew very well what the situation was. Herr Henkel said:
"One of the Governments,"—
the United Kingdom Government—
"has steadily reduced state influence. The other,"—
Germany—
"has done no such thing … In Germany, the ratio of public spending to GNP has risen to 50 per cent. In Great Britain, it has fallen to 42.2 per cent … In Germany, average taxes on retained profits are 64.9 per cent. In Great Britain the figure is 33 per cent."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), in an eloquent speech, made those points extremely well.
Labour has a fundamental misunderstanding. It has an extraordinary capacity to pick up the wrong ideas at the wrong time. When there was real danger to this country from enemies, Labour Members were pacifists—the present leader of the Labour party came in on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament ticket—but when there are no such immediate threats, they become very brave warriors, and they are now very much in favour of nuclear weapons, the armed forces and so on. When the German model was working, they were against it. They did not care for it then, but now it has stopped working, and because it has gone wrong, with their absolutely compelling eye for picking up the wrong idea at the wrong time, they are in favour of it.
I am afraid that that is the story of Labour's policy on almost every principal area. Labour Members pick up yesterday's ideas just when they have stopped working.
Mr. Dalyell: If the Chief Secretary imagines that the Germans will abandon the social chapter and they do not, surely the time will come, sooner or later, when our partners will say that the British cannot go on having their cake and eating it, and there will be consequences in our relations with our trading partners that may not be very comfortable.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am not entirely sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he is saying that the European compulsion on the Germans would be such that they could not liberalise their markets in the way

1121
in which they now know they must, so that instead they put the same costs on us, there would indeed be severe difficulties. It is thanks to the opt-out that the Prime Minister negotiated that that danger is greatly minimised.
Happily, powerful forces are at work in Germany—arguing quite the contrary to what the Labour party thinks that they are arguing—and beginning to say, like the head of the BDI, that they have to liberalise their markets, that they have to lift the costs off industry, and that they have to make Germany competitive again, and then Germany will once again become a formidable competitor. I have no doubt about that. The quicker that happens, the better, because competitive trade is a positive sum game. We all benefit if the German economy grows fast.
Mr. Darling: Will the Chief Secretary give way on that point?
Mr. Waldegrave: Briefly.
Mr. Darling: This is a debate that the Government chose to hold, so let us have a debate.
Does it not strike the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)—whichever bit of the Wirral that we did not win—as a contradiction that the social chapter has nothing whatever to do with the rigidities in the labour market of which many people in other member states are critical? Nobody wants to import those rigidities. Indeed, the whole thrust of what the Chief Secretary and his right hon. Friend were saying is that many people in Germany, France and Spain recognise that those rigidities have to be addressed to make those countries competitive. Does not that suggest that, far from writing them into the social chapter, there is a movement in Europe to recognise that the competitive threat in the future will come not from intra-Europe but from other parts of the world? Nobody wants to import those unnecessary rigidities into this country.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has made—with his customary style but on this occasion without his usual intelligence—my exact point: the Labour party is probably signing up to that policy just when it is falling to pieces in the hands of the people who invented it. I thought that that was what I had just said. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to think about it a little.
We have managed to follow a policy that has brought the long-term spending trend down at the same time as protecting our principal priorities for spending. Spending on health has gone up in real terms every year since 1979. That did not happen under the last Labour Government. One year, Lord Barnett was compelled to make a real cut in the NHS budget. As has been pointed out, spending per pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools has risen in real terms by 50 per cent. since 1979. Spending on law and order has doubled.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is not in his place, I must comment on his most interesting speech. He gave us some extremely wise advice. He gave Front Benchers a warning that I hope we will all heed—that we should rule out nothing before the Dearing committee reports, as we may need to make fundamental changes in the financing of higher education.
The Labour party has opposed all the reforms that have enabled us to match the expenditure increases with a declining trend of public spending. My right hon. Friend
1122
the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about privatisation, so I shall not cover the issues again. There was a touching moment when an Opposition Member spoke about the selling of income streams. That applied in one or two cases, but mostly it was the selling of loss making. There has been a huge turn-around. There is now a benefit to the taxpayer of about £2.5 billion a year in tax receipts whereas there had been a huge burden on the taxpayer. Of course, Labour opposed all those measures.
The civil service is smaller. For the first time since the second world war it is now below 500,000. There has been a range of positive reforms, including the single regeneration budget challenge funding principle which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston did not much like—or at least I took that to be his argument. Those methods of challenge funding have led to far greater productivity, as has the partnership between central and local government in the projects in which they are investing.
Our plans are sustainable. The plans in the Red Book maintain spending increases of about the same level over the next three years as those we have achieved in the past three. There is not the slightest chance that Labour could match them.
As we have already pointed out, Labour Members pretend not to understand the difference between our counter-arguments in respect of £12 billion and £30 million. In the first two years in which Labour has allegedly committed itself to our figures, there is a hole in expenditure and income which would leave a Labour Government £12 billion adrift. If Labour introduced any additional spending plans in those years, the gap would be worse.
I believe that £30 billion over five years is a perfectly reasonable estimate. One of the more independent commentators, Peter Riddell of The Times, took me to task on that issue. He said that I was exaggerating the extent of Labour's spending commitments and that the figure was nothing like £30 billion. He estimated that, over five years, a Labour Government would probably spend about 3 per cent. of GDP more than the Conservatives. As 3.5 per cent. of GDP would amount to £30 billion, we do not seem to be in any disagreement.
Labour has opposed every one of our major saving measures, including the criminal injuries compensation scheme which saves £200 million, measures relating to asylum seekers which save £300 million, housing benefit reforms which save £600 million and measures affecting benefits for single parents which save £200 million. Labour denounced all those reforms, often virulently.
The Leader of the Opposition gave us a rather good example of how the Opposition operate in these matters. On "The World At One" he was asked whether he would stick to our plans to make savings of £200 million—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish the argument, he may wish to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said.
When he was asked whether he would stick to our plans that save £200 million by the end of the period, the Leader of the Opposition said no. Reasonably enough, we took that to be a pledge that he would replace that spending.

1123
Labour then issued a piece of paper headed, as so many of them are, "Lies". It said that the latest lie put out by the Conservatives was that
"Labour will spend £170 million on stopping changes to lone parents' benefits."
It does not seem unfair to me that if the Leader of the Opposition answered that question no, we should assume that his answer carried some weight. The only person who appears to be lying, although that is inconceivable—the person accused in that Labour document, at any rate—is not me but the Labour leader. That is how Labour operates: it has one answer for one audience, and another answer for another audience.
Mr. Bruce: Does the Chief Secretary not acknowledge that it is perfectly reasonable for Opposition parties to oppose a change but not necessarily be committed to reversing it? After all, they are trying to prevent the change from being made in the first place.
Given the vast expenditure on consultancies that has ballooned under the present Government, to which the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee drew attention—more than £1 billion—and the massive increase in spending on publicity and advertising, does the Chief Secretary think that it might be more appropriate for those people, rather than single mothers, to take a little of the spending cut?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I cited the change that the Labour leader mentioned only because he said in public that he would reverse it.
I find what the hon. Gentleman said—and what was said by the distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—very encouraging. As Chief Secretary, I know that there are plenty more savings to be made. That is why we can implement our plans: that is why the plans in the Red Book are realistic. That is why there should be no doubt that we will continue our record of the last three or four years of maintaining the growth of public spending well below the growth of the economy.
People are beginning to accept that Labour will tax and spend more highly. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) let the cat out of the bag, supported by the deputy Chief Whip, and, yesterday, by a distinguished contribution from that wise man and good friend Lord Barnett, whose speech I read very closely. He knows what will happen if there is a Labour Government: they will tax and spend more. Of course, he would probably welcome that, because he has probably stuck to his old principles.
The fact that there are so many other taxes, as well as income tax, that a Labour Government could put up led the hon. Member for Oldham, West to say that the position was less bleak than it seemed. I found that most enjoyable. In the more robust and ordinary language of The Sun,
1124
"Mr. Brown still has a lot to tell us. Like where the money for his colleagues' spending pledges will come from."
The truth is that we have won the argument about how to manage economies. Labour Members have broadly accepted our argument: they do not understand it, but they no longer argue against the liberal economics that most of them came into politics to oppose. We have won the argument about spending, and the argument about the economy. As The Guardian put it,
"There is no doubt that if Mr. Blair wins the election he will inherit the most healthy economy any Labour Government has ever had. This time it won't be possible to blame the previous administration for any subsequent failures"—
although the Labour party is attempting to use the alibi of the books' not being open, and so on.
Lord Desai wrote:
"Labour's biggest obstacle is the economy. It is in great shape. There is steady growth and low inflation."
When the "Today" programme put that quotation, or a similar quotation, to the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), he said, "Oh well, Lord Desai is only a Lord." That is not Lord Desai's fault; it was the Labour party that made him a Lord.
The battle of ideas has been won by the Conservative party. Now, interestingly, we are also winning the battle on pensions. Let me remind Opposition Front Benchers—who are talking more nonsense to the square minute about pensions and the future of the welfare state than I would have believed imaginable—of what Whistler said to Oscar Wilde. When Oscar Wilde said, after Whistler had said something witty, "I wish I'd said that," Whistler replied, "You will, Oscar, you will." I predict that, in six months, a year or two years, the Labour party will be following us down the path to funding the old-age pension.
The debate has been fascinating for the dearth of ideas offered by the Opposition. The only contributions of any intellectual merit that we are hearing from Labour on these matters come from the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and not, I fear, from Front Benchers. Nevertheless, we have enjoyed debating with them today. Nothing is more enjoyable that debating with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—although I thought today that he was not quite at his best. He was in no danger of being criticised in the words of the quotation about Asquith that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South produced. It was said that Asquith's elegance of style—or was it his clarity of style?—made it difficult for him when he had nothing to say. The right hon. Gentleman did not find that the clarity of his style made it difficult for him to say nothing. This has been a good debate which, intellectually and on every other level, has been won by the Conservative side of the House.
Mr Richard Ottoway (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCE BILL
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 12th March, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Representation of the People and Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Northern Ireland (Local Elections) not later than one and a half hours after the start of proceedings on the first such Motion; and these Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.— [Mr. Ottaway.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 12th March, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Avon Ring Road
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
9.54 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a subject of enormous importance to tens of thousands of my constituents—the urgent need to complete stage 2 of the Avon ring road. I am grateful that the Minister is here to respond.
Proposals for the Avon ring road around the eastern fringe of Bristol between the M32 and the A4 have been implemented progressively since 1986. One last section remains to be constructed, which is known formally as stage 2. It will run between Shortwood to the north and the A420 at Warmley to the south. Locally, we refer to stage 2 of the Avon ring road as the missing link. Some three quarters of the ring road is in place, but the link between Shortwood and Warmley is missing. It is therefore clear that I am not seeking to make a case for building a new road. The decision whether to construct the Avon ring road was, rightly or wrongly, made many years ago.
The issue I wish to raise this evening is when a road that is three quarters complete will be finished. The road has a beginning and an end, but it has nothing in the middle for more than a mile and a half. The overwhelming majority of my constituents who are affected want to see the road completed as quickly as possible.
It is not difficult to see why. Because the ring road has a gap in the middle, heavy vehicles are diverted on to residential roads that are totally unsuitable for such traffic. The inevitable consequence is that the lives of thousands of local residents have been made a misery. Heavy lorries pound up and down narrow residential roads in places such as Mangotsfield and Warmley, and the results are obvious, including noise, fumes, environmental pollution and the daily risk to life and limb. On behalf of my constituents, I say, enough is enough. The situation has got to stop.
The strength of feeling on the issue is clear for all to see. There have been countless petitions to the local authority, as Avon county council and, more recently, as South Gloucestershire council. There are regular demonstrations in support of completion, and I recently delivered more than 1,000 individual letters to the Secretary of State for the Environment calling for urgent action.
Naturally, some are opposed to the completion of the ring road. Those people are in a small minority. They are certainly a minority of those who have written to me on the issue. Most of the opponents seem to live outside my constituency, a safe distance away from the residential roads where heavy lorries pound back and forth. Two of the major objectors live eight miles away, in Bath. The people who live locally face a nightmare of gigantic proportions.
Those who do not want the ring road to be completed try to invoke the arguments against road building. Those are familiar arguments that I will not comment on further, but, as I have said, this is not a matter of building a new road. The choice is not whether or not to have a new road but whether to complete a road that is already three quarters built or to leave it as it is. Do we allow the crazy

1127
situation to remain whereby the road comes to an abrupt end whether one is travelling southward or northward, so that traffic is inevitably diverted on to residential roads, causing enormous environmental damage?
I make no apology for claiming the environmental high ground for the case for the completion of the ring road. There are other cases of this kind, but those of us who would describe ourselves as concerned about the environment cannot possibly say that the environment is improved by having a gap in the ring road, with all the environmental damage that that causes for thousands of families with lorries going up and down residential roads, compared with the situation if the ring road were completed. It certainly is not.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
Mr. Berry: Many conservationists, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, support the completion of the Avon ring road. No one in their right mind wants to build more roads unless the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. But, as the CPRE has said, in this particular case, the environmental benefits of completing the ring road far outweigh the costs.
The critics of completing the road have invoked a second argument, saying that the Bristol-Bath cycleway and footpath is under threat. That is simply untrue. In fact, under the agreed scheme, there will be greater provision for cyclists, and there should be no difficulty making temporary arrangements during the construction period.
In addition to the urgent need to close the so-called missing link in the ring road, to remove heavy traffic from residential roads, it is necessary for local business development and employment in the area that the road should be completed. For example, it is needed for the new development at Emerson's Green. Many businesses have located in my constituency in Kingswood and nearby on the assumption that the road would be quickly completed. It is no exaggeration to say that, if the road is not completed, many of my constituents will run the risk of losing their jobs as their firms locate elsewhere where communications are better.
I make those points not because I believe that there is any disagreement on the case that I have put forward between me and the Government—I do not believe there is—but because, inevitably, there is some debate locally, and I want to put my strongly held views firmly on the record. There is an overriding case in terms of the environment for completing the ring road and removing the misery that exists for many people in my constituency.
The situation can be briefly summarised. Just over a couple of years ago, in October and November 1994, there was a public inquiry to consider objections to the various orders and applications necessary for the project to go ahead. A year later, in October 1995, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport confirmed those orders and applications. At the time, that seemed to many of us a rather excessive delay, but it was nothing compared with the delays that were to follow.
Next, a legal challenge was lodged in the High Court by a Mr. Nicolson and a Mr. McNeeny, both of whom live eight miles away in Bath, and who therefore do not
1128
have to suffer the misery inflicted on my constituents. They both also, as it happens, obtained the benefit of legal aid to pursue their action, a matter to which I shall refer briefly in a moment.
The precise reasons for that legal challenge need not detain me. They are well known to those with an interest in the matter, but the purpose was pretty obvious, and it has been clearly stated: it is to frustrate the wishes of local residents to have the road completed.
As a result of that legal challenge, I made representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, asking him to do all he could to expedite the High Court hearing.
At the end of February last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), sent me an encouraging reply. He told me:
"Avon County Council as the promoting authority for the scheme have applied to the Court for an expedited hearing and I can assure you that my Department are giving every possible support to that request … you may rest assured that we will do everything in our power to avoid unnecessary delay."
I was indeed encouraged by that.
However, I was disappointed when the High Court hearing due to commence on 18 July last year had to be aborted. Why did that happen? As I was subsequently informed by the Under-Secretary of State, it was caused by the late submission of affidavits by the Department of Transport. Two drafts were made available only on the day of the hearing, 18 July.
Inevitably and regrettably, therefore, the High Court hearing had to be postponed—a further delay. The hearing finally took place in November, following which the High Court gave the go-ahead to complete the missing link. As soon as that happened, along came the solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Nicolson and Mr. McNeeny, who lodged notice of an appeal.
So on to the Court of Appeal we go, in this sorry saga. Again, I immediately wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment urging the Government to do all they could to expedite the appeal.
I see that the Minister for Railways and Roads is to respond to the debate tonight, so I must explain that I wrote to the Department of the Environment because that Department had just met representatives of South Gloucestershire council to discuss the local government finance settlement. In that discussion, the question of the ring road had been raised, and South Gloucestershire was awaiting a response.
Although I did not raise the matter with the Department of Transport, I understand that the letter that I sent to the Department of the Environment on 24 January has been passed to the Minister who is to reply. In fairness to him, I must acknowledge that he received the letter only on 21 February. I hope that he will respond favourably to my request.
As things stand, we see a sorry state of affairs. The appeal has been entered on the appropriate Court of Appeal list, and I am advised that a target date 12 months ahead is anticipated for the hearing. After all the delays that we have had on stage 2 of the Avon ring road, further delays are unacceptable.
I therefore ask the Government above all to respond positively to the request in my letter to the Department of the Environment dated five or six weeks ago. I hope that

1129
they will respond, and will do all in their power to expedite the Court of Appeal hearing. We cannot wait another 12 months for a decision. South Gloucestershire council, with which I have worked closely on the matter, has already applied for expedition of the hearing date. Its grounds for doing so have my strongest possible support, and I shall place them on the record.
First and foremost, as I have repeatedly said, there is an urgent need to complete the ring road to relieve damage to the residential environment caused by heavy traffic using roads totally unsuitable for that purpose. Secondly, it is necessary to complete the ring road to facilitate wider economic benefits, such as the Emerson's Green development, which I have already mentioned, and to reduce the number of accidents.
Thirdly, there is a need for certainty to avoid further unnecessary expenditure on short-term relief measures. Inevitably, with all those delays, the local authority has had to spend substantial sums on such measures. Clearly that is nonsense, and we need to get the matter sorted out so that that is no longer necessary.
Fourthly, there is a need for certainty to allow transport supplementary grant applications to be processed for the next financial year, and to allow tendering procedures to be commenced. Certainty is also needed to remove the blight on private properties affected by compulsory purchase orders.
I have referred in passing to one aspect of the appeal that has caused enormous anger among my constituents—an anger that I share. The applicants, Mr. Nicolson and Mr. McNeeny, have been awarded legal aid. I have made representations to the Legal Aid Board expressing my profound concern about that.
South Gloucestershire council has made similar representations of a more detailed nature, asking the board to review its decision to grant legal aid in the case. In the council's view, legal aid is not justified, either on the legal merits or in respect of the proper use of public funds. I look forward to the Legal Aid Board's review. Constituents who want legal aid for divorce proceedings or to get the Coal Authority to accept responsibility for local mine shafts have enormous difficulties obtaining it. As all hon. Members know, it is incredibly difficult for constituents to get legal aid. I find it astonishing that those two gentlemen have been granted legal aid. I hope that the Legal Aid Board will review that as a matter of urgency.
After the previous debate, I am not sure whether I can deal with funding without some embarrassment, because am calling for increased public spending. A road cannot be built without being paid for. South Gloucestershire council's transport policy and planning submission for 1997–98 included a bid for £8.3 million to fund stage 2. In December last year, the council received its TPP settlement. Supplementary credit approval for a mere £1 million was reserved, for a scheme costing £25 million. That is insufficient to begin construction this year, whatever happens in the Court of Appeal. In addition to the commitment that I hope to hear this evening from the Government to seek to speed up the Court of Appeal hearing, it is essential that they clarify their position on funding.
A £25 million scheme will have to be funded largely from Government grants. If it is based on local authority borrowing, it will cost £3 million a year simply to service the debt. The local authority has a capped budget and has
1130
just made £10 million of cuts in services, including education and social services. It cannot afford to fund the ring road.
My constituents are suffering in their tens of thousands because of delays in completing the missing link in the Avon ring road. I ask the Minister to respond positively to my request that the Government should do all that they can to expedite the Court of Appeal hearing. I also urge the Minister to give South Gloucestershire council the assurances on funding that would enable the Avon ring road to be completed as a matter of urgency.
10.11 pm
Sir John Cope: I rise briefly to support what the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has said. More of his constituents are affected than mine, but some of mine are affected in ways similar to those that he has outlined.
The debate is not about road building in principle. I detected some hesitancy about road building in principle in some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I agree that we should be selective about which roads are to be built. For example, I was against the A46 improvements that were proposed not long ago, not far from the scheme that we are discussing.
Local people all support the completion of the ring road. It is important for my constituency and for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is also important for the whole of the south part of Bristol. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is important for the completion of Emerson's Green, the new development in the north part, and to ensure that it is a success.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I find it extremely irritating, to put it mildly, that the two objectors keep getting legal aid to delay the scheme. I find that decision of the Legal Aid Board difficult to understand.
I support the hon. Gentleman's comments. I would like the road to be completed as soon as possible. I reinforce his pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister in support of that objective.
10.14 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) have both explained the history of the scheme and the frustration which they and their constituents feel at the lack of progress in implementing what is obviously a vital missing link. Coupled with that is the frustration of their constituents at seeing their money as taxpayers being recycled through legal aid and used to thwart their wishes. The hon. Member for Kingswood will understand that I cannot comment on legal aid policy.
The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have said that the opponents of the scheme live a comfortable distance away from the problem. In this age of acronyms, I have one of my own for such people. They are not NIMBYs—not in my back yard—but what I describe as NIYBYs—not in your back yard. They tell those who suffer from traffic congestion that they should be denied a solution to their problems.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the lack of progress is not in the hands of the local authority or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is

1131
the further legal action by Mr. Nicolson and Mr. McNeeny which is causing the delay. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also applied to the court for an expedited hearing. We believe that it is important that the issue should be resolved quickly.
On funding, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in the light of today's earlier debate, that, although he might have thought he was, he is not in fact asking for an increase in the total of public expenditure. The funding for the road would come out of the existing baseline of my Department. When it is able to be funded and can go ahead, it will not be adding to the control total. He will not be adding to the criticisms that my right hon. and hon. Friends were heaping upon other members of his party earlier.
On the funding of the scheme, we are satisfied that it continues to meet the Department's criteria for transport supplementary grant under the TPP system, and, subject to the outcome of the current legal processes, the normal rules will apply. That means that, unless there is any
1132
significant change in the nature of the scheme, and as long as work progresses satisfactorily and the costs remain reasonable after it has passed its final legal hurdles, we will fund it through to completion in the normal way.
The amount allocated to the project for 1997–98 is, as the hon. Gentleman said, only £1 million. That is a recognition that the delay caused by the further legal challenge is likely to prevent a much greater rate of spend in that financial year. It is not an indication that we have lost the will to support the project, but it shows simply that the phasing of expenditure will be less in 1997–98 and more in the subsequent years.
I hope that my response has given the hon. Member for Kingswood the assurance he needs, personally and for his constituents. I join him in hoping that the legal issues are resolved rapidly. At that time, the authority will be in a position to go out to tender and start the construction. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that funding will continue through to completion on the basis that I have set out.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16799]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by the Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the POLIS unit, has been placed in the House Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available. The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Glenfeshie and Rothiemurchus Estates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments have been agreed under the management agreements with the(a) Glenfeshie and (b) Rothiemurchus estates. [17508]

  Mr. Kynoch
  These agreements were entered into before the formation of Scottish Natural Heritage and, unlike the present arrangements, details did not appear in a readily identifiable manner in its predecessor bodies' annual reports. If the hon. Member cares to write to Scottish Natural Heritage, it should be able to supply him with the information requested.

  Animal and Poultry Research Establishments
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed funding reductions to animal and poultry research establishments in Scotland; and what meetings he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerned to discuss the consequences. [17967]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The main animal and poultry research establishment in Scotland is the Roslin Institute in Midlothian, whose largest source of funding is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That funding is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I am advised that, while some reductions will take place as a result of existing projects coming to an end and of changes in MAFF's policy requirements, MAFF will continue to fund a substantial programme of research at the Roslin Institute in 1997–98 covering wide range of its programme.
  688
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this matter.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in rank order the number of employees for each local authority per 1,000 of population for the most recent three years for which figures are available. [18095]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for it to be placed in the House Library.

  Homeless Households
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in rural areas in Scotland in each year since 1979; [18673]

  (2) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in Scotland in each year since 1979. [18674]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information available centrally is set out in the table.

  Number of households assessed as homeless or potentially homeless by local authorities following application under the current housing legislation, for whom accommodation has subsequently been secured

  All Scotland

  Rural authorities

  1978–79

  9,078

  1,987

  1979–80

  8,495

  1,683

  1980–81

  7,929

  1,488

  1981–82

  8,877

  1,767

  1982–83

  9,127

  1,754

  1983–84

  8,888

  1,859

  1984–85

  10,469

  1,910

  1985–86

  12,546

  2,000

  1986–87

  12,860

  2,192

  1987–88

  11,723

  2,372

  1988–89

  12,201

  2,555

  1989–90

  14,303

  2,892

  1990–91

  16,875

  3,318

  1991–92

  19,174

  3,822

  1992–93

  20,943

  4,573

  1993–94

  19,892

  4,180

  1994–95

  18,440

  4,125

  1. The information above is based on case returns by local authorities which are available for around 95 per cent. of applications (though the proportion varies between local authorities). Accordingly the figures given understate the true position.

  2. Districts with a population density of less than one person per hectare in 1981 are considered to be rural.

  3. Statistics for 1995–96 will be published on 27 March 1997 in a statistical bulletin.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18812]
  689
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 17 December 1996,Official Report, column 506–7. Any additional information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Further Education
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his report on the discharge of his duties for further education in Scotland, as required under section 1 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992; and if he will make a statement. [19481]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased that my report on further education in Scotland for 1996 has been published today and has been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The report, entitled "Further Education in Scotland 1996: Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland", shows that further education colleges continue to improve their delivery of a quality service to students and employers. Incorporation has been a major success, which can be seen by the colleges' achievement of 6 per cent. efficiency gains and a 9 per cent. increase in student activity in 1995–96.

  Nutritional Standards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the extent to which Scottish schools will have complied with the recommendations contained in the diet action plan for Scotland by the end of 1997–98. [17378]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: Implementation of these recommendations in schools is a matter for local authorities.

  Education, Health and Social Security Spending
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current spending is per annum on education, health and social security in Scotland; how many people are involved in delivering these services; what the equivalent spending figures were in real terms(a) five and (b) seven years ago; and if he will make a statement. [17544]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: Figures on social security are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The latest information available on education and health is set out in the table:

  Service spending (£ million, 1995–96 prices)

  Number of people involved in delivering services (full-time equivalents)

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1995–96

  1995–96

  Education1

  3,174

  3,357

  4,056

  298,665

  Health

  3,437

  3,538

  4,092

  114,114

  1 Figures make no adjustment to back years for transfers e.g. higher education from the Department for Education to the Scottish Office in 1993.

  2 Figures cover local authority education services (77,135), further education (11,695) and higher education (9,835). The higher education figures are provisional and do not include support staff.

  690

  Scientists
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those scientific establishments other than the Central Science Laboratory, Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Institute of Food Research receiving funding from the Department indicating the number of scientists employed at each on projects funded by his Department on(a) the most recent date available and (b) 31 March (i) 1995, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1985 and (iv) 1980. [18172]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: The Scottish Office funds agriculture and related research with a wide range of contractors. The main contractors which were funded by the Scottish Office on 1 March 1997 and 31 March 1995 are listed in the table. Details of contractors funded by the Scottish Office on the earlier dates are not held centrally.

  Information on the number of scientists employed by each contractor on projects funded by the Scottish Office is not held centrally.

  1 March 1997

  ADAS

  Bell Ingram

  Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

  The Central Science Laboratory

  Entec Ltd.

  The Hannah Research Institute

  The Institute of Arable Crops Research

  The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  The Institute of Hydrology

  The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Mike Madders Associates

  The Moredun Research Institute

  The Robert Gordon University

  The Roslin Research Institute

  The Rowett Research Institute

  The Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh

  The Scottish Agricultural College

  The Scottish Crop Research Institute

  The University of Aberdeen

  The University of Cambridge

  The University of Durham

  The University of Edinburgh

  The University of Glasgow

  The University of Lancaster

  The University of Leeds

  The University of Manchester.

  31 March 1995

  ADAS

  The Agriculture Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

  Children in Scotland

  The Hannah Research Institute

  The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  The Moredun Research Institute

  The Roslin Research Institute

  The Rowett Research Institute

  691

  The Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh

  The Scottish Agricultural College

  The Scottish Crop Research Institute

  The Silsoe Research Institute

  The University of Aberdeen

  The University of Birmingham

  The University of Dundee

  The University of Edinburgh

  The University of Glasgow

  The University of Lancaster

  The University of Stirling.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18816]

  Mr. Bates
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 17 December 1996,Official Report columns 506–7.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (Human Growth Hormone Treatments)
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the cost to the legal aid budget to date of the litigation in respect of human growth hormone treatments. [18085]

  Mr. Streeter
  As at 28 February 1997, the Legal Aid Board has made payments on account totalling £940,355 to the solicitors conducting the case. The main action has been successful and the court made a costs order in favour of the successful plaintiffs. Depending on the final outcome of all litigation, the board will recover some or all of its costs from the defendants.

  Legal Aid (Rochdale Court Closure)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the impact on legal bills, with particular reference to the legal aid budget, of increased travelling by solicitors required by the closure of Rochdale county court. [17972]

  Mr. Streeter
  None. Consideration of the closure of Rochdale county court is at a very preliminary stage. A final decision, which will follow public consultation, will be taken only when the implications for court users, and the legal aid fund, have been fully assessed.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving
  692
  goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18814]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 507–8. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18931]

  Mr. Streeter
  A breakdown by project of the Lord Chancellor's Department's PFI schemes, as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book, is given in table 1. Current estimates are shown in table 2.

  Table 1. Red book figures

  Estimated capital investment:

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  Project:

  LOCCS (Court Service IT)

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Sheffield Family Hearing Centre

  6

  2

  0

  8

  Probate Records Store

  12

  2

  0

  14

  ARAMIS (Resource Accounting IT)

  2

  4

  3

  9

  MASS (Magistrates Courts IT)

  8

  12

  12

  32

  Magistrates Pathfinder (Accommodation)

  0

  8

  8

  16

  Magistrates Accommodation (tranche 1)

  0

  39

  39

  78

  Magistrates Accommodation (tranche 2)

  0

  0

  46

  46

  PRFD (Central London Accommodation)

  31

  10

  0

  41

  East Anglia Court Accommodation

  0

  10

  9

  19

  Total

  61

  88

  118

  267

  Table 2. Current revised figures

  Estimated capital investment:

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  Project:

  LOCCS (Court Service IT)

  4

  4

  4

  11

  Sheffield Family Hearing Centre

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Probate Records Store

  1

  11

  2

  14

  ARAMIS (Resource Accounting IT)

  11

  6

  3

  19

  MASS (Magistrates Courts IT)

  3

  12

  12

  27

  Magistrates Pathfinder (Accommodation)

  0

  8

  8

  16

  Magistrates Accommodation (tranche 1)

  0

  26

  45

  71

  Magistrates Accommodation (tranche 2)

  0

  0

  25

  25

  PRFD (Central London Accommodation)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  693

  Table 2. Current revised figures

  Estimated capital investment:

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  East Anglia Court Accommodation

  0

  10

  9

  19

  Total

  19

  78

  113

  208

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions her Department has had with (i) the Central Council for Physical Recreation, (ii) the British Universities Sports Association, (iii) the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and (iv) the National Union of Students regarding(a) the encouragement of sport among young people, (b) the availability of resources for sport and physical recreation within the further and higher education sector and (c) Britain's preparations for the 2000 Olympics. [17412]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: I had discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Standing Conference of Principals and the Further Education Funding Council prior to publishing the sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game", in July 1995. These discussions formed the basis of chapter 3 of the policy statement, which included undertakings by the three organisations to provide a more detailed picture of provision for sporting opportunities and sports facilities in the further and higher education sectors. The FEFC report was published in June 1996 and the CVCP/SCOP report was published in December 1996. These reports highlighted best practice and made proposals which, if pursued, will be in the interests of the institutions and their students.

  The United Kingdom Sports Council is intending to explore greater associations with universities, especially in relation to the British Academy of Sport. The UKSC has not as yet had any specific discussions with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the CVCP or the National Union of Students on the three issues raised, but recognises that they must count as possible partners in any joint approach to the future development of student sport.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Whitemoor Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the staff present in the emergency control room at HMP Whitemoor on the evening of 9 September 1994 were interviewed by the Woodcock inquiry. [16865]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Sir John Woodcock's report records that more than 100 prison officers were interviewed by his inquiry. I understand that the identity of witnesses to the inquiry is covered by an undertaking of confidentiality given by the inquiry.
  694
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were present in the emergency control room at HMP Whitemoor on the evening of 9 September 1994. [16864]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Five.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who issued the instructions to desensitise the prison perimeter fence at HMP Whitemoor on 9 September 1994; [16862]

  (2) at what time and for how long the prison perimeter fence at HMP Whitemoor was desensitised on 9 September 1994. [16861]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that Sir John Woodcock found no reason to believe that the sensitivity of the perimeter fence alarm at Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor was below the required standard on 9 September 1994.

  Prison Security
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures should occur in the event of an alarmed dispersal prison perimeter fence being activated; what safeguards are in place to ensure the effective implementation of these procedures; and in what circumstances these procedures or safeguards would not occur. [16860]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The procedures to be followed in the event of a perimeter fence alarm being activated in a dispersal prison are set out in local operational orders drawn up by the governor and in local contingency plans agreed with the director of dispersal prisons. Perimeter fence alarms are required to be tested daily, and the procedures should be regularly reviewed and tested by means of exercises based on the contingency plans. These arrangements are aimed at ensuring that effective procedures are in place and it is not possible to foresee the circumstances in which they would not be followed.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards are in place to ensure that desensitised alarms on dispersal prison perimeter fences remain sensitive enough to detect wires being cut. [16859]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The requirements for the operation and testing of perimeter fence alarm systems are set out in the Prison Service's security systems operation and testing manual. Such alarm systems are required to be tested daily with a spring-loaded instrument which imparts a pre-determined impact onto the wire mesh fence. This impact must be registered on the alarm monitoring system. The sensitivity of the alarm must not be reduced below this level.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues as to the circumstances which should cause dispersal prison(a)perimeter fences alarms to be turned off and (b) perimeter fences to be desensitised. [16857]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There should be no occasion when the perimeter fence alarm in a dispersal prison is turned off. A perimeter fence alarm can be modulated according to environmental conditions, for example, to prevent very high winds causing repeated false alarms.
  695

  Television Licence Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people served a prison sentence during 1996 for television licence fine default; and if he will make a statement. [17964]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of people who have served a prison sentence during 1996 for television licence fine default.
  Provisional information for 1996 shows that 336 people—245 males and 91 females—were received into prison for defaulting on a fine after conviction for using a television without a licence.

  Prison Establishments (Children)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prison establishments are currently holding children under 17 years of age; how many children are in each; and what arrangements are being made for their education. [17482]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 6 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prison establishments currently holding children under 17 years of age; how many children are in each; and what arrangements are being made for their education.
  Details of the number of 15 and 16 year olds held in prison establishments on 31 January 1997 (the latest date for which figures are available) are given in the attached table.
  Education in non-contracted out prisons in England and Wales is provided by contractors which were appointed by competitive tender in 1993. Statutory responsibility for prison education and training lies with the Home Secretary.
  The Young Offender Institution Consolidated Rules (June 1995) state that for prisoners aged less than 17, at least 15 hours a week of "education or training courses" will be provided.
  Prison governors are being encouraged to prioritise their education provision on specific areas which are included in the recently introduced core curriculum for prison education. Education provision will focus on core subjects, basic education (literacy and numeracy), information technology, life and social skills. Additionally, education contractors are being asked to consider linking their education provision for those under 17 years of age, to the National Curriculum for schools where appropriate.

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds in prison service establishments, 31 January 1997 1 by sex and establishment

  Establishment

  15 year olds

  16 year olds

  All aged 15–16

  Askham Grange

  0

  1

  1

  Aylesbury

  1

  10

  11

  Brinsford

  18

  35

  53

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  4

  4

  Cardiff

  5

  4

  9

  696

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds in prison service establishments, 31 January 19971 by sex and establishment

  Establishment

  15 year olds

  16 year olds

  All aged 15–16

  Castington

  0

  2

  2

  Deerbolt

  20

  34

  54

  Doncaster

  7

  29

  36

  Exeter

  1

  3

  4

  Feltham

  61

  128

  189

  Glen Parva

  29

  46

  75

  Gloucester

  0

  7

  7

  Hindley

  9

  39

  48

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  12

  13

  Holloway

  0

  2

  2

  Hull

  4

  4

  8

  Huntercombe

  0

  30

  30

  Lancaster Farms

  7

  16

  23

  Low Newton

  3

  23

  26

  Moorland

  3

  8

  11

  New Hall

  2

  1

  3

  Northallerton

  4

  13

  17

  Onley

  16

  32

  48

  Portland

  22

  54

  76

  Stoke Heath

  14

  36

  50

  Styal

  0

  4

  4

  Swansea

  0

  6

  6

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  3

  3

  Thorn Cross

  3

  10

  13

  Werrington

  14

  47

  61

  Wetherby

  15

  36

  51

  Blank/other

  2

  3

  5

  Total males

  257

  666

  923

  Total females

  2

  13

  15

  All establishments

  261

  682

  943

  1 All figures are provisional.

  Prisoner Admittance (Costs)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average cost of admitting a prisoner into each prison type. [17496]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average cost of admitting a prisoner into each type of prison.
  This information is not available centrally as the costs of the admission process are not recorded separately.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he is assessing to target those who exploit prostitutes and live on their earnings. [18490]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are not, at present, considering any fresh initiatives to target those who exploit prostitutes. The Government's position remains that those living off the sexual exploitation of others should be dealt with severely. My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced his intention to undertake a review of the
  697
  current maximum penalties for sexual offence, which includes offences relating to those who exploit and live on the earnings of prostitutes.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the strategy adopted by the chief constable of Nottingham to deal with those who exploit prostitutes. [18491]

  Mr. Maclean
  We welcome the recent agreement between Nottinghamshire constabulary and Nottinghamshire social services on how best to tackle the problem of child prostitution. It is too early to assess how successful the agreement has been, but the Government firmly support a multi-agency approach as the best way of addressing child prostitution and ensuring that children and youngsters receive the care and protection they deserve. The need for co-operation between the agencies working in this area is reflected in the joint Home Office and Department of Health guidance, "Working together under the Children Act 1989".

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussion he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding street prostitution. [18489]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not discussed street prostitution in his regular meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but officials have been discussing a multi-agency approach to child prostitution with ACPO and discuss other issues with the police as matters arise.

  Handguns
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if those owners of prohibited high calibre handguns who wish to retain their weapons as mementos, having first arranged for de-activation and having obtained de-activation certificates, will be able to obtain compensation based on individual valuation of the weapon in its original state. [18615]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. Under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, payments in respect of high calibre handguns may be made only where such items are surrendered to the police.

  Convicted Murderers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence served by convicted murderers released in the last five years. [18477]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is as follows:

  Average time served under sentence by murderers first released on life licence from Prison Service establishments, 1992 to 1996.

  Sentence

  1992

  12.4 years

  1993

  14.4 years

  1994

  15.4 years

  1995

  14.0 years

  1996

  113.4 years

  1992 to 1996

  14.0 years

  1 Provisional

  698
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted murderers have killed again after release from prison in the last 10 years; and what is the average sentence that they serve as a result. [18478]

  Mr. Maclean
  In England and Wales, during the years 1986 to 1995, nine persons released from prison after having served a sentence following conviction for murder are known to have killed again.

  One of these persons subsequently committed suicide. The other eight were sentenced to life imprisonment.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) review the sentencing policy for those convicted of murder and (b) introduce different categories of murder. [18479]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no plans to review either the sentence for, or the offence of, murder.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average of recruitment for regular police force officers recruited from the special constabulary; [18486]

  (2) if he will list the percentage of regular (a) male and (b) female police officers recruited from the special constabulary for each year since 1990 for each police force; [18485]

  (3) what is the average length of service for (a) regular police force officers and (b) the special constabulary. [18487]

  Mr. Maclean
  Recruitment of regular police officers and officers to the special constabulary in England and Wales is a matter for the chief officer of each police force. The information requested is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by contacting each force.

  Bridgewater Three
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government assistance is being offered to Michael Hickey, Vincent Hickey and James Robinson to help them overcome the psychological traumas typically associated with the experience they have undergone. [18564]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  If the convictions in this case are quashed, it will be open to the men concerned to apply to my right hon. and learned Friend for compensation from public funds. In the meantime, we are in touch with the Department of Health and the men's solicitor to ensure that any health care needs can be assessed without delay.

  Prison Ship, Portland Harbour
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs incurred to date by Dorset police authority as a consequence of proposals to moor a prison ship in Portland harbour. [18745]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that the Dorset police have incurred expenditure totalling £2,646 on police contingency planning on this matter.
  699

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18932]

  Mr. Howard
  Table 5.5 of the Red Book shows capital investment by the private sector. The breakdown of Home Office private finance initiative schemes as identified in that table is:

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Bridgend Prison

  37.0

  0

  0

  Fazakerley Prison

  37.0

  0

  0

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworking information technology system

  21.0

  0

  0

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  24.0

  0

  0

  Home Office Large Major Enquiry system II (information technology system)

  0.5

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood (secure training centre)

  6.0

  0

  0

  Gringley (secure training centre)

  10.0

  0

  0

  Medomsley (secure training centre)

  5.0

  5

  0

  Onley (secure training centre)

  5.0

  5

  0

  Secure training centre 5

  5.0

  5

  0

  Design, Construct, Manage and Finance 3 (Prison)

  6.0

  37

  37

  Design, Construct, Manage and Finance 4 (Prison)

  0.0

  6

  37

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Detention accommodation (South East District)

  1.0

  0

  0

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Detention accommodation (Heathrow)

  0.0

  14

  0

  Home Office SW1 Estate

  10.0

  30

  10

  Prisons/boilerhouses

  9.0

  3

  0

  Prisons/kitchens

  8.0

  0

  0

  Prisons/health centres

  3.0

  0

  0

  Prisons major refurbishments

  12.0

  12

  0

  Prisons/other

  2.0

  0

  0

  Prisons/health information technology

  0.0

  6

  0

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project

  0.0

  10

  40

  Total

  201.5

  133

  124

  These totals rounded in the Financial Statement and Budget Report

  200.0

  130

  120

  Police Officers
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in 1979; and how many there are at the present time. [18940]
  700
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to our hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 23 January,Official Report, column 731.

  Charities (Criminal Record Checks)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 463, in respect of charges for criminal records checks on those volunteering to assist charities, when he intends to make money available to cover the costs. [18919]

  Mr. Maclean
  We will consider granting free checks to specific groups, such as volunteers, when resources permit.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18805]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his reasons for refusing to release a prisoner form Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh, ref. KF 3842, on compassionate grounds. [18922]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to assist the Fire Service College in improving its financial performance. [19480]

  Mr. Howard
  The Fire Service College, as the central training establishment for the fire service, makes a very important contribution to promoting effective and efficient firefighting and fire safety arrangements in the United Kingdom, and thus maintaining public safety. Its financial regime and targets need to assist it to continue to discharge this role effectively and to secure value for money, but the present arrangements are not achieving this. Despite the considerable efforts of the present management team, the college has not yet been able to realise the benefits which its position as a trading fund ought to offer.

  The college's corporate aim is to remain the pre-eminent higher education college for fire-related training and for promoting fire safety awareness. To help secure the future of the college and to assist it in achieving its corporate and business objectives, I have therefore decided to make changes to its present financial structure. I propose to seek parliamentary approval for the payment of a grant of £13.5 million to the college. This will enable it immediately to pay off the deemed loan part of the originating capital debt when it was established as a

  701
  trading fund in 1992. It will save the college £1.3 million in annual interest payments. I also propose in 1997–98 to pay to the college a separate grant of £1.3 million so that it can continue to provide essential training courses for the fire service.

  These measures will make a step change in the college's finances. They demonstrate the Government's firm commitment to securing an effective and well trained fire service, but the future success of the college should not—and cannot—be dependent on the Government alone. It is crucially dependent on the support of its fire service customers and the college's own efforts. Fire authorities must continue to be willing to make a proper investment in the training of their brigades and to take advantage of the facilities, skills and high-quality training opportunities the college is able to offer. The college has to give priority to ensuring the training needs of the fire service are clearly identified and effectively met. It should exploit innovative training developments. It must also continue its programme of improvements in business efficiency, to ensure high quality management and financial control and so that any on-going requirement for assistance through Home Office grant can progressively be reduced.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Security Council Resolutions
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs upon how many occasions since Britain joined the European Community(a) Britain and France and (b) Britain and the United States have voted differently on proposed UN Security Council resolutions; and on which of those occasions the resolution referred to a country in which British forces were on active service or were about to undertake such service. [18433]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  According to records kept by this Department, the United Kingdom and France have voted differently on UN Security Council resolutions on 35 occasions since 1973. The United Kingdom and the United States have voted differently on 74 occasions within the same period. The only occasions on which the resolution referred to, or where British forces were involved in or were about to be involved in, active military operations were:

  June 1982: Falklands (draft S/15156:Rev 2).

  November 1984: N Cyprus (SCR 550).

  The resolution on the Falkland Islands was subsequently vetoed and therefore never adopted.

  Gulf War
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the compensation for victims of the Gulf war, decided on by the United Nations Compensation Commission's governing council in December 1996, will be paid. [18728]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Interim payments of US $2,500 will be made after similar amounts have been paid for claims approved in 1994, 1995 and earlier in 1996. Successful 702
  claimants in the first instalments are due to be paid in the near future.

  Subsequent payments will depend on a regular flow of money into the compensation fund from the sale of Iraqi oil under UN Security Council resolution 986.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations' announcement on the use of seized Iraqi assets to pay for the environmental effects of the Gulf war and its implications for the United Kingdom. [18727]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The UN Compensation Commission recently announced that claims for environmental damage totalling US $32 billion have been received from 10 Governments by the deadline of 1 February 1997. Compensation will in due courses be paid from revenue derived from the sale of Iraqi oil, not from seized assets. The UK has claimed £1.4 million.

  Albania
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 578–79, if he will list the (a) British and (b) Albanian organisations, individuals or firms in receipt of know-how fund money covering (i) advice on setting up investment funds and (ii) pre-investment feasibility studies. [18986]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The know-how fund contracted the British firm GMA Capital Markets Ltd. to advise on setting up and regulating the Tirana stock exchange and investment funds in Albania. The KHF gave no money to any Albanian organisation, individual or firm, support being provided through funding the cost of technical assistance for specific projects.

  The British companies who have received money under the pre-investment feasibility studies scheme for prospective investment in Albania are:

  Anglo Albanian Mining (Heritage House)

  Hugh MacRae and Co. (Builders) Ltd.

  Peter Streatfield

  Eng-Alb Trading Company.

  In each of these cases, following the receipt of a grant under the PIFS scheme, the investment by the British company has proceeded. No money was paid to any Albanian organisation, individual or firm through this scheme.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18803]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the information given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7.
  703

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18924]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department, including the Overseas Development Administration, has agreed two PFI projects: Minerva, a small information technology system to archive electronic documents, and a vehicle services project initially for a small number of overseas posts. Projects have been advertised for the new Berlin embassy and accommodation in Beirut, Colombo, Lagos, Kiev and Sofia. Table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" reflects this Department's estimate of likely capital investment under these projects. In addition, this Department has invited interest in a project to provide a new global telecommunications system. A breakdown by project would be commercially sensitive at this stage.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chancery Bank
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the procedures followed by the DTI, the Treasury and the Bank of England, in respect of the voluntary liquidation of Chancery bank; and if he will make a statement. [18704]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 5 August 1993, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), announced the appointment of inspectors under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of Chancery plc.

  The appointment followed the appointment of administrators on 18 February 1991 and a subsequent voluntary arrangement approved by creditors.

  The inspectors have not completed the report of their investigation, and I am unable to comment further until they have done so.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18936]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figures in table 5.5 of the Red Book are the combined estimates of the level of private sector investment for the following planned projects: the Teddington site re-development, housing the National Physical Laboratory; resource accounting and budgeting; the Radiocommunications Agency's IS-IT strategic partnership; the Coal Authority's IT system for mining and surface damage reports—contract now signed; and three small IT projects in the DTI. Disaggregated figures are commercially sensitive at this stage.

  Undischarged Bankrupts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many undischarged bankrupts there are in each county in England. [19298]
  704
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not held in this form. The Insolvency Act 1986 provides for the majority of bankrupts to be discharged automatically after three years or after two years in smaller, summary cases. The number of individuals against whom bankruptcy orders were made in the last three years for which figures are available were:

  1993: 31,016

  1994: 25,634

  1995: 21,993.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a)in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b)within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures were available. [18807]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7. Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Birmingham (Ministerial Visit)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of his visit to Birmingham on 17 February. [18423]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 March 1997]: The cost of the Birmingham business breakfast was approximately £14,000. More than 700 business men and women attended it.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Medical Training
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total number of entrants to medical school in each of the last five years, indicating the number of graduates. [18602]

  Mr. Forth
  The information available is as follows:

  Number of full-time home-domiciled1 entrants to first degree medicine/dentistry courses

  Total number of entrants

  Graduate entrants3

  Non-graduate entrants3

  Qualification not known3

  1991–92

  4,733

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  4,883

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  4,957

  —

  —

  —

  1994–952

  5,924

  253

  4,701

  970

  1995–962

  6,496

  362

  4,854

  1,280

  1 Based on students who were in their first year of study.

  2 Figures collected on a new basis and not directly comparable with earlier years' figures.

  3 Figures prior to 1994–95 cannot be split between graduate and non-graduate entrants.

  705
  In addition, there were 474 full-time overseas entrants to first degree medicine and dentistry courses in the UK in 1994–95, of whom 18 were known graduates, and 634 in 1995–96, of whom 47 were known graduates.

  National Curriculum (Drug Awareness)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has made, or is considering, to the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority on the drug awareness component of the life skills part of the national curriculum. [18955]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has made no such representations. She will consider any recommendations from SCAA on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural dimensions of the curriculum in due course.

  Drug Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has made to the other Departments since 26 February on the drug abuse resistance education scheme. [18956]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I wrote on Monday 3 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring his attention to the debate on DARE of 26 February,Official Report, column 397–410. I copied my letter to my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will study the evaluation of DARE by North Nottinghamshire Health Promotion. [18957]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend would welcome the opportunity to do so.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will call for a report from the Nottinghamshire county council on its secondary school booster scheme for DARE. [18959]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Any information Nottinghamshire county council chooses to offer the Department will be received with interest.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she has taken to extend the DARE scheme. [18954]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Decisions on approaches to drug education remain a matter for individual schools.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral statement of the Lord President of the Council on 26 February,Official Report, columns 401–2, what is her response to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North regarding the DARE scheme. [18960]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I sought to set out my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's response to those questions during the debate. Broadly, while my right hon. Friend remains interested in the progress of the DARE programme in Nottinghamshire, she does not intend to promote or endorse one particular approach to drug education in schools above the many others that are serving our teachers and young people well in their particular circumstances.
  706
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will write to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North giving her view on the Office for Standards in Education report on drug education. [18958]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Yes.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is responsible for inspecting those appointed by Ofsted; and what proposals she has to improve the supervision of Ofsted appointees. [18820]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ofsted is a Government department headed by the chief inspector of schools, who is responsible for appointing and registering inspectors. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which her Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18926]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Table 5.5 shows the estimated capital spending through the private finance initiative in the Department's and Employment Service's own estates and infrastructure. As the estimate is based on the aggregate potential for PFI in these areas, it is not yet directly attributable to specific projects, other than those which have already been concluded. So far, these are two Employment Service computer projects: Employment Service communications and guidance system and windows integrated system for personnel.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, columns 419–20, if he will put forward proposals for a bilateral extradition agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya. [18735]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: No. The United Nations Security Council decided that Libya must surrender the accused for trial in Scotland or the USA.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 6 March. [17885]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March. [17886]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
  707

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister from what date information was available to any Government Department about the dangers to health from the use of organophosphates; what action was then taken to ensure that all Departments considering their use were made conversant with the dangers; and if he will make a statement. [18824]

  The Prime Minister
  Organophosphates were first investigated for use as insecticides in the 1930s in Germany. Since then, information on the health effects of OPs has accumulated over time. Much of the information is in peer-reviewed scientific journals, books or World Health Organisation publications and is therefore available to all Government Departments as well as to the general public.

  Government Departments receive advice and information on a regular and on-going basis about OPs and their possible effects on human health from a number of sources both external and internal. OP compounds have been reviewed on many occasions, including the independent expert committees which advise the Government on pesticides and veterinary products. They have not recommended a ban or suspension of the use of this class of compounds.

  Governor-General Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will recommend that an invitation be issued to(a) the Governor-General of Australia, (b) the Governor-General of Canada and (c) the Governor-General of New Zealand to make a visit to the United Kingdom of equivalent status to a state visit. [18013]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: No.

TREASURY

  Earth Summit II
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations his Department is making for earth summit II, and for the preparatory conferences leading up to the summit. [18496]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Department of the Environment is taking the lead within Government on the preparations for the UN General Assembly special session in June and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), gave him on 5 March 1997,Official Report, column 634.

  Pension Plans
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the net present value of savings made from reduced expenditure on tax relief paid on contributions made to appropriate personal pensions in(a) 2025, (b) 2030, (c) 2040 and (d) 2050, if (i) all and (ii) half of those earning under £10,000 per annum who are currently opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into APPs were to rejoin SERPS. [15591]
  708
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The yield from reduced expenditure on tax relief for minimum contributions from the national insurance fund to appropriate personal pensions is tentatively estimated at about £10 million for 2025–26 and 2030–31, and negligible by 2040–41, if all holders of APPs with earnings of under £10,000 per annum were to rejoin SERPS, and about half these amounts if half of those were to rejoin SERPS. The figures are at 1996–97 prices and have been discounted.

  The costing assumes that these APP holders in 1996–97 would otherwise continue as APP holders over the projected period. In addition, they are assumed to have the same earnings in these future years in real terms as they did in the base year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. David Kyle
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what role Mr. David Kyle played in preparing the Crown case in(a) the 1989 appeal of the men convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater and (b) the 1987 and 1991 appeals of the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. [18255]

  The Attorney-General
  Mr. David Kyle played no part in preparing the Crown case in the 1989 appeal of the men convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater. He also played no such part in relation to the 1987 appeal by the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. In relation to the 1991 appeal by these persons, the preparation of the Crown case was undertaken within the special casework division of what was then Crown Prosecution Service headquarters casework. Mr. Kyle was head of division at that time and in that capacity had supervisory responsibility for all cases dealt with on his division.

  Ms Fiona King
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what role Ms Fiona King played in preparing the Crown case in(a) the 1989 appeal of the three men convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater and (b) the 1987 and 1991 appeals of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. [18257]

  The Attorney-General
  Miss Fiona King is away, but examination of her postings indicate that she has at no time been assigned to any part of the Crown Prosecution Service which had responsibility for preparing the Crown case in the 1989 appeal of the men convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater or in the 1987 and 1991 appeals of the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18818]
  709
  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–07. Additional or more recent information is as follows:
  Crown Prosecution Service: 97.3 per cent. of bills were paid within agreed terms or 30 days during June to November 1996.
  Serious Fraud Office: 91.3 per cent. of bills were paid within agreed terms or 30 days from April 1996 to date1.
  Treasury Solicitor's Department: 93.7 per cent. of bills were paid within agreed terms or 30 days during June 1996 to January 1997.
  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers: 95.7 per cent. of bills were paid within 30 days during June 1996 to February 1997.
  Government Property Lawyers: 99.5 per cent. of bills were paid within 30 days during April 1996 to January 1997. M
  1Provisional figure.

DEFENCE

  Psychological Operations Units
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many psychological operations units are established in the field army; how many personnel are assigned to these units; and what are his plans to expand or establish additional units for this role. [17987]

  Mr. Soames
  We have one psychological operations unit, to which two personnel are assigned permanently to provide instruction in the psychological operations role. This unit can be expanded when required. These arrangements are currently under review.

  Military Provost Guard Service
  Mr. George
  To ask the secretary of State for Defence how many applications have been received to date for posts in the Military Provost Guard Service; how many individuals have been recruited to the Military Provost Guard Service; how many individuals have completed their training satisfactorily; what is the proposed Military Provost Guard Service complement, broken down by rank, for(a) Chicksands, (b) Chilwell, (c) Donnington and (d) Wilton; what is the rent which the Military Provost Guard Service staff will pay for their accommodation; and what services are provided for this rent. [18104]

  Mr. Soames
  Recruitment to the Military Provost Guard Service is proceeding satisfactorily. Some 507 statements of interest in the 118 MPGS pilot scheme posts have been received; 47 candidates have been attested to date and there are firm candidates for all but a few of the remaining posts. There have been no training failures. I have decided to withhold the details of the complements at individual sites under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information, relating to defence, security and industrial relations. MPGS soldiers recruited to the pilot scheme will pay the same charges for service married and single quarters as general service personnel and will receive the same services.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date it was decided that the British forces involved in the liberation of Kuwait would take 710
  supplies of organophosphates to the Gulf for use as pesticides; when they were first used there; what additional supplies were purchased locally; when these additional supplies were used; and what checks were made about the safety of these additional pesticides before they were used. [18823]

  Mr. Soames
  Full details of what is now known about the use of organophosphate pesticides by British Service personnel during the Gulf war are contained in the organophosphate pesticide investigation team report which was published on 10 December 1996. A copy of this report was also placed in the Library of the House.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of the outbreak and the period that MRSA was present at the Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot, the numbers of patients involved and whether it contributed to or caused death. [18992]

  Mr. Soames
  During the period from 1 to 25 May 1994, the Cambridge military hospital experienced a widespread infection of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. The strain of MRSA was unusual in that it was characterised by a rapid rate of spread but with low virulence. No patient at the hospital developed symptoms of MRSA infection, although a number became colonised with the organism.

  The outbreak was rapidly and aggressively controlled. There were no admissions to the hospital between 16 and 24 May 1994. All hospital staff were screened for MRSA and, as the outbreak was widespread, were treated with an antibiotic. A thorough disinfection programme was carried out in the hospital. No evidence of MRSA was found in the hospital after 25 May 1994.

  There are no indications that this outbreak of MRSA contributed to, or caused, death among patients at the hospital.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18927]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The figures in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" represent my Department's estimates of capital spending by the private sector under private finance initiative projects that had been agreed by October 1996. The projects include:

  White vehicles in Germany

  Army logistic information systems agency

  RAF white vehicles

  Training administration and financial management information systems

  Naval recruiting and training agency

  HMS Nelson facilities management

  Mechanical handling equipment vehicles.

  711
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it would be inappropriate to reveal details of these estimates against individual projects. I am, therefore, withholding this information under exemption 13 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18819]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 17 December 1996, columns 506–7 by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Spring). Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at the time Ministers took decisions on the future of command and staff training what contribution that reorganisation was expected to make to the overall annual savings from 1996–97 arising from the defence costs study; what is the total cost in 1996–97 of those parts of single service command and staff training which will eventually be replaced by the joint services command and staff college; and what is his estimate of the costs of the JSCSC in 1997–98 and 1999–2000. [17057]

  Mr. Soames
  The proposals to form a joint services command and staff college was initially put forward in the "Front Line First" studies. These constituted internal departmental advice to Ministers, the details of which I am withholding under exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to Government information. Financial information at this stage was indicative only.

  The decision to implement the JSCSC was based primarily on the operational need for enhanced joint training. Some savings were initially suggested but were on the basis of considerably reduced student numbers, which subsequent analysis found to be unrealistic.

  The JSCSC came into being on 1 January 1997—part way through the financial year 1996–97—which also makes the year a typical in course programme terms. Accurate costs for the three single service colleges and the joint service defence college at Greenwich, even for the previous year, 1995–96, are not available because the MOD's cash accounting system does not enable a wide range of support costs to be disaggregated from larger sums covering more than one establishment, such as Camberley and Sandhurst, or from sums covering more than one function at the same location, as was the case at Greenwich. This should be addressed by the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting.

  The estimated cost of the JSCSC in 1997–98 is £30 million. This applies to the JSCSC at its interim sites, mainly Bracknell, and for reasons similar to those given above is likely still to be slightly underestimated; 1999–00 is also atypical because the move from the interim to the permanent site is due to take place during
  712
  the summer of 1999. The first full year of operation at the permanent site will be 2000–01 for which estimated costs, for the facilities and services provided by the contractor as well as MOD-provided teaching and directing staff, are also approximately £30 million.

  DERA (Support Services Division)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the sale of the pFfpnce Evaluation and Research Agency's support services division; what are the reasons behind the delay in completion of the sale; if APAX Partners has agreed bulk transfer terms for staff pensions with the Government Actuary's Department; and what bulk transfer terms for staff pensions were agreed in previous privatisations of Ministry of Defence services or agencies. [18107]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have not yet been able to reach agreement on acceptable terms with APAX and have, therefore, decided to open negotiations with CinVen, the other financial institution that was on the original shortlist. We will conclude a deal only if and when mutually satisfactory terms have been agreed. I expect to have come to a decision within a matter of days rather than weeks.

  Regarding staff pensions, there will now have to be further negotiations with CinVen over bulk transfer terms. Previous MOD organisations have generally involved an agreement on this issue and I hope that the offer of similar terms will prove acceptable.

  NATO Strategic Concept
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans NATO has to revise and update its strategic concept. [18722]

  Mr. Soames
  NATO's strategic concept was adopted by Alliance Heads of Government at their meeting in Rome in November 1991. NATO's strategy has evolved since then in the light of changes in the European security situation, and this process will continue. Whether the strategic concept itself should be updated to take account of those changes is under consideration within NATO. Any decision to update the strategic concept would be a matter for NATO Ministers.

TRANSPORT

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals for the Salisbury bypass. [18902]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced on 29 October 1996 that they were minded to confirm the orders to authorise construction of the bypass. However, before reaching a final decision, they have afforded interested parties an opportunity to make representations on the effects of induced traffic and alteration of a section of the proposed route to take it away from housing at Harnham, as recommended by the inspector who held the year-long public inquiry. They also instructed the
  713
  Highways Agency to review three matters: the possibility of realigning the section of the route across the River Avon floodplain, south of Salisbury, to avoid the newly designated east Harnham meadows SSSI; the scope for further mitigating the landscape impact of the bypass in this sensitive area; and the need for any measures in addition to those already proposed to mitigate the potential impact of the bypass on the proposed River Avon special area of conservation. The Highways Agency report on the reviews has just been received and will now be considered by my right hon. Friends.

  Rail Employment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of people employed by British Rail before the start of the privatisation process; and if he will estimate the number employed on the railways at the current time. [19004]

  Mr. Watts
  On 31 March 1994, the British Railways Board employed 121,052 people. The latest available estimate of the total number employed in the railway industry is 94,600 people employed in September 1996.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in Table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18937]

  Mr. Watts
  The figures underlying table 5.5 relate to expected expenditure on the following PFI projects.

  Italicised entries denote projects not yet signed.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  CAA New Scottish Centre

  CAA Oceanic Flight Data Processing System

  Croydon Tramlink

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  DBFO roads (first eight schemes)

  DBFO roads (tranche 2)

  Highways Agency pavement management system

  Heathrow Express

  LT "connect" (Communications)

  LT Power

  LT "Prestige" (Ticketing)

  Midland Metro

  Northern Line trains.

  Details of individual projects are commercially sensitive.

  Railfreight Distribution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total amount payable to Her Majesty's Government for the sale of Railfreight Distribution. [19003]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board has yet to finalise the sale of Railfreight Distribution.
  714

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to stage a trial evacuation of 1,000 passengers from a roll-on/roll-off ferry in realistic conditions. [18771]

  Mr. Bowis
  None, since "realistic conditions" would imply damage to the ship and potential injury to the participants.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18808]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7. Any additional information can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the fastest time the channel tunnel has been evacuated; (b) how many doors in the tunnel were open during that exercise; and (c) if the air fell to the point where it equalised between the central tunnel and the running tunnels. [19009]

  Mr. Watts
  (a) 85 minutes timed from the train coming to a stop until passengers reached the open air. (b) A maximum of three cross passage doors were open on this occasion. (c) No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present normal working pressure of the central service tunnel in the channel tunnel; and how many doors can be opened before the pressure equalises between all three tunnels. [19007]

  Mr. Watts
  The pressure in the service tunnel is maintained within a range from 2,000 pascals near the ventilation shafts to 500 pascals at the midpoint. No more than three cross passage doors should be open if overpressure is to be maintained in the service tunnel.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new semi-open wagons have been purchased for use in the channel tunnel since 1 January; and what evaluation has been made of their safety case. [19010]

  Mr. Watts
  No semi-open wagons have been purchased since 1 January.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there was smoke in either of the two tunnels not affected by fire during the channel tunnel fire of November 1996. [19008]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the behaviour of smoke in the channel tunnel fire in November 1996 are being investigated by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and will be contained in the authority's report on the fire. I understand that this will be completed shortly.
  715
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the French Government about the channel tunnel fire of November 1996. [18653]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: The intergovernmental commission meets on a regular basis to discuss the operation of the channel tunnel on behalf of the Governments. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority also meets regularly.

  The heavy goods vehicle shuttle fire on the 18 November has been discussed at each of the meetings held by these bodies since November 1996.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has corresponded with the French Transport Minister, Bernard Pons, about the fire.

  Departmental Revenue Hypothecation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the hypothecation of revenue from his Department. [19002]

  Mr. Bowis
  Proceeds of asset sales do sometimes go to the Department concerned. The proposed privatisation of London Underground is, however, the first time this approach has been adopted in a privatisation. This is in recognition of the particular needs and circumstances of London Underground.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has set the British Railways Board an external finance limit consistent with his latest estimate of its outturn for 1996–97. [19413]

  Mr. Watts
  I have today set the British Railways Board an external finance limit of £10 million for 1996–97. This limit is consistent with the estimate of 1996–97 outturn provision for the railway industry of £780 million announced by my right hon. Friend in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) of 26 November 1996,Official Report, column 160.

  Lorry Weights
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached a decision on maximum lorry weights following the closure of the period for responses to the Government's consultation document on lorry weights. [19539]

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Trespassers

  150 (7)

  132 (5)

  121 (7)

  119 (6)

  109 (7)

  Suicides

  150 (1)

  132 (0)

  141 (1)

  135 (0)

  137 (0)

  Total

  300 (8)

  264 (5)

  262 (8)

  254 (6)

  246 (7)

  1. Figures in brackets denote the number of children under the age of 16 years included in the total.

  2. Figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 have been revised following notification of coroners' verdicts for inquests that have been outstanding at the time the previous statistics had been prepared. Figures for 1995–96 are provisional.

  716
  Mr. Watts
  We have received some 250 responses to the document; these are being considered very carefully and the issues involved will be analysed extensively. Until that work is complete, there can be no decision on altering the present general maximum lorry weight, but the separate proposal put forward in the consultation document to allow lorries engaged in piggyback road-rail operations to operate at up to 44 tonnes, if they have six axles and road-friendly suspension, has been generally welcomed as a measure to get more long-distance freight onto rail. I have therefore asked officials to proceed with the necessary consultation on draft regulations to put this into effect. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, I expect the regulations to be laid shortly. This decision is independent of the outcome of the Government's consideration of the general maximum lorry weight.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues. [19540]

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that light dues for 1997–98 will be reduced by about 4.6 per cent. from 43p to 41p net ton with consequential reductions to other changes. This reduction, coming after four years of stability, takes rates back to below those established in 1992. It is a clear demonstration of the increasing efficiency of the three general lighthouse authorities.

  I am announcing changes to the light dues regulations which are designed to simplify some aspects of collection and will remove the liability to pay light dues in certain cases. I shall be consulting the industries concerned on other possible changes in the distribution of light dues.

  Train Track Fences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving trains have occurred in each of the past five years as a result of people gaining access to the track through damaged fences. [18239]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: This information is not available in the form requested. However, appendix 8B of "Railway Safety—HM Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain for 1995–96", gives statistics on the number of trespassers killed and injured for the past five years. The figures are included in the table:
  717
  The report also highlights accidents to trespassers and measures the inspectorate, the industry and the British transport police are adopting to combat these accidents. Copies of the report are available in both Libraries of the House.

  The state of fencing is not recorded as a contributory factor on the Health and Safety Executive's accident database. In addition, the state of the fencing is not always mentioned on the written notifications of incidents received by the HSE from railway operators. However, during any HSE investigations of incidents involving trespassers, and in particular incidents involving children, the condition of the fencing will be scrutinised closely and enforcement action taken should HSE consider the fencing to be inadequate.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17060]

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

  Financial year

  Number of individual items (including information technology)

  Total value

  1995–96

  409

  £375,354

  1. For the purposes of departmental accounting, centralised information is collected for complete financial years and in a single category covering losses arising from theft, fraud, arson, sabotage or other causes.

  2. The figures in the table are for the Department and all its agencies.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests programmes in Australia and the south Pacific have been awarded war pensions after they developed(a) leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic or (b) multiple myeloma; when was the first time that former service personnel were awarded war pensions after developing these illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [17952]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is as follows:Awards made in respect of leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia)
  Four war disablement pensions and seven war widows' pensions.
  Awards made in respect of multiple myeloma
  Ten war disablement pensions and three war widows' pensions.
  718
  The first awards were made in 1988 following publication of the National Radiological Protection Board's first report on the subsequent health of nuclear test participants. The report did not causally relate multiple myeloma or leukaemia to participation, but its evidence was regarded as raising a reasonable doubt—the standard of proof required for the award of war pension in such cases—that those conditions excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia, may have resulted from participation in the tests.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many jobseeker's allowance cases have gone to appeal; and what percentage of these have been successful. [17855]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Some 4,460 jobseeker's allowance appeals have been received by the Independent Tribunal Service and, of those appeals cleared at hearing, 36.5 per cent. have been successful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the locations of the meteorological stations on the basis of whose readings eligibility for cold weather payments are determined for each part of Wales, and if each case its(a) height above sea level and (b) proximity to the coast. [18508]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Weather station

  Height above mean sea level (metres)

  Proximity to coastline (kilometres)

  Aberporth

  133

  less than 5

  Capel Curig

  216

  140

  Crosby

  9

  less than 5

  Great Malvern

  44

  160

  Mumbles Head

  32

  less than 5

  Rhoose

  65

  less than 5

  Rhyl

  77

  less than 5

  Sennybridge

  307

  130

  Shawbury

  72

  160

  Valley

  10

  less than 5

  1 Rounded to the nearest 10 kilometres.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 on the number of oral hearings held by social security appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals; and what information he has collated on the effect they have already had. [18373]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  An evaluation of the impact of the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations which came in to force on 21 October 1996 will be carried out over the first year of operation. Information is being collected and we expect to have interim results approximately six months after implementation.
  719

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list how many men made contributions to(a) contracted-out pension schemes by scheme type and (b) the state earnings-related pension scheme in the latest year for which figures are available. [18721]

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

  It is estimated that in 1991, the latest date for which information is available, there were approximately 5.3 million men in contributory contracted-out occupational pension schemes.

  The number of men with appropriate personal pensions is estimated to be 3.4 million in 1991–92 and 3.6 million in 1994–95.

  The total number of men accruing unabated SERPS entitlement is estimated to be 3.5 million in 1991–92 and 3.4 million in 1993–94, the latest date for which information is available.

  Source:
  Government Actuary's survey of occupational pension schemes 1991.

  War Pensions (Gulf War)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements for an urgent review of war pension claims made by ex-service men and women who were exposed to the effects of the use of organophosphates during service in the Gulf war. [18825]

  Mr. Heald
  No. Under the war pensions scheme, the initial onus is on the claimant to show disablement. Where disablement has been shown to exist, present medical evidence does not support a causal relation to exposure to organophosphates. Present medical understanding is that exposure would result in symptoms arising in close time relation. Many claims made as a result of service in the Gulf, however, are made in respect of symptoms which arose several years after service ended.

  Nevertheless, where disablement has been shown and where the claim is made within seven years of termination of service, because the onus is on the Secretary of State to show beyond reasonable doubt that disablement is not attributable to service, unless there is a clear non-service cause of disablement, war pensions have been, and will continue to be awarded.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18806]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7 by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring).
  720

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18935]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 13 January,Official Report, column 149.

  The private finance initiative schemes in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" include the national insurance recording system 2, Newcastle estate development, the Benefits Agency—Post Office Counters Ltd.), access to corporate data and private sector resource initiative for management of the estate projects.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional cost of linking state pensions to average earnings in Wales during the last five years. [17876]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer Thursday 27 February]: The information is in the table.

  £

  Year

  Gross additional cost of uprating basic retirement pensions by average earnings in Wales

  Net additional cost of uprating basic retirement pensions by average earnings in Wales

  1992–93

  49

  36

  1993–94

  85

  61

  1994–95

  87

  62

  1995–96

  119

  86

  1996–97

  109

  80

  Sources:

  1. The numbers in receipt of basic retirement pension and the average amount received have been estimated based on a 5 per cent. sample of live cases—10 per cent. in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  2. Earnings growth in Wales has been estimated by the Office for National Statistics, using the new earnings survey.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  2. The NES is calculated in April each year and the figures have been adjusted to provide figures for September allowing a comparison with the September retail prices index that is used for uprating RP. The NES figures have been adjusted by taking the ratio of the NES increase from April to April and the average earnings index April to April increases and multiplying this by the AEI increases from April to September. The headline AEI whole economy figure is used.

  3. The gross expenditure is estimated by calculating the percentage increase in standard basic RP and then applying this percentage increase to the actual total expenditure on RP in Wales.

  4. The net expenditure takes account of income related benefits that would otherwise have been paid. The offset ratios have been calculated using the policy simulation model which is based on information from the family expenditure survey. For 1992–93, the 1993–94 offset ratio has been applied.
  721

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the religious breakdown of those public appointments made each year since 1986 on the proposal of the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. [17703]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not available.

  Water Cannon
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times water cannons have been used by the security forces in Northern Ireland since 1967; for what reasons they were used; on what dates they were used; in what places they were used; and if the security forces are currently authorised to use water cannons. [17951]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to provide details of the use of water cannons in Northern Ireland as no separate statistical records of their use were kept at the time. It is believed they were last used around 1970.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary is authorised to use "reasonable force" in situations of public disorder, which could include the use of water cannons. The force does not, however, hold any water cannons and has not done so for some years.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18929]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following table gives a breakdown of the Northern Ireland figures, which are the best estimate of what NI Departments expect to be agreed. The list is subject to variation as project time scales may change, new projects may arise and some of those listed may not be taken forward if they fail the value for money test.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Bangor and Kinnegar sewerage treatment works

  7

  6

  4

  Hydro electric project

  1

  —

  —

  Westlink urban motorway

  —

  —

  10

  Motorway emergency telephone system

  —

  4

  —

  Strangford ferry replacement

  —

  3

  —

  Accommodation Holywood road, social security office

  —

  3

  —

  Accommodation Hydebank

  —

  3

  4

  DVTA vehicle testing project

  —

  4

  —

  Land Registry IT system

  —

  2

  —

  Antrim bus station/library

  —

  2

  1

  Ulsterbus/Citybus bus replacement

  —

  —

  10

  Northern Ireland Railways Class 80 rolling stock replacement

  —

  —

  22

  Ulster Folk and Transport museum visitors centre

  3

  —

  —

  North West Institute of Further and Higher Education

  3

  4

  —

  722

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education

  —

  5

  5

  St. Genevieve's high school

  —

  3

  4

  Drumglass high school

  —

  3

  2

  Wellington college

  —

  3

  2

  Balmoral high school

  —

  3

  —

  Refurbishment/replacement schemes at the Altnagelvin, Downe, Royal and Causeway hospitals

  3

  9

  13

  Belfast city hospital renal unit

  3

  —

  —

  Belfast city hospital car parking facilities

  2

  —

  —

  Miscellaneous equipment leases

  1

  2

  2

  Royal Group of Hospitals theatres and intensive care equipment

  2

  —

  —

  Other projects not yet confirmed

  —

  —

  12

  Total

  25

  59

  91

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18813]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since the implementation of a revised rigorous and consistent method of calculating payment performance from 1 June 1996 by HM Treasury, the Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland Office payment performance in percentage terms are:

  Percentage of invoices paid within 30 days or contract payment terms

  1 June 1996 to 31 August 1996

  94.0

  1 september 1996 to 30 November 1996

  94.3

  The figures for the quarter ending February 1997 are not yet available.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 408, if he will make a statement on the possible link between the recent outbreak and spread of Newcastle disease and the normal prohibition of the Newcastle disease vaccination. [17241]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: Vaccination against Newcastle disease has been prohibited in Northern Ireland until recently because of the Province's status as a non-vaccinating area has effectively prohibited the importation of poultry—other than eggs and day-old chicks—from vaccinating countries. That has helped to prevent the introduction of Newcastle disease and other poultry diseases from which Northern Ireland has been free. Vaccination also makes it technically more difficult to detect and diagnose

  723
  Newcastle disease if it does occur. Moreover, Newcastle disease occurs even in countries which pursue a policy of vaccination. In such countries it is generally only the breeding flocks and laying flocks which are vaccinated; broiler flocks, which represent the majority of birds in any national flock are normally not vaccinated. The industry relies on maternal immunity to give a degree of protection. In such circumstances, broiler flocks are those most at risk and worldwide experience shows that a disease challenge can override the maternal immunity especially in the final two to three weeks of a broiler's life when the maternal immunity is waning. It is therefore very unlikely that a vaccination policy would have prevented the present outbreaks in broiler flocks which have occurred in Northern Ireland. Where vaccination, especially spray vaccination, is useful, however, is as a means of damping down the spread of Newcastle disease once it appears, and that is the policy which is currently being applied in Northern Ireland.

  Scientists
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many scientists were employed by his Department and each of his Department's agencies on(a) the most recent date available and (b) for each year since 1979 on matters equivalent to those covered by MAFF; and if he will list each agency, service or central laboratory employing scientists on such projects. [18168]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: It is possible to provide only details of the numbers of staff employed in each year since 1990. To provide details for earlier years would involve an expensive and

  Week beginning

  1996–97

  1995–961

  1994–952

  1993–943

  1992–934

  1991–925

  25 November

  622

  724

  607

  797

  638

  671

  2 December

  639

  766

  716

  750

  673

  649

  9 December

  674

  777

  689

  771

  670

  729

  16 December

  726

  967

  715

  716

  770

  749

  23 December

  879

  976

  792

  840

  811

  753

  30 December

  1,107

  963

  783

  789

  839

  796

  6 January

  1,061

  872

  796

  786

  771

  756

  13 January

  903

  780

  782

  740

  737

  769

  20 January

  804

  734

  785

  669

  668

  742

  27 January

  739

  761

  749

  714

  787

  For weeks beginning:

  127 November 1995 to 29 January 1996

  228 November 1994 to 30 January 1995

  329 November 1993 to 31 January 1994

  430 November 1992 to 25 January 1993

  525 November 1991 to 27 January 1992

  Data for 1996 and January 1997 are provisional.

  Annual weekly average for each calendar year:

  1991:656

  1992:650

  1993:690

  1994:652

  1995:684

  1996:1663

  1Provisional.
  724
  time-consuming exercise to extract the information. I am advising therefore that disproportionate costs apply other than where the information is provided.

  Number

  February 1997

  446

  March 1996

  449

  March 1995

  460

  March 1994

  483

  March 1993

  483

  March 1992

  465

  March 1991

  476

  March 1990

  448

  The Department employs the staff at two main centres—Veterinary sciences division, Stoney road, Belfast, and the Agricultural and Food science centre, Newforge lane, Belfast.

WALES

  Winter Mortality Rates
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the excess weekly mortality rates in Wales for(a) December 1996 and (b) January 1997 in terms of numbers; and how these compare with the weekly death rates for the same period in each of the previous five years. [17203]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The data for Wales, provided by the Office for National Statistics, on deaths occurring each week—Monday to Sunday—and the annual weekly average are shown in the following tables:

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total revenue of local authorities in Wales for the current financial year from(a) council tax, domestic rates and community charge and (b) non-domestic rates; and what were the equivalent figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [18579]

  Mr. Hague
  Local authorities have budgeted to collect £449 million by way of council tax and will receive £459 million in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates for the current financial year. The equivalent figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are £342 million and £381 million for council tax and community charge arrears and £464 million and £520 million for non-domestic rates. The figures for council tax income are gross of council tax benefit grant.
  725

  Public Bodies (Freemasonry)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it a requirement for senior executives in non-departmental bodies in Wales to enter membership of masonic organisations in a register available for public inspection; and if he will make a statement. [18578]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to require the establishment of such registers.

  Child Labour (Consultation Exercise)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to which organisations (i) working in Wales and based in Wales and (ii) working in Wales although based elsewhere he has sent a copy of the document, "Employment of Children: Results of Consultation Exercise"; on what date the document was circulated; and what plans he has to implement the changes necessary to implement the document's proposals. [18724]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The document "Employment of Children: Results of Consultation Exercise" was sent on 13 December 1996 to:

  Chief executives and directors of education, local authorities in Wales;

  The Secretary, Welsh Local Government Association;

  Welsh Group of Education Welfare Officers;

  British Medical Association, Wales

  Children in Wales;

  Health Promotion, Wales

  National Farmers' Union, Wales;

  National Federation of Women's Institutes, Wales;

  National Union of Teachers, Wales;

  Royal College of Nursing, Welsh Board;

  Sports Council for Wales.

  Regulations are being prepared to begin the process of implementing in England, Scotland and Wales changes affecting employment of children below minimum school leaving age, to conform with the European directive on the protection of young people at work.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18938]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" show estimated capital spending by the private sector under the PFI. The £70 million estimated for 1997–98 includes one contract that has already been signed, for the Osiris information technology project. The remainder of the £70 million is made up of projects for which contracts have not yet been signed. Among these are projects for a new general hospital at Baglan; A55 improvements across Anglesey; Bute Avenue, Cardiff and provision of a new community hospital at Chepstow.
  726

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18810]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary, on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 507–8. Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Primary Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of classes in primary schools with(a) 31 to 35, (b) 36 to 40, (c) 41 to 45 and (d) 46 or more pupils for each of the last three years for which information is available. [18941]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 6 November 1996, column 514.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the target area for the new Welsh Development Agency inward investment programme extends to cover the St. Asaph business park. [18987]

  Mr. Hague
  The St. Asaph business park is within the area which has been defined as the eastern A55 corridor.

  Homeless Households
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in rural areas in Wales in each year since 1979; [18671]

  (2) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in Wales in each year since 1979. [18672]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless is provided in the following table.

  Number of households accepted as homeless

  Rural Wales1

  Wales

  1979

  874

  4,676

  1980

  883

  5,446

  1981

  821

  5,462

  1982

  786

  5,611

  1983

  794

  5,008

  1984

  833

  4,999

  1985

  1,012

  5,371

  1986

  1,001

  5,965

  19872

  1,311

  5,683

  1988

  1,295

  6,818

  1989

  1,329

  7,805

  19903

  3,387

  9,963

  1991

  1,625

  9,843

  1992

  1,691

  10,270

  19934

  1,821

  11,125

  727

  Number of households accepted as homeless

  Rural Wales1

  Wales

  1994

  1,722

  10,293

  1995

  1,658

  9,001

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Notes:

  1Aberconwy, Arfon, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Ceredigion, Colwyn, Delyn, Dinefwr, Dwyfor Glyndwr, Merionnydd, Monmouth, Montgomeryshire, Perseli Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire South Pembrokeshire and Ynys Mon district councils.

  2The Wales total excludes data for Islwyn from October to December.

  3Figures include estimates of 2,000 households made homeless in Colwyn as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990.

  4Figures include estimates of 237 households made homeless in Aberconwy as a result of the major flooding incident in Llandudno during June 1993.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans with regard to the current resource allocation formula for distributing resources to health authorities in Wales. [19566]

  Mr. Hague
  I intend to review the formula that is used to distribute resources between health authorities. Its aim will be to test, and, where possible, improve on, the existing approach and to ensure that resources are distributed to health authorities in the most effective and equitable way.

  The review will examine the current weighted capitation formula, and, in doing so, will cover a number of issues including the incorporation of new resources of data that may improve our understanding of the relative health need of authorities, whether the current formula adequately reflects the geographical differences between areas, and whether it would be appropriate to take account of new factors.

  The review will be led by a resource allocation working group consisting of members of the Welsh Office Health Department, health professional group and health statistics and analysis unit. Health authorities, trusts and GPs will be invited to play a full part in the review through membership of the working group. The group will also seek expert opinions and advice from across the service and other UK health departments as necessary. I expect the working group to report in November this year and to feed its results into the allocation process for 1998–99.

  Housing for Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with the sale of Housing for Wales's loan portfolio. [19567]

  Mr. Hague
  Contracts were exchanged with NatWest Markets yesterday which establish the terms on which the portfolio will be sold.

  I cannot yet provide a final figure for the receipt because the purchase price is subject to changes in the portfolio itself and to movements in the gilt rate between now and completion at the end of March. A receipt exceeding the book value of £58 million was anticipated in spending plans to the current financial year, and will be realised.
  728
  The receipt will be subject to subsequent adjustment should any of the loan characteristics differ from those described in the contract in any way that results in a financial loss for either party. This was anticipated in the minute which was laid before Parliament on 10 February. No other warranty apart from the basic undertaking about the ownership of the loans has been given.

ENVIRONMENT

  Social Housing (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new units of social housing have been provided in the London borough of Waltham Forest in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [18109]

  Mr. Clappison
  Housing associations are currently the main providers of new social housing. Local authorities' primary housing tasks are to act locally as strategic and enabling bodies and to manage their own stock efficiently.

  The publication "Local Housing Statistics" shows estimates of housebuilding completions for each local authority area in England, as reported to the Department. This covers all the London boroughs, including Waltham Forest. It shows completions by sector, including activity by local authorities and housing associations.

  "Local Housing Statistics" issue number 103 shows figures for 1986 to 1990; number 105 shows figures for 1991: number 109 covers 1992; number 110 covers 1993; number 117 covers 1994; and number 118 covers 1995. Figures for 1996 as a whole for individual authorities are not yet published.

  Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  Rock Characterisation Facility, Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed rock characterisation facility near Sellafield on the baseline hydrogeology at the site. [17976]

  Mr. Gummer
  This is one of the issues which parties to the planning appeal have raised, at the public inquiry and in subsequent correspondence, which I am considering.

  Environmental Trusts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the environmental trusts have sufficient resources to carry out their work effectively; [18572]

  (2) when he expects the environmental trusts to announce their first contributions to environmental projects; [18573]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure the speedy development of projects arising from the work of the environmental trusts. [18574]

  Mr. Clappison
  Entrust is the regulatory body—appointed by Customs and Excise—for the environmental bodies scheme. There is an agreed formula to provide it with sufficient funding to carry out its work effectively.
  729
  The individual environmental trusts will, of course, be funded via the landfill tax rebate and a contribution from the landfill operator—the rebate is worth up to 90 per cent. of the amount donated subject to a ceiling of 20 per cent. of the companies total tax liability.

  Responsibility for the environmental bodies scheme lies with Entrust. As of February 1997, Entrust has sent out 800 application forms and enrolled around 135 bodies. Entrust is aware of approximately £330,000 of donations and a further £1,500,000 of pledges that have been made to date.

  Entrust is responsible for promoting the scheme and I understand that it is seeking marketing advice as to how it can best achieve this. Representatives of Entrust have spoken at numerous conferences held to promote the speedy development of projects.

  Employers' Insurance Policies
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on his review of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; [18614]

  (2) if he will introduce measures to facilitate the tracing of an employer's insurance policy documents and insurer's details when that employer has ceased trading. [18613]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department is currently reviewing the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, including the problem of identifying the insurers of companies who have ceased to trade. I will announce the outcome of the review in due course.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the Government will publish in full the ERM consultants' analysis report of the responses to the draft hedgerow regulations; [19006]

  (2) how many responses were received to the Government's consultation paper on the draft hedgerow regulations; and how many responses were in favour of incorporating landscape as one of the criteria for defining an important hedgerow. [19005]

  Mr. Clappison
  Copies of the full report on the analysis of the responses to the Government's consultation have been placed in the Library of the House, and are available, price £10, from Environmental Resources Management. In addition, the executive summary of the report is available free from my Department and arrangements have been made for individual responses to be placed on deposit in the library of my Department.

  Some 465 responses were received by 23 December 1996. A total of 100 comments related to the landscape and amenity value of hedgerows, most of which were in favour of incorporating landscape and amenity importance as explicit criteria in the draft Regulations.

  The Government have responded positively to these criticisms by providing a new criterion, which recognises the particular landscape and amenity value of hedgerows that run alongside public rights of way. In addition, landscape importance is an inherent feature in almost all the criteria. For example, historic field patterns are
  730
  fundamental landscape features, and the diversity of plant species and features—such as trees and hedge banks—that attract a range of wildlife may also give a hedge its significance in the landscape.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many non-metropolitan counties will exist in England when the outcome of the recent review is fully implemented; and by how many the number will have changed since 1 April 1992. [18885]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There will be 75 non-metropolitan county areas in England when the recent review is fully implemented, compared to 39 at 1 April 1992. However, only 36 will have county councils. The remaining 39 will be served by unitary councils and 36 of these will be part of historic counties for ceremonial purposes, the exceptions being Bristol, Herefordshire and Rutland.

  Energy Efficiency Grants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many house energy efficiency scheme grants were paid in the periods(a) 1 April 199531 December 1995, (b) 1 April 1996–31 December 1996 and (c) 1 April 1995–31 March 1996; [18887]

  (2) how many home energy efficiency scheme grants he expects to be made during 1996–97; and how many will be paid at the lower rate. [18888]

  Mr. Clappison
  The numbers of grants paid under the home energy efficiency scheme in the specified periods are as follows:

  1 April 1995 to 31 December 1995: 451,063

  1 April 1996 to 31 December 1996: 310,992

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996: 627,383.

  During 1996–97, I expect well over 400,000 grants to be paid; some 4,000 are likely to be at the 25 per cent. grant rate. Already, more than 2 million grants worth around £350 million have been paid since this highly regarded scheme began, helping the most vulnerable people to keep warm and use less fuel.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18925]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Within the Department of Environment's area of responsibility PFI contracts have been signed for:

  (a) Docklands light railway Lewisham extension (capital investment of £150 million);

  (b) Waltham Forest housing action trust (£15 million); and

  (c) Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (£4 million).

  Capital investment in the survey period will be £103 million.
  731
  Further capital investment of £123 million is anticipated during the survey years on contracts under negotiation for:

  (i) Health and Safety Laboratory (estate rationalisation);

  (ii) Countryside Commission (information technology);

  (iii) Docklands exhibition centre; and

  (iv) DOE (pay and personnel system).

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18804]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Pollution
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last(a) commissioned and (b) published a report on the prevention of cryptosporidium contamination of drinking water supplies. [18886]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following a waterborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in 1989, my Department jointly with the Department of Health set up an expert group under the late Sir John Badenoch which made a study and published its first report in 1990. The recommended research was put in hand and the group published its final report in 1995. These reports made a number of recommendations on good practice, particularly on monitoring and the operation of treatment works. Both reports were widely circulated to water companies, local authorities and health authorities.

  Cancer Studies
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which cancer-causing organism the Health and Safety Executive in 1994 temporarily banned the research which was being conducted by Birmingham university department of caner studies; and if he will place papers relating to the experimentation in the Library. [18996]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The work at Birmingham university involved the expression of oncogenes—genes implicated in the cancer process—in adenovirus vectors and oncogenes in retroviral vectors. Following an HSE inspection, two prohibition notices were issued, which required the university to undertake full risk assessments and also to improve the standard of containment. The university subsequently compiled with these notices.

  I will shortly place in the Library papers relating to the above work at the university, which are in HSE's possession.
  732
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Health and Safety Executive approved and subsequently monitored the experiments conducted by the Oxford university institute of virology at Wytham Woods in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [18991]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, issued a consent on 12 April 1994 to the institute of virology and environmental microbiology to carry out experiments at the university farm, Wytham, Oxfordshire. The consent was issued in accordance with part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 which require the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive. A copy of the consent was placed on the public register in accordance with the legislation.

  The experimental site was inspected by one of Her Majesty's specialist inspectors of biosafety from the Health and Safety Executive in June 1994 and again in September 1995. The inspections covered both human health and safety issues and environmental issues as specified in the consent.

  Housing Corporation Loan Portfolio
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 84, what further progress has been made with the sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolio. [19568]

  Mr. Curry
  Contracts were exchanged with NatWest Markets on Wednesday 5 March, which establish the terms on which the portfolio will be sold.

  Because the purchase price is subject to changes in the underlying portfolio and to movements in the gilt rate between now and when completion takes place at the end of March, I cannot yet provide a precise figure for the final receipt. However, at today's rate, a substantial premium over book value will be paid. Some £500 million will be received before the end of this financial year, as anticipated in spending plans, and I confidently expect that the further £500 million anticipated in next year's plans will be exceeded when the balance is received on 1 April.

  The receipt will be subject to subsequent adjustment should any of the loan characteristics differ from those described in the contract, in any way that results in a financial loss for either party. This was anticipated in the minute I laid before Parliament on 10 February. No other warranty, apart from the undertaking about the ownership of the loans, has been given.

  Three Valleys Water
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to combat the threat to health from water in those parts of London and the south-east supplied by Three Valleys Water; and if he will make a statement. [18782]

  Mr. Gummer
  Cryptosporidium is a parasite found in man and animals which has been recognised relatively recently as a cause of diarrhoea. It can be transmitted in many ways, including by contact with animals and people,
  733
  and by food and water. Cryptosporidiosis, the illness arising from exposure to cryptosporidium, is a self-limiting condition in most adults, but it can last for several weeks. Infants, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are at greater risk than the general population.

  Following a waterborne outbreak in 1989, an expert group was set up under the late Sir John Badenoch and produced a report. The research they recommended was put in hand and the expert group published a further report on the results in 1995. The group made a number of recommendations on good practice, particularly on monitoring and the operation of water treatment. They stressed the importance of co-ordination between water companies, local authorities and health authorities and the formation of outbreak control teams. This has become standard practice. Both reports by the expert group were widely circulated to water companies, local authorities and health authorities. They concluded that properly operated water treatment processes are usually very effective in removing cryptosporidium from water.

  The management of the threat to health of consumers affected by this incident is a matter for Three Valleys Water in consultation with the relevant health authorities and local authorities. Boiling the water will kill cryptosporidium. Three Valleys Water has issued precautionary advice to boil water and this advice will remain in force until Three Valleys Water and the relevant health and local authorities are satisfied that the water is safe to drink without boiling.

  The drinking water inspectorate has commenced a full investigation to establish whether the recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis is linked to the water supply. If so, the inspectorate will consider whether a prosecution should be brought against Three Valleys Water for supplying water unfit for human consumption.

  Finally, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that we should convene an expert group under a new chairman to establish what lessons can be learnt from recent incidents involving cryptosporidium.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in rural areas in England in each year since 1979; [18694]

  (2) how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in each year since 1979. [18695]

  Mr. Clappison
  The data collected from local authorities on households accepted as homeless under the homelessness legislation does not differentiate between households from rural and non-rural areas. Summary prints showing the reported acceptances in each local authority area in England, and the total for England as a whole, for the years 1979 to 1995 are in the Library. The figures for the years 1979 to 1982 are not strictly comparable with those for the later years because of changes to reporting arrangement made in 1980, for non-metropolitan districts, and 1982, for London boroughs and metropolitan districts.
  734

  Noise Maps
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to fund the development of noise maps. [18701]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government remain to be convinced that national noise mapping would be a cost-effective use of resources:

  My Department has, however, recently commissioned research to study local authority practice in noise assessment and mapping, and the costs involved.

  Ringway Parliamentary Support Group
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the meetings which Ministers have held in an official capacity with the Ringway parliamentary support group. [18401]

  Mr. Gummer
  No meetings have been held in the past 12 months with the Ringway parliamentary support group.

HEALTH

  Nurses and Doctors
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors there were in the NHS in England (i) at the latest available date and (ii) in 1990. [18457]

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

  NHS hospital and community health services medical, nursing and midwifery staff and general medical services general medical practitioners and practice nurses

  England 1990 and 1995

  1990

  1995

  HCHS medical staff and GMS general medical practitioners1 (headcount)

  73,720

  80,820

  HCHS nursing and midwifery staff and GMS practice nurses2 (whole-time equivalents)

  344,260

  346,670

  Not included in the above:

  HCHS learners3

  58,840

  6,900

  Project 2000 students3

  3,000

  33,000

  Notes:

  1Figures exclude hospital practitioners and clinical assistants to avoid double counting.

  2 Excluding agency staff.

  3 Learners are nurses on traditional nurse training courses, and are directly employed by the NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries, they are supernumerary not employees, and are thus excluded from the count of NHS HCHS nursing staff. Figures for Project 2000 students are headcounts and should not be added to other nursing figures in the table which are whole-time equivalents.

  HCHS figures are as at 30 September each year.

  GMS figures are as at 1 October each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses and bi-annual general medical services census.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in 1979; and how many there are at the present time. [18939]
  735
  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  (a) National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services doctors and General Medical Services doctors (headcounts),
  1979: 61,550
  1995: 80,820
  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Table B: NHS Hospital and Community Health Services nursing and midwifery staff and General Medical Services practice nurses England 1979 and 1995

  Whole-time equivalents

  19791

  1995

  HCHS nursing and midwifery staff and GMS practice nurses2

  278,750

  346,670

  Qualified

  192,010

  240,160

  Unqualified

  85,750

  92,380

  Others

  —

  4,390

  GMS Practice Nurses

  990

  9,740

  Not included in the above:

  HCHS learners3

  76,650

  6,900

  Project 2000 students3

  —

  33,000

  Notes:

  1Figures for 1979 do not take account of the reduction in nurses' standard working hours in 1980–81 from 40 to 37.5 hours per week, and are therefore not directly comparable with figures for later years.

  2 Excluding agency staff.

  3Learners are nurses on traditional nurse training courses, and are directly employed by the NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries, they are supernumerary not employees, and are thus excluded from the count of NHS HCHS nursing staff. Figures for Project 2000 students are headcounts and should not be added to other nursing figures in the table which are whole-time equivalents. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and non-medical work force censuses and bi-annual general medical services census.

  HCHS figures are as at 30 September each year.

  GMS figures are as at 1 October each year.

  High-cost Drugs
  Mr. Insley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been refused prescription of(a) growth hormone, (b) interferon beta, 1B and (c) erythropoietia on the grounds of cost in each of the last two years. [17384]

  Mr. Malone
  Data are not collected on the number of patients refused particular treatments.

  Infant Formula Milk
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what microbiological testing of infant formula baby milk is(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement; [18456]

  (2) what responsibility his Department has with regard to microbiological testing of infant formula baby milk; and if he will make a statement. [18454]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of food businesses to ensure that the food they produce is safe, in compliance with all appropriate food safety legislation. Local authority environmental health departments are 736
  responsible for enforcing this legislation. The Government, in line with European Union policy, promote microbiological safety through adoption of the hazard analysis critical control point approach.

  Sleep Disorders
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities in England make provision for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders; and if he will make a statement. [18417]

  Mr. Burns
  Sleep disturbance most commonly arises as a result of mental illness such as anxiety and depression. All health authorities will provide a spectrum of treatment ranging from general, primary and care-led, to specialist services.

  Behaviourally Disturbed Young People (Prescriptions)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which officials of(a) his Department and (b) the chief medical officer's office attended the meeting arranged in London on 27 January under the auspices of the British Association for Psychopharmacology regarding prescription of medicine for behaviourally disturbed young people; and if he will make a statement. [18488]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials were not available to attend the meeting, but they will consider reports when available.

  Bug Busting Programme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) current and (b) future level of funding of the bug busting programme. [18561]

  Mr. Horam
  The bug busting programme, which is run by the voluntary organisation Community Hygiene Concern, has a three-year project grant of £25,000 a year from the Department of Health under the section 64 general scheme; 1997–98 is the third year. Any application to renew funding will be carefully considered.

  NHS Employees' Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees currently earn less than £4 an hour. [18734]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure by each health authority in England for speech and language therapy services for children(a) with and (b) without a record of needs in each year between 1992 and 1996. [18711]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  NHS Trusts (Chief Executives)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chief executives and senior managers
  737
  of (a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities have been dismissed in each of the last three years; and how many have retired before the normal retirement age. [18714]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ashworth Special Hospital
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been made to him concerning the number of patients at Ashworth special hospital who might more suitably be treated elsewhere; what is his estimate of the number; and if he will make a statement concerning all three special hospitals in this respect. [18974]

  Mr. Burns
  The Reed report of 1994 relating to high secure provision suggests that a number of patients are inappropriately accommodated in high secure settings when their needs could be met in services with lower levels of security.

  The Government's response to the concerns raised in the Reed report are set out in a national health service executive document, "High Secure Psychiatric Services: Changes in Funding and Organisation", which was published in June 1995.

  The high security psychiatric services commissioning board was set up on 1 April 1996 to oversee these changes to forensic services as part of the Government's response to the Reed report. These changes were designed to establish a clear purchaser-provider structure to allow future service planning to occur in circumstances similar to the rest of the NHS and to foster integration and more regionally focused ownership of future problems and solutions for these services.

  The board aims to develop a co-ordinated strategy for commissioning high and long-term medium secure psychiatric services within the NHS and is working, as a matter of priority, to identify the most effective use of available resources to provide high-quality services at the level of security the individual patient requires.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health what machinery exists for the early identification of risks to public health from the contamination of the water supply; and if the Government will review it in the light of the cryptosporidium outbreak in the Three Valleys Water area. [18912]

  Mr. Horam
  Since privatisation, water companies are required to report to the drinking water inspectorate all incidents in which water quality might be affected. They are further required to report to health and local authorities any event giving rise to a significant risk to health.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings there have been between his Department, and(a) Thames Water, and (b) representatives of water companies about the increase in the number of incidents of cryptosporidium in the water supply. [18906]
  738
  Mr. Horam
  None. The number of incidents of cryptosporidium in the water supply reported to the drinking water inspectorate remains at a low level.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to meet the health authorities in the areas affected by the most recent outbreak of cryptosporidium in the water supply. [18917]

  Mr. Horam
  Responsibility for investigation and control of such outbreaks lies with local public health specialists. Officials from the Department have been in close contact with these specialists since the problem came to light and are available to attend meetings of the incident management team should this be considered necessary.

  Paracetamol and Methionine Compound
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the paracetamol and methionine compound was blacklisted for prescription on the NHS in 1986; what is his Department's current policy on the compound; and if he will make a statement. [18372]

  Mr. Malone
  The decision to add Pameton, which contains paracetamol and methionine, to the list of medicines which general practitioners may not prescribe at national health service expense was taken following advice from the advisory committee on the NHS drugs. The committee took into account that Pameton was considerably more expensive than paracetamol, that a doctor who was concerned about the effects of paracetamol on a patient could prescribe an alternative instead, that allowing the product to be prescribed would have no effect in potential suicide cases where paracetamol tablets were bought over the counter, and that, while the value of methionine after paracetamol overdose was well documented, evidence of benefit from methionine when administered at the same time as paracetamol was limited. The committee continues to keep the matter under review and will advise the Department of any recommended changes on the prescribing of such products.

  Drug Overdoses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overdoses from non-prescription drugs were recorded in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [18374]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects on humans of the consumption of pork and ham infected with swine fever. [18427]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no evidence that this disease has ever affected humans.

  Connective Tissue Disease
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom suffer from connective tissue disease(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the population. [18826]
  739
  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prostheses
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical trials are(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on human prostheses, prior to their being made available through the national health service. [18827]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the medical devices regulations which came into force on 1 January 1995, manufacturers who wish to run clinical trials on medical devices must submit their protocol to the Medical Devices Agency for assessment prior to the commencement of the trial.

  Since that date, there have been 20 applications for trials on human prostheses. As part of the marketing approval system under the regulations, designated independent certification organisations may assess the results of such trials as part of the conformity process prior to the product being placed on the market and being available for use in the national health service or more generally.

  Alpha-l-Antitrypsin Deficiency Disease
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated concerning Alpha- 1-Antitrypsin deficiency disease; and if he will make a statement on the incidence of the disease. [18821]

  Mr. Horam
  None. Information on the incidence of the disease is not collected centrally.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which hospitals in Essex have reported cases of MRSA in the past 12 months; how many cases there were in each hospital; and in how many cases MRSA contributed to or caused death; [18990]

  (2) how many hospitals have reported cases of MRSA in England in the past 12 months; how many cases there were in total; and in how many cases MRSA was the cause of or contributed to death. [18995]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus is not collected centrally. Some health authorities monitor the occurrence of MRSA, but these are likely to be subject to local variations in the type of data collected and the methods of collection used.

  Data on the occurrence of MRSA, compiled by the public health laboratory service, are derived from isolates submitted voluntarily by hospitals in England and Wales for typing. These show that 177 hospitals in England reported incidents of MRSA affecting a total of 19,385 patients in 1996. Similarly, data held by the PHLS for 1996 show that three hospitals in Essex reported incidents of MRSA affecting 88, 59 and 15 patients respectively. An incident is defined as three or more patients with the same strain of MRSA in a month from the same hospital. It is not know in how many cases MRSA contributed to or caused death.
  740
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in making available the MRSA combating drug developed by the team headed by Professor Brian Austin at Heriot-Watt university; and if he will make a statement. [18994]

  Mr. Horam
  We understand that Professor Austen's work is at a very early stage.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital screen patients for MRSA on admission. [18988]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of MRSA outside hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [18993]

  Mr. Horam
  In May 1996, the Department issued a leaflet on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus to health authorities, social services departments and nursing and residential homes, and guidelines on the control of infection generally in residential and nursing homes. These guidelines advise that MRSA rarely presents a danger to people in these settings and that basic measures to prevent the spread of any type of infection, should prevent the spread of MRSA. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money is being directed to researching into the cause, extent of, possible cures for, measures to combat and drugs for MRSA; and if he will make a statement. [18989]

  Mr. Horam
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. For information on the Department's expenditure on research into MRSA and developing new antibiotics, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 22 January,Official Report, columns 15–16.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown by project of PH schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18933]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" represent an estimate of expected spend on private finance schemes. All private finance schemes being prepared within the national health service were taken into account when these figures were estimated.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18822]
  741
  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, (Mr. Spring) by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–7.

  Capital Projects (Greater London)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was the income spent in Greater London on capital projects in the NHS in each of the last five years; and what is the projected spending in each of the next five years; [13703]

  Capital schemes in Greater London costing over £1 million with outline or full business case approval, and a planned start date after 30 September 1996

  Scheme

  1996–97 £000

  1997–98 £000

  1998–99 £000

  1999–00 £000

  2000–01 £000

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services Rationalisation of mental health services1

  —

  4,650

  4,650

  4,650

  4,650

  Barnet Healthcare Trust Edgware Community Hospital1

  —

  6,250

  6,250

  6,250

  6,250

  BHB Community Healthcare Acute psychiatric1

  4,800

  4,000

  2,967

  —

  —

  Central Middlesex Hospital Care centre/ACAD

  —

  9,500

  9,500

  —

  —

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare HISS—information system

  —

  3,380

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield Community Care ESMI1

  —

  1,380

  1,380

  —

  —

  Hammersmith Hospitals Queen Charlottes1

  —

  5,000

  4,500

  —

  —

  Harefield Hospital Theatres1

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon Hospital Mental health services1

  —

  3,000

  4,500

  —

  —

  North-west London Mental Health Highcare Home and Safe Haven

  1,135

  1,144

  —

  —

  —

  Parkside Health NHS Trust Wembley Health Centre

  500

  4,500

  457

  —

  —

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust Acute rationalization1

  —

  8,350

  39,000

  49,000

  49,000

  Royal London Homeopathic Hospital Relocation1

  41

  2,085

  2,085

  —

  —

  UCL Hospitals NHS Trust Redevelopment1

  —

  6,153

  31,000

  31,000

  12,147

  Wellhouse Edgware/Barnet General phase lb1

  —

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  West London Healthcare Boiler house1

  —

  2,500

  2,500

  —

  —

  Lambeth Healthcare NHS Trust IPAMU1

  —

  1,263

  1,084

  —

  —

  Lambeth Healthcare NHS Trust Brixton ICC1

  —

  1,598

  1,598

  —

  —

  Merton and Sutton Community NHS Trust Queen Mary's Carshalton1

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Optimum NHS Trust Honor Oak Health Centre1

  —

  1,000

  916

  —

  —

  Oxleas NHS Trust Bexley Hospital1

  1,000

  5,000

  5,000

  2,900

  —

  Queen Mary's Sidcup accident and emergency extension1

  2,000

  1,200

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth Healthcare NHS Trust Manor Health Centre1

  500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guy's and St. Thomas' stage 1 cardiac

  212,250

  2,750

  —

  —

  —

  Guy's and St. Thomas' stage 1 UMDS

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  King's Healthcare Phase 1 cardiac

  1,542

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. George's Healthcare Day surgery

  —

  2,770

  —

  —

  —

  St. George's Healthcare Elderly

  —

  2,500

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich Health Care Woolwich Arsenal Resource Centre1

  —

  1,000

  2,000

  —

  —

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust Queen Elizabeth Hospital1

  —

  6,000

  10,000

  10,000

  2,000

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Major redevelopment1

  —

  4,000

  20,000

  20,000

  6,000

  St. George's Cardiac/Neurosciences1

  —

  5,000

  15,000

  15,000

  5,000

  Croydon Community Centre for rehabilitation services

  —

  512

  1,000

  —

  —

  St. Helier Hospital NHS Trust Nelson site1

  22,083

  4,500

  —

  —

  —

  1 Schemes which have received outline business case approval only. There is not yet any commitment to fund such schemes from public capital. Figures given for costs in each year are estimates only and are subject to change.

  2 Cost includes enabling work carried out in 1995–96.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on financial support for hill farmers since 1992. [17559]
  742
  (2) if he will list the capital projects costing over £100,000 which are planned to start in Greater London in the five years from 30 September 1996, indicating the number and sums allocated in each year. [13702]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: With regard to past expenditure on capital schemes, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 22 January, Official Report, columns 664–65. Only information relating to capital schemes costing over £1 million, for which national health service executive approval is required, is available. Details of planned schemes in this category, starting in Greater London after 30 September 1996, for which outline or full business case approval has been granted by the NHS executive, are given in the table. Schemes costing below £1 million are a matter for individual NHS trusts.

  Mr. Boswell
  Expressed in real terms at 1992 prices, total direct livestock subsides to the less favoured areas, including hill livestock compensatory allowances, have gone up from £460 million in 1992 to an estimated £575 million this year, an increase of 25 per cent. This confirms the Government's on-going commitment to help farmers in the hills and uplands.
  743

  Fish Breeding Areas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the creation of non-fishing areas of sea where fish can breed. [17560]

  Mr. Baldry
  Off our coast, there are already a number of no-fishing areas to protect spawning herring. The Government are always ready to consider proposals for further such areas.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom food imports are of products also grown within the United Kingdom; and what action he has taken to increase the proportion of home-produced food consumed. [17561]

  Mrs. Browning
  Provisional figures for 1995 show that 57 per cent. of our food imports were classified as indigenous food products or materials. Our farmers and growers already produce world-class products and we are working with the industry to help develop a similar level of excellence in marketing.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on North sea fish quotas. [17562]

  Mr. Baldry
  The North sea fish quotas agreed for 1997 represent the best possible deal for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the conservation of stocks for the future.

  Small Food Producers (European Directives)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that the supply of food and produce from small-scale producers, with special reference to garden, allotment and small market garden growers, is not eliminated as a result of European directives. [17563]

  Mr. Boswell
  Yes. This is already Government policy, but I am not aware of any moves by the European Union which would affect gardeners, allotment holders and market gardeners.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of egg-laying hens kept in battery cages. [17654]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have pressed the European Commission to complete the overdue review of the EU directive. The scientific veterinary committee's updated report was published in October last year. The Commission has said that its proposals for revised Community standards will soon follow.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of funds distributed under the arable area payments scheme in 1996. [17565]
  744
  Mr. Baldry
  Total payments under the arable area payments scheme by MAFF in the 1996–97 financial year are forecast at just over £1.1 billion.

  British Food
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent initiatives his Department has taken to promote British food. [17566]

  Mrs. Browning
  At the recent international food and drink exhibition held at Earls court, the Department co-sponsored the British speciality food section with Food From Britain to help raise the profile of this important sector of the food and drink industry. This initiative received universal praise from exhibitors and buyers, and the exhibition received a record number of trade visits.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to encourage farmers to preserve hedges and hedgerows. [17567]

  Mr. Boswell
  Regulations to protect important hedgerows were laid before Parliament on 3 March 1997.

  Enhanced incentives for the restoration and planting of hedges, which form an important part of the countryside stewardship scheme, were announced on 17 February. Grants are also available under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, and the Department funds ADAS and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group to provide free initial conservation advice. Farmers are also required not to damage, destroy or remove hedges on or adjacent to set-aside land.

  Chocolate Manufacturers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect the interests of United Kingdom chocolate manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. [17568]

  Mrs. Browning
  When negotiations begin on the proposal to amend the 1973 EC chocolate directive, the Government will seek to protect the right of British consumers to continue to choose established British products under their traditional names.

  In the meantime, we have ensured that other member states are fully aware of the UK position on the proposal and have drawn the attention of hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament to the important issues for United Kingdom chocolate manufacturers in the proposed amendments to the chocolate directive.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the functioning of the milk market since the establishment of Milk Marque. [17569]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am very pleased with the results of the Government's deregulation of the milk market. In its recent report on the UK dairy industry and the common agricultural policy regime, the Agriculture Committee concluded that deregulation has been highly successful.
  745

  British Beef Ban
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent discussions at the Council of Ministers on the lifting of the ban on British beef sales. [17570]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The procedures envisaged for lifting the export ban involve the Standing Veterinary Committee and other advisory Commission committees, not the Council Nevertheless, I have kept the Council informed on the UK's progress in fulfilling the preconditions laid down under the Florence agreement. Now that we have fulfilled all the preconditions and I have sent Commissioners Fischler and Bonino our proposals for a UK export certified herds scheme, I will be telling the next Agriculture Council what we have achievedandpressingforearlyprogress.

  Fish Conservation
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from non-sector fisherman regarding sea fish conservation. [17571]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am in frequent contact with non-sector fishermen about sea fish conservation and related issues. Most recently, I met non-sector fishermen from Kent and Essex, accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon (Mr. Amess), on 27 January to discuss a range of issues including the closure of the North sea sole fishery to vessels of 10 m and under until 21 April.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions are being taken by his Department to ensure preservation of natural habitats in set-aside land. [17572]

  Mr. Boswell
  The UK's management rules for set-aside were drawn up in consultation with farming and environmental organisations and are designed to protect wildlife and the environment while allowing farmers to carry out their normal agricultural operations. For example, environmental features such as hedgerows, streams and ponds on or adjacent to set-aside land may not be damaged, destroyed or removed. The rules are regularly reviewed and from 1997 have been further modified to help protect groundnesting birds.

  BSE
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed cases of BSE have been recorded so far this year; and if he will make a statement on trends in the number of cases. [17573]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 21 February 1997, of the 891 cases placed under restriction in Great Britain in 1997, 72 had been confirmed. Throughout the epidemic there has been a delay between slaughter and eventual confirmation due to the requirement to permit fixation of brain tissue prior to its examination. The BSE epidemic has continued to decline markedly during the last year and is now at its lowest level for eight years.
  746
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the methods of disposal that are(a) permitted and (b) currently in operation for (i) specified bovine material and (ii) non-specified bovine material from cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the condensate and washwater produced from rendering of such material. [18696]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The carcases of virtually all BSE-suspect animals are incinerated: in 1996, 9,643 carcases were incinerated and three buried. No material from BSE suspects is allowed to go for rendering.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of carcases of cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy that was buried in each site for each year from 1986. [18697]

  Mr. Hogg
  It is not possible to provide details of the number of BSE-suspect carcases disposed of at specific landfill site, as a complete set of records is not held centrally. A complete record could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is however known that the total number of BSE-suspect cases disposed of by landfill is approximately 6,120. This figure represents approximately 3 per cent. of the total number of BSE suspects slaughtered.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has already taken to improve animal welfare; what further steps he is considering; and if he will make a statement. [17574]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. and learned Friend has secured agreement in the Council of Ministers to measures which will result in a significant improvement in the welfare of calves. The use of the close confinement veal crate, already banned in the UK, will be phased out across Europe by 2006. Other changes, including a ban on unacceptable diets, will come into effect from 1 January next year. We have also been preparing national implementing measures which will give effect to improved EU rules on welfare in transit. We will work hard to ensure that other member states implement and enforce these rules too.

  We will continue to press for improved measures to protect the welfare of laying hens and, at the intergovernmental conference, for the adoption of a protocol endorsing the Community's role in the protection of animal welfare.

  Infant Formula Milk
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibility his Department has with regard to microbiological testing of infant formula baby milk; and if he will make a statement. [18455]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by the Under-Secretary of State for Health.
  747

  Quarantine
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the result of his review of the quarantine regulations. [18675]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 27 February 1997,Official Report, column 326.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he is taking to monitor the spread of swine fever in Germany; [18429]

  (2) when he plans to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the export of live pigs or pig carcases infected with swine fever; [18430]

  (3) when he plans to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the sale of German pork and ham infected with swine fever. [18428]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have no plans to meet my EU counterparts on this topic, which is being kept under continuous review by the EC Standing Veterinary Committee. Community legislation lays down the internal control measures against swine fever which the German veterinary authorities must apply, and additional controls specifically applicable to the export of live pigs and fresh and processed pigmeat products from Germany. These measures have been implemented to prevent the spread of disease within Germany and to other countries. They include restrictions on the movement of live animals and products within Germany, a total ban on the export of live animals and pigmeat products from infected regions and additional safeguards applicable to exports from other regions.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in Table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18923]

  Mr. Boswell
  The financial provision in the Ministry's entry for 1999–00 in Table 5.5 of the Red Book is an outline for non-PFI procurement only which will be subject to revision when PFI tenders have been received.

  It relates to two projects:

  (a) Whitehall HQ Building (Accommodation).

  (b) Sea-Going Research Vessel Services.

  Abbotsland Farm
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Abbotsland farm, Capel le Ferne, is operating as a staging point, as defined under EU law; and if he will make a statement. [18999]
  748
  Mrs. Browning
  No. Defined criteria for staging points under directive 91/628, as amended, have yet to be agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

  ADAS
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages of the privatisation of ADAS. [17553]

  Mr. Boswell
  The privatisation of ADAS will realise some £23.5 million for the taxpayer. ADAS's work for MAFF and the Welsh office is now on a sound contractual basis and future liabilities on Government have been minimised. ADAS will be free to develop its business in response to customer demand.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 398–400, on administration costs, if he will provide a breakdown of the additional running costs provision for the Agriculture Departments. [17956]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Details on the additional administration provisions for the Agriculture Departments to fund BSE measures are below. The figures for MAFF include amounts for enforcement costs specified bovine material controls and research and development.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Intervention board

  16.5

  13.4

  13.1

  12.9

  MAFF

  52 2

  55 3

  54 4

  54 1

  Scottish Office

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  70.7

  70.7

  69.5

  69

  Flock Mark
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 658, if he will set out the method whereby a flock mark to all registered holdings ensured that each holding was individually identifiable. [18998]

  Mrs. Browning
  Each flock has been allocated an individual alpha-numeric mark.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what percentage of bills to his Department were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied in the last year for which figures are available. [18817]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the Hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary on 17 December 1996,Official Report, columns 506–507. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Children: Government Structures
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many government departments take decisions which particularly affect the lives of children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, all government departments are involved in decision-making when it affects children's lives but chiefly the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Social Security, HM Treasury, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department for National Heritage and the territorial departments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful Answer. Is she aware of the recent report published by the Gulbenkian Foundation entitled Effective Government Structures for Children, a copy of which I intend to deposit in the Library of the House immediately after Question Time? That identifies the fact that there is widespread concern in the country that government structures are failing children. Does she agree that children form an important group of the population who are without power, without voice and without vote? Will the Government, if re-elected, undertake to appoint an ombudsman for children along the model which is already working well in Norway and Sweden, and as recommended in the Gulbenkian report?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I contest the statement that the Government are failing our children. I do not believe that to be the case. Our children are healthier, heavier, better educated and are achieving greater educational attainments. I do not believe that we are failing them in any way. Of course, they are an important part of the country's future. The Government have considered the issue of whether to appoint an ombudsman. At this moment, the Government have not agreed to that. We feel that it is important to have co-ordination among government departments, but we do not think that one person will make all the difference or, indeed, that structures are all-important.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, do the Government share the concern of the HSE and the National Children's Home Action for Children, about the rising trend in accidents in schools, which are now running at over 11,000 per year? Will she confirm that last year local authorities told the Government that they needed £1.9 billion for essential repairs and
1962
maintenance of schools, and were in fact accorded less than one-quarter of that? If that is so, will the Minister say that there might be a connection between those two sets of figures?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is interesting, because if we look overall at children's accidents, they are on the decline. With regard to schools, that is a matter for the education authorities, the governors, and the teachers involved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about great improvements because of immunisation, and so forth; but does she agree with me that there is nothing so important to children as good parents and a caring home?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, of course my noble friend is right. It is parental responsibility, and the love, care and discipline that parents exercise which are all-important to the child's well-being.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say who co-ordinates the UK's response to criticisms made of our performance under the UK Convention on the Rights of the Child, and what outstanding criticisms still have to be dealt with by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, children's services on the whole are co-ordinated by the Department of Health. My honourable friend Mr. Simon Burns is the Minister responsible for children's services. The Children Act is a marvellous example of interdepartmental working. As noble Lords may know, we have just set up the Children's Services Strategy Group, which co-ordinates services between the statutory sector and the voluntary sector.
Baroness David: My Lords, is not the Minister's answer perhaps a trifle complacent, in that there are 14 departments which have some responsibility for children? It is difficult to believe that that works extremely well. Has she read the Gulbenkian report? That proposes a new structure: there should not be a Minister for children with his own department, who might not be entirely successful in pulling enough weight and having enough punch, but instead there should be a Cabinet committee responsible, with a Minister therein. The Gulbenkian report is a well-researched document. It thinks that that would be the best way forward. Will she please take note of that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I am aware of the Gulbenkian report. I have it in my hand. It proposes a whole lot of bureaucratic structures. There have been many suggestions: we should have a Minister for children; a children's commissioner; a children's ombudsman; a Cabinet committee, or an office for children in the Cabinet Office. We do not believe that those bureaucratic processes are the answer. We believe

1963
that it is up to parents, teachers and those who are responsible for children to ensure that their welfare is well looked after and promoted.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Minister is dismissive of structures; but among the panoply of Ministers mentioned in her first reply, who, within the Government, is responsible for assessing the impact of the fact that poverty among children has trebled since 1979, and that 4.3 million children now live in poverty? Who assesses the effects on their health, education and welfare? Is it not important that we listen to the concerns of voluntary organisations and others because we do not have a focus for children in this area? If she will not listen to the voluntary organisations, will she at least listen to the words of the health Select Committee in another place, chaired by her honourable friend Mrs. Marion Roe? They said:
"Fragmentation within services appears common, detracts from cost effectiveness, and urgent attention must be given to the present fragmentation of provision within the NHS in combination"—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Grow up!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am reading so that I quote the Select Committee accurately. The House would not want me to make up what it said. Yesterday noble Lords opposite were dismissive about spending time talking about young people and their alienation from the political process; today they do not want to talk about children. Those are important subjects. Will the Government address the remarks of the Select Committee on Health in another place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as yet the Health Committee has not submitted its final report. Once it does so, the Government will consider it in detail. I do not agree with the noble Baroness's definition of poverty. She will remember that only about 10 days ago we had a full debate in your Lordships' House which was promoted by the Cross-Benches. About 24 speakers took part, and in the whole debate there was no definition of poverty upon which people would agree.
The other point I wish to address is the noble Baroness's comment that we do not listen to voluntary organisations. The Children's Services Strategy Group, which we set up in the autumn and which has its third meeting this month, is for that very purpose. It has been widely welcomed by the voluntary organisations concerned.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the causes of child poverty is the high divorce rate and the incidence of many single mothers who have to bring up children in very difficult circumstances?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes; perhaps we should be addressing the issues concerning adults as well as children.

Sterling: Effects of Appreciation
3.15 p.m.
Lord Paul Lord Paul asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the effect of the high rate of exchange of the pound on United Kingdom manufacturing industry and the balance of payments.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, despite the recent appreciation of sterling, the trend in export volumes is still upwards, the deficit on trade in goods has continued to narrow, and manufacturing output has been rising.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which was expected. Does he really know what is happening in manufacturing industry? Firms are not making the margins—they are exporting goods at no margin—and are considering how to make workers redundant. That will lose jobs for which skills are not available and it is causing a huge problem in industry. As regards the balance of payments, the effect will only come in six months, not now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Paul, says about the concern of exporters about the value of the pound. However, recent survey evidence shows that export orders are still expanding. Indeed, export volumes in the fourth quarter of 1996 were 8 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Therefore, given the figures we are seeing and the reports we are receiving from surveys, I do not believe that the export position is as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us at another time and under another government will remember when the dollar stood at 1.12 or 1.14 to the pound? Does my noble friend agree that the markets value the currency for its intrinsic worth at a particular time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that floating currencies, as is ours, vary in their value. Indeed, last night, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, made an interesting speech on just that point. He had to deal with the declining value of sterling at that time.
As a non-economist, I find economists an interesting breed. They seem to be against an appreciation and against a decline, and I am not entirely sure where that leaves us. The fact is that governments cannot dictate exchange rate levels. When they attempt to do so they usually come unstuck.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the time referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when the pound was worth 1.12 dollars, the Government were headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, that is exactly the point that I made when I referred to the

1965
noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, who was then Governor of the Bank of England. If, in today's world, noble Lords opposite believe that that was bad they must surely welcome the appreciation of sterling that we are now seeing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister say why Britain, with, we are told, the strongest economy in Europe, is still running a manufacturing deficit while the weak economies of France and Germany seem oddly to be running manufacturing surpluses?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one must look at the whole picture and not just manufacturing. As I explained in my Answer, manufacturing is showing good exports both in the surveys and the figures that we are seeing. Indeed, we are moving up the all-important league table of quality exporting. The issue is not only price but also quality and after-sales services. I believe that many of our industries, especially industries coming into this country, are greatly improving. If the noble Lord had been present during the debate last night he would have heard me explain how many parts of British industry are doing extraordinarily well. I believe that motor car exports from this country are 25 per cent. higher than in 1978.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all historical experience demonstrates that the effect of a significant depreciation in the currency takes eight to nine months to be seen, and the experience of British industry, described by my noble friend Lord Paul, suffering reduced orders and cutting jobs, is shown right across the manufacturing sector? Is the Minister also aware that the CBI and Oxford Economic Forecasting have significantly reduced their forecasts of the rate of growth of the British economy as a result of the high value of the pound? Does the Treasury agree with those forecasts? And what will be their impact on the fiscal position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Paul, we understand the problem that exporters were having. But recent survey evidence shows that export orders are still expanding, and that is the case. It is the position that if sterling remains at about the present level, then exporters will have to watch their competitive position in world markets.
I wonder, as I did last night, what the noble Lord wants me to do. Does he want me to interfere in the market? Does he want me to abandon floating exchanges? I do not know what one is expected to do in a climate in which we at least believe that matters should be left to the floating exchange rate. We must ensure that the fundamentals in our economy are right; that is, low inflation and bringing down government borrowing. As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, last night, that is exactly what we are doing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the main reasons for the strong
1966
pound is that sensible Germans and other Europeans share the Government's fear of a euro and are therefore buying pounds in large numbers because they hope we will not be so foolish as to join EMU?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on managing, as always, to bring in Europe. He has a point that it is largely against the continental currencies that the major appreciation is taking place—19 or 20 per cent. appreciation against the deutschmark since August 1995 but only 4.5 per cent. appreciation in the same period against the dollar. Part of the reason is that the dollar is moving up and sterling is being pulled up with it. Speeches like the one made by Mr. Alan Greenspan recently will continue to encourage that move. As my noble friend said, I believe that it indicates a certain lack of confidence in the continental European economies on the part of investors.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question of this side of the House. In view of the fact that as yet no answer has been given, may I reply to him, given that my predictions in such matters have usually been correct, and say that the Government should reduce interest rates by 2 per cent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no doubt that the world outside will note the policy of the party opposite, but I must say to the noble Lord that that would inevitably lead to problems with inflation which I believe would cause much more damage than the problem of appreciating sterling.

The City of London and the European Union
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union would have on the City of London as an international financial centre.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the Government have no intention of withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Union, no analysis of the effect of withdrawal has been made.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if that is so, does the noble Lord agree with the sentiments expressed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who opened the debate, when he said:
"I cannot believe that any serious industrialist would advocate withdrawal"?—[Official Report, 5/3/97; col. 1845.]
Would he not agree that if one substituted the word "banker" one could safely express the same sentiment?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I am neither an industrialist nor a banker I should like to go further and suggest that "person" might be the right word.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that very recently the Lord Mayor of

1967
London made an unequivocal statement in a speech that whether we join EMU will not affect the business of the City of London because most of the business in the City of London is not only with Europe but it is worldwide? Consequently, following that, will my noble friend confirm that, on a worldwide basis, 36 per cent. of business as regards the exchange rate is done by the City of London and only 4 per cent. of that is within Europe? Will my noble friend agree that the City of London will remain a major financial centre and that it does not do any good to start scaremongering about that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there are two very distinct issues here: the first is our membership of the European Union, and I hope that I have made it abundantly clear that the Government's policy is that we should continue that membership; and the other is the question of whether we should join a single currency. Those are two separate issues.
As regards the City and a single currency, I understand that opinions in the City are divided but, as my noble friend said, it is absolutely true that the City of London does a great deal more business than just with the European Union. It is the world's largest international insurance market and is the second largest fund management centre after Tokyo. Indeed, there are more foreign banks here in London than in any other city in the world. Those three propositions show the worldwide interests of the City.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of what has been said on the other side of the House, is the Minister aware that a recently published occasional letter from the Institute of Economic Affairs said that there is no foundation whatever for the generally held opinion that withdrawal from the EU would be economically disastrous?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think I heard the question correctly and I think I heard the negative in it. We should remember one or two very simple facts as regards our position vis-á-vis the European Union. Nearly 60 per cent.—58.2 per cent.—of our trade in goods is with the European Union. On the last Question, we underlined the importance of the manufacturing industry. The importance of the European Union for our manufacturing industry is clear to see. As I said previously and I say again, this Government have not even contemplated the proposition that we should withdraw from the European Union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, nevertheless, is my noble friend aware that only 9 per cent. of our economic activity takes place with Europe and given that we trade in deficit with Europe, can my noble friend give the House any good reason, rather than a flat statement, as to why we should not leave the Treaty of Rome and negotiate access to its single market, similar to the access enjoyed by Switzerland and Norway and, I may say, almost every other country on earth (several
1968
of whom are actually increasing their exports to Europe far faster than we are), to the immense advantage of the City of London and of the country at large?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it seems to be a fairly ludicrous proposition that we should leave the single market and then try to renegotiate entry into it.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the story in the Financial Times on 22nd February that the Government have abandoned legislation on the contractual status of the euro in UK financial markets? Is he aware also that Mr. Tim Sweeney, Director General of the British Bankers Association, said that that abandonment was doing considerable damage to the development of euro contracts in the City? Finally, will he confirm that the Chancellor has told the European Commission that he will fight to pass that legislation after the election? Why has that abandonment taken place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the situation is, as your Lordships will be well aware, that the parliamentary timetable at the moment is fairly crowded and we believe that we shall have plenty of time after the election to bring forward a variety of legislation, including that discussed by the noble Lord.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that opinion on EMU is fairly divided in the City and that that justifies Labour's view that it is best to wait for more information to be available and that it is better to wait and see?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose that it justifies Labour's view but it justifies much more the Government's view, which, of course, the party opposite has merely followed over the past many months in relation to Europe, as I have said on a number of occasions.

The Employment Service
3.29 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to reorganise the Employment Service.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Employment Service is an executive agency of my department. The role of government is to set the aims, objectives and targets for their executive agencies, and allocate resources to them. It is then for the chief executive of the agency to decide how best to organise its work.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that more than half of the jobs at the Employment Service headquarters are to be cut; that jobs will be lost in all the regional offices right across

1969
the country, in England, Scotland and Wales, involving something like 1,800 jobs? Perhaps more important, will the Minister not agree that the advice which the service gives to more than 1,000 Jobcentres is very important indeed, or do the Government consider that 1.8 million unemployed do not count for very much these days? If my suggestions are right, surely the Government are empowered to do something in relation to such a drastic proposal.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a matter for the employment agency. The board of the Employment Service is convinced that it must reduce its head office and regional offices to reflect unemployment, which has fallen by over 1 million in the past three years. It is also conscious of the need, in common with most organisations in both the public and private sector, to slim down overheads to improve efficiency. I should tell the noble Lord that jobs lost do not actually equate with redundancies. The Employment Service has a very strong record in managing change without compulsory redundancies and will do everything reasonable to avoid them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I understand it, his own Government are committed to a policy of encouraging people to job seek? If that is so, is it not a matter of government concern if the staff are not available to provide a counselling service in such instances? Alternatively, is the jobseeker's allowance, as many of us suspected, simply a means of cutting expenditure at the expense of vulnerable people?
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness knows, the jobseeker's allowance is designed to encourage people to seek work as appropriate. I can also say that the Employment Service is committed to performing its functions as appropriate. It is appropriate for the Government to set targets for the service and they do so by means of the annual performance agreement. It is then up to the Employment Service to decide how best to meet them. I have every confidence that it will be able to continue to do so, even with a reduced headquarters. Indeed, I think that the Employment Service should be praised for taking the trouble to reduce the size of its headquarters and its overall costs.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister admit that the Government's policy is putting the Employment Service in a double bind? On the one hand, the Government consistently reduce the staff of the service and, on the other hand, as my noble friend said, the Government continually put new pressures upon them. For example, the service has an increasing number of interviews and reorientation programmes to deal with. It also chases the unemployed day after day and week after week and is supposed to do so with fewer and fewer staff.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not reduce the staff in the Employment Service; staffing is a matter for the service itself. What we seek—and quite rightly—
1970
because we believe in the efficient running of government, are efficiency savings from the service. The Employment Service will still be able to meet the very testing annual performance agreement that we place before it and those targets get tougher each year.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, although it may be entirely laudable to try to slim down head office staff levels—and no doubt many industrialists would be sympathetic to that point of view—are the Government not aware that frontline services are also being cut? Are the Government further aware that the executive job club in Southwark, which is the nearest one to the City, with 60 clients on its books, will have to close at the end of March?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I will not comment about individual Jobcentres and individual job clubs. The simple fact is that the Employment Service is meeting the very testing targets which we put before it. I would ask the noble Lord to go out and have a look at the Employment Service and see what it is doing on the ground. As I said before, it is a matter for the Employment Service as to whether it can meet those targets with fewer people. Quite rightly, the service should pursue those aims and the efficiency savings that we seek.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister consider that there is any scope for making savings in the Employment Service by reducing the number of typists and secretaries either at the head office or at regional level? Further, what plans does the Employment Service have for introducing IT to the extent that every executive would have a PC on his or her own desk?
Lord Henley: Quite frankly, my Lords, that is a matter for the Employment Service to consider. As I made quite clear in my original Answer, we provide resources for the service, though we seek efficiency savings. We set targets for the service and it is then up to the chief executive to decide how best to meet them. It is possible that a greater use of IT might be an appropriate way forward. However, quite rightly, that should not be a matter for government; it should be a matter for the chief executive.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand what the Minister has said, although obviously I do not agree with him. Is he really saying that there are no circumstances in which the Government would intervene when, for example, a number of jobs are being lost, as in this case, or, indeed, over anything else which affects the service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have a rather different approach to the matter. I suspect the noble Lord takes a rather statist approach. We do not believe that it is right to interfere in such matters, other than to ensure that the Employment Service is providing an appropriate level of service to the people of this country. That is why we set very testing targets in the

1971
annual performance agreement and that is why, in the main, the Employment Service meets them. We shall continue to ask the service so to do.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Meat Hygiene Service—Hygiene Advice Team Report.

Meat: Slaughterhouse Hygiene
3.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in the hope that it is now convenient I shall, with the leave of the House, repeat the Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Meat Hygiene Service—Hygiene Advice Team Report. The Statement is as follows:
"It may be helpful if I make a Statement about the report by the Meat Hygiene Service on the state of hygiene in slaughterhouses, which has been the subject of much comment in the press this morning.
"The facts are as follows. The Meat Hygiene Service came into existence on 1st April 1995 as a MAFF agency and took over responsibility for enforcement of hygiene rules in slaughterhouses which had previously rested with local authorities. One of the targets for the agency, approved by Ministers and announced to Parliament, was to carry out a review of the state of hygiene in each individual slaughterhouse in Great Britain. It was required to complete this assessment by the end of March 1996. The purposes were threefold: first, to create a comprehensive benchmarking of standards and practices within the British fresh meat industry; secondly, to allocate resources to a function previously performed by local authorities; and, thirdly, to drive up standards across the board and in individual plants.
"The Meat Hygiene Service carried this out by appointing hygiene advice teams to visit each slaughterhouse in the country to assess its score and make recommendations on improvements needed: a mark was given to each slaughterhouse so as to serve as a benchmark against future progress. The end product was a comprehensive assessment of the state of hygiene that had been found, and a long list of recommendations for future action. The report in its final form was always intended as an internal working document, to be used by the enforcement authorities. So it was not formally published. But it was put to the Meat Industry Forum—the leading representatives of meat industry organisations with whom the Meat Hygiene Service holds regular discussions and was the subject of frequent discussions with the industry and others. The fact of the review was also explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report on the
1972
Meat Hygiene Service's first year of operations, which was presented to Parliament on 17th July 1996, and placed in the Library of this House.
"I will deal with some specific criticisms which have been made. Was the report toned down? The facts are these. Hygiene assessment teams of MHS staff prepared reports on individual plants. An editorial board, chaired by the MHS head of operations and made up of professional staff who had all taken part in advisory teams, asked Mr. Swann to draw together a report on red meat. The draft did not fully reflect the views of others. Mr. Swann was asked to recast his contribution but was not willing to do so. The editorial board then asked another senior member of staff to redraft the section on red meat. That was done. The revised and condensed version covering both red meat and poultry is what was put to the industry representatives in June last year. The final report reflected the majority judgment of the professional veterinary staff who carried out the review.
"It is said that important recommendations were not acted upon. This is untrue. Individual reports were made on specific plants and were discussed with individual operators. The Meat Hygiene Service staff are present in every slaughterhouse. In their continuing discussions they are in a position to ensure that necessary improvements are carried out. All this is carried out under the overarching supervision of the State Veterinary Service.
"One specific point of concern, in relation to E. coli, is that cattle should not be delivered to slaughterhouses in a dirty condition. It is quite clear that concerted action is needed by the enforcement authorities, by slaughterhouse management and by farmers to ensure that cattle are presented for slaughter in the cleanest possible condition. The Meat Hygiene Service acted on this; for example, ante-mortem checks are carried out on all cattle and are in the process of being tightened up. Further action is in hand. The MHS is at present preparing clear visual operational guidance on the standards expected and how to achieve them. That will be issued this month.
"Our purpose in creating the Meat Hygiene Service, a policy bitterly opposed by Opposition parties, was to drive up standards within abattoirs and the slaughtering industry. The preparation of this report and the follow-up is part of that process. Standards are constantly improving and are substantially better now than they were when this service was provided, to varying standards, by over 300 local authorities. This is a tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service and to this Government for insisting on its creation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating to the House the Statement made in another place. Today's national press reports details of an investigation by a six-member team contracted to the

1973
Meat Hygiene Service, lasting for 12 months and ending in March 1996, to audit the state of hygiene in Britain's meat industry. There were visits to 450 abattoirs in England, Wales and Scotland, either directly or through teams, and serious faults were found. According to the press, a report records distressing details relating to the entire slaughtering process with serious breaches of control and basic hygiene.
My first question to the noble Lord is: are these reports in the press factual? They are certainly too numerous to recite to your Lordships' House this afternoon. Does the report contain references to BSE and specified bovine offals and did members of the team find bins containing specified bovine offals not marked as such and thus creating a major health hazard? In some cases were spinal cords not being properly removed? Who decided that this report was not to be given undue publicity? Can such restrictions by the Meat Hygiene Service be imposed without approval by reference to Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its civil servants?
It is suggested that those interested in, or affected by, the report—which means, of course, all of us—could have found out about the report by picking up a reference to it in the annual report of the first year of the Meat Hygiene Service. Is this a serious defence of the decision—so obvious—to play it low key? Was the report completed in December 1995 and could it have been published as a separate document by March 1996? Was this period not the time when Ministers were at maximum alert over BSE and also the time when a possible link between the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and BSE had been announced? Who could have acquiesced in restrictions about this matter at that particular time?
May I ask whether Professor Pennington, who is conducting a Scottish Office inquiry into the serious outbreak of E.coli in Scotland, was made aware of the existence of the report? As his final report has yet to be produced, if he has not been made aware of its existence will he be made aware of it in order that he may comprehensively review this important aspect of the serious matter upon which the Scottish Office Secretary of State has asked him to report?
Are the proceedings of the Meat Industry Forum, to which reference is made in the Statement, published in any way, and if so how are they published? I think I can claim in a modest way to be fairly active in the meat trade and certainly I have seen no reference to the Meat Industry Forum's deliberations. What is to happen now? Is the report to be published at all as a separate document? Will there be an inquiry into slaughterhouses in general in the light of the report? What effect does the noble Lord think that today's adverse publicity will have on public confidence in the Meat Hygiene Service as such and its initiatives on the vital task of assuring the world at large that our red meat industry is actively engaged in restoring its image?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this rather deplorable Statement. The questions already asked from the Labour Front Bench go to the heart of the matter. I wish to add one
1974
or two more. The answer to whether Professor Pennington and his team were told is no, because I think he has already said that he was not told. Why was he not told is the pertinent question to ask?
Is it true that the first reaction of the Meat Hygiene Service in Scotland, for instance, to these kind of recommendations was a 10 per cent. cut in the number of its inspectors in Scotland from 125 to 112? If we follow the pattern of the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to a Question asked five minutes ago in your Lordships' House we shall no doubt be told that it is no business of the Government how the Meat Hygiene Service organises itself as long as it produces the results. However, it did not produce the results, did it? What control is there over this alarming cut in the number of inspectors? The abattoir groups made vast profits out of the BSE cull last year. Why was it not insisted that some of that be ploughed back into hygiene improvements? Mr. Swann says that the full recommendations have yet to be implemented. Why is that? Is that not just another example of the long line of government secrecy in a Government which we are always told are committed to full exposure?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I rather resent the attitude taken by both Opposition spokesmen on this matter because they have known for a long time exactly what the state of our abattoir industry was. They have known it because my noble friend Lord Howe referred to it explicitly and in detail in the debate on the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service. It may help noble Lords if I repeat what my noble friend said:
"A number of organisms—such as E coli 0157:H7, some salmonella serotypes and Listeria monocytogenes—have been implicated in food poisoning incidents associated with the consumption of meat and meat products. Some commentators argue that meat is a low-risk product because it is normally cooked before consumption and that therefore there is no need to be concerned about contamination with organisms of this kind. The Government do not accept this argument for one second. While it is true that thorough cooking will destroy most, if not all, pathogenic micro-organisms, the hazards associated with cross-contamination in the distribution chain or in the kitchen remain a matter of concern. While no one expects an abattoir to resemble an operating theatre, sensible steps must be taken at all stages of production to limit the risk of contamination. The most appropriate point to address the problem of contamination with pathogenic organisms is the slaughterhall. That is what these regulations are designed to do. Many abattoirs in this country are well managed and produce meat which is of a good hygienic standard. Unfortunately, and I will not go into detail, this is not true of all of them".—[Official Report, 18/4/95; cols. 425–6.]
That is the situation as portrayed by my noble friend in April 1995. All this report that is being referred to today does is detail the situation as we knew it to be so that, based on that detail, the industry could begin to reform itself.
The Meat Hygiene Service was established with the mandate to improve the way slaughterhouses were run and to work with the industry in doing that. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, would have wished us to take precipitate action. To my mind that would have been entirely inappropriate. If one has a school system—as one does—which is operating below one's best hopes, one does not just go around closing the schools which

1975
are performing badly. One puts a lot of effort into working with them to make things right. Here we had a situation where there was contamination of food. It was not something new; it had been going on for a long time, if not for ever. It is something we are determined to improve. We have set up the organisation to make it improve but the right way to make it improve is to work with the industry, to speak with a soft voice but carry a heavy stick. First of all, we must speak with a soft voice to see if we can get things done by agreement. That is what the Meat Hygiene Service has been doing, and it has been doing so with great success.
Noble Lords opposite have supported that policy. They will remember the discussions we had on the temporary derogations from the new regulations. That was a policy which noble Lords opposite supported, and quite rightly too, so that small slaughterhouses should have time to bring their premises up to the required standard. The report itself was prepared for communication to the industry. It was known that the report would be produced—as I said in the Statement—because this was one of the things that the Meat Hygiene Service had to do. When the service had done so, it took up a page of its annual report saying that it had been done. It was part of a process, dealing with a known problem in a known way. It was not distributed to Ministers let alone to anyone else. It was an internal working document.
Reference has been made to the comments that Professor Pennington made this morning. At the outset of Professor Pennington's inquiry, MAFF offered him all evidence and support that he might wish. Professor Pennington has yet to take up that offer. I hope that he will do so. I cannot understand the remarks he made this morning. He has never asked for, so he has never been refused, any information. We have just made an offer, and have yet to be taken up on that offer. When he asks, he will presumably not wish to see merely a condensed, summarised version which is prepared for a general discussion with the industry. He will want to see a great deal more detail and that will be available to him down to individual reports on individual slaughter houses.
As was outlined in the Statement, the Meat Hygiene Service has been addressing the dangers and difficulties identified by the survey in the slaughterhouse industry. There has been a great deal of improvement. Targets have been set for those improvements. Processes are being undertaken to document and deal with the problem of dirty cattle coming into the slaughterhouse system. If slaughterhouses do not respond to kindness and encouragement they will be closed; and that process is within a few months of completion with some slaughterhouses. It is not an empty threat to slaughterhouses. If they do not work with the Meat Hygiene Service, if they do not continue to improve their standards, their licence to operate will be withdrawn.
In its brief life, the Meat Hygiene Service has been a great success story. It is one which we look forward to continuing. I am saddened that the Financial Times should descend to tabloid standards of journalism in promoting this story. It bounced MAFF with it at five o'clock last night. It gave us no opportunity to provide
1976
the evidence which would have enabled the newspaper to present the truth rather than the story. If it had had the full truth it might not have considered publishing because it was so obvious and so well known.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me a couple of questions which I have not covered. He asked when the report would be made fully public. It has been placed in the Library of the House and we shall certainly copy it to anyone who is interested in it.
As regards the relationship with BSE, that has been in the public domain for a long time. If the noble Lord cares to read the BSE enforcement bulletin, which is published regularly, he will see that that aspect of slaughterhouses—it is treated with immense seriousness—is dealt with in great detail. Any delays in finalising the report about which we are talking today have been due to the fact that the Meat Hygiene Service has been devoting a great deal of energy to dealing with BSE, and that has been given priority, and quite rightly so.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked a question about the inspectorate. I do not have an answer at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lord. It is not a statistic that I know; nor do I know the basis for it.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will forgive me for a somewhat fierce rebuttal of allegations that have been made today. But what has been said in newspapers today is a slur on the Meat Hygiene Service which is both undeserved and destructive.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has the Minister read in the newspapers the criticism of the conduct of my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg? If he has, can he fairly and squarely confirm that that criticism is wholly without justification and utterly misconceived?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, indeed. I certainly confirm that. Indeed, in present company I doubt that I would dare do otherwise.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, from these Back Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I think that I voice the concern of the House if I suggest that when people can die as a result of contracting E. coli it is rather different from seeking improvements in the educational standards of our school children.
We note that the Government effectively nationalised the Meat Hygiene Service a couple of years ago. While in principle a number of us will appreciate that nationalisation can be beneficial, we have grave doubts about any nationalised concern under the control of this Government.
The Minister suggests that the Meat Hygiene Service is a success story. Given the reports that have emerged recently, and the outbreaks of E. coli which have hit not just Scotland but other parts of the United Kingdom, I am not sure whether many members of the general public would think of the Meat Hygiene Service as a success story. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one

1977
specific question. How many people died as a result of E. coli and other related factors in the two years prior to the nationalisation of the Meat Hygiene Service, and how many since?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have an answer to the noble Lord's specific question.
As regards his general question, nationalisation is not the word that I would have used to describe the process. Perhaps it is centralisation since an operation under public control locally became an operation under public control centrally. The report that we are discussing today documented the very poor state of the industry under that local control and, I think, entirely justified our decision to take it under central control and to put a lot of effort into improving the situation.
As to the seriousness of people being infected by E. coli, of course it is a horrible disease and a fatal one. The world is full of dangers. Smoking, driving, and walking the street at night are dangers that exist. The Government are putting a lot of effort into improving the situation. That is what we are doing in this case. We cannot eliminate all dangers by wishing them away. We shall never eliminate the possibility of contamination in raw meat. There is nothing that we can do to reduce it to zero. But we can work at improving the situation, as we can work at reducing many other dangers to which we are subject in this life; and that is what we have been doing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, noble Lords are doubtless aware that the business of a slaughterhouse is extremely messy, both as regards the killing of animals and dealing with the carcass. The position can be greatly helped, and the cost greatly reduced, if farmers are very particular about how they deliver their cattle to the slaughterhouse, making sure that they are absolutely clean.
Does the Minister know whether slaughterhouses produce an incentive to encourage farmers to do that; or do they simply trust them? It costs a bit of money to make the cattle absolutely clean but it is extremely important for public health.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the proposal advocated by my noble friend has been advocated for a long time by the Meat Hygiene Service and will form a major part of the recommendations and code of guidance which is to be published in a month's time. It is sensible. Some slaughterhouses, in particular those associated with the major supermarkets, already do so. We wish to see that process become universal.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister expand a little on his earlier statement about Professor Pennington not asking for information. Given the widespread publicity on the E. coli infection, could anyone involved and responsible for producing reports which contained reference to E. coli have been unaware of the need to draw this to Professor Pennington's attention?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not suppose there was. That is of course why we immediately offered
1978
Professor Pennington evidence. It is inconceivable that he would not want evidence on the operations of slaughterhouses. We are waiting for him to ask. He will then have all the evidence he wishes.
The professor must be able to take the evidence in the order he wishes. I believe that to date he is concentrating on the specific problems that occurred in the distribution chain downstream from the point of cooking in a certain butcher's shop in Scotland. He is known to wish to address the question of how that infection got into the butcher's shop in the first place. But at present it appears that he has not turned his mind to it.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, regardless of the question of whether there was suppression of the report, its contents must be of concern to all, especially the finding that certain slaughterhouses are deficient in their practices. None of the practices apparently described in the report should occur in any slaughterhouse, let alone a few. Will the Minister assure the House that more effective supervisory procedures will be set in place in the future to safeguard against these undesirable practices? Will he also agree that they should be in the hands of an increased veterinary staff?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the importance of veterinary staff. A major part of the Meat Hygiene Service effort is to make sure that appropriately skilled staff are on hand to watch operations in slaughterhouses. Regarding my noble friend's point about the need to change things, we are satisfied that what we are doing and what is being done by the Meat Hygiene Service will result, as hoped for and as planned, in a much better standard of hygiene in our slaughterhouses and in the meat that they produce.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning a number of European newspapers reported this matter as an attempt by the British Government to conceal the true state of poor hygiene in our abattoirs? In view of the possible consequences that that may have for the ultimate lifting of the beef export ban, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government propose to take to correct that view if it is wrong?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Baroness gives me even more cause to regret the action by the Financial Times. One would have hoped that it was the last responsible newspaper left in this country and that it would have acted otherwise. Since it did not, we must deal with the press through the press. My right honourable friend will hold a press conference shortly which I hope will address all these matters. It will certainly make available to the press members of the Meat Hygiene Service, the Chief Veterinary Officer and others, who will be available to answer questions on this matter. We have nothing to hide. It is a story of success that we have to tell. It is a story of known problems going back a long way. The European Community sends

1979
its own inspectors round abattoirs. They know exactly what they are like. There really is nothing to hide, and nothing has been hidden.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, am I right in thinking that large quantities of meat are imported from the developing world? If so, to what degree do those countries meet the hygiene regulations of this country and the European Union?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have the information with me to answer that question. I shall write to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, instead of blaming the Meat Hygiene Service, as we heard, and not expecting the report, which is critical, to lead to better standards within abattoirs, is it not a fact that the failure to deliver a high standard of hygiene within slaughterhouses was the fault of local authority inspectors; and that that failure led not only to the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service but to this report? Should the Government not now give all support to the Meat Hygiene Service to deliver a high standard of hygiene within the service, and, as my noble friend Lord Soulsby said, to bring in the necessary experts to deliver that high standard?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think we should blame local authorities too much. The system was very difficult to operate, with 300 different authorities all trying to operate independently or semi-independently of each other. There was never any hope that they would achieve a unified standard. That is one of the reasons why the Meat Hygiene Service was the right organisation to bring into place. I am delighted to say that noble Lords on all sides of the House supported that measure. I am sorry that the same cannot be said of colleagues in another place.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister not feel that, had the report from the Meat Hygiene Service of a year ago been brought into the public eye then, the slaughterhouse industry would have taken far greater note of its criticisms than it did while it was privately circulated? According to a report I read, Professor Pennington said in conversation that he had just about reached the conclusion that a survey of all slaughterhouses such as was described in the report was necessary; however, he did not know that it had been carried out and that the results had been available all this time. Surely it should have been the Government's job at least to have told Professor Pennington that the report was available.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if Professor Pennington feels that we have done less than we should have done to inform him of what was going on, then of course I accept that criticism. We have offered all the evidence. I am sure that the Professor knows of the existence of the Meat Hygiene Service and what it does and that it will therefore have a lot of information
1980
available for him. If he had asked for evidence from us and we had failed to produce that particular report among it, I should find it possible to accept criticism now. However, since the Professor asked for nothing, I am not surprised that we did not provide him with this piece of information, which is not of itself the sort of information in which we should have thought he would have a particular interest.
I do not think that what was done by the Meat Hygiene Service is in any way subject to reasonable criticism. It has acted extremely well throughout. The same can be said for the vast majority in the slaughterhouse industry. They have responded to the introduction of the MHS very well. They are making in large numbers the improvements that are required of them and are steadily improving their performance. There are of course some recidivists. They are nearing the end of their licence to fail to improve. One loses one's patience in the end, and they will be dealt with severely.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while I am gratified that the Minister will be writing to me—it is always a pleasure to receive a letter from the noble Lord—I am rather shocked that he did not come to this House today armed with answers to the questions about the reduction in the number of meat hygiene inspectors. That is surely absolutely pertinent to our discussions. The Government say that, in spite of unfortunate deaths, the whole thing is a success, and apparently that success is contributed to by cutting the number of inspectors in Scotland from 125 to 112. I hope that the Minister's letter will contain a very good explanation, not only for what happened but for his not being able to provide the answer today.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's criticism. It is a matter of which I should have made myself aware. Again, I apologise for the shortness of notice. This is a part of MAFF's empire which has been, and is, doing extremely well. The criticism that has blown up today was somewhat unexpected. My briefing is therefore limited to what I was able to learn this morning.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is it not a little shabby of the Minister to blame Professor Pennington for not having asked for a report which he did not know existed? The Minister talks about an invitation to Professor Pennington. When was that invitation issued? Was it issued today, after these events?
Lord Lucas: No, indeed, my Lords, it was issued at the outset of Professor Pennington's inquiry. It was always expected that the Professor would take us up on it when he wished to do so.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we are confusing issues, and that over the years there has been a great deal of regulation pertinent to slaughterhouses which has resulted in a very large number of closures as a result of the high standards

1981
required? Is it not the case that very often the disease chain is commenced after the product, the carcass, leaves a slaughterhouse which is highly regulated?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it would be unfair to say that there have been a lot of closures of slaughterhouses specifically for hygiene reasons. By and large, overt hygiene problems are dealt with swiftly and effectively. Certainly there has been a great deal of pressure on slaughterhouses to improve, to go beyond the regulations in order to achieve better standards than those required by law. That is part of what the Meat Hygiene Service is doing. There is still a problem in slaughterhouses that needs to be addressed. There may be sources of contamination "downstream". However, that does not exempt slaughterhouses from improving on the present position.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House on which date and in which publication Professor Pennington could first have read of the existence of this report? Is he seriously saying that someone doing research in relation to an issue as widely publicised as the E.coli outbreak, given that the report had been drawn to the attention of the Meat Hygiene Service, cannot expect the Government to make certain that it is made available to him?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not wish to major too much on possible disagreements with Professor Pennington; I think they stem from questions he was rather bounced into at an early hour this morning. Clearly, Professor Pennington was going to want to know what the Meat Hygiene Service had to tell him: it is the main—indeed, the only—source of reliable information on what takes place in slaughterhouses throughout the country, what practices and problems there are and what is being done about them. Inevitably he will wish to have access to a very large amount of information that the Meat Hygiene Service has, of which this report is a minor and insignificant example. Indeed, it is probably rather too condensed and digested to form any useful part of Professor Pennington's evidence; he will wish to have a great deal more detail than is contained in this report.
At the outset of Professor Pennington's inquiry MAFF offered to make available to him any evidence that he wished to have. We are certain that he will take us up on that offer, but he has not done so yet. It is up to Professor Pennington when to ask for whatever he wants; he knows that we have it.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear to the noble Lord that no noble Lord has blamed the Meat Hygiene Service for what has happened but rather the Government for their soft-pedalling on the information that they had and for having cut the numbers of staff of the Meat Hygiene Service, as a result of which it is less effective than it might be.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the document we are discussing was at all times an internal Meat Hygiene Service document. It was never until today seen by
1982
Ministers; nor had Ministers any particular reason to see it, because it merely detailed something that they already knew about and which they had already taken action to solve by the creation of the Meat Hygiene Service.
I do not believe that there is any great fire behind all the smoke that has been generated today. As I said at the beginning of my answer to the Front Bench questions, this is a problem which the Government not only knew about but exposed to gaze within this House at the outset of the creation of the Meat Hygiene Service. There really was nothing new in the report other than details of the ways in which the problems were occurring.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
4.12 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount St. Davids) in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Restriction of liberty orders]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line 34, after ("person") insert ("of 16 years of age or more").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 66 I shall also refer to the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 74. In Clause 4 the Bill moves to the difficult issue of restriction of liberty orders. This amendment draws attention to the extension of restriction of liberty orders to those aged under 16 years.
This is a difficult area of the criminal justice system and of penology generally, particularly when what is called tagging is to be applied to people younger than 16 years of age. Surely it is incumbent upon us to proceed with care and due deliberation and on the basis of proper research before introducing a measure that is so different from anything that we have previously experienced within the criminal justice system.
I believe it is of value to trace the provenance of the clause as it stands. When the Bill was originally published in the other place it excluded those aged under 16 years. As I understand it, the clause as it now stands was a product of a change introduced at Report stage in the other place. At the time of the Committee stage and later, the Government indicated in the other place that consultations would take place with appropriate bodies in Scotland on their views as to the desirability of extending tagging to young people. As I understand it, there were 102 responses to the invitation to consult; again as I understand it, there was one response in favour of extending tagging to those under 16 years of age. I leave it to the noble and learned Lord the

1983
Lord Advocate to identify the person who was in favour of it if he wishes to do so; if he does not, perhaps I will help him later on.
A valuable part of the product of that consultation exercise was the views that were obtained from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation. I quote from their observations at the time. Referring to the proposal to extend tagging to those under 16 years of age, the Association of Police Superintendents said:
"Tagging would hugely divert attention from the positive purposes of supervision".
The Scottish Police Federation said something very similar:
"We do not believe that electronic tagging would be a positive incentive to a child to demonstrate greater responsibility and self-control".
The product of the consultation process was overwhelmingly against the extension of tagging to those aged under 16. The fundamental question has to be asked: on what basis have the Government determined to proceed with a measure that has no clear and demonstrable support in Scotland among the very people who will be affected at the hard edge of the criminal justice system? Was it on the basis of research carried out in Scotland? No. Was it on the basis of some pilot scheme somewhere else? No. There is no firm basis whatever on which this major change in policy can be founded.
Perhaps I may bring some of our concerns to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. First, when this provision is applied to those under 16, it will be essentially discriminatory in its effects between boys and girls. One of the procedures advocated for tagging is the use of an anklet. If a girl who is subject to this provision is wearing a normal skirt—as part of a school uniform in many cases—the anklet will be clearly visible. The only way to avoid that would be for her to wear trousers all the time: to wear trousers during gym lessons; to wear trousers when perhaps the school's rules are that skirts should be worn. This girl would clearly be identified as an exception. We enter the realm of stigma. The provision is discriminatory and stigmatising. Clearly insufficient thought has been given to that aspect.
Secondly, there is the risk of the unintended consequence that in some quarters and some circumstances tagging will become virtually a badge of defiance. That itself would undermine the whole purpose because there would be a process of negative reinforcement. The young people involved may say, "Look I have one. Haven't I got one over on the system?", or, "Isn't this a clear signal that I'm some form of difficult trouble-maker?". We know that in some areas the value systems of young people in those situations do not reflect the value systems of the wider society. By offering the tag as a badge of defiance, it may well produce the opposite of what the Government intend.
As I said, there has been no adequate research upon which that change of policy can be based. The consultation exercise itself came out strongly against it
1984
from all quarters. There is a genuine risk that it will be discriminatory in its application. There is also a risk of it having the most unintended and negative consequences.
I believe that the decision to extend the age below 16 years, taken relatively late in the legislative process, was ill judged. There is very little that can be said that will make it possible for such an introduction and such change of policy to act in a positive way. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. But I am not sure that he should polish off this idea quite so easily. Not long ago I stayed in a small glen in Argyllshire. Night after night and evening after evening houses were broken into and small possessions were stolen. It turned out that that was being done by four boys aged 10 and 11 who lived in the glen.
It is very difficult to persuade the Scottish establishment to try anything new. I believe that the public would like to see something new tried in such cases. In order to get this issue in proportion, perhaps we could be told how likely it is that children will be subject to tagging. Can my noble and learned friend say whether or not my information is right? Will this disposal be available to the courts but not to children's panels? I understand that a comparatively small number of children come before the courts under those circumstances and, if they do, very few will be, so to speak, suitable subjects for trying out tagging.
The noble Lord talked as though everybody who had a restriction of liberty order would be tagged. That would not be the case. As the Bill stands at present, it would be only for those for whom it would be suitable. I may have misunderstood but it seems to me that very few children indeed will be affected. But there may be a few—I am not sure whether the young people in the glen that I mentioned might not be a good example—who, if they were given a very small restriction of liberty order, could be assisted in mending their ways.
It seems to me that one should not lightheartedly turn down this proposal. I too was surprised when I heard about it. In fact, I was listing in another place when the change was made. I heard the arguments and the noble Lord has repeated them. However, I should like to know from my noble and learned friend whether my assumptions are correct.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that I understand that part of the Government's philosophy at the moment is to induce parental responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Does she agree that tagging takes away from parents the responsibility to look after their children and therefore is contrary to present government policy? In other words, if the parents know that a child has been tagged and is being supervised by electronic or other such means, they do not have to bother but leave social workers and others to get on with supervision at public expense.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps the noble Lord will just think for a moment about what it would be like to have one's child—say, in the glen about which

1985
I spoke—subjected to a restriction of liberty order with or without a tag, and indeed very likely without a tag in that case. The parents would be unaffected and their sense of responsibility would not be enhanced.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Some people are undoubtedly attracted by the thought of children being electronically tagged. However, I suggest that those who think deeply about the matter are horrified by the idea of children being tagged—in effect, branded—and marked out as offenders for all to see. I believe that in fact no harm and only good come from the process of curfewing young troublemakers and placing them on that form of temporary or partial house arrest, provided that it is within the context of a supervision requirement.
The Bill proposes the more humane form of monitoring; namely, human monitoring by visits and telephone and with guidance and advice. However, I understand that the electronic monitoring version is favoured. This amendment rightly excludes children from remote and guidanceless electronic monitoring, which is the main proposal in the Bill. There is a considerable risk of a child or a young person under 16 developing an offender status or basking in notoriety and showing off. Frequently they have little else to show off.
Also unhelpful is the other risk: namely, that of heaping shame on an embarrassed youngster or young girl, however bad, and possibly drawing vigilante attention to that young person. Especially, it does not allow such a person to grow up and move on to maturity and, it is to be hoped, avoid offending behaviour. Let me create the slogan: tags stifle progress.
I criticise the Bill, despite it having a useful strategy of curfewing, for taking a faulty technical approach.
Lord McCluskey: From the list of groupings, it will be seen that my amendment, Amendment No. 67A, and others are not grouped with Amendments Nos. 66 and 74. I should perhaps have urged that they should be so grouped because they are all to the same effect. The substance of my amendments which go along with Amendment No. 66 can be seen positively in Amendment No. 68:
"No [such] order made in respect of a child offender shall require monitoring of the offender by mechanical means".
As the Committee will be aware, in Scottish criminal practice, a child is, generally speaking, one who is under the age of 16. But, except in the most serious cases, children do not go into the criminal justice system at all. If the charge is one of murder or rape—I have presided over trials of children of less than 16 years in both murder and rape cases fairly recently—the penalty is bound to be custodial in some form or another. Similarly, if another serious offence—for example, a serious drugs offence—is charged, one would expect the penalty to be a custodial one.
One sees that Section 42 of the 1995 Act permits the Lord Advocate to indict children into the High Court, the ordinary court or indeed the summary sheriff court, but not the district court. So children can be dealt with in the ordinary way through the courts. But the vast
1986
majority of them are not dealt with in that way. As the noble Baroness indicated, they go to the children's hearing system. Under the system, they go, usually via the reporter, to the children's hearing system and may appear before the sheriff to see whether or not the grounds of referral are established. Afterwards, the hearing determines the disposal. I would be interested to know the answer to the noble Baroness's question as to whether this power is intended to be made available to children's hearings.
I understand that many of those who were consulted and expressed views support the same view; that is, that the attaching of a mechanical monitoring device to a child will be wholly unproductive and perhaps even counter-productive. It cannot possibly assist in rehabilitation. The whole idea of rehabilitation depends upon the philosophy of co-operation by the person who is to be rehabilitated. These provisions run entirely counter to the philosophy of the Kilbrandon Report upon which the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was based. The current provisions reflect the scheme under that Act.
Even if the Lord Advocate chooses to prosecute in a court on indictment or in a summary court, the court will normally use its powers under Part V of the 1995 Act to send the child, via the principal reporter, to the children's hearing under Sections 48 or 49. I should have thought that it was entirely counter-productive for a child, who was not to be dealt with by a form of custody, to be dealt with in this fashion. The choice should be either protecting the public by putting the child in some form of secure custody or rehabilitating the child. To shackle a child to a mechanical device runs counter to winning a child's co-operation. It has been described as the modern equivalent of branding. One can see that we should not be mechanically branding children aged between nine and 15, even though one readily concedes the point made by the noble Baroness that children can be a nuisance.
With all due respect to the noble Baroness, "Let's try something new" is not a proper approach to criminal justice in relation to young people. That is a taxi driver approach to the matter. One should not introduce an anti-Kilbrandon measure on the basis that it is time we tried lightheartedly to introduce something new. The matter ought to be researched and it has not been researched.
I can guess the answer to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I do not know who is in favour, but he asked why the scheme is being introduced in Scotland. The answer may be: because it is being introduced in England. The treatment of children in England in relation to their offending is entirely different from the treatment of children in Scotland. It may or may not be a good idea in England, but that sheds no light on whether or not it is a good idea in Scotland.
I strongly oppose the provision. I see it as an electronic step back into the dark ages and urge the Committee to support the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I should like to say a few words, mainly in support of the observations made by the noble Baroness. My understanding is that measures which give powers of disposal to children's hearings have always been included in civil legislation and not in criminal legislation. Your Lordships had the occasion, the year before last, to review in great detail the powers of children's hearings. They are about to receive those new powers, which are to come into effect at the beginning of next month.
My understanding—perhaps the Lord Advocate will confirm this—is that this measure is confined to a small area; that is, those children who, in the Lord Advocate's discretion, need to be dealt with in the criminal courts. If that is the approach, it would not be right to describe it as an anti-Kilbrandon measure. Lord Kilbrandon himself recognised that there would be exceptions where criminal justice would be required to play its part.
The other point I should like to make is this. Difficult questions are raised by this issue and I regret that the matter was not the subject of more complete consultation. However, it would be a mistake to regard it as an issue which can be the subject of absolute answers. I recall at least one case which came before me in the Criminal Appeal Court involving a child who was very much out of control. The child was from a remote area and a great deal of harm was done locally. All their Lordships who sat with me regretted the fact that it had not been possible to intercept the child's behaviour in some effective way before he reached the stage of coming before the High Court.
It is because one has to regard the methods of dealing with children as open to a wide variety of cases that there may be some wisdom in the measure. Whether or not that is so is a matter which would have been better explored by more consultation. For that reason I have some reservations about the wisdom of the course being adopted at this time.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In considering this matter, which I accept is an important one, we should bear in mind a number of considerations. The first is that mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead; that is, that few children in Scotland are in fact prosecuted in the courts. As Lord Kilbrandon recognised, notwithstanding the introduction of a children's hearing system which he advocated, there would always be some who came outside that system.
Some children undoubtedly fall into the category mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey; that is, those who are charged with extremely serious crimes. But others fall into the category of much less serious matters, including housebreaking, theft, shoplifting, crimes of causing malicious damage and repeated motor vehicle offences. To give an idea of the figures with which we are dealing, in 1994 only 171 children had charges referred against them in the criminal courts.
Another important matter to bear in mind is that it is proposed, if these provisions come into force, that they would be operated on a pilot basis in different areas,
1988
restricted in the first instance to the sheriff and High Courts. That is an approach which has been adopted in England and a recent Home Office research study—No. 163—provides provisional findings of the research carried out into the use of electronic monitoring in the three areas examined.
Those who practise in the criminal courts will know that for a child to end up being prosecuted for a charge such as housebreaking, theft, shoplifting or a motor vehicle offence, means that in all probability the child will have been before a children's panel or a children's hearing on a number of previous occasions. Therefore, when those children come to court, the view has been taken by the procurator fiscal or Crown counsel—under the guidelines of the Lord Advocate—that, for that young offender under 16, prosecution is the way forward. In taking that decision, it is appropriate for the prosecutor to take into account information coming from the children's report, the police, social workers and others.
Those children have already been before a panel; they have had supervision requirements placed upon them, some perhaps with a condition of residence in a specific place. But that has failed to cure their offending. Therefore the risk of their going into custody is a real one. Consonant with the approach which has been followed by the Government, the wish is to provide another alternative to custody than that presently available. That is why curfew orders—as they are colloquially called—are being introduced. In principle they command a measure of support. Where the difference arises is in relation to the use of electronic monitoring.
To take account of some of the points mentioned in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred to responses to the consultation document. I suspect he knew the answer to the question he posed and will not be surprised when I mention the name of one Phil Gallie MP as the gentleman who gave unqualified support to the proposal. That consultation covered the idea of introducing tagging as part of the sentencing at children's hearings rather than introducing it for the criminal courts. I understand that several of the respondents did not rule out entirely the possibility of electronic monitoring. These provisions are designed to try it out and to see whether it works. It would then be a matter for the Secretary of State to decide whether to extend it to all courts in Scotland or not to proceed with it at all.
Questions were raised about whether it would unfairly discriminate against girls as opposed to boys. The whole issue of children attending school wearing tags is a valid concern. But the provisions of the proposed Section 245C(2) would allow the court to order that the tag did not require to be worn continuously and therefore the order could provide that it would not be required to be worn during school hours.
Another suggestion was made that young offenders who were tagged would brag about it. Anyone who has worked with young offenders in the criminal justice system knows that on occasions they brag about all sorts of things—that their sentence in the young offenders'

1989
institution was longer than that of their co-accused or of their friend who was in court the previous week. Whether they brag about it continuously, one rather suspects not. But bragging about how you get on with the police and in court is one of the issues that anyone addressing the problems of young offenders has to look at. So I do not think that provides a complete answer to the issue either.
Very recently I visited a young offenders' institution in Scotland at Polmont and I sat in on a course being run with young offenders who were addressing the problems that their behaviour was causing. The particular topic they were discussing was how many of them had been warned by their teachers and by their parents that if they did not mend their ways they would end up in custody. I intervened to ask what might have stopped them ending up in custody, as all of them had been before the children's panel before. Two of them quite spontaneously mentioned the issue of tagging.
Whether it is wise to rely on such anecdotal evidence is a matter that has to be considered. But it certainly fits in with the views of young offenders as they have been reported to those who are researching the position in England. Perhaps I may quote from Home Office Research Study No. 163 on curfew orders with electronic monitoring. Paragraph 9 of the introduction states:
"The offenders interviewed for this evaluation spoke highly of the monitoring staff, and were quite positive about their experiences on the order … All of those interviewed had consented to the order in court, and all but one said that they had agreed in order to avoid a custodial sentence".
That provides support for what I mentioned earlier—that this is a real alternative to people going into custody.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. When he went to Polmont, was he introduced to the young people? Were the young people told who he was and why he was there? Was a prison officer present during his chats with these young people?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I would not think that many inmates of any institution would require to be told who Lord Mackay of Drumadoon was when he walked in the door. I fully recognise that I am not the most popular person in Her Majesty's institutions in Scotland. Clearly, I was introduced as the Lord Advocate; clearly, the Solicitor-General, to mention someone we were talking about recently, was introduced as well. It is possible to be cynical and say that these young offenders said something just to please the Lord Advocate of the day, conscious of the fact that four weeks later he would be debating the matter in a Committee of your Lordships' House and wished to have something to say. I suspect not. I think the noble Lord will give me this—that I have acted in connection with young offenders over 25 years and that if I think there is something to be said for listening to their views, I am possibly in a reasonable position to assess that. I do not place too
1990
much reliance on it. I just report it to your Lordships as something that fits in entirely with the views obtained by researchers in England in examining the matter there.
Families and partners were generally very positive, as it meant that the offender could stay out of prison and be less likely to associate with other criminals. That takes account of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that this would in some way interfere with parental responsibility. I disagree entirely with that observation. It seems to me that it helps to reinforce parental responsibility, because one of the things the court would have to do before imposing such an order with the consent of the offender is to be satisfied that the home circumstances were such that his or her case was an appropriate one for imposing the order.
In this field there can be no guarantee of success for each and every disposal which the court imposes. The whole history of the children's panel system illustrates that. It is respected in Scotland and it is respected furth of Scotland. But no one who works with it or has any dealings with it would accept that it solves every problem for every under 16 year-old who offends.
It is on that basis that the Government have presented the proposals in the Bill. We believe that to remove the option of remote monitoring, as it is called in the Bill, which can be subject to the conditions set out in new Section 245C of the 1995 Act, would be to weaken the chances of that option being successful. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment and certain of the subsequent amendments to which we shall come in due course.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: I have before me a copy of the paper Crime and Punishment, which was published in June 1996. Paragraph 9.13 deals with electronic monitoring orders which might usefully add to the range of sentencing options available to Scottish courts. Given that that document was published in June and that there was no invitation to consult in relation to it, although other measures were mentioned there in relation to children, can the Lord Advocate explain to the Committee why this idea was not promulgated in June 1996 and has made such a late appearance and led to such hasty consultation? Secondly, given the fact that some 100 bodies chose to respond, why was the only voice listened to that of Mr. Gallie?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In fact, as I thought I made clear, Mr. Gallie's voice was not listened to in its entirety. He was for tagging following children's hearings as well as following court hearings. That view has not been accepted. I admit that it came into the Bill late. It came in after certain discussions within government. I understand that the proposal emerged publicly in October of last year, which was around the time that information was becoming available as to the success of pilot schemes in England. Initially, there were certain practical and technical difficulties with the tags.

1991
Possibly because of the emergence of this new information, Mr. George Howarth, a Labour Member of Parliament, when the matter arose during proceedings on the English Bill, said that there may be merit in extending the experiment further so that young offenders who commit more serious offences can be kept away from custodial sentences. The possibility that some young people will be diverted out of custody, but properly supervised, was one which he was minded to support. That encapsulates the Government's view.
I suggest to the Committee that it would be contrary to the whole philosophy of dealing with young offenders to exclude something which shows some prospects of keeping young offenders out of institutions. Time and again in the debates over the past few weeks people have been complaining about young offenders going to institutions. "Schools of crime" and other descriptions have been applied. This provision is designed to avoid that. There can be no guarantee that it will work 100 per cent., but the evidence from England suggests that there is some prospect of it achieving success in some cases. If it does, that it is a proposal which is worthy of the Committee's support.
Lord Sewel: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has rightly drawn the Committee's attention to the value which we place in Scotland on the children's panel system. I believe that there is a genuine concern on this side of the Committee that with the advent of this type of tagging for those under 16 years of age, there is a possibility of eroding the children's panel system as it is at the moment. Will there not be a possibility—I put it no stronger than that—that the procurator fiscal may decide to put a case to the court just to get the advantage of this type of disposal? We recognise that at the moment the number of children going to court is small. But may there not be the very real danger and risk that that will increase significantly and inappropriately? That is the whole point.
The noble and learned Lord draws our attention to the fact that the Government wish to carry out a pilot study before the Secretary of State makes a decision about extending the scheme throughout Scotland. It would give us some comfort if that were contained in the Bill. If the Lord Advocate came forward with an amendment indicating that these procedures were subject to some form of pilot study and that the full implementation of the scheme would be subject to a proper and searching evaluation, then we would be better placed to come closer together on the issue. As it is, the change in policy which occurred in the other place between Committee and Report stages shows haste and lack of consideration or proper basis for the introduction of policy. It was late in the day and it was hurried. A major change of direction in policy and an entirely new procedure were carried through without proper study and justification. I shall have to seek the view of the Committee.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McCluskey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Avebury, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Calverley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Clancarty, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Redesdale, L.

David, B.

Richard, L.

Desai, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Dubs, L.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McCarthy, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Addison, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Cross, V.

Ailsa, M.

Cuckney, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Davidson, V.

Annaly, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Annan, L.

Denham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Attlee, E.

Dundee, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Bowness, L.

Flather, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Forbes, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Byford, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Cadman, L.

Harlech, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harrowby, E.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hemphill, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Henley, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Holderness, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hooper, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Howe, E.

Coleridge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Courtown, E.

Kingsland, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lauderdale, E.

1993

Layton, L.

Quinton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Long, V.

Reay, L.

Lucas, L.

Rees, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rennell, L.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Romney, E.

McConnell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Sudeley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swansea, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teynham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thurlow, L.

Norrie, L.

Tollemache, L.

Northesk, E.

Trefgame, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wise, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wynford, L.

Prentice, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 6, line 35, after second ("the") insert ("High Court or Sheriff").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I am doubling for my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar yet again. The effect of Amendment No. 67 would be to ensure that only the High Court or the sheriff court will be able to issue restriction of liberty orders. It will be apparent to those familiar with the Scottish court scene that that provision removes from the district courts the ability to make restriction of liberty orders. Coming from a local government background, perhaps I should be a little careful of the words I use but let me put it this way: the district courts in Scotland in part grow out of the local authorities. Those of us who have from time to time been close to local authorities and the district courts have a degree of concern that if such a major and new disposal were available to them without any qualification or moderation, as the Bill sets out, there is a risk of an increase in the number of inappropriate disposals. There is a risk of the restriction of liberty orders being used inappropriately.
I have much greater confidence that the High Court and the sheriff court will use the powers sensibly, reasonably and rationally, but I am not so convinced, given the amount of lay involvement at district court level, that we can be confident that this novel
1994
disposal, which is far-reaching in its social consequences, will be used appropriately in all cases. Therefore, at this stage we seek the restriction of the disposal to the High Court or sheriff court. At some time in the future, when the disposal has had time to bed down, it may be appropriate to consider extending it to the district court, but I do not think that it should happen at the first stage. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: It appears to me that under Section 42 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, no court other than the High Court or sheriff court shall have jurisdiction over a child under the age of 16 years for an offence. I thought that that provision covered the matter, but perhaps the Lord Advocate will make it clear if I have misunderstood the situation.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendment rightly seeks to exclude restriction of liberty orders from the district courts even if there is, with respect, a stipendiary magistrate. I presume that that is only in Glasgow. I believe that tagging is appropriate only for offenders for whom at the time there is presumed to be no hope and as an equivalent to imprisonment. I accept that there is a phase in some people's offending careers when they are quite unrepentant, still on an offending high and enjoying every minute of it. I accept that tagging may then be appropriate for those described in the popular press as "hardened criminals"—that is, those who are quite oblivious to what they are doing to others and who believe that they are right to be doing it. At that stage of deviant development, the offender should be appearing before a sheriff or in the High Court. I cannot accept that this form of partial detention is appropriate for the minor or summary charges arising in district courts.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give the amendment careful consideration. I speak from a background of having attended training courses for sheriffs and district court justices. We must remember that although the sheriffs and High Court judges are professional judges and one can therefore expect reasonable consistency of decision, the district court judges are lay judges. Indeed, some of them do not serve all that often—perhaps no more than several times during a six-month period—and they sometimes find it difficult to know when to make use of the various powers available to them.
The Lord Advocate described a pilot scheme. One can understand the wisdom of having a pilot scheme when introducing such measures, but if the philosophy is to proceed by stages, I suggest that it would be wiser to exclude district courts at the moment. No doubt the matter can be dealt with later by an amending Act when the time is right. If the clause is left as it is and if the piloting is done area by area, it would seem to follow that district justices would be entitled to make use of the power. I see risks of inconsistency and unfairness and I believe that it would be wiser to avoid those risks at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The point at issue is comparatively narrow. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pointed out, Section 42 of the 1995 Act restricts the courts in which children can be prosecuted. My understanding, although I shall certainly reflect on this further, is that the only children who can be prosecuted in the district court are those who are over 16 but who are still subject to supervision by the children's panel. Therefore, we are dealing with a select group of individuals. In practical terms, not very many people are likely to be affected by the provision one way or another.
I should make it clear that there are no plans at the moment to mount a pilot scheme in a district court. Such plans would require regulations under new Section 245A(10), which is to be inserted by Clause 4. The regulations would have to be laid before Parliament and would be subject to annulment. Therefore, there is no possibility of a pilot scheme coming along unexpectedly or unannounced.
However, referring to what will be new Section 245A(16), it appears that we may be in the somewhat curious position of having conflicting definitions of child offenders in two Acts of Parliament, with both being relevant for the purposes of prosecution. The matter will have to be considered further. On that basis, I believe that the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he can explain what is meant by "pilot scheme". I have never understood the phrase. If a person agrees to be part of a pilot scheme, what are the consequences if the pilot scheme does not work out? Is that person looked upon as a volunteer helping with the administration of justice? What are the consequences of somebody being involved in a pilot scheme? I do not understand the phrase. Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I have never seen the phrase defined.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I assure the Committee that we are not asking for volunteers to appear in the criminal courts. Plenty are coming along without us placing advertisements in the papers.
By "pilot scheme" I mean that in particular courts, subject to regulations, the power to impose a curfew order will be available. That disposal will be open to the court and if the individual offender consents to it he can be made subject to it. The pilot scheme will be monitored by researchers who will question sheriffs, the offenders and anybody else who has dealings with the offender, such as parents and teachers, to see whether it proves to be a successful disposal. In the light of the results of the research, the Secretary of State will decide whether to proceed with further courts having that power, or whether to depart from the proposal altogether.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry, I still do not understand what is the legality of the pilot scheme so far as concerns the alleged offender.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The legality is that it will be a valid option open to the sentencing court rather than sending the young offender to the appropriate institution or imposing any other form of community disposal. It will be a competent disposal. It has the full force of law. The offender will be required to adhere to its conditions. If he acts in breach of it, he will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions set out in the Bill. It is not an optional extra for him. It is an alternative community disposal for the court, which it is hoped courts will feel free to use in the hope that fewer children under the age of 16 end up in institutions, in many instances with people older and more experienced in criminal ways.
Lord McCluskey: Does the Lord Advocate agree that, because the clause envisages the consent of the offender, the pilot scheme can work?—there have been many such schemes in the past in relation to intoxication and so on. However, there is just one point: I have read Section 42 along with Section 245A(16), which excludes the possibility of tagging a child offender as defined in Section 42 or Section 245A(16). The Lord Advocate has indicated that there are other people who are children for other purposes who are not covered by Section 42. Would he care to indicate whether he intends that such people should be liable to be tagged?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My understanding is that they would be liable to that disposal. I have already indicated that I intend to look at those two sections together, and I understand that that is acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Will the restriction of liberty orders be official alternatives to custody and therefore restricted to offences for which imprisonment is an alternative?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: They will be restricted to offences for which community-based disposals are a possibility. There are certain statutory offences where Parliament has set out that only certain disposals are available. If it does not apply to one of them, clearly it could not be imposed. For any common law offence, such as theft, malicious damage, assault, or an offence of that nature, it would be a competent disposal. It would be one of a number of alternatives to custody that should be available to the sentencing judge.
Lord Sewel: I am content that the Lord Advocate has said that he will take it away and look at it. There may be a number of people covered by this who may fall potentially under the jurisdiction of the district court. That being said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67A:
Page 7, line 14, leave out from ("months") to end of line 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: I make it clear that I do not intend to move the amendment, which is grouped with others, in the light of what has already taken place. Nor shall I move Amendment No. 68.
[Amendment No. 67A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 7, line 22, after ("shall") insert ("ascertain from the offender—

(a) where he lives and if he intends to move during the currency of the order;

(b) if he works, attends school or any other educational establishment;

(c) if he owns or rents his accommodation;

(d) if his religion or beliefs require him to be present at a defined location for a specified period of time;

and shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment requires the court to ascertain certain information from the offender before imposing a restriction of liberty order; namely, the court should find out where the person lives and whether he intends to move during the currency of the order; whether he works, attends school or any other educational establishment; whether he owns or rents his accommodation, and whether his religion or beliefs require him to be present at a defined location for a specified period of time. All those are appropriate and necessary pieces of information for the court to have before deciding whether a restriction of liberty order is appropriate. It is designed to give a degree of clarity to the court by ensuring that such information is before the court before such an order is made.
The provisions reflect the terms of Section 12(3) of the English Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provides that the regulations of an English curfew order shall avoid any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs or any other community order, and any interference with work or school. I understand that at an earlier stage in another place the Government accepted that they wished to look in particular at the religious belief aspect in the amendment. I hope that the Lord Advocate is now in a position to go further. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble Lord indicated, this issue arose when the Bill was before another place. There is clearly no dispute between us that the issues covered by the amendment are relevant issues for the sentencing court to have before it. In England, Section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, provides that certain aspects relating to an offender's life should be taken account of. Those include his religious beliefs, his employment and his educational obligations.
1998
In the context of Scottish criminal procedure, however, we doubt whether it would be sensible to set out on the face of the Bill criteria of that nature. With any list, there is a danger that the list may omit, by implication, other criteria and downgrade other criteria.
I do not offer this as any form of criticism, but that is implicit in the amendment. The amendment omits a criterion which is presently in the legislation—the need to take account of possible conflicts with other existing community orders. We believe the way forward is to leave it to the court to have regard to the circumstances. Clearly, when pilot schemes are introduced, judicial training for those judges who will be involved will be required to take account of that factor. It will need to instruct the judges as to the reports they should seek, the need for an offender's consent and the need to take account of his home circumstances, his educational responsibilities or commitments, and so forth.
Those are factors which are taken into account at the moment in dealing with other community-based disposals, such as probation and community service orders. That is a practice with which Scottish judges are conversant. I have made it clear that the present proposal is that those disposals should be available only to sheriffs or High Court judges. There is no reason to believe that, given the appropriate guidance, they will not have regard to all that is covered in the amendment, and all that Members of the Committee would wish to have covered. On the undertaking that the issue will be addressed by training, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Will the Lord Advocate indicate what is the range of the monitoring? How far does it go? If someone lives in Perth, for example, and supports Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers and wants to go to a match on a Saturday and a monitoring device is put on by a local court in Perth, would the monitoring stretch to Ibrox Park or Parkhead? I am not being facetious, because young people like to follow sport. The offender does not have a great deal of input into the restriction imposed upon him as regards his movements. Is any technical knowledge available to the Committee relating to the range of the monitoring system? Is it 10, 20, 40, 100 miles or what?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not claim to have an expertise in the matter, but I understand that the monitoring system is designed to ascertain when the offender is not confined to the particular place where the order requires him to be. If he must be at home between the hours of seven in the evening and seven in the morning but goes elsewhere the electronic monitoring will pick that up. However, whether he goes to Muirtown Park to watch St. Johnston, to Ibrox Park to watch whichever team plays there, or to Murrayfield to watch Scotland is neither here nor there. If he is home by seven o'clock he will be all right; if he is not, the monitoring will pick that up.
That is what the curfew order is designed to achieve. If it deprives the offender of the opportunity of travelling to away games to follow his favourite team that is part of the punishment element of the

1999
community-based disposal. As I mentioned when quoting from the English report, the offenders who were tagged accepted that there was a restriction on their liberty. It is one of the means of seeking to train them that offending behaviour is not a path they should follow.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That makes absolute nonsense of the tagging system. Does it mean that if someone living in Perth goes to a football match in Glasgow no harm is done so long as he is back by seven o'clock and that what he does between leaving Perth at two o'clock to go to Ibrox Park, or wherever, and returning home does not matter? He could commit 10 offences, but he will not be captured by the tag.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not know whether it is sensible to respond to each point one by one. However, the whole purpose of the legislation is to give the court power to vary the conditions. If a solicitor sought to explain to a Perth sheriff that it was absolutely essential that his client travelled to Ibrox Park every second week he might be able to obtain such a dispensation so that he will be home in time.
It is not proposed that the curfew order should confine the offender to the house 24 hours a day. It is a community-based disposal. The offender will at some time be out in the community, it is hoped, behaving himself wherever he may live. For the rest of the time he will be required to stay in a fixed place, presumably his home. It is hoped that the community-based disposal will encourage the offender to behave himself. There is no guarantee that he will do so, as I made clear earlier.
I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord's inquiry. If it will assist, I shall arrange for him to be sent a copy of the Home Office research report, which I am sure is available to some of his colleagues. That may answer some of the technical questions which I am currently not qualified to answer.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It may be helpful to suggest that the devices are monitoring and not tracking devices. The offender will be tied electronically to close proximity to the machine and the machine will recognise the fact that the person has left. Will restriction of liberty orders be orders for which it is mandatory to produce a social report and, I presume, a report from the monitoring company or contractor about the person's suitability?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I understand that the orders are not mandatory because there is a concern about people having different responsibilities for young offenders. However, I shall check that matter and before we leave the topic confirm whether my understanding is correct.
Lord Hughes: Let us suppose that a restriction order is made in respect of a child under the age of 16 and he or she pays no attention to it, knowing the consequences. Presumably, a person to whom the order is applied will not be a first offender but someone who, because of previous conduct, is regarded as suitable. If he
2000
pays no attention to the order he may be subject to a fine not exceeding level 3. The chances of a 12 or 13 year-old child having the resources to pay a fine are limited. So does the order transfer to the parents? Alternatively, the court may vary the restriction order. Whether it is increased or reduced, the child is unlikely to pay any attention to the variation. Thirdly, the order can be revoked. The child will be delighted at that: it is an invitation to pay no attention to the order.
What exactly is the merit of the proposal if it will be so difficult to enforce a penalty? I know that the alternative is that the child should be shackled, as has been indicated. That does not stop him breaking the order but proves that at any particular time he is not obeying it. The Government appear to be providing for a situation whereby the difficult people to whom the order will be applied are not affected by it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I regret that the noble Lord takes such a pessimistic view of the proposal. It does not accord with experience in England. Not every young offender benefits as much as we would wish from supervision requirements, probation orders, community service orders and the like, but many do. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, if an offender breached a restriction of liberty order and was brought back before the court, the order was increased and the conditions tightened up, and he still failed to obey it, there can be little doubt that if he came before the court again it would take a much harder view as to whether it was appropriate to have an alternative to custody disposal. That could be made clear to him.
My experience is that from time to time young offenders take account of advice that they receive from social workers and others with whom they are in contact. If we adopt a pessimistic attitude to working with young offenders we will never succeed. We cannot expect naïvely to succeed in every case, but I believe that this is a valid proposal and it is worth trying. The whole purpose of pilot schemes is to examine issues such as the noble Lord has raised in order to see, for example, whether it is necessary to amend Section 245F(2) to give the court alternative powers to "punish" a young offender who did not abide by a restriction of liberty order. I hope that that does not prove to be necessary, but if it is an option which is thrown up by the pilot scheme as worth considering no doubt Parliament and the government of the day will do so.
I invite the noble Lord, who has long experience of public life and the responsibility of those who have to deal with young offenders, to be a wee bit more hopeful that this will help in some cases. That is the basis on which it is being brought forward.
Lord Hughes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. Summarising it, we go ahead and hope for the best.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: If my memory serves me correctly, in the earlier part of this debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made a number of comments

2001
which were helpful. In fact, on a couple of issues, we have some helpful pieces of clarification of the Government's thinking.
I realise that words in English do not necessarily mean the same in statute as they mean in ordinary conversation. But if I take it that training is fairly close to guidance, then I am happy to rest with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71, which is the substantive amendment. This amendment imposes on the court an additional requirement for informing the offender of the need to take legal advice before agreeing to a restriction order.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps it may save the time of the Committee if I indicate, without giving any definite commitment, that the Government would like to look further at these amendments and consult on them. That may assist the noble Lord.
Lord Sewel: It is almost national assistance day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 34, after ("agrees") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that agreement to a restriction of liberty order should be made in writing. It is really to remove any doubt. At the end of the case, when the offender is asked whether he agrees to a restriction order, there is a hubbub and degree of noise and mumbling well known to Members of the Committee and it may well be that the precise words are not understood. This provision seeks to promote clarity and avoid ambiguity as to the offender's position. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble Lord will be aware, it is common practice in Scottish criminal procedure to require an offender's consent to a community-based disposal before it is imposed on him. However, none of those orders currently requires that to be done in writing. I am unaware of any experience which suggests that there is a need for the offender to agree in writing to probation or to a community service order. After such a sentence is imposed, the appropriate official makes contact with the offender and the necessary arrangements are set in place for compliance with that order. So it would be with restriction of liberty orders. In any of those instances, if the offender did not comply with the official who had responsibility, that would no doubt be reported back to the court. We see no need to distinguish between those orders and community service and probation orders. However, in the spirit of co-operation which I hope is breaking out, if the noble Lord has any
2002
evidence which is contrary to my understanding of practice, I should be happy to look at that before Report stage.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am concerned about that, because probation and community service orders are always well explained beforehand. They cannot be imposed unless a social work report has been produced which recommends such a disposal. If, as I think the noble and learned Lord has told us, a social work report would not be required before imposing a restriction of liberty order, it is perhaps more important that the offender should agree in writing at the time.
Lord Sewel: Having heard the noble and learned Lord's reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 8. line 3, after ("information") insert ("or representations").
The noble Lord said: This amendment allows the court to hear representations by those affected by the restriction of liberty orders. The court would be required, in making a restriction of liberty order, to obtain information about the locality to which the order would apply and the attitude of people likely to be affected by the enforced presence of the offender.
The provisions of new Section 245A do not presently allow the offender's neighbours to make direct representations to the court. That is the important difference. This amendment will enable such representations to be made to the court so that the neighbour can be properly heard.
Those of us who have perhaps had some experience of what are often referred to as anti-social tenants will be fully aware of the havoc which can be created for neighbours if there is a particularly difficult case of an anti-social tenant and his family.
If I were a neighbour of some of the families of whom I have had direct experience, I should not take it kindly that the court had imposed a restriction of liberty order on members of that family, because it would ensure that they would be at home even more and that might make life totally intolerable.
There is a difficulty that we shall be imposing upon the neighbours a situation almost amounting to hell worse confounded. If that is a possibility, those people should have the opportunity to make direct representations to the court as to how they are likely to be affected by the imposition of a restriction of liberty order. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that this amendment is proposed after discussion with the Law Society of Scotland. But I am rather surprised that it expresses that view. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will agree that neighbours can often cause problems. There are often families who have difficulties with their children. But to set up a legal process on the face of the Bill whereby people can object because they live next door to a child subject to a restriction of liberty order is

2003
going a bit far and is not entirely imaginative. Surely that should be part of the informal process of finding out what could be the effect of an order on a particular family.
Lord Sewel: I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on that. If she were the neighbour of a troublesome and disruptive child who was going to be confined to the neighbouring house, I wonder how she would feel if she had not had an opportunity to make representations to the people making the order which would affect her. I believe that she would be rather disappointed.
Lord Monkswell: I support my noble friend's amendment. It may be useful to point out that if neighbours have a right, following acceptance of this amendment, to make representations, it is quite possible that information which would not necessarily be before the court would then be put before it. If the neighbours who have been subjected to difficulties by their neighbours have the ability to make direct representations to the court, it is quite likely that the court will then be privy to information which it would not otherwise have. Therefore, bearing in mind the arguments of my noble friend, I believe that that is added cause for support.
Lord Hope of Craighead: It would be of some assistance if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could say more about the Government's thinking as to how this provision would work. The onus of obtaining the information is placed on the court and not on the prosecutor. Presumably, the court would have to have some means of obtaining the information through a report or some mechanism of that kind. It is not immediately clear to me how the court would exercise its functions. Therefore, some guidance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might help to reassure those who support the amendment. I hope that some guidance to that effect will be given either today, or perhaps at a later stage.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble and learned Lord has just observed, the proposed subsection (7) of the new Section 245A to the 1995 Act would place an obligation on the court to obtain certain information. It says that,
"the court shall obtain and consider information about that place"—
that is, the place where the offender is required to remain—
"or those places, including information as to the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender".
As I believe I indicated earlier, my understanding is that it is not mandatory to obtain a social inquiry report. That is clearly one way in which information could be obtained, although there may be others. Whether a court would wish to appoint its own reporter to investigate the matter or whether it would be content for the local authority to do so is a practical issue which will need to be addressed before a pilot scheme becomes operational.
In response to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I should point out that the view is taken that it would be wrong to set out on the face of the Bill a procedure by which representations on behalf of individuals who might
2004
be affected should be placed before the court. On the contrary, the way forward is to implement the provisions of subsection (7) by placing an onus on the court to obtain such information as it deems appropriate.
The concern about allowing representations of any kind is that that would establish what we believe to be an undesirable precedent; namely, that someone who was not the prosecutor or the accused would have a right to make representations to the court before sentence was imposed. I am unaware of any precedent for that occurring up until now and we would not want, as part of introducing these provisions, to establish one.
One could imagine a number of people who might seek to qualify such a right in other cases. The most obvious of course is the victim of a crime but, equally, they might be relatives of the victim or members of the public who are involved in other cases where curfew orders are not in question. Perhaps I may take the case of a bad neighbour committing breaches of the peace, say, once a week. One could imagine that people would love to go along to the local court and tell the sheriff on a face-to-face basis how that repeat offender was affecting their life. Up until now, we have not considered that to be the right way forward and we would not wish to alter that principle.
On the other hand, the Bill makes it quite clear that the court has to be satisfied as to,
"the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender".
That matter will need to be addressed before a pilot scheme can be set up and start operating. The initial solution is obviously a social inquiry report prepared by social workers. However, as social workers are not to be involved in the enforcement of the restriction of liberty order, that may not be the only solution.
Again, there is nothing between us as to the desirability of having regard to the interests of those covered by the amendment. However, there is a matter of principle between us as to the best way to achieve the desired aim. Having regard to the existence of other provisions in the 1995 Act which enable the court to obtain reports in a variety of circumstances and appoint reporters to find out such information as is necessary before sentence is imposed, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: As I listened to the debate I became rather more disturbed than I was when it started. The idea that the court can somehow use social workers and send them round to consult the neighbours, the family and, indeed, the possible victims or past victims of persons who are to be the subject of such orders, appears to me to be likely to impose an extraordinary burden on social work departments.
I am very worried about the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and its failure to address the financial and manpower consequences of the provisions. For example, on page ix of the memorandum, no element is included in the first complete paragraph for the cost of using social workers to make inquiries among the neighbours, possible victims and family of offenders. When one looks specifically at the section headed Effect of the Bill on public service manpower, which can be

2005
found two-thirds of the way down that page, one sees that there is no provision whatever for an increase in social workers. There is to be an increase in Crown Office staff and an increase in sheriffs, prison staff, and so on, but there is no mention of social workers. I should think social workers will be very disturbed at the thought that, in addition to the inquiries that they already have to make and which are very burdensome, they will have to go out and start investigating in the manner suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give more careful consideration to the provisions of subsection (7).
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to do so but the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord represent precisely the sort of practical issue that a pilot scheme would look at. The Home Office report to which I referred contains a chapter which deals with the relative costs of electronic monitoring, probation, community service and custody. Indeed, that is one of the practical issues which will be considered. I need not remind the noble and learned Lord, with his expertise in such matters, of the high cost of sending young offenders to custody. Obviously, if there is a cost involved in getting information to the court, that will have to be fed into the equation. But the experience from England—and I accept that that cannot be followed blindly—shows that the costs of proceeding by this route are cheaper than sending young offenders to custody.
So far as concerns who obtains such information and how it is obtained, that is a practical issue which will need to be discussed. For example, it would be a very good topic to put before the Criminal Justice Forum, where those involved in all aspects of court work are currently looking at practical issues. If the social work department considers that it would not be an appropriate role for it to play, other approaches will need to be explored.
I venture to suggest that these are practical issues which cannot be addressed in advance; they are costings which would indeed be estimates if they were calculated in advance of bringing legislation before Parliament. They are precisely the issues which a closely monitored pilot scheme would address. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there are already sections in the 1995 Act—and I have been reminded of Sections 201 and 203—which give the court certain powers to obtain reports before passing on to the question of sentence. The system has worked perfectly successfully in dealing with probation orders and community service orders. Therefore, there is no reason why it could not work equally successfully with this new form of disposal.
Lord Sewel: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has a fear about creating a new precedent in dealing with the problem. I think this is the difficulty when we are dealing with a totally new type of disposal which at its heart carries with it the prospect that the social burden of the disposal is falling on a third party. When that is the case, surely it is right and proper that that third party who is
2006
suffering the likely possibility of a disruptive element being contained, to a large extent, within his or her own environment should be given the opportunity of making representations. The more this clause has progressed, the more we are seeing some of the problems that arise from hastily drafted legislation. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 76 not moved.]
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 8, leave out lines 43 to 50.
The noble and learned Lord said: I link this amendment with Amendment No. 79. The amendment arises from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which points out at page 5 that there is a Henry VIII power in Clause 4—the clause to which these amendments are directed. The report further states:
"There is some safeguard against misuse of the power … the offender's consent is required … Nevertheless, in view of the potential impact of this power on the liberty of the subject, the Committee considers that affirmative procedure would be the appropriate form of parliamentary control".
When this matter was dealt with—I think it was the same matter—in Clause 31 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill on 20th February, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accepted this and moved an amendment to this effect. I refer to column 872 of Hansard.
I have the impression that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will meet my amendment by his amendment. If he assures me that his amendment will achieve what I propose, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment and allow the Government to move their amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope to be in a position to satisfy the Committee, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that my Amendment No. 78 will meet the concern which he expressed and will accord with the advice given to this Committee by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House. That committee, in reporting on this Bill, suggested that it would be preferable for this power to be exercised by the affirmative resolution procedure.
In considering that suggestion, the Government took account of existing procedures in Scotland on other community disposals. For example, legislation on community service orders and supervised attendance orders requires the affirmative resolution procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State exercises his power to vary the time limits which apply to them. Our amendment fits in with that approach. The amendments of the noble and learned Lord would go somewhat further than that in that they would require primary legislation to change the time limits. In so far as that was not something that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee thought was appropriate,

2007
I hope the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied that Amendment No. 78 meets any legitimate concern on the procedure that should be followed.
Lord McCluskey: I am perfectly satisfied with that answer. I did not wish to go further than the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 9, line 2, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 3 and insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under subsection (10) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
( ) No regulations shall be made under subsection (14) above unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This was spoken to with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I should point out that if Amendment No. 78 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 79.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 79A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 9, leave out lines 27 to 46.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to the provision which is to be inserted in the 1995 Act as subsection (1) of new Section 245C. However, since I put this amendment down I have read the proceedings on the Crime (Sentences) Bill for England and I am satisfied that this may prove to be a useful alternative to expensive custody in our already overcrowded prisons. I thought of withdrawing it but left it in place in order to seek a little further information.
I have questions I should like to hear answers to. I am sure the noble and learned Lord has them to hand. Why do Her Majesty's Government want to privatise this type of arrangement? Why should there be private arrangements, because normally the supervision of people, particularly of children, is carried out by probation officers, social workers and people of that kind who are employed in the public service? What is the Government's thinking in that they want to make "contractual arrangements" of the kind mentioned at line 28 on page 9? I take it that pilot schemes would cover the possibility of such contractual arrangements.
2008
I should like a little more information—if there is information—about where the pilot schemes are to be. I was astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate say that this idea surfaced in October. It is a long time since I had anything to do with politics, but I have a vague notion that party conferences are held in October. I wondered whether the surfacing of this idea owed something to that circumstance. Perhaps it does not. In any event, has there been time since that particular season of the year for anyone to decide where these pilot schemes are to be held? If the pilot schemes are to be the subject of a report, will we have a chance to study that report? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I shall answer at least some of the questions posed by the noble and learned Lord. This is not a question of privatisation as such because of course the disposal is not yet available. What has happened in England is that private companies which have the necessary expertise as regards the relevant equipment have submitted tenders for contractual arrangements as set out in the paper that has already been mentioned. The Government considered that, as the monitoring depended upon those companies' technology, that was the way forward rather than allocating the supervision to local authority officials, the probation service or any other government body, whether local or central.
No decision has been reached as to where the pilots will take place. All that has been decided is that initially at least there should be no pilot in any district court. That is a matter which will require to be discussed with sheriff principals, the sheriffs' association and others, and no doubt with the procurator fiscal service itself, before any decision is reached. The noble and learned Lord asked whether this idea emerged at a party conference. Not having been present at any party's conference in October I cannot say whether it was mentioned there. However, if the noble and learned Lord wishes me to pursue this matter, I should be happy to do so.
I have little doubt that long before any pilot is up and running—in terms of a regulation made by the Secretary of State—papers relating to it will be made public and will be made available for those who are interested in commenting upon them. One suspects that the consultation paper will address some of the practical issues, including costs, which would require to be looked at when the projects are running. I hope the noble and learned Lord is satisfied with that assurance and will not insist on this amendment.
Lord McCluskey: In the light of that response, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A court shall not make a restriction of liberty order which is to be monitored remotely unless the court
(a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that remote monitoring arrangements are available in the areas in

2009
which the place proposed to be specified in that order is situated; and
(b) is satisfied that the necessary provisions can be made under those arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment provides a trigger for the courts to begin using remote monitoring by ensuring that the Secretary of State notifies the court of the arrangements and that the court is happy with the arrangements.
At present the Bill lacks any mechanism for the Secretary of State to inform the court that remote monitoring contracts have been concluded and the system is ready to proceed. The amendment reflects Section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and remedies that omission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I am overly concerned, but I had thought that the restriction of liberty order allowed both human monitoring and remote monitoring. I am forming the opinion that it refers only to remote monitoring. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate please sort out my thinking?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that I can sort out the noble Earl's thinking by referring to the provisions of new Sections 245B and 245C which cover both types of monitoring.
Our position is that the amendment is unnecessary. The issue arose when the Bill was before another place at Report stage when certain concerns were expressed. Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to new Section 245A(10). Members of the Committee will see what regulations must prescribe; the particular courts which may make the orders; what method or methods of monitoring compliance with such orders may be specified in any such order by any such court; and the class or classes of offenders concerned.
These regulations have to be brought before the House. I trust, therefore, that no Member of the Committee would have concern that the regulations would be brought into force without the necessary procedures and equipment for monitoring already being in place.
Subsection (13) of new Section 245A states that,
"A court shall not make a restriction of liberty order which requires an offender to be in or, as the case may be, not to be in, a particular place or places unless it is satisfied that his compliance with that requirement can be monitored".
The means of monitoring can be under either new Section 245B or 245C. I believe that the concerns, which are genuine, are already met in the somewhat complicated provisions of the Bill.
Lord Sewel: That teaches me to try to make something simple. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 11, line 5. leave out from ("so") to end of line 11 and insert ("—
(a) vary the order by—

(i) amending or deleting any of its requirements;

(ii) inserting further requirements; or

(iii) subject to subsection (3) or, as the case may be, (4) of section 245A of this Act, increasing the period for which the order has to run; or

(b) revoke the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 to 87. These are technical drafting amendments. The current draft of prospective Section 245E(2) enables a restriction of liberty order to be revoked but does so on the basis that such revocation is a form of variation. As a matter of language, that cannot be correct. An order which is varied is kept in force, albeit subject to the variation. An order which is revoked is brought to an end. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, Members of the Committee will be persuaded that the amendment seeks to correct the most technical of flaws. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 87:
Page 11, line 14, leave out (", (b) or (c)").
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("(2)(d)") and insert ("(2)(b)").
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("paragraphs (a) to (c)") and insert ("paragraph (a)").
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("245E(2)(d)") and insert ("245E(2)(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 83. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 12, line 36, after ("offender") insert ("at least 28 days").
The noble Lord said: With the consent of the Committee, perhaps I may move Amendment No. 87A and speak to Amendments Nos. 87B and 87C. The package of amendments is self-explanatory and gives the offender a chance to counter any evidential value of matters being placed before the court, and of making sure that there is no mistake at the end of the day. The provision allows the offender to receive a notice within 28 days, and to give a counter notice. If no counter notice is served, the evidential value will be restored.
Amendment No. 87C states that,
"the offender may at any stage within 7 days"—
—that should probably read, "not later than 7 days"—
"prior to the commencement of the trial serve upon the prosecutor a counter notice intimating his intention to challenge the contents of the statement or the certificate or both".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will appreciate that this is a matter of some importance to the offender and puts some balance into the equation between the prosecutor and the offender. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Government feel unable to accept these amendments, which would provide for a period of notice of 28 days for service of a statement and certificate of the whereabouts of an offender and for the provision of a counter notice.
Members of the Committee will be aware that there is already provision in the new Section 245H for the court to adjourn if it considers that there has been insufficient notice given to the offender. There is in our view no need to specify a time for that notice to be given.
As to the counter notice procedure, it is important to understand that the effect of new Section 245H is to render the statement and certificate to be admissible if the service procedure is followed and when produced they will be sufficient evidence of the facts set out in them. However, the offender will still be able to dispute those facts and to do so he will have to lead evidence that his whereabouts were other than as stated in the documents produced. If that evidence is credible, is accepted by the court, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that the offender was elsewhere, the presumption of sufficiency will be overcome. In these circumstances, we do not consider that the counter procedure is necessary or desirable. I hope, therefore, that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation. However, I must express a degree of surprise. We all seek to cut costs. A most expensive issue in the courts is a trial which is unnecessarily adjourned. If there were a proper structure of notice and counter notice prior to the trial I should have thought that that would avoid adjournment. Otherwise legal aid, court costs, and many other costs come into play.
I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord is not prepared at least to take away these amendments. They have been put down at a very late hour. Rather than rejecting them out of hand, will the noble and learned Lord consider whether the proposals, perhaps subject to amendment of some kind, might expedite the system of justice in Scotland?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The issue that would be before the court is precisely the issue on which the counter notice would focus, but it would be impossible for it to be resolved on paper. That is the sole issue that the court would be required to address. However, I will certainly look again at what has been said in support of these amendments. I do not offer any commitment to change my mind but, with the assistance of my officials, I will study the noble Lord's remarks in moving the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I shall not call it a
2012
concession; I would never ask the Lord Advocate to change his mind. He says that he will take the amendments away and think about them, which is a slightly different matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 87A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee a printer's error in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 87B should read, "Page 12, line 37, after ('hearing') insert".
[Amendments. Nos. 87B and 87C not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 88:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTION AND MONITORING OF LIBERTY ORDERS
(" . After section 229 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
"Restriction of liberty orders.
229A—(l) Where a person of 16 years of age or more is convicted of an offence (other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law) the court, if it is of opinion that it is the most appropriate method of disposal, may make as an additional requirement of a probation order an order under this section (in this Act referred to as a "restriction of liberty order") in respect of him; and in this section and sections 229B to 229C of this Act any reference to an "offender" is a reference to a person in respect of whom an order has been made under this subsection.
(2) A restriction of liberty order may restrict the offender's movements to such extent as the court thinks fit and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, may include provisions—

(a) requiring the offender to be in such place as may be specified for such period or periods in each day or week as may be specified;

(b) requiring the offender not to be in such place or places, or such class or classes of place or places, at such time or during such periods, as may be specified;

but the court may not, under paragraph (a) above, require the offender to be in any place or places for a period or periods totalling more than 12 hours in any one day.
(3) The clerk of the court by which a restriction of liberty order is made shall in addition to section 228(6)(a) above—

(a) cause a copy of the order to be sent to the person who is to monitor the offender's compliance with the order; and

(b) cause a copy of the order to be given to the offender or sent to him by registered post or by the recorded delivery service, and an acknowledgement or certificate of delivery of a letter containing such copy order issued by the Post Office shall be sufficient evidence of the delivery of the letter on the day specified in such acknowledgement or certificate.

(4) Before making a restriction of liberty order which will require the offender to remain in a specified place or places the court shall obtain and consider information about that place or those places, including information as to the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe—

(a) which courts, or class or classes of courts, may make restriction of liberty orders; and

(b) what method or methods of monitoring compliance with such orders may be specified in any such order by any such court.

2013
and different provision may be made in relation to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above in relation to different courts or classes of court.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the periods mentioned in subsection (2) above.
(7) A restriction of liberty order may be made for any period up to 12 months.
(8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Monitoring of restriction of liberty orders.
229B—(1) Where the Secretary of State, in regulations made under section 229A(5) of this Act, empowers a court or a class of court to make restriction of liberty orders he shall notify the court or each of the courts concerned of the name of the person who is to be designated by that court for the purpose of monitoring an offender's compliance with any such order.
(2) A court which makes a restriction of liberty order in respect of an offender shall name in the order the person who is to monitor the offender's compliance with it.
(3) Where the Secretary of State changes the person notified by him under subsection (1) above, any court which has made a restriction of liberty order shall vary the order accordingly and shall notify the variation to the offender.
Remote monitoring of restriction of liberty orders.
229C—(1) The Secretary of State may make such arrangements, including contractual arrangements, as he considers appropriate with such persons, whether legal or natural, as he thinks fit for the remote monitoring of the compliance of offenders with restriction of liberty orders, and different arrangements may be made in relation to different areas or different forms of remote monitoring.
(2) A court making a restriction of liberty order which is to be monitored remotely may include in the order a requirement that the offender shall, either continuously or for such periods as may be specified, wear or carry a device for the purpose of enabling the remote monitoring of his compliance with the order to be carried out.
(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations specify devices which may be used for the purpose of remotely monitoring the compliance by an offender with the requirements of a restriction of liberty order.
(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment and the two consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 156 and 157, represent a large number of words on the Marshalled List. They are aimed at completely replacing the Bill's approach to the curfewing of offenders, especially with regard to "stand alone" restriction of liberty orders. This amendment is aimed at replacing the provision with a new clause. The new clause allows and encourages the use of curfewing within a probation order. The restriction of liberty would be dealt with as an extra condition of a probation order.
I suspect that the Committee has come to know my view on stand-alone restriction of liberty orders. I see them as a very inferior product when set alongside a system of advice, guidance and conditional control as expressed in a probation order. The advice, guidance, planning of time, especially the planning of leisure, and counselling that are built into the amendment are the strengths of the new approach that I suggest to the curfewing of offenders. It confirms that the offender is positively expected to move on towards a more mature and social position and not to stay static in terms of personal development.
The amendment allows both human and remote monitoring. At this point, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for straightening out my thinking at my own request in reply to an earlier amendment. The merit of each form of monitoring would be contained in the social work report to the court, which would be a necessary precursor to a probation order. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: During our examination of restriction of liberty orders and their monitoring, there was a request to look at the research on how such orders and devices operate elsewhere and the factors that lead to a positive, as opposed to a negative, outcome. My understanding was that the very heavy weight of research comes down in favour of linking a restriction of liberty order with some form of direct positive intervention by way of a supervision requirement.
If the supervision is not there, there is a danger that the restriction of liberty order merely becomes a passive, negative type of disposal; there is no dynamism to require or encourage the offender to change his or her behaviour patterns and to mend his or her ways. At least linking the restriction of liberty—"You shall not go there. You shall not do that."—which is the passive, negative aspect of the disposal, with a more positive one requiring the offender to undergo some form of supervision should dramatically increase the possibility that in the end this disposal will be beneficial. It would certainly be more beneficial than simply letting such an order stand alone.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The effect of the noble Earl's amendments would be to present us with an entirely new Clause 4. Although the proposal has certain similarities to, and certain differences from, the existing clause, the two issues of importance are these. First, it would deny the courts the ability to make restriction of liberty orders for young offenders. Secondly—this is a new and important matter—it would deny the courts the ability to make free-standing restriction of liberty orders requiring such orders, whenever they are made, to be part of a probation order.
Having dealt earlier with the issue of child offenders, it is the second issue which we are now required to examine. Our proposals would give the court the option of either dealing with an offender by way of a restriction of liberty order alone or by making one in tandem with the making of a probation order. By withdrawing the first of those two options, the noble Earl's amendments would prevent the court from making what might be referred to as a free-standing restriction of liberty order. We believe that it would be hard to justify removing that option.
In addressing this issue the Committee may wish to be informed of the experience of the pilot schemes in England to which I have already referred. It has transpired that the courts in the three areas that have been using this disposal and which have been monitored have made relatively extensive use of the option which the amendment would seek to deny to the Scottish courts. One can only assume that the courts in England

2015
have used the option because in having regard to particular circumstances of the cases concerned they thought it the most appropriate option to follow. Approaching, as we are, pilot schemes in Scotland, we believe that it would be sensible to leave the options to the Scottish courts to see whether this option was followed or whether the option of having both the restriction of liberty orders and probation orders was the one that was preferred. We do not rule out the possibility that at the conclusion of the pilot orders the way forward would be to insist that they should be in tandem and to require that in every case.
There are certain practical issues involved. I have already made reference to one of them. Where electronic monitoring is to be used, the responsibility for enforcing it would rest with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. If a restriction of liberty order is to run in tandem with a probation order, there would have to be a social work officer involved as well. He would be unable to do both, and there may be some scope for duplication of effort and additional expense which would not be productive in a particular case. As I say, we do not have a closed mind on the issue. We believe that these options should be examined. However, we firmly believe that it would be a mistake not to examine each and every one of them separately. On that basis, having an open mind as always, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful for that answer. I certainly believe that it will be very interesting to see how the pilot projects proceed. I hope that they will be genuine pilots; that is, that the scheme will not be proceeded with until the pilots have been properly evaluated. I hope that all four options—that is, human and remote monitoring with and outwith a probation order—will all be tried.
I remain unconvinced, but willing to be convinced, about stand-alone or, to use the noble and learned Lord's expression, free-standing restriction of liberty orders. I am interested to see how those will work out. I am certain that linked probation orders are more likely to be positive. We must remember that imprisonment is a static process in personal development terms. I do not want this alternative to imprisonment to end up being similarly static. It is important that the offender be encouraged to move on.
However, we have had a debate about this and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disposal in cases of mentally disordered offenders]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 13, line 7, leave out from ("may") to ("by") in line 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to certain words which appear at lines 7 to 8 on page 13. Members of the Committee will see that the provision in which they appear is to the effect that where a person is convicted on indictment in court of an
2016
offence punishable by imprisonment, the court may, in addition to any sentence of imprisonment, by a direction authorise his admission to a hospital. Subsection (3) provides that a hospital direction shall not be made unless the court is satisfied, upon medical evidence, that the grounds set out in Section 17(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 apply in relation to the offender.
Section 17(1)(a) specifies the grounds. The first is that the person is suffering from a mental disorder of a certain character. It is envisaged that the mental disorder may be a persistent one which is likely to deteriorate. The other mental disorder envisaged is a mental handicap, comprising mental impairment or severe mental impairment.
Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explain whether it is envisaged that, if the court is satisfied that the grounds contained in Section 17(1) of the 1984 Act apply, a sentence of imprisonment will be passed at the same time? I have no experience of both passing a sentence of imprisonment and making an order of this character. I should like the Government to explain how this provision is expected to work and how the sentence of imprisonment and the hospital direction are intended to be combined. No doubt in due course I shall be able to ask the Government to explain how this ties in with the early release provisions but that is a matter for another occasion. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This is a technical but very important field. The effect of the amendment would be to cut the link between the new hospital direction and the sentence of imprisonment.
In bringing forward the proposals for a hospital direction, which was a disposal discussed in Chapter 13 of the White Paper, it has always been made clear by the Government that the hospital direction was never intended as a stand-alone disposal; it was in line with the flexibility that I have discussed earlier to add other disposals to the court than those which currently exist.
As the noble and learned Lord will be well aware, the 1995 Act contains a number of provisions for dealing with prisoners who are suffering from certain categories of mental illness or mental disorder. Sometimes that results in the trial not taking place because the accused is held to be unfit to plead and to stand trial; sometimes it results in the accused standing trial and being convicted and a hospital order then being imposed.
Where an accused man has been convicted, the alternative at the moment is between prison and a hospital order. This clause provides another option in serious cases where an accused is indicted and liable to a term of imprisonment because of the gravity of the crime which has been committed but who is suffering from one of the conditions set out in Section 17(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
As I understand the question which the noble and learned Lord posed, it is addressed to the issue of whether the mental handicap set out in Section 17(1)(a)(ii)—as opposed to that set out in Section 17(1)(a)(i)—is such as to make it inappropriate

2017
for the accused man to stand trial. If I have misunderstood the question, it will no doubt be put to me again.
I emphasise that this clause is intended to add an option; it is not intended to interfere in any way with the options that already exist. The amendment proposed would change the character of the option to the extent that it is not considered a sensible route to follow. There are prisoners suffering from a mental disorder whose treatment may be such that they recover within a relatively short period of time, and certainly within a period of time shorter than that for which prison would be appropriate if they did not suffer from any form of mental illness. Clearly that is less likely to be the position in a case to which Section 17(1)(a)(ii)—which deals with mental handicap or mental impairment—applies, but one cannot exclude the possibility that a spell in a hospital might bring about some improvement to the extent that no further treatment would be desirable and yet prison would be appropriate. I suspect that that is likely to happen in very few cases indeed but one cannot exclude the possibility.
I trust that that, together with what is set out in Chapter 13 of the White Paper, explains what this proposal is about. I hope that, on that understanding, and with that explanation, the noble Lord will accept that his amendment would serve to frustrate the objective behind this new disposal and will not press it.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord has referred to what I think is contained in paragraph 13.5 of the White Paper. That reads:
"This new option would enable the courts to impose a prison sentence, either determinate or life, but also order that the offender be initially detained in hospital for the receipt of the treatment needed for their mental disorder".
It appears that the court will say, "You will go to prison for four years", let us say, "but you will not begin that sentence until you have been in hospital". I am not sure whether the four years start to run when the person goes into hospital—which must, under the clause, happen very soon—and, if so, whether one is in effect saying to the person, "The sooner you get better, the sooner you will find yourself in prison". That seems to be the effect of the provision.
What is envisaged is that it is appropriate for him to receive medical treatment in hospital. It is considered that the treatment will be likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition—which is a very curious alternative—and the same applies both to mental disorder and mental handicap. So it seems to me very bizarre indeed that a judge should say, "Here is a sentence of imprisonment and when you have convinced the medical authorities that your condition has improved, you can go straight to prison". It does not appear to me that those are conditions in which the patient is likely to co-operate with the medical people treating him.
So I repeat my question, not just in relation to people with mental handicap, though I do not understand what kind of hospital treatment will improve a person suffering mental handicap. Secondly, I should like to know how this provision works in relation to a person
2018
who goes in with a mental disorder for treatment which is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of it. How will that work? Will the judge add on the sentence to the period of hospital treatment or is the hospital treatment to bite into the sentence and, if so, what prospect is there of the patient declaring himself reasonably fit to join his friends and neighbours in Barlinnie?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sorry that I did not pick up the question from what the noble and learned Lord said earlier. There is no doubt that the sentence clock is running while the accused is in hospital. If there is a four-year sentence and he spends one year in hospital, that counts towards the four years. No doubt we can discuss the technical problems associated with early release at a later stage in our debate.
So far as concerns the point arising out of Section 17(1)(a)(ii), I certainly see the force of the noble and learned Lord's observation. That is certainly a matter which will have to be reflected upon. On the basis of my understanding of the treatment of those people, one could not exclude the possibility of such a direction being imposed and leading to some improvement which might be as far as treatment would take the offender and then he goes to prison. But it may be that more careful study of the valid point raised will show that there may be some scope for amending the new Section 59A(3) to refer to Section 17(1)(a)(i) rather than Section 17(1) per se.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I could ask for some further clarification. I mentioned the early release provisions. It worries me that if a person is told, "The time that you spend in hospital is knocked off the time that you spend in prison", he may be reluctant to co-operate with doctors to the extent of announcing himself cured. If he does not co-operate with the doctors in order to effect a cure, will that be regarded as naughty behaviour for the purpose of early release, so that he does not earn his one-sixth remission? Perhaps, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot answer that question today, he will address it when we discuss early release, whenever that may be.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am confident that we shall come to early release either today or Monday. My understanding is that the problem about behaviour in a hospital is addressed in Clause 38(2) of the Bill, which reads:
"For the purposes of section 31 of this Act"—
that deals with early release—
"where a mentally disordered offender spends any period in hospital, he shall be treated as if he had spent that period in prison, and as if he had been awarded the maximum number of early release days which he could have been awarded under that section had he been detained in a prison during that period".
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he confirm that we are dealing with an offender who was judged to be sane at

2019
the time of commission of the offence but subsequently, by the point of conviction, has developed a psychiatric condition?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Yes, there is no doubt—as the beginning of new Section 59A sets out—that this provision will apply to persons who are:
"convicted on indictment in the High Court or in the sheriff court".
If they are insane and unfit to plead, or if there is any medical reason why they do not stand trial, this provision will have no application to them at all.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just for clarity, perhaps I may raise one point with the noble and learned Lord. I have to admit that we are in an area with which I am not at all familiar. The Scottish Association for Mental Health has commented that the English Bill—the Crime (Sentences) Bill—limits the orders to patients with a psychopathic disorder. The Government have not taken the same line in Scotland. The association wonders why that is the case. If the noble and learned Lord has not already given an answer to that point—I may have missed it—can he explain it now? I feel that it is something that we ought to know.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Baroness is quite correct. When the provision (which I believe is in Clause 45 of the English Bill) was debated, the Government were encouraged from the Liberal Democrat Benches, as I recall, to go somewhat further and extend it to offenders other than those suffering from psychopathic disorder. That was resisted on that occasion.
We have clearly followed a different route in this Bill. If there is force in the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, we may well have gone too far. Clearly, the re-examination which is necessary following upon the point raised by the noble and learned Lord takes us back to considering whether the English approach is preferable or whether somewhere in between is the way that we should go in Scotland. But I shall certainly take account of the contributions made by my noble and learned friend in the examination I am happy to undertake.
Lord Monkswell: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate say what practical difference this particular clause is likely to make? Suppose that a person has been convicted and is sent to prison for, say, four years. If he is then found to be suffering from some psychiatric disorder, presumably he could be referred to a secure mental institution for treatment. One would hope that that would happen anyway. There is, however, a suspicion that there are large numbers of people in our prisons who would in fact benefit from being in a psychiatric institution rather than in prison. The reason that they are not in such an institution is that the resources are not available to house them.
That is why I ask the practical question: what will be the practical difference with this clause? Will it effectively give judges in Scotland the power to send people to secure psychiatric institutions, where
2020
presumably there may not be places available for them? Will it give the judges the ability to direct resources into that area of social policy?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The practical difference is that at the moment the court has two options. One option is to send the offender to prison; the other is to make a hospital order. In many instances, offenders for whom a hospital order is not appropriate come before the courts. Their medical condition is such that that is not the appropriate way for the complete disposal of that particular case. It is then said in mitigation that the accused would benefit from some form of psychiatric treatment. The response that the court has to give is that, when he goes to prison in terms of the sentence to be imposed, it will be a matter for the prison authority to take action and, in an extreme case, for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the Mental Health Act and take a mental health order which will require the accused to be removed from prison to the hospital in terms of the latter order.
These provisions give the court the option of making a hospital direction. That will make treatment available to the offender at the behest of the court. Armed with medical advice, the court may take the view that the mental illness or disorder from which the offender is suffering is one susceptible to treatment for which a spell in hospital will be of value. It may be felt that there is hope that over a period of time the offender will recover. If he does, he can be transferred from the hospital to the prison and release the beds in the hospital for other people whose illness is susceptible to treatment.
It is not a question of locking people up in state hospitals indefinitely. For those offenders who require that disposal, the provision already exists. These provisions relate to people whose disorder is susceptible to treatment but who, for whatever reason, have committed serious crimes which require them to be in custody for a period of time. It is an additional option to those that are currently available. It has been widely welcomed, albeit that some people with expertise in the field expressed anxiety as to whether the treating of such a patient in the hospital in the knowledge that if he recovers he will then go to prison is possibly not the ideal situation in which a psychiatrist would wish to work; it is felt that sending the offender to prison will undo the good work that has been done.
There is therefore a dilemma, as was cogently argued when we discussed similar provisions in the English Bill. Nevertheless, we believe it to be an option worth pursuing. Whatever reservations some may have about it, the message that we were given in relation to the English Bill was that we should extend it to more offenders than the English Bill currently covers. On that basis I hope the provisions will be welcome, albeit that the provisions in the Scottish Bill may need further treatment.
Lord McCluskey: I am encouraged by the earlier remarks of the noble and learned Lord that further consideration should be given to this matter. I am slightly puzzled by the reference to Clause 32 of the

2021
Bill. It is certainly applicable but means that a person who is in hospital is automatically entitled to the maximum number of early release days whether or not he behaves himself. Therefore, the longer he stays in hospital, the less need there is for him to behave.
Finally, I received a letter from the Scottish Association for Mental Health. I have been chairman of that body for nearly 10 years and should have raised the matter myself. Unfortunately, my letter on the subject became mixed up with others and I did not come to it until today. However, having been encouraged by the answers given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The court shall not impose a hospital direction under subsection (1) above unless it is satisfied that a hospital order would not be a more appropriate disposal.
( ) Where a court imposes a hospital direction under subsection (1) above it shall give its reasons in open court for the imposition of such a direction rather than the imposition of a hospital order.").
The noble Lord said: This part of the Bill is quite interesting. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may be familiar with the recent case where a person accused of a crime "conned"—to put it one way—the psychiatrists and enabled himself to be sent to Carstairs instead of to prison. When he reached Carstairs, he complained that he should not be there, having conned his way in. We are therefore dealing with a delicate area of human behaviour.
Amendment No. 90 has not been grouped with Amendments Nos. 91 to 95. It may save some time if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can say whether or not the Government have had time to consider these amendments and are prepared to take them away and look at them further. They are not tabled for political reasons, but for social reasons in this difficult area. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate whether I need to take up the Committee's time in speaking to Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 as well as to Amendment No. 90.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: If it will assist, I can say that we have had some time to consider the points that lie behind these amendments and are not disposed to accept them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, demonstrated, I am open to persuasion. But I need to hear the arguments first.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was hoping to save some of the Committee's time. However, I will speak to Amendment No. 90 first. The new hospital direction is causing anxiety among those people who are unfortunate enough to be involved in that area of life. It was tabled to make sure that the court does not dodge the responsibility of making a hospital order when a person is suffering from a mental illness—whatever the correct description may be—and uses the hospital
2022
direction as a half-way house. That will serve neither the community nor the individual and will only create difficulties.
I should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's response. We cannot have a situation where the courts use the order as a half-way house rather than face up to the reality of the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the individual and his long-term future in relation to society. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As I indicated earlier, the Government have thought about this amendment and cannot agree to it. What concerns us are the assumptions that lie behind it. They are assumptions to be borne in mind when considering an option which is not properly focused in the amendment.
As I indicated earlier, there are two stand-alone options when dealing with serious offenders who have mental problems. The first is to send the offender to prison and the other is to impose a hospital order. The hospital direction is not a stand-alone option; it is to run with imprisonment. Therefore, the options are, first, a hospital order; secondly, imprisonment with a hospital direction; and thirdly, imprisonment alone.
Our concern is that by putting such a provision on the face of the Bill Parliament would be taking the view that the courts need reminding of what the relevant sentencing options are in serious cases of this nature. Clearly, if any question of mental illness arises, the strong probabilities are that the court would have before it medical reports, and the Bill sets out what would be necessary. If the court was to consider a hospital order the more appropriate disposal, we can assume that it would make one. On the other hand, if the court was not of that view and took the view that a sentence of imprisonment combined with a hospital direction was the right order, again it would proceed along that path.
The idea that the court must start out by looking at the hospital order and be satisfied that that was not appropriate before considering the direction linked with imprisonment or imprisonment alone is the wrong approach. All three options are open, and, indeed, any other option that might strike the court as being appropriate for a person convicted in the High Court suffering from mental illness. In another case, probation with a condition of taking such medical assistance or guidance as a supervising officer deemed appropriate might be an option. One doubts whether community service would be, but one can never eliminate the possibility.
It seems to be wrong to set out which option one has to look at first and which option one has to exclude. That is why the assumption that lies behind the order is not one the Government feel is attractive. If that is correct, the second part of the amendment is also inappropriate because it would require the court to state why it had rejected the hospital order before passing to the sentence of imprisonment linked with the hospital direction.

2023
I am sure the noble Lord had the best of motives in bringing forward this suggestion, but I hope he is persuaded that it would not be a helpful route to follow.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I am sure that it will be read with interest by those concerned with this delicate area of human behaviour. With that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 13, line 13, at end insert ("or a person to whom subsection (2A) below applies.
(2A) This subsection applies to any person who is—

(a) convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Navy Discipline Act 1957;

(b) a civil prisoner, that is to say a person appearing before the court in respect of a civil debt;

(c) awaiting to be sentenced by the court for non-payment of a fine imposed upon him; or

(d) detained under the Immigration Act 1971.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment speaks for itself. I assume from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has already said that it will not appeal to him. Perhaps the Government will have a look at it to see whether it is a sensible amendment. The general view is that hospital orders should not apply to the people set out in Amendment No. 91. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As my right honourable friend the Minister of State made clear when this issue was debated in another place, the first three lines of new Section 59A, which are to be found printed on page 13, lines 4 to 7, achieve the result which this amendment seeks to achieve. For that reason the Government believe it is unnecessary. Virtually all the categories of persons set out are already excluded by the opening words of Section 59A,
""convicted on indictment in the High Court or in the sheriff court of an offence punishable by imprisonment".
The only exceptions would be those few offences in the Service Acts which may be, and in a particular case have been, tried in the criminal courts rather than by court martial. If a full trial has taken place before the High Court or a sheriff court, in those few cases I can see no reason for precluding the court from considering the imposition of a hospital direction in addition to any term of imprisonment. It will have heard all the evidence and it will have all the medical evidence available. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 13, line 25, after ("form;") insert—
("(bb) each medical practitioner mentioned in paragraph (a) above shall confirm to the court that—

(i) he has examined the patient personally within seven days of appearing in court;

(ii) each such examination was either carried out separately, in which case not more than five days elapsed between the days on which the separate examinations took place, or no objection was made by the patient or his nearest relative (being informed of the right of the offender to have separate examinations) and the examinations were carried out together;

(iii) he is not related to the offender; and

(iv) he has no pecuniary interest in the admission of the offender to that hospital;").

The noble Lord said: This amendment again speaks for itself. Before anyone is dealt with under the medical conditions within the criminal law we believe that the reports before the court should be of recent and not of ancient origin. The suggestion is that they should be made within one week of the patient appearing in court so there is no doubt that when the court takes its view of the proper disposal it has up-to-date reports before it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Government consider this amendment to be unnecessary. The amendment refers to the evidence being within seven days of a court appearance. The approach the Government have always followed in these matters is to leave it to the court to be satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently up-to-date for it to discharge its duty or to exercise its powers under the sentencing legislation. We see no reason to change that approach on this occasion.
In our view, the other concerns lying behind the amendment are adequately addressed by Clause 9(2) of the Bill, which is in fairly technical terms in so far as it refers to amendments of Section 61 of the 1995 Act (requirements as to medical evidence). With that explanation, I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is becoming like a game of tennis here. On this occasion, game, set and match to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate! Those concerned with these issues will no doubt look with interest at what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 13, line 29, at end insert ("; and
(d) the court has received a report from a mental health officer who has interviewed the person within 14 days of the hearing.
(3A) A report under subsection (3)(d) above shall be in the prescribed form and shall—

(a) report on the social circumstances of the person; and

2025

(b) confirm that, in the opinion of the mental health officer, a hospital direction would be the only appropriate disposal in all the circumstances of the case.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment applies to the same kind of situation which I explained when I moved Amendment No. 90. It is self-explanatory. It seeks to ensure that a court making a hospital order or direction should have before it all the information necessary to make the order. With that short explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The issue which arises in Amendment No. 93 is to some extent related to that which also arises in Amendment No. 94. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may explain the Government's position. We do not consider it would be appropriate for a mental health officer, who would he a local authority official, to have in any sense a right of veto over a court's consideration as to whether to impose a hospital direction. That would, we believe, be the effect in particular of Amendment No. 93. It refers in paragraph (b) to confirming that,
"in the opinion of the mental health officer, a hospital direction would be the only appropriate disposal in all the circumstances of the case".
It is for the court to decide the matter in the light of the medical evidence laid before it. We do not think this is an instance where the mental health officer can have a role of the nature which lies behind Amendments Nos. 93 and 94.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation in relation to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. I quite accept that the amendment as presented to the Committee is defective. Perhaps instead of "the only appropriate disposal" it should read "might be an appropriate disposal". That would leave the discretion to the court. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 14, line 6, at end insert
("(8) The conveyance of the person mentioned in subsections (6) and (7) above shall only be undertaken by such persons as specified in section 62A(1)(a) below.".").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of this group of amendments relating to mental health. Again, it is self-explanatory. The reasoning behind it is that it should not be the responsibility of the local authority to convey prisoners—call them what you may. The police or the prison or hospital authorities should bear the burden of transport rather than putting it on the community. With that short explanation, I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Again, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. It seeks to define who should convey a person to a place of safety. The court already has power to make additional directions as
2026
it thinks fit for the conveyance of persons to a place of safety. We believe that it is appropriate that it should be the court which decides this rather than it should be determined in advance unequivocally by Parliament. The court can choose whoever is appropriate. We believe that to be the right way forward. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, but what options are open to the court? Who is going to take the person at the behest of the court? Will it be the police or what other options are open to the judge?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The options are to be found in Clause 6 at the foot of page 14 of the Bill:
"A hospital direction [order] made under the [new] section 59A … shall be sufficient authority—
(a) for a constable, a mental health officer, an officer on the staff of the hospital specified in the direction or other person directed to do so by the court to convey the person in respect of whom the direction has been made".
That leaves flexibility to the court in a way which this amendment might not. The section is referred to in the amendment and, on reflection, we hope that it will not be insisted on.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With that explanation, I also shall be flexible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Arts Therapists Board) Order of Council 1997
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships creates an Arts Therapists Board under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. Arts therapists are specialist practitioners who use techniques to help clients with severe communication problems through painting, drama, music and other arts. The broad effect of the order is to extend the 1960 Act to include arts therapists along with chiropodists, dietitians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, orthoptists, medical laboratory scientific officers, radiographers, and, as of this month, prosthetists and orthotists.
The board's function will be to promote high standards of professional education and conduct, within the umbrella of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (CPSM) whose duty it is to co-ordinate and supervise the activities of all the boards. The board's main duties are to prepare and maintain a register; approve training courses leading to state registration and the institutions providing them; determine applications for admission to the register on the basis of qualifications and experience acquired either in the UK or elsewhere; and to set up investigation and disciplinary committees to produce guidance on conduct and deal with individual cases of misconduct.
Practitioners who are registered by the board will be entitled to call themselves "state registered arts therapists". The use of that title by a person who is not registered will be an offence, as will the use of any title or description which falsely implies that he or she is registered under the 1960 Act.
The Act requires that the board should have a majority of members from the professions concerned. It is proposed to have 17 members appointed by the CPSM, of whom nine will be nominated by the profession in the first instance and thereafter elected by registrants. Of the remaining members, three will be doctors nominated by the Scottish and English royal colleges and one will be an expert in professional education; two will represent the interests of employers; one will represent the interests of patients and carers; and one will be from the health or social care professions other than medicine or the professions regulated under the Act. Neither patients nor employers have hitherto had a voice on boards. The creation of this board, and the recently approved Prosthetists and Orthotists Board, offers a good opportunity to fill that significant gap.
The size of the CPSM itself will also increase from 24 to 27 because the Act requires that all boards have a professional representative on council and that the number of medical and professional members should be equal. The third "lay" member preserves the balance of representation between professional, medical and other members.
The Act does not require the profession to do more than satisfy the CPSM, the Privy Council, and your Lordships' House that it is a profession supplementary to medicine. The underlying intention is, however, clearly to afford the public a degree of protection that it would not otherwise have.
Arts therapists comprise a small, highly specialised group—about 1,500 practitioners in the UK. All were originally hospital-based, but now increasingly work in the community, general practice, education, social services and prisons, generally in the mental health field. Only a minority (about 30 per cent.) are directly employed in the NHS, although practitioners in other sectors accept referrals of NHS patients.
The profession combines the three disciplines of art, music and drama. All share common approaches to training and practice, but vary in the medium used. All combine artistic proficiency with psychotherapeutic
2028
techniques to enable patients with severe communication problems to express feelings which might otherwise remain unexpressed—in short, to promote self-esteem and personal growth through self-awareness. Patients typically include profoundly damaged people who may be beyond the reach of other therapies—child victims and adult survivors—and indeed perpetrators of sexual, physical and emotional abuse or other trauma; sufferers from acute depression, severe mental illness or behavioural problems, as well as those with progressive or terminal disease. The therapeutic process can be intense and sustained, and the techniques used are powerful and potentially dangerous to both patient and practitioner if mishandled, particularly where the latter is inappropriately trained or motivated. It is for this reason that members of the professions seek and are trained to provide a safe and secure environment in which to help healing.
Admission to professional membership normally entails the possession of a degree in the creative discipline concerned followed by a period of one to three years' relevant work experience in health, education or social services. There follows a postgraduate diploma course of at least one year and mostly two years at an approved higher education institution. This UK model is one that a number of other countries, particularly in Europe, have adopted.
In their practice, arts therapists will often work independently or with limited supervision, but they readily identify themselves as members of multidisciplinary teams accountable to the clinician with overall responsibility. In turn, arts therapy is accepted by other professionals as making a valuable contribution to the treatment of a wide range of disorders. The profession has secured the support of representatives of medicine, nursing, psychology, and of all the groups now covered by the 1960 Act, for this proposal.
Essentially, the case for state registration of arts therapists is that it gives a clear and objective signal to the public and to colleagues making referrals. It ensures the high standards of training, conduct and practice that they can expect. The paramount interest is that of patients and carers who will often be in no position to judge the standing of practitioners. They can be assured that both those falsely claiming those standards, and those falling short of them, will be effectively dealt with. In addition, state registration will provide a benchmark for employers; offer an opportunity to strengthen the collaboration between the health professions; provide a coherent mechanism for dealing with overseas qualified practitioners, including those from the European Economic Area, wishing to exercise the right of freedom of movement; and assist in workforce planning by keeping a continuous record of the pool of qualified practitioners.
This measure, if approved, will provide a scheme of self-regulation at arm's length from government and funded by practitioners themselves. The Government are satisfied that arts therapists (though still a relatively young profession) have sufficiently developed to join the family of mature professions regulated by the CPSM, and I commend the making of this order by the Privy Council.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall not detain the Minister for very long because I suspect that she may have a more glamorous engagement elsewhere. However, I should like to say a few words of welcome for the measure and to endorse the support that was given to it in another place by my honourable friend, Mr. Mark Fisher.
Although limited, this is an extremely important measure which recognises the valuable work of a small group of practitioners both within and outside the National Health Service. The Arts Therapists Board will be extremely important, not only in terms of recognising, promoting and monitoring the role of those already working in this area in music, drama or art therapy, but also, I hope, in promoting in a broader sphere the role of art within healing. In the past many of us who have worked within the health service have not sufficiently appreciated the effect of art on patients and their healthcare. Art is important whether it is in the form of design, artwork or music and it can play an important and beneficial role in healthcare establishments.
I emphasise my support for the work of art therapists—and not only in health service institutions—because one of my most moving experiences as the chairman of a hospital trust was the day when various women prisoners from Holloway donated to the hospital the works of art that they had chosen to produce to thank the hospital for the care it had given them. Under the auspices of the education department in Holloway, they had produced some wonderful work. It was extremely encouraging to hear those women talk about the importance of being able to do something creative and put something back into society. That made one feel that there were some ways in which prison could be made a positive experience.
I hope very much that the board will act not only to ensure high professional standards among art therapists, but also to research and to promote a wider understanding among the public of the healing qualities that art can have.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the measure which I am sure will be widely welcomed among art therapists. The order will also do a great deal to protect the public. I endorse the views expressed by the noble Baroness about the role of the arts in hospital and in healing. We know that healing is a science, but I think that it is also an art. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance Pilot Schemes
7.13 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme)
2030
Regulations 1997 and Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Regulations 1997 be not proceeded with and that this House requests Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations omitting the words "could cease to be payable or" in regulation 4(2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I had understood that the Minister was to open the debate generally before me. If the noble Lord wishes to do so, I am happy to give way to him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding was that, since this is the noble Earl's Motion, he will speak to it first and I shall speak at the end. In speaking at the end, I shall speak to all my regulations to save the time that would otherwise be taken by having two separate debates, first, on the noble Earl's Motion and, secondly, on the regulations. Obviously, it is open to either the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to speak to all five of the different regulations separately after we have dealt with this Motion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, are we sure that that is the correct procedure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Motion is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He will speak to that. He will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I shall then speak and then the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will speak again. Thereafter, we can deal with the regulations en bloc or as Nos. 1 to 5 separately. I had hoped that I had explained earlier to the noble Earl that I had intended, in replying to this debate, to speak also to the five regulations because that might speed up our processes—that is, as long as all noble Lords are content. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the critical thing is whether one makes one speech or two. If the noble Lord is suggesting that when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, speaks to his Motion, he speaks also to the regulations, he will make one speech, so will I and so will the Minister. The three of us will make three speeches. I should have thought that that was the best way; otherwise we shall have to make six speeches.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is correct except that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will make two speeches—he will speak at the beginning and at the end—while the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and myself will each make one speech. That is a total of four if my calculations are right and I think that the House would probably be happier with that arrangement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I really must apologise to the Minister for misunderstanding our brief, hurried but helpful conversation this afternoon. I think that that shows that "belt and braces" is on occasion a dangerous policy. However, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for trying.

2031
Before developing further the specific theme of my Motion, I should like to touch on one or two general points arising from the working of JSA which are relevant to my argument because they tend to show the possibility of error. A fair amount of trouble is still going on about the "joins" between the Employment Service and the Department of Social Security systems. I refer, for example, to a case in Hertfordshire which I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, although it may be news to my noble kinsman Lord Henley. The case involves someone who received two letters on the same day, one telling him that he had been awarded the Jobseeker's Allowance and the other disallowing his claim to JSA for,
"the reasons we have told you about in another letter",
which he had not received.
We have a considerable amount of trouble with voluntary unemployment and people not asking for a claim form. The department does not ask anybody to explain their reasons for leaving and then imposes the voluntary unemployment penalty because claimants' employers were not willing to give a reason as to why they had left. There are a good many such errors, many leading to disentitlement where that should not, in justice, have taken place.
We have some trouble arising from the changed programme. One Benefits Agency office sent a client to a citizens advice bureau to get the form filled in on the grounds that the Benefits Agency was too busy. That was confirmed on investigation. It suggests that perhaps the basis of the changed programme needs a little watching.
All of those things have led to errors. Most of the errors have led to people being without benefit. That makes one wonder whether, in a system which is so capable of error, such a degree of disentitlement to benefit is prudent.
The specific point of my Motion concerns the regulations for the pilot schemes for Project Work, the workfare scheme, and seeks to ask the Government to bring forward amended regulations, omitting the words,
"could cease to be payable or".
The effect of that would be to make it impossible under the regulations to disentitle people totally to benefit. That is put forward as a general point of principle, the relevance of which extends far beyond the scope of these regulations. I make that general point of principle, which will not surprise either the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or my noble kinsman, because it is important to indicate a continuing lack of consent on this point.
I can most briefly put my first reason for objecting to total disentitlement to benefit in the words of St. Paul, who said that we may not do evil that good may come. This is something which should be the subject of a taboo, just as there should be a taboo on failing to stop to pick up survivors at sea or failing to help somebody who is found bleeding after an accident. Perhaps I may take another example. A person I know quite well once slipped on the platform at Waterloo and fell, becoming
2032
wedged between the train and the platform. She was naturally a little alarmed because the train was just about to depart—and all the passers-by walked on down the platform and did absolutely nothing to help her. I think that is a sign of a sick society. Disentitlement to benefit is the sign of a sick society in very much the same way.
It has of course been tried in other places. There was a report last Tuesday of the effects of disentitlement to benefit in Wisconsin under the Clinton welfare reforms. It has produced a 30 per cent. increase since Christmas in homelessness. That cannot be done without cost. One of the people running a shelter said, "It is poverty that makes people homeless, and welfare reform is making more people poor, and driving the poor deeper into poverty. Then they show up on our doorstep".
As recently as yesterday, it was reported in the Independent that the BMA is complaining about GPs being asked to fill in a form about people disentitled to benefit to say whether they are a suicide risk. That interested me, because it is the first sign I have seen that the Government appreciate the potential gravity of what they are engaged in doing. In that situation, if my GP were to certify that I was not a suicide risk, I would be tempted to sue him for libel, because I would believe that he was certifying that I was capable of earning my living by criminal activity, which is the obvious alternative.
The effect of withdrawing from people the protection of the safety net is very much like the effect in times past of making them outlaws. It is withdrawing the protection of the state from them. Of course whatever the moral position may be—I am not touching on that—if one withdraws that protection from people, one gets the reaction that it weakens the impulse to keep the law. That is inevitably so.
The other trouble of course about doing evil that good may come, is that the good usually does not come. If you look, for example, at the Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign you find large numbers of people who did, in fact, however wrongly, take to crime because they were denied benefit. I shall not develop that theme. Noble Lords know perfectly well how I should develop it. Noble Lords might also notice the extreme prominence and frequency of mental illness discovered in the Shelter report Go Home and Rest, among people homeless on the street. All those are not cost-free things. So even in strictest Treasury terms we might wonder whether any saving results. It is of course impossible to check that—I have tried many times—because there are Chinese walls within government statistics. One cannot discover how many people admitted to hospital were destitute of benefit; one cannot discover how many people sent to prison were destitute of benefit. So one cannot make any quantitative study to show the extent of it. Before there is any more disentitlement to benefit such as is brought in under these regulations, that should be put right. Until it is, I do not see how the DSS can claim to be monitoring what it is doing.
There is also of course the possibility of instituting a real petty tyranny by sending decisions of this sort of import to people's lives down to a very low level

2033
indeed, and, indeed, sometimes, in effect, by delegation, outside government circles altogether. Let us take, for example, a case reported from a CAB in Yorkshire: someone dismissed from his job after five weeks, he alleged, for making a joke in the presence of a supervisor. As we have seen in Welwyn and Hatfield, some jokes are funnier than others, but even there dismissal has not been held to be the appropriate penalty. That man was without any form of support except what he received from the Salvation Army for two weeks, and disentitled to regular benefit for 26 weeks. It must have been a very bad joke.
Again, let us take this, reported from a CAB in the North West: someone disqualified from JSA, left without anything at all, even severe hardship payments for two weeks. The CAB commented:
"He is therefore expected to starve in a dark, unheated flat for two weeks. We wonder how this will help him to get a job and get off benefits".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to answer the CAB's question. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1997 and Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Regulations 1997 be not proceeded with and that this House requests Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations omitting the words "could cease to be payable or" in regulation 4(2).—(Earl Russell.)
7.25 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to do two things this evening: I want to define our attitude towards the Motion and, secondly, to ask a number of questions about the regulations. I agreed with almost all the noble Earl said, subject to two clarifications which I must make. First, it is not our policy to divide the House on regulations. It is our policy to maintain that the Government of the day should have their way on regulations, and we hope very soon to benefit from that rule, so I would not take my agreement with him to a point where I would suggest we should divide the House.
Secondly, I feel that there must be a point at which the refusal to co-operate—I am not sure that the noble Earl would disagree with this—with fair and reasonable demands from an employment officer should result in some loss of entitlements. The question is whether that is happening after a fair and reasonable set of alternatives, and whether the sanctions, when they are applied, are themselves fair and reasonable.
We should see the Motion in the context of what has been happening with regulations and the benefits service since the introduction of the stricter benefit regime, because what is happening, and what is embodied in the regulations, is merely a development of the policy of the stricter benefit regime: ever stricter conditions to qualify for the benefit, and therefore much more likely, and much easier, to disqualify for the benefit. Also of course there is a constant use of Restart courses, job clubs, job
2034
plan workshops, jobsearch seminars, and so on, and so on, which are offered on a compulsory basis to the long-term unemployed, although of course we have no evidence that that stricter benefit regime has produced any benefit in terms of positive outcomes. Positive outcomes from the new regime are still trifling.
Then of course there are re-orientation programmes, upon which we have some more regulations tonight, and project work, workskills, contract for work, and so on. Again, there is no evidence, despite the increase in the sanctions and the increase in the compulsory work, that they have had any positive outcome whatever for the people going through these programmes; 95 per cent. of them still go back on to the unemployment register. Here we have two more courses advanced today in pilot form: the project work pilot and the contract work pilot, about which I shall say something.
The Government will say—they are entitled to say—that there is nothing new in such schemes. They are right. There are many other schemes. Indeed, I want to know why we have so many schemes. I want to talk about three of the regulations, because we have five regulations. It seems to me that two of the regulations are relatively innocent. There is the regulation which says merely that those on workskill courses should be exempt from the AST test when they are on the course. Well, even the Government could see that that is necessary. That is innocent enough. I read it carefully and I can see nothing wrong with it. Therefore, I have nothing further to say about that regulation.
The other regulation, which is logical if a trifle mean, provides that from the very beginning the AST applies from the start of the JSA. I doubt whether anybody would have known that it did not start at the beginning. That appears to be logical and not particularly important.
Tonight I do not want to talk about those two regulations, but I wish to ask a number of questions about the two regulations which affect the pilot work scheme and the regulation which affects the contract for work. I have four questions that I wish to ask the Minister. First, what exactly is the difference? What will be done by the unemployed workers who go on these schemes?
In the regulations the Government give a definition of what they mean. It is good to have that; it is the first time that we have had such a definition. For example, the project work scheme regulations inform us that project work means:
"work experience and jobsearch help lasting for … 13 weeks".
That is not very different from the meaning of contract work, the definition of which is:
"work experience, vocational training and jobsearch help and training".
Vocational training is added, but there is still work experience, and that lasts for 26 weeks. What precisely is the difference? The workskills course, a regulation that I do not wish to debate, is employment-related and is a programme of learning lasting more than 12 months.
Reading the definitions of the courses, they appear to be very much the same, except that they last for

2035
different periods. That is not the only confusion. The Government have had other schemes such as training for work, learning for work, community action and work trial which have similar definitions. Why do we have all these different schemes? What is the point, when 95 per cent. of the participants go straight back to the dole?
I turn to my second question. All these schemes are to be made compulsory, but we have one well-established scheme which has been voluntary—community action. It takes 40,000 people off the dole for a mere £70 million. Why are we getting rid of community action, which is a voluntary scheme? What is wrong with community action that it has to be phased out as these compulsory schemes are introduced? Is community action cheaper or more expensive? Is it a better scheme or a worse scheme? Why is it being phased out when it covers 40,000 people? I suppose that these tiny pilot schemes are being put in its place.
My third question deals with the contract for work scheme. I suspect that it is one of the Government's favourites because it introduces the private-sector element. The definition of a contract for work scheme is:
"Work experience, vocational training and jobsearch help and trainine".
It lasts for 26 weeks, but I understand that it will be split in two. Two of the pilots are to be privatised but the other two will be undertaken by the Employment Service. Why is it being done like that? Is it that the private sector is being watched by the public sector? Is it that the private sector is thought to be cheaper or more expensive? Do the Government have any idea what the costs of the two schemes will be?
I understand from the statement made by the Chancellor in his latest Budget that the private-sector scheme will be run by consultants—nowadays virtually everything is run by consultants—who will receive a commission. Can we be told the size of the commission? Can we be told what they will have to do for the commission? Can we be told that if they succeed they will he able to take over all the schemes? I shall be interested to have any information that the Minister has about the private-sector element in the contract for work scheme.
I turn to my final question. It is not really a question; I am trying to get clarity from the Minister. It is a conceptual question. As I see it, the Government have two ways of approaching the problem of what to do with the unemployed—workfare and searchfare. The question is whether you can combine the two. Workfare means that if you are on benefit you must be working for the benefit. We are not having people taking benefit and doing no work. If you do more work while you are taking the benefit, you get the benefit plus—it may be another £10 or so. Searchfare means that all the time you are on benefit you must be actively seeking work. We see a mixture of those two elements in the pilot programmes. What is the balance? Even the Government can see that you cannot be working all the time and searching all the time. There must be some
2036
kind of trade-off; otherwise for the unemployed there will be no work and no rest. Even the Government cannot believe that.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to speak to the five sets of regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper and then to the Motion in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Russell. Following whatever decision the House may take—I am sure that it will take a wise decision and reject my noble kinsman's Motion—I shall formally move all five Motions.
As the House will be aware, these matters were debated in another place on 26th February in Committee. I believe that only one Member of the Opposition party deigned to attend, whereas my party was considerably better represented even than it is on this occasion. Certainly on this occasion it is better represented than the noble Lord's party.
The Jobseekers Act 1995 provides for pilots of new approaches to helping unemployed people into work to be established through regulations. I believe that the policy is supported by the party opposite. My purpose today is to seek your Lordships' approval to introduce new pilot schemes which would allow us to evaluate some new and innovative approaches to helping unemployed people into work. I am also seeking agreement to some minor amendments to JSA regulations.
I would like to introduce the regulations to the House by explaining briefly the nature of the powers being sought and how the pilot schemes would work. I turn first to the Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997.
During the passage of the Jobseekers Bill we made two commitments. First, we said that we would collect information about the effect of the JSA rules on education and training. We have met that commitment. Research reports will be published shortly, possibly by the end of the month. Secondly, we said that we would consider piloting different arrangements. We have now met that commitment too. These regulations will allow us to introduce the pilots. They will be called the workskill pilots. They will allow us to evaluate new, more flexible arrangements for people who have been receiving JSA for six months or more to undertake employment-related education and training to help them into work.
We aim to introduce the pilots in April 1997. There will be two versions. One will be run in Liverpool and in Leeds. This will allow people to undertake certain part-time courses of up to a year and to be available for and look for part-time work which can be fitted around their course. The other will be run in Cardiff and in Wolverhampton and Walsall. This will allow people to undertake certain full-time courses of up to a year and excuse them from the normal JSA rules on availability for work and looking for work while they are on the course.

2037
I turn now to the Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) Regulations. The project work pilots provide an intensive period of jobsearch help and, for people who need it, a period of mandatory work experience.
In May last year, the House approved the Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) 1996 Regulations. Since then we have been running two project work pilots in Hull and Medway and Maidstone. The results of those pilots have been encouraging.
The regulations before the House today would establish two new pilot schemes. One provides for an expansion of the project work approach with some modification to 28 new areas, starting between February and May this year. The other replaces the current pilots in Hull and Medway and Maidstone with a further and modified scheme which would continue to run alongside the pilots in the new areas.
We want to test some variations to the model used in Hull and Medway and Maidstone to see if we can improve its effectiveness. There will be an emphasis on literacy and numeracy help in all the new pilots. In some pilots, we will be testing intensive and additional literacy and numeracy support. We also want to test in some pilots whether experience in a real workplace improves people's chances of getting a job through increasing the involvement of the private sector.
I turn now to the Jobseeker's Allowance (Contract for Work) Pilot Regulations. We are also seeking powers today to run four contract for work pilots, two private sector and two ES pilots, each covering 3,000 people—12,000 people in all. The contract for work pilots will run in Manchester, London, Glasgow, and Birmingham. The pilots will cover all those in the areas in which they are run who have been unemployed for two years or more. They will start in June and last for 12 months. Participants will be referred to the pilots for six months.
Participants who leave the pilot before completing six months but return to claim JSA during the life of the pilot will be referred back to the pilot for the balance of the six months remaining. The pilots will be mandatory: participants will be liable to benefit sanction for misconduct or non-attendance. Pilot participants will receive JSA, or an allowance equivalent to their JSA entitlement, while on the pilot. Participation on the pilots will not affect eligibility for passported benefits. Private sector organisations will be paid for their success in placing people in sustainable jobs.
I turn finally to the Social Security (Jobseeker's Allowance and Mariners' Benefits) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997. These amendments correct an anomaly in the current regulations which has come to light in the operation of JSA. JSA labour market conditions are applied across a full benefit week of seven days. But most jobsekers will have a period of a few days at the beginning of a claim for JSA before the cycle of full benefit weeks kicks in. The policy intention is that such jobseekers should still be required to act in such a way that they could meet the normal conditions of JSA had that period been a full week. But the current regulations have the effect of giving some jobseekers entitlement to JSA in that part-week period
2038
whether or not they are available for work or taking any steps to look for work. These amending regulations simply restore the original policy intention. In the case of the mariner's benefits, the regulations remove an obsolete provision.
The pilot regulations, if approved, would be in force for one year only and would establish scheme which will operate in specified areas. Any possibility of further extension is a matter for future consideration, which would include further scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee and require further regulations to be put before Parliament.
I hope that those opening remarks have been useful. I shall certainly move on to the Motion in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Russell. However, perhaps I may answer a few of the points put by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on the different regulations. In effect, he asked four questions and to some extent they all have the same or a similar answer. First, he asked why there are so many different schemes. There is one very simple answer. I refer to a word which appears in the title of a number of the regulations; that word is "pilot". We want to try a whole range of different ideas and methods. As I have heard from the noble Lord's party on a number of occasions, that view is accepted. Noble Lords opposite now accept that there is no one simple answer to the particular problem of encouraging people to come off benefit and look for work. Why else is it proposed to impose a windfall tax on successful privatised utilities other than to provide the necessary finance to try out a number of different schemes. We are trying them out by means of pilot schemes so that we can try to see which schemes are most effective.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I see that in relation to pilot schemes. However, there is the restart course, the job club, the job plan workshop, training for work, jobsearch, job interview guarantee, learning for work, business start-up, community action work trial and so on. There are too many.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not agree with the noble Lord at all. There are a great many people in the country and they are all different and have different attributes. We want to try a whole range of different schemes and programmes to meet the different requirements. It is—dare I say it?—a rather centralist approach to suggest that the number of schemes should be narrowed down. We wish to continue with a whole range of schemes which operate nationwide. Some schemes prove to be highly effective and some less so. We have dropped the less effective schemes and normally, when we do that, there are howls of outrage from the party opposite. But the noble Lord should recognise that there are different schemes and approaches which can be appropriate for different people.
The noble Lord asked also why there is a difference between the workskill pilot schemes and other government programmes for the unemployed. Workskill pilots will allow people to undertake employment-related education and training under certain conditions and continue to receive JSA. It is not just work

2039
experience or a jobsearch scheme. As I said earlier, we are providing a wide range of help to the unemployed to reflect what is in fact a wide range of needs.
The noble Lord asked, in terms of contract for work, about the cost of the different schemes. I should tell the noble Lord that £100 million covers the new project work scheme which has about 100,000 places and the contract for work scheme which has about 12,000 places. The size of the private sector commission will depend on competitive tendering. We shall obviously make an appropriate decision in the light of value for money and the bids which we receive from a whole range of different providers.
The noble Lord asked why we are using the private sector and why, in relation to one pilot, we are having two Employment Service schemes and two private sector schemes. Again, I take the noble Lord back to the point about pilots. It is important to try out different schemes. If we tried only two private sector schemes without using the Employment Service, we should not know whether the outcome was as a result of it being a private sector scheme or because of the particular conditions imposed. Therefore, we are running two Employment Service schemes under the same conditions as an extra control.
I now move to the Motion in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Russell. Perhaps I may start by addressing one small but important point. I do not wish to dwell on the point but it is relevant if the noble Earl wishes to press the matter to a Division. I understand that his concern can go wider than that addressed in the Motion but it is important that the House should understand the precise effect of the Motion.
The Motion requests the Government to lay amended regulations omitting the words "cease to be payable" in Regulation 4(2) of the pilot regulations. Regulation 4(2) describes the person to whom a sanction may be applied; that is, a person who has been given or sent a notice in writing by an employment officer advising him that if he fails to participate in project work his benefit could cease to be payable or could be payable at a lower rate. Deleting the words "cease to be payable" from the regulation would merely have the effect that a person who might be liable for a sanction could not have notice sent to him advising him that his JSA could cease to be payable. It would have no effect on the sanction itself, merely his advisory letter.
I am sure that my noble kinsman accepts that that would be a very odd result. In other words, we should still be able to sanction the individual but we should not have the power, as we do at the moment, to write to him beforehand and inform him as to what was to happen.
The basic theme of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is one to which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and I have listened on many occasions; namely, that costs rise in other areas simply because people are denied benefit. The noble Earl will know that my noble friend and I simply do not accept that view. We believe that taxpayers are quite right when they take a view that people should not
2040
receive benefits if they are not entitled to them. If there were no sanctions in benefits—and I was grateful to hear the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, say that he accepts that there should be sanctions, although we might differ on where they should be—I believe that my noble kinsman would find that costs would rise even faster and far, far more as demand for what one might term "easy benefits" grew and grew.
I return now to the main point. Of course I accept that my noble kinsman is really concerned more generally about our approach to sanctions in JSA. He has raised those concerns on many occasions during the passage through this House of the Jobseekers Bill and in last year's debate over the first project work pilot regulations. We believe that sanctions have always been, and should always be, an important feature of any benefit system to protect the taxpayer from subsidising people who have no good reason to be on that particular benefit or remain unemployed.
Sanctions exist to influence the behaviour of people who are claiming benefit. I should make it clear that we believe that most people claiming JSA do make every effort to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. However, sanctions reinforce the incentives for the few who might otherwise not meet their responsibilities to take effective steps to improve their prospects of finding work.
It is a basic objective of JSA to underline the conditional nature of unemployment benefits. Jobseekers should be left in no doubt at all about their responsibilities. In the case of project work, and any other mandatory programme, every jobseeker has the conditions of participation fully explained to him or her before being referred to the course or placement. If people fail to take up the offer of a place without good cause—and there are good causes that allow them to do so and there is the appropriate appeal regime—they will obviously lose JSA for two weeks in the first instance. There should be no confusion, no unfairness. JSA sanctions are designed to be a clear and effective mechanism to ensure that jobseekers take the opportunities put before them. But, nevertheless, we believe that it is still essential to provide a safety net for claimants who need special protection. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we accept that there is a need to continue to pay benefit to claimants whose circumstances, or those of their dependants, mean that they are particularly vulnerable to hardship. But, I repeat, what we do not accept is that there should be an automatic right to these payments, irrespective of the claimants' actions or, rather, inactions.
Where a sanction is applied and hardship would result because of this, vulnerable groups are eligible for hardship payments. We have looked carefully at who should be included within those groups and we believe that those who are vulnerable will fall within the safety net. That means that claimants with families, or claimants or their partners who are pregnant or disabled, or who have a chronic medical condition or are caring for someone will be able to claim JSA on the grounds of hardship. We believe that we have struck the right balance.

2041
The aim of project work is to help people who have been unemployed for a long time to move off benefits and back to work. Experience tells us that people who have been out of work for a long time may be left behind by the economic recovery that we know is taking place, unless we provide extra help. We also know that very long-term unemployed people can become demotivated. Project work provides an intensive period of jobsearch help and, for people who need it, a period of mandatory work experience. The arrangements for sanctions under JSA are applied to people who are eligible for project work. If someone is referred to project work and fails to attend as required without good cause, his case will be referred, as I said, to independent adjudication and he may lose some or all of his benefit for a period of time. After any sanction period has ended, the client will normally be re-referred to work experience to complete the balance of attendance up to 13 weeks.
We believe that most unemployed people are trying hard to find work and that this programme can help them to do so. But project work may also make it difficult for the minority who do not want to work, or may already be working while claiming benefit, to continue cheating the system in the same way. As I said earlier, I believe that taxpayers are entitled to expect that their money is used to fund benefits only for those who are truly entitled to them.
I hope that the noble Earl would accept that it would be wise for him not to press the Motion. The only advice that I can offer to the House, should he wish to press the Motion to a Division, is that we should reject it.
7.55 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with the noble Lord in what he said about pilot schemes. They are essential, but enthusiasm for piloting can be overdone. I am reminded of the Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen who once got two people and gave them an extremely large lunch. He left one of them to sleep it off and sent the other out hunting. Then, he cut them both open to find out which had digested better. That is a pilot pursued with excessive enthusiasm.
I shall return to the Minister's arguments in a few moments but, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for a large part of what he said. The noble Lord dealt with many points specifically on the Government's jobsearch programmes, which I should have made but did not because I did not want to prolong the course of the debate. In his description of searchfare, I was reminded of the remark that the noble Lord made when the Jobseekers Bill was before the House. On that occasion, the noble Lord asked whether the widow's pension was about to be renamed the spouse-seeker's allowance. That question seems even more pertinent today than it did at the time.
Of course, I expected the noble Lord to say what he said about regulations and I shall not argue about that now, save only to say that, warmly though I welcome the constitutional declaration which his party and mine have put out, it still leaves us with plenty to debate within the field of constitutional reform.
2042
The key point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was what you do with refusal to co-operate. The House will have noticed that my Motion does allow for the possibility of a benefit penalty. We will understand this better if we think that what we are getting here in compulsory training programmes and compulsory work programmes is, in effect, a peacetime reintroduction of conscription. There are, of course, cases where peacetime conscription is perfectly justifiable. However, I am not so sure whether this is one of them. But, in principle, it is admissible.
However, there are three points that one must make about the model of conscription. First, when we had it, the sanction employed was not total disentitlement to right to income; it was imprisonment. I believe that that is the more appropriate and less cruel sanction of the two. Secondly, when we had conscription, it was covered by a right of conscientious objection. I believe that to be of some importance. Let us imagine Mr. Daniel Hooper, alias Swampy, being required as a condition of continuing eligibility to work for a road building firm.
Lord Henley: Hear, hear!
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hear the Minister saying "Hear, hear", but I cannot help wondering whether the employer in the road building firm would be quite as enthusiastic as he is. I say that because that might increase his security costs quite impermissibly. In fact, I wonder whether what the Minister is contemplating is the use of compulsion on the employer as well as on the employee and whether that will be quite as widely welcome in his own party as are some of the measures that he is undertaking at present.
The third thing that we had with conscription was a medical examination, as some of your Lordship will remember. Considering the amount of undiagnosed mental illness among people on benefit, I believe that that would be a very welcome precaution to introduce. I also think that some concern ought to be had for the suitability of the task that people are being sent to do. I recently heard of a case from youth training of a young man who was colour blind being required, as a condition of receiving benefit, to become an electrician. I will say only that I hope he does not come to mend my electricity.
The Minister touched on the issue of costs. He said, very fairly, that he did not accept my view. However, I will ask him: how does he know? Does he possess any figures? Does he possess any research study? We all agree that the law may influence behaviour but how can the Minister know how the law influences behaviour until he knows what has happened to people who have been disentitled to benefit? As he and his noble friend have admitted many times, they are in total ignorance on this point.
I shall conclude with the story of an 18th century Member in another place. He had been speaking excruciatingly tediously for three hours. I assure the House that my story does not last that long. At the end of that three hours he was speaking to an almost empty Chamber and began to read the riot act when Edmund

2043
Burke of all people turned to him and said, "Ah, my friend, you are too late, see you not the crowd has dispersed?" It has and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Contract for Work) Regulations 1997
Social Security (Jobseeker's Allowance and Mariners' Benefits) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997
8 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th January, 5th February, 10th February and 13th February be approved [10th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the above regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 to 8.5 p.m.]

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose the inclusion of this clause. However, I must begin by saying that I am now more impressed by the hospital direction than I was initially. From what I recall, to attempt to do what a hospital direction does would otherwise require a
2044
person to be sent to prison although he was obviously psychiatrically unwell. The prison doctor then has to try to arrange for him to be transferred to a local psychiatric hospital until he is deemed psychiatrically fit. In that respect, I believe that a hospital direction has some merit.
However, I believe this direction places the patient and the psychiatric staff in a difficult position. I believe it will lead to decisions being made by patients and the staff that will be counter-productive. I suspect that patients will be motivated to avoid appearing to have recovered and that staff will be reluctant to discharge a patient who will then have to go to prison. Bed blocking is the likely outcome. That ought not to be the case. If prisons were the places we would like them to be this would not be a problem. A prison is a difficult enough place to survive in at the best of times. A recent psychiatric patient is a vulnerable prisoner and transfer to prison is an unlikely place for such a person to thrive in. Patients normally have enough trouble readjusting to their own local community.
In prison a prisoner with a psychiatric history is likely to be sorely taxed by some other prisoners and may not have the wit to stay behind his door. That denial of association is in itself an injustice. For those reasons I oppose the inclusion of the clause.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Earl for acknowledging that our discussions this evening have to some extent persuaded him that there is merit in the clause. For that reason it may not be necessary for me to say too much more, and certainly not to rehearse the arguments we discussed earlier.
However, it may be helpful to remind the Committee that at the present time, as I explained earlier, there are occasions when prisoners sent to prison by the courts require to be transferred to hospital and indeed require to be transferred by order of the Secretary of State under Section 71 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. If, having had treatment in the hospital, they are fit to be discharged from hospital, they can go back to prison if the sentence has some way to run.
Information available suggests that about 60 prisoners a year are transferred to hospital by the Secretary of State. About 20 a year are transferred back to prison. The remainder tend to remain in hospital until they are discharged into the community on the expiry of their sentence. That indicates that, while we are dealing with difficult problems as regards individual prisoners, there are not a huge number affected by the current provisions. We anticipate that that will apply when the new power comes into force. We expect that the courts will use this power only sparingly as an alternative option to the present powers.
The noble Earl mentioned the problem of bed blocking. It could arise for more than one reason. One suspects that trained and experienced psychiatrists will be aware in most instances of the prisoners who are feigning continued mental health problems, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned earlier, there are occasions when psychiatrists are misled by what the patient says to them. We do not believe that there will

2045
be many such instances. I see force in the comments made during the English Bill debates that psychiatrists may have a reluctance to send prisoners back to prison for fear of undoing the good that treatment has brought about. However, I am sure that when the provisions come into force psychiatrists will be aware that to work properly they have to respect the intentions underlying the legislation; that is, to give this additional option to that of the hospital order which currently exists.
We hope that people made subject to a hospital direction in addition to a prison sentence will not require to spend too long in hospital before they serve the rest of their sentence, and that bed blocking—it is undoubtedly a problem which will have to be borne in mind—will not prove to he as much of a problem as is suspected at present.
I hope that those further remarks have served to convince the noble Earl that the clause should stand part of the Bill and that he will not insist on his opposition to it.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, for the benefit of the Committee perhaps I may ask him about some other statistics. He mentioned the number of prisoners transferred into a secure mental institution on the direction of the Secretary of State. Can the noble and learned Lord advise the Committee how many are subjected to hospital orders on the direction of the court without the prison option introduced by the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not have to hand the information that the noble Lord seeks. It is part of the statistics that are published regularly. I shall ensure that copies of the relevant section are sent to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explain what is wrong with the present system? As I understand it, if a person sent to prison is mentally ill, under an ordinary hospital order he can be sent to a hospital where he will remain and be treated. I fail to understand why it is necessary for the court to become involved in making an order of this type at the very beginning. I do not understand why it cannot be left in the hands of the medical people who look at a prisoner at a time when it is thought he needs assistance of that kind. The undoubted effect of the hospital direction order now proposed is that the psychiatrist becomes the gaoler. He determines when his patient returns to prison. A person who has been inside a psychiatric hospital and is on the point of recovery is at his most fragile at that point. He is to be sent back to prison without the support that he could expect to receive within the community. I have yet to hear the case made for giving this power to the courts to determine these issues at the stage of sentencing.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me but I do not recall whether he was in the Chamber when I discussed the matter earlier and referred to chapter 13 of the White Paper which deals
2046
with this option. I cannot speak with any experience or knowledge of the position in England. But undoubtedly there are cases in Scotland where, when an accused person comes to be sentenced having been convicted of a serious crime which would undoubtedly warrant imprisonment as opposed to any other disposal, the issue arises as to whether the accused man requires medical treatment. With a measure of regularity, defence counsel draw this to the attention of the court. All the court can do at present, if it is not minded to impose a mental health order as frequently the court is not minded to do, is to indicate that the information presented to the court about the mental illness of the accused will be forwarded to the prison authorities. They will take such action as they deem appropriate to arrange for the prisoner to receive psychiatric treatment, whether as an outpatient while still in the prison, or by being transferred to hospital whether or not under the direction of the Secretary of State.
This perceived weakness in the sentencing procedures in Scotland was examined prior to publication of the White Paper. As the White Paper records, the Government consider that there is a case for providing the court with a combination option. It will allow the court to recognise the offender's need for immediate hospital treatment yet also specify the duration of an overall custodial disposal. The Department of Health working group on psychopathic disorders chaired by Dr. John Reed recommended the possibility of such a hybrid order being looked at for psychopathically disordered offenders. Such an order might also be appropriate, for instance, for offenders who were sufficiently ill to warrant hospitalisation at the time of sentence but who were not ill, or were much less so, at the time of commission of the offence.
It is clear from the consultation that the Government have undertaken that this is a perceived gap in our sentencing options. There is support for filling that gap. Equally, there are certain practical problems. I recognise the force of what was said earlier about the problems that psychiatrists may face in individual cases. However, the perception is—in my respectful submission, it is valid—that because the hospital order hands over to the hospital authorities in many cases the decision about when the prisoner is released into the community, that may dissuade the court from following that route, while the alternative option is a simple prison sentence without the court having any input in a binding sense as to whether or not treatment is received. That is the gap which this provision seeks to We are satisfied that the proposal has sufficient support to merit the provision in this Bill.
It is to have broader effect in Scotland than in England. That is because it appears to have the support which we feel is necessary to take it forward. It is unfortunate if an individual case gives the impression that the psychiatrist is a gaoler. That is not the intention. I hope that with experience of the provision that will not prove to be the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his very full and complete exposition of the reasoning behind the

2047
proposals. Is the weakness that is identified a weakness that the public may feel that a hospital order is a soft option and therefore a sentence of imprisonment should be passed to express public displeasure in response to a particular crime regardless of the mental condition of the individual? Is that the weakness that is being pinpointed, or is there some other weakness that I have missed?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: No, that is not the weakness on which I seek to base this proposal. It is the fact that the court, in dealing with such offenders, is dealing with people convicted on indictment of serious offences for which a measure of punishment is appropriate to take account of the criminal conduct of which the accused has been convicted and offences for which a measure of public protection is required against the consequences of reoffending. There may be a perception on the part of some members of the public that a hospital order is a soft option; but it is the perception of those involved in the criminal justice system, whether as lawyers or other practitioners, that in some instances it is not an appropriate disposal for prisoners convicted of serious violent offences who have mental illness but who require to be removed from society for both punishment and public protection purposes. So it is not merely a question of pandering to any concern on the part of the public which brings this matter forward. It is a concern expressed by many practitioners in the field—lawyers in particular—that there is a gap that needs to be filled. We believe that this is the way to fill that gap.
Clause 5 agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDER: CONSENT
(". At the end of paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7 to the 1995 Act insert "or
(c) the offender consents".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment appears in a rather strange place on the Marshalled List; namely, between clauses about mentally disordered offenders. The amendment is concerned with supervised attendance orders. It is aimed at restoring the principle of having an offender's consent to a supervised attendance order. This was incorporated in the 1990 legislation but withdrawn in subsequent legislation in 1995.
Supervised attendance orders are part of a range of community sentences which are both useful and essential. Along with probation and community service, they are a good opportunity for the offender to begin to move on from offending. Counselling and advice are the key. But the offender must be ready for it—that is, beginning to doubt the wisdom of his criminal career. No social work report is required where a supervised attendance order is to be made. That can result in an order being made on an unwilling offender who would rather go to prison. There are some; it is easier than
2048
compliance and perpetual hassle about breaching the order. The social work department has to serve the order, explain its effect, and get the person to sign the back of the order to that effect. Appointments are then made for the offender. Any failures to attend have to be witnessed and recorded. Breach proceedings have to be started and, in the event of a contest in court, a proof, with witnesses, is required. I assert that that process is unnecessary when an offender could have indicated his unwillingness and progressed to the alternative sentence, which would have presumably have been imprisonment. Similarly, an offender planning, for example, to move to England for a fresh start, possibly with relatives, could be given the opportunity to say so. I believe there is no equivalent in England of the supervised attendance order. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble Earl will appreciate, supervised attendance orders were conceived and introduced by the present Government as an innovative means of providing the courts with an appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence for those who could not pay their fine and were therefore in default of the order to pay the fine and faced a term of imprisonment in default of that payment. They are designed to be a constructive alternative to sending the accused into custody for non-payment. Time and again we hear the cry that people who refuse or who are unable to pay fines should not be sent to prison for very short periods of time thereby clogging up the prisons with people who ought not to be there.
Were a choice to be offered for this disposal it would be the choice of either accepting the attendance order or of going to prison. We do not believe that that is an appropriate choice to give an offender. If he is brought before the court, it is wholly unrealistic to put that forward as a sensible option to which a responsible answer could be given which would effectively veto the right of the court to impose this order if the accused said so.
We are in an entirely different field from other community based disposals such as probation and community service orders where full co-operation is essential and it is reasonable to seek consent. In this situation a fine has been imposed and has not been paid—normally because an accused cannot pay it. Notwithstanding any views expressed by the accused, which can no doubt be articulated, we do not believe that the court should be precluded from seeking this as an alternative to sending a possibly young and impecunious offender to prison just because that was his stated preference. We do not believe that he should have that right. We do not believe that it would be constructively used were it to be available. Therefore, we do not find it possible to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. In logical terms he is probably right. However, I recall leading a community service by offenders team. If everybody was reasonably content the work squad could get on with things; if anybody was unhappy, everybody became unhappy. The amendment

2049
was suggested by CoSLA. I brought it forward because I recognise that there is nothing worse than having on such a scheme someone who is unwilling and who lowers morale, which is always shaky enough. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS: ALTERNATIVE DISPOSALS
(" .—(1) Schedule 7 to the 1995 Act (supervised attendance orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4(2) at the beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below,".
(3) After paragraph 4(3) insert
"(4) In the application of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above to an order made under section 236 of this Act, the court may alternatively revoke the order and impose such other disposal as it could have made had it not imposed a fine or a supervised attendance order."
(4) In paragraph 5(1), at the beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,".
(5) After paragraph 5(1) insert—
"(1A) In the application of sub-paragraph (1) above to an order made under section 236 of this Act, the court may alternatively revoke the order and impose such other disposal as it could have made had it not imposed a fine or supervised attendance order.".").
The noble Lord said: On the face of it this is a rather convoluted amendment tabled to elicit the Government's response to its terms and so that those who are involved with young people can consider whether the legislation should stand as it does at the moment. The result may very well be that a young person will end up in prison anyway as a result of his inability to pay a fine. Given the present restrictions on 16 and 17 year-olds, who do not receive any money from the Government, there is no way that they could possibly pay a fine and they will therefore end up in prison, whereas an adult might very well not end up there. That is the objective behind this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment. Following the debate on the previous amendment, it is probably worth pointing out that, as I understand it, if the offender does not consent to a supervised attendance order in the manner that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested, it would be within the offender's power to breach the requirements of the supervised attendance order and, as a result, go to gaol. My noble friend's amendment provides another route to dispose of the problem and it may be useful for the Government to accept it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Members of the Committee who are interested in this topic will be aware that it was raised earlier in the passage of the Bill and the response which the Government gave on that occasion is believed to be as valid today as it was then.
2050
At present the relevant legislation as it applies to 16 and 17 year-olds allows the court, when dealing with any failure to comply, to vary the length of the attendance order or impose a custodial sentence. Before imposing a supervised attendance order on this age group, the court requires to have concluded that a fine—not a community-based disposal such as probation—is the appropriate disposal for the offence.
In those circumstances it will impose the attendance order either in default of the fine or on the basis that the offender is unlikely to have the capacity to pay the fine. In such a case the court will recently have concluded that the appropriate new order disposal is a fine but that the offender cannot pay the fine. We find it difficult to see what could have occurred in the interval between the imposition of the order and the offender's failure to comply which would enable the court to come to the view that some other disposal is now appropriate. For that reason we do not think it appropriate to accept changes to this aspect of the legislation.
A pilot scheme in respect of this age group will commence in Dundee in April this year. It is suggested that there may be some scope for fining offenders who fall within it and I would not demur from that suggestion. We believe that there will be value to be gained from this pilot scheme. We shall look at the results carefully and they will no doubt be made public in due course.
I recognise that the purpose behind the amendment is to reduce the risk of an early custodial sentence for members of this limited age group. However, we are optimistic that, by funding this project in Dundee targeted on young offenders who are made subject to these orders and firmly chasing them up and ensuring that their performance of the order is monitored, early indications of a possible breach will be spotted and action taken to prevent it.
I hope that, on an assurance that the Government are alive to the problems which offenders of this age face and are doing something positive to examine them in greater detail, the noble Lord will be persuaded that it is not necessary to insist on the amendment at the present time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I said at the outset that this was a rather convoluted amendment. At this time of the evening it is rather difficult to follow the explanation in response by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It might be better to leave it until tomorrow to see the Official Report. No doubt what the noble and learned Lord said will be looked at with interest. It is not without significance that there is a ship in the harbour at Dundee called the "Discovery". Perhaps the Government will take a voyage of discovery and in due course report back to the House on their findings. I hope that they find a pilot when they get to Dundee. We shall see how it works out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Effect of hospital direction]:
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 15, line 23, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line and insert ("and before making such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult and obtain reports from—

(a) the managers of the hospital concerned:

(b) the medical practitioners who furnished their reports to the court under section 59A(3)(a) of this Act:

(c) the mental health officer who appeared before the court pursuant to section 59A(d) of this Act; and

(d) any other person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, might be appropriate in the circumstances.

(3A) The Secretary of State shall not be entitled to name a state hospital when making such a direction.").
The noble Lord said: The objective behind the amendment is to retain some measure of control over what happens to an offender who has been dealt with by the court and who for some reason has to be moved from one hospital to another. The amendment does its best—it may not be a very good best—to paint a picture of the people who should be consulted before any change is made in the patient's status and to give the patient a measure of protection to ensure that any good work that has been done is not undone by moving him unnecessarily from hospital to hospital. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We consider that this amendment is inappropriate. At an earlier stage the Government accepted proposals from the Opposition that the maximum time it must take to convey a person from court to hospital is seven days. We accept that, if a person is in immediate need of hospital treatment, they should go to hospital as quickly as possible. However, we must accept that within that seven-day period certain emergencies could arise in relation to the hospital concerned: a fire, a medical epidemic of some sort or a serious incident involving patients which would make it impracticable to admit the person as originally planned. In such an event the priority should surely be to get the prisoner to hospital so that the treatment can start, even if that involves going to a hospital different from that originally specified. If the Secretary of State had formally to consult and obtain reports from at least three more people, it is unlikely that that could be done within seven days. Pending its being done, the person would in any event require to remain in limbo, presumably in gaol, and their access to hospital treatment would be delayed.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If Members of the Committee are satisfied, as I am sure they will be, that the priority is swift admission to hospital to start treatment, some flexibility is required. I therefore hope that, to take care of the rare events that I have indicated, the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to return briefly to a point we were discussing before the dinner break; namely, the mental health officer's involvement. It strikes me that we are bringing a bit of English practice into this. In Scotland the normal process has been that the Scottish ambulance service takes people to hospital and the mental health officer—who is, after all,
2052
a specialist social worker—is not required to undertake the actual transport, though he or she is certainly responsible for safeguarding the patient's interests in the community.
I am worried that we are going down the English route, which ends up with social workers having to transport people in their own private cars. I shall not bore the Committee by reminiscing on my exploits with the social services department in Sheffield, but I believe that it is better that social workers should not have to transport such prisoners in private cars.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation concerning what I have already described as a very delicate area of life. The main objective is to protect the person, who is not, to say the least, in a very fit or stable position. The noble and learned Lord said that these Benches could not have it both ways. We do not look at the matter in that way at all.
This is a specialist area in which, to be honest, I do not have any particular expertise—indeed, I doubt whether many Members of the Committee have such expertise. As laymen, we can only do our best to protect the individual from himself and protect society from the individual. I shall read with interest what the noble and learned Lord said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert—
("(6) A patient shall not be remitted to prison in accordance with subsection (5)(a) above until and unless—

(a) the case has been referred back to the court that imposed the hospital direction; and

(b) the court is satisfied that the remittance to prison would not be injurious to the patient's mental health.

(7) In order to determine the impact of the remittance to prison on the patient's mental health, the court shall consider the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners (complying with section 61 of this Act).
(8) Where a court is satisfied under subsection (6)(b) above that the remittance to prison would be injurious to the patient's mental health, the court may revoke the hospital direction and—

(a) impose a hospital order (with or without a restriction order); or

(b) impose no further penalty.""

The noble Lord said: This is perhaps one of the more important amendments that we have discussed recently. Its effect is quite clear. It is to ensure that a person subject to a hospital direction is only transferred from hospital to prison when the sentencing court is satisfied that his mental health will not deteriorate as a result of admission to prison.
This is a very difficult and sensitive area. It concerns people whose mental health is such that they require help from the hospital services but who have achieved a state in which it is appropriate to move on to the more punitive aspects of the disposal. The amendment ensures that the decision to admit to prison lies with the court. That is important. That does not endanger the patient-doctor relationship. One can imagine a situation

2053
in which an offender has developed a positive relationship with a doctor. When the possibility of that person getting better brings with it a punitive element, the decision should clearly be removed from the doctor-patient relationship and be referred back to the court.
Basically and fundamentally, the argument behind the amendment is that people should not be punished for mental disorder. They should be treated for mental disorder and not punished. The amendments are also designed to guard against the risk of transferring to prison offenders who would more appropriately continue to receive hospital treatment.
The amendment seeks to reduce the risks of persons being moved to prison and subsequently becoming ill as a result of the transfer. There is absolutely no point in bringing about a transfer from hospital to prison if that endangers the mental health of the offender. That is a legitimate cause for concern. We do no one any service by going down that path.
After all, what is the purpose of providing treatment? It is to improve the mental health of a patient. If a return to prison of itself would jeopardise the gains that had been made as the result of quite extensive hospital interventions in many cases. That is surely not in the public interest.
The amendment would provide a safeguard, through the independent scrutiny of the court, against the possibility of inappropriate or premature transfer brought about by a shortage of bed spaces or disruptive patient behaviour. Such subsequent changes in the way in which the offender is treated should come back to the court for decision and not be subject to a routine process. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be aware, these amendments were discussed in another place. At that time it was indicated that they were not acceptable to the Government, for reasons which I should explain to the Committee. We are not attracted by the proposals because they appear to be based on the assumption that hospital doctors will recommend to the sheriff, or indeed to the Secretary of State, a course of action which would run contrary to the patient's best interests; in other words, a course which would be injurious to his or her mental health.
We are dealing with these issues in the context of hospital direction orders, but they arise when prisoners are subject to a transfer from prison to hospital because they have become ill and are then transferred back to prison. Perhaps I should explain what is done on such occasions.
The Committee will appreciate that if the illness is recovered from or is sufficiently treated while the offender's sentence of imprisonment is still running and the patient does not require to remain in hospital, the only exit route from hospital is back to prison. But at the present time that can take place only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that certain criteria set out in the 1984 Act have been fully met. Those criteria are to be found in Section 74(2) of that Act. They are either
2054
that the person is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital for medical treatment or that it is not necessary for the health or safety of the person or for the protection of others that he should receive such treatment. In either case, the Secretary of State also requires to be satisfied that it is not appropriate for the person to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment.
Before the Secretary of State makes an order, very detailed consideration is given to it. The condition of the patient will be thoroughly and painstakingly assessed by the doctors in the hospital in which he is detained. It goes without saying that no recommendation for the prisoner's return to prison will be made unless the doctors are satisfied that the statutory criteria to which I referred have been met. I am sure that the Committee will be satisfied that it would be difficult to suggest otherwise.
Furthermore, any recommendation from the hospital for return to prison is at present considered by the Secretary of State's own psychiatric adviser. I hope that the Committee will not misunderstand what is meant by that reference. I am sure that my right honourable friend would not do so. The psychiatric adviser requires to be satisfied also that the relevant criteria will be met before transfer to prison is authorised.
Our experience has been that the system has worked very well. That is an indication of the thoroughness of the procedure and the care taken by all psychiatrists who have occasion to handle prisoners who suffer from mental illness susceptible of treatment. I have already mentioned earlier this evening that there are some 60 transfers a year from prison to hospital, but a much smaller number of prisoners are transferred in the other direction, being somewhere in the region of only 20 every year. Most prisoners who leave prison to go to hospital remain there and are released direct into the community on expiry of their sentence.
We believe that that demonstrates the rigorous attention which those involved in the field of psychiatric health pay to treating those people. We doubt whether it would be appropriate to give an appeal by the patient to the sheriff for the reason that it would involve challenging the view of people who have had day-to-day care of the patient while in hospital.
However, there are other fundamental difficulties with what is proposed. If the sentencing court originally considered it appropriate to pass a sentence of imprisonment and at the same time to make a hospital direction, it would be wrong to go back to the court some months or even years later and effectively invite the court to reconsider the matter. The procedure in dealing with sentence is that the sentence is imposed by the trial court, subject to review by the Court of Appeal. It is the latter court which should set aside the original sentence, not the original sentencing court.
I hope the Committee will be satisfied that this issue has been carefully considered. The proposal is a new one to fill the gap in the scheme of sentencing, as I mentioned earlier. The alteration to our proposals spelt out in the amendments would not be of value; they

2055
would involve an unnecessary addition to the procedure. We have the fundamental objection that the court, some years later, would be reviewing its own decision or possibly one sheriff or one High Court judge reviewing the decision of another sitting in isolation. There is no reason to believe, from the history we have of hospital orders and the operation under Section 74(2) of the 1994 Act, that the psychiatrists who treat such individuals are not performing a splendid service. For that reason, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I can make a brief observation. We have been talking about the people who are transferred from prison to hospital under Section 79. In fact there will be even fewer who are eligible for a hospital direction because of the fact that they have to be psychiatrically ill at the point of conviction rather than developing a psychiatric illness during their sentence. Therefore, the numbers involved will probably be in single figures.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I can say at the outset that on this side of the Chamber it is enormously consoling to know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has psychiatric advisers. Many of us thought that that was an omission and we are glad to see that it has been rectified. I rest more easily in my bed at night knowing that, as I am sure do most of the population of Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I can intervene to invite the noble Lord to convey to Mr. Robertson that it is my belief he will never need a psychiatric adviser.
Lord Sewel: I am sure that he will never need a psychiatric adviser. I have the benefit of being married to a clinical psychologist, who gives me all the advice I need.
The outstanding issue is that we have some assurance that when it comes to the point of transfer from a hospital to prison, the effect of that transfer on the mental health of the individual concerned will be adequately taken into account when the transfer is approved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Remand of persons suffering from mental disorder to private hospital]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I seek the deletion of Clause 7. I have long held the constitutional view that citizens being detained by the state should be looked after by the state. The use of private contractors may be appropriate where the patient can give consent. But the situation in Clause 7 is far from that.
I shall be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate how many private hospitals are ready to receive psychiatric patients from
2056
custody. Also, can he say why the National Health Service in Scotland has been allowed to run down to the point where it cannot receive those few who are likely to be transferred on remand?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Clause 7 is a short and simple clause. It is designed to remove an anomaly in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. At present Section 71 of the Act enables a sentenced prisoner to be transferred to either a National Health Service hospital or a private hospital registered under Part IV of the Act. That indicates that Parliament has approved private hospitals being used for that purpose. Section 70, however, prevents remand prisoners from being transferred to a private hospital. That seems an illogical and unduly restrictive distinction to make. Decisions on the appropriate hospital location for an individual should depend on his particular circumstances, including the level of security required, not on whether he is a remand or sentenced prisoner.
Indeed, there may well be an argument that it would be contrary to the interests of the prisoner for him to be detained in one hospital pending the trial and sentence and then to be moved to another to begin the sentence. If he is to be in hospital because he suffers from a mental illness which justifies such detention, there is force in the argument that he should remain in the same hospital throughout.
The noble Earl will be aware that any private hospital used under Section 71 of the Act requires to be registered in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State. Those include conditions relating to the security appropriate for people being detained, the levels of medical and nursing staff, the standards of treatment and so forth.
My understanding is that there are no private hospitals currently registered under Part IV of the Act at the present time, nor are any applications under consideration. However, the view has been taken that the anomaly exists. For that reason I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied that it is sensible to amend the legislation to remove the inconsistency so that in a specific case, if private hospitals come on stream, it will be sensible to allow them to treat offenders from the moment they are arrested and awaiting trial through to the period when their detention in a hospital rather than prison is deemed to be no longer necessary.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to specify hospital unit]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 18, line 15, after first ("unit") insert ("provided that the hospital managers have confirmed to the court that they will admit the person to such unit").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment which is self-explanatory and continues the theme which we hope we have managed to portray from this side of the Committee; that is, that we are looking to the protection of the individual and of the public and to put as few people at risk as possible. The amendment seeks to insert the words,

2057
"provided that the hospital managers have confirmed to the court that they will admit the person to such unit".
It may appear to be a fairly basic and perhaps unnecessary amendment. But the reasoning behind it is this. Before a potentially disruptive person is sent to a hospital, it should be cleared with the managers of the hospital, first, that that person is best in that hospital; secondly, that he or she can be accommodated in that hospital without disrupting the regime; thirdly, that the hospital is satisfied that it has the provision to keep the "patient" in the hospital for his own safety and also for the safety of the public.
On the face of it, it may appear to be an unnecessary amendment. However, if the Lord Advocate and his advisers give it a little thought, they will see that it adds to the protective shelter we are trying to give to the patient and the public. With that introduction, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I appreciate what lies behind this amendment. We had occasion to look at the point it raises before when the Bill was in another place. It is essential that before making an order committing a person to hospital the court is assured of the availability of a bed in conditions which match the patient's medical requirements. Where either a hospital order or direction has been made under Sections 57, 58 or 59A of the 1995 Act, the court will require to be satisfied that a bed will be available in the hospital concerned. The period is currently within 28 days of the making of the order, but in the future, in the light of the point I mentioned a few moments ago about the seven-day period, that period will be shortened from 28 to seven days.
Before a court makes an order it is clearly appropriate that it should be assured of this availability. That is what happens at the moment. The current practice will be reinforced in the future by virtue of the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill which require that one of the medical practitioners whose evidence is to be taken into account under Sections 53, 54, 57, 58 and 59 of the 1995 Act must be employed at the hospital concerned—the hospital to which it is proposed to admit the offender. Such a medical practitioner is therefore uniquely placed to give the court any assurance it may seek. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would never make such a transfer under the existing provisions of the 1984 Act unless he was so assured.
This issue is addressed in codes of practice which are currently being revised in terms of the procedure laid down in Section 119 of the 1984 Act. Therefore I am in a position to give an assurance to the Committee that the importance of bed availability is already addressed in the Bill and in the legislation in the ways I have indicated. It is addressed in the code of practice. It is certainly not being ignored. In my experience it is a matter which is always touched on when mental health orders are made, whether in the civil or the criminal courts. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for his full explanation of the position in
2058
relation to these unfortunate individuals. At the moment at least I am satisfied with that explanation with regard to this difficult field of human relationships. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Medical evidence in relation to mentally disordered offenders]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert ("and shall be approved for the purposes of this section by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder: and the other recommendation shall, if possible, he given by the patient's general practitioner or another medical practitioner who has previous acquaintance with him.";").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to ensure that one of the doctors recommending hospital admission will be a qualified psychiatrist and that the other, if possible, should be the accused's GP or another doctor who is familiar with the individual concerned. The reasoning behind the amendment is obvious. In making such an order the court needs the best possible information before deciding whether or not to make a hospital direction. A properly qualified psychiatrist is the kind of person to whom one would turn for advice and to inform the court.
The amendment ensures that the doctor giving the advice to the court in such circumstances is someone who is properly qualified. I would accept wholeheartedly that in the normal course of events that would be the case, but we want to make it clear in the Bill that appropriate qualification is a requirement for someone who is giving such fundamentally important advice to the court in this delicate and difficult area. In addition, the patient's own doctor is the person best placed to have knowledge of how the individual has behaved in the past and indeed whether hospital would be the most appropriate place for the individual to be treated.
The amendment mirrors the requirement for medical reports before a patient can be admitted under the civil detention proceedings of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It is appropriate that those requirements under civil detention are recognised as we move into the area of criminal law. The amendment seeks to ensure that the court is in a position to receive the best, most helpful and most appropriate advice in making what I think we all freely recognise is often an extremely difficult and sensitive decision. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I understand what lies behind the amendment. However, having reflected further on it, we remain of the view, as we expressed in another place, that it is not a sensible alteration to the clause.
Perhaps I should remind the Committee that before a hospital direction could be imposed, in terms of the new Section 59A(3)(b) as set out in Clause 5, medical practitioners will be required to,
"describe the person as suffering from the same form of mental disorder, being mental illness or mental handicap, whether or not he is also described by either of them as suffering from the other form".

2059
The proposal is that the medical practitioners should include someone who has special knowledge and experience of mental disorder and is approved for this purpose by the health board, while the other shall, if possible, be the patient's general practitioner or some other medical practitioner who has previous acquaintance with him. In other words, if it is possible to seek the assistance of the general practitioner, that requires to be done in preference to obtaining the assistance of another psychiatrist.
We are dealing here with mental illness, which, as we have discussed earlier today, is not always easy to diagnose and is certainly not always easy to treat. We believe that it would not be right to involve, to provide the second opinion, the accused's general practitioner or some other medical practitioner who did not have special experience of mental illness. The subsection that I read from Clause 5 stresses how both practitioners have to come to the same diagnosis of mental disorder. If we had a situation where general practitioners were becoming involved in this work, no matter how experienced they were in the work of general practice, where undoubtedly people with mental illness problems have to be treated from time to time, we believe that there would be more scope for disagreement, which would not be in the interests of the accused.
It is important to bear in mind that these orders concern people who are going to be admitted to hospital, where they are going to be treated not by general practitioners but by psychiatrists with special experience in the field. For that reason, we believe that both reports should come from those who have that experience. On that understanding, I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Sewel: I clearly recognise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as having some power in his arguments on this occasion. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Increase in maximum period of interim hospital orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: Clause 10 seeks to make an amendment to Section 53 of the 1995 Act, which provides or makes it competent for the court in certain circumstances to make an interim hospital order. That is an interim hospital order in respect of an offender—that is to say, a person convicted in the High Court or in the sheriff court; or charged in the latter court, but not convicted although the sheriff is satisfied that he committed the act or made the admission charged; or remitted to the sheriff court from the district court under broadly similar circumstances.
That is the offender. If he is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of Section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, an interim hospital order may be made. The provisions of subsection (6)
2060
indicate that that order at the present time shall be for a period not exceeding 12 weeks and it may be renewed for periods of 28 days at a time, but no such order is allowed to continue in force for more than six months in all.
That is the general background to this particular clause. What is now proposed is that these interim hospital orders should be able to be lengthened. I ask Members of the Committee to note the word "interim". We are talking about a relatively short-term thing. It is something which is contemplated and suggested in paragraphs 13.6 and 13.7 especially, of the White Paper. Paragraph 13.6 talks about a "hospital direction" to be attached to a sentence of imprisonment at the same time as imposing any sentence. Paragraph 13.7 states,
"It is also proposed to extend the maximum duration of the interim hospital order from 6 to 12 months and to extend its use so that it might also be a precursor to the making of a hospital direction".
So we have the interim order being used as a precursor to the making of a hospital direction, but after the conviction of a person. So what is now contemplated is that a person is convicted and the court's decision on whether or not to sentence him may be postponed for 12 months. That is clear from the last few words of paragraph 13.7, which state that the making of such an order,
"might result in a clearer picture and prognosis of the person's condition as a better basis for informing the court's ultimate decision on disposal".
My difficulty is to reconcile that with new Section 59A which is to be added as a result of Clause 5 of the present Bill. That relates to the making of a hospital order in addition to any sentence of imprisonment and to Section 53(4) of the 1995 Act, which states that, where a court makes an interim hospital order, it shall not make any other order for detention.
I find it slightly difficult to understand how the sections and new sections will work together. I am particularly concerned about the fact that at the moment there may be three renewals, each of 28 days, effectively taking the three months up to six months, but the new provision will permit a further six sets of 28 days, thus effectively raising the period to 12 months. I should like to know the justification for taking what is essentially an interim measure and turning it into a measure that might be effective for 12 months. I should like the Government to explain the justification for that before I consider my position further.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The justification for the proposal is to give further flexibility to the sentencing court in cases where the mental illness of the accused is an important factor.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the proposal was discussed in the White Paper. That White Paper records the fact that in its current form the interim order is not extensively used at present prior to the making of a hospital order, but that greater use of the interim hospital order and the period of initial assessment and treatment which it permits might result

2061
in a clearer picture and prognosis of the person's position as a better basis for informing the court's ultimate disposal.
We consider that the extension is justified when dealing with particularly complex cases. It will give doctors and others involved more time to observe and report on the individual for the benefit of the court before any final decision is taken.
The consultation exercise did not result in anybody disagreeing with the proposal. Furthermore, the Mental Welfare Commission, which was consulted, was very definitely in favour of it.
The noble and learned Lord quite properly raised the point that the provisions would extend the period during which an accused person would be in hospital under an interim hospital order pending imposition of sentence. However, as I read the provisions of Clause 11, which will amend Section 210 of the 1995 Act, that period would be taken into account in assessing the period of any sentence of imprisonment if the ultimate disposal was to be imprisonment linked with a hospital direction. If, on the other hand, the ultimate disposal was to be a hospital order, the matter would be academic. If any question of imprisonment arises—whether in isolation or in tandem with a hospital direction—there would be no question of any double jeopardy in the sense of the accused person spending longer in custody than might otherwise be the case.
As I have said, the proposal has received support. The Mental Welfare Commission, which has a statutory duty to have regard to the mentally ill in Scotland, is firmly in favour of it. Therefore, I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his opposition to the Question That Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: I am still concerned that, as a result of the amendment with effect to Section 53 of the 1995 Act, the period between conviction and the court perhaps ordering imprisonment may be as long as 12 months. As I understand it, because the purpose of the interim hospital order is partly to allow the court to assess the future prognosis, at the end of that period—perhaps 12 months later—the court may decide to impose a sentence of imprisonment. If the sentence of imprisonment turns out to be less than 12 months—and particularly if it is substantially less than 12 months—one ends up with the odd situation of a person who does not deserve a period of imprisonment of as much as 12 months (in the view of the court) in fact being required to stay in hospital for that period as a result of a succession of these orders.
Although I have outlined my concerns, at this hour of the night I do not wish to do any more. I shall read with interest in the report of today's proceedings what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am comforted by the fact that the bodies to which the noble and learned Lord referred have given support to the measure following consultation. Therefore, I shall not pursue the matter further tonight.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Sentence calculation where remand spent in hospital]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I need to apologise to the Committee for tabling this Motion. I was somewhat concerned about the implications of the early release scheme on someone who had achieved a backdating sentence to include their time spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital. During the course of the evening it has come to my notice that someone who is in a psychiatric hospital during the course of a sentence will be credited with the maximum early release. If I can be assured that I have understood that the maximum early release points will be granted automatically to someone who spends part of their sentence in hospital, then I should be able to withdraw my opposition.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to confirm that the matter is dealt with in Clause 38(2), and that the noble Earl's understanding is correct.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Increase in sentences available to sheriff and district courts]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 102A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 103 to 105A.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with increasing the powers of sentencing in the sheriff court in Scotland. It is part of the insidious erosion of the quality of Scottish justice that the sheriff court should be given the powers proposed in Clause 12. At one time the sheriff court could not impose a sentence of more than two years, but the sheriff had the power to remit the case to the High Court if he or she thought that the two years was not sufficient to deal with the case as he or she had heard the evidence. The same has applied since the limit was raised to three years.
To raise the powers of the sheriff court to five years is what I would call a quantum leap in sentencing in the judicial system of Scotland, and it is unjustified. I am trying to recall what the Lord Advocate said on Tuesday. It appears to me—I may have it wrong—that what we are now getting, not just in Scotland but in England, is Treasury-led justice—trying to get justice on the cheap. It goes without saying that cheap justice is bad justice.
Five years is a long time to send anyone away to prison for whatever crime he or she may have committed. We must be extremely careful into whose hands we, as a responsible body—namely, the Parliament of the UK—pass that responsibility. There is no protection for the accused within this proposal.
I do not know how many temporary sheriffs there are, but I shall ask the Lord Advocate—I do not expect him to do it tonight—to publish for the benefit of all of us

2063
concerned with the administration of justice in Scotland—I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Faculty of Advocates—a list of everyone who holds a commission as a temporary sheriff in the sheriff courts in Scotland showing, first, the names, obviously, their ages, their qualifications, and whether they are still in active practice, or whether they are just using it as a sideline, so to speak, to make a pound or two during the week. I am not criticising them for doing that. I suppose anyone would turn out for £300 a day if they were given the invitation. I do not make the remark flippantly.
What protection will be given to the accused and to the legal system of Scotland if people appear randomly from nowhere in various jurisdictions and are left with the power to sentence someone to five years' imprisonment? There is no consistency in sentencing. You can have as many conferences, training schools and judges as you like telling sheriffs or temporary sheriffs about the way in which they should approach their job, but you will not get consistency.
The situation is not unknown. I remember a colleague of mine at the Bar who was sitting in Dumfries when he received a telephone call from what is now the Scottish Courts Administration. He was asked whether he could be in Aberdeen the next morning. In fact, he refused to go and for a short time had a red star against his name indicating that he was not very co-operative. Perhaps it took him a little while to get back in with the establishment before he was given a full-time post.
I am most concerned about the proposal. The amendment proposes the deletion of subsection (1). As the Deputy Chairman of Committees indicated, if it is agreed to, it will negative all the other clauses. I am sometimes astonished when I pick up the local newspaper in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen and see the names of some of the people who are sitting as sheriffs. I wonder what qualifications they have and why they in particular have been given the enormous task of guiding a jury through perhaps a complex case and deciding on the sentence.
If the Government's ultimate aim in fact and in honesty is to destroy the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland as a court of first instance and pass all the crime to the sheriff court on the basis that it will become a Crown Court of Scotland, let them be honest about it. If they want to turn the High Court of Justiciary into an appellate court only, let us get on with it. There is no point in messing about in this piecemeal fashion, going from two years to three years to five years. Will we have another Bill next year to make it seven years and another Bill the following year to make it 10 years? Fortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be in no position to make that decision because he will not be sitting on that side of the Chamber after 1st May. Be that as it may, the thought of a sheriff being able to impose a sentence of five years in the sheriff court is appalling and fills me with a certain degree of horror.
We have heard a great deal about the English system; England has been referred to many times during the debate. We have another problem in Scotland, which is the availability of counsel in the sheriff court. If the sheriff court is to be given the power to impose five
2064
years' imprisonment, will the Government give an undertaking that counsel will be available to represent the accused, irrespective of the existence of the hybrid advocate solicitor as introduced in the 1993 Act?
Will the Government give an assurance that if the clause is agreed to there will be availability of choice to people who are accused and brought to trial in the sheriff court in solemn procedure on indictment and they will not be forced either to take a solicitor advocate who will normally practice in the sheriff court or to take what is being broadly referred to as the public defender within the context of this Act? Not only must we protect the victim but a decent system of justice must also protect the accused from wrongful conviction. I do not need to go into recent events in England to show how things can go badly wrong, depending on the representation made on behalf of the accused.
This amendment is not tabled in any light-hearted manner. It relates to one of the most serious clauses in the Bill. For that reason, it is a rather draconian amendment to place before the Committee, but it is there to focus on the situation as it is in Scotland. We wish—and I think that most people in Scotland involved in the administration of justice wish—the High Court to remain a court which is respected and to which people go only for the most serious crimes. They do not want a second-class system of justice in the sheriff court.
In making that remark, I do not wish in any way to demean the hard work that sheriffs and temporary sheriffs do. But in view of the sentence to be imposed, we need to establish a Rolls-Royce system of justice in the criminal courts. The Government's proposal to increase the powers of the sheriff court so that it can impose sentences of five years' imprisonment will certainly bring the Rolls-Royce to a halt. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: I rise because this amendment and a number of amendments that I propose have been grouped together. I find it a matter greatly to be regretted and deeply disturbing that we come to what is an extremely important clause in the Bill at a time when there are only nine persons present in the Committee. I hope that it will be recorded that there are nine persons present, including the Minister and the Whip, one other Back-Bencher on the Government Benches, and the rest are Front Benchers, apart from myself and one other Cross-Bencher. That is deeply disturbing because this is a matter of constitutional importance which we are discussing at a late hour of the night on a very important Bill.
The matter needs to be looked at fairly deeply. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, indicated, until 1987 the period of sentence which a sheriff could impose was a maximum of two years. That was amended in 1987 under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987.
Of course, the sheriff had, as he still would have under the amended 1995 Act, the power to remit a case to the High Court. But the need to remit will be dramatically diminished because he will be able to impose a sentence of five years.

2065
Perhaps I may remind the Committee what two years meant; what was the effect of a sentence of two years which a sheriff imposed prior to the coming into force of Section 58 of the 1987 Act. In those days a sheriff could impose a sentence of two years, and effectively the prisoner received one-third off for remission and accordingly the effective period was 16 months. That was the effective sentence that the sheriff could impose.
When the 1987 Act was a Bill and was discussed in another place in Standing Committee, the then Solicitor-General for Scotland, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, justified it on the basis, first, of the Grant Report which in 1967 recommended that sentencing powers on indictment cases should be increased. The Committee should note that the Grant Report was a report of a committee presided over by Lord Grant, who was the Lord Justice Clerk for Scotland. Therefore, once again that was an instance of the judges being used quite properly by the Government in relation to important matters of sentencing and criminal procedure. That is in total contrast with the nonsense written by the current Solicitor-General for Scotland suggesting that judges should "keep out of politics".
Apart, therefore, from the Grant Committee in 1967, the next body to consider the matter was the Thomson Committee sitting under Lord Thomson, a judge of the Court of Session and a Lord Commissioner of justiciary. That committee produced three reports and there were others sitting on that committee who were or became judges including, if I recall correctly, Lord Dunpark. Therefore, the Thomson Committee reached the same conclusion that the sentencing powers of the sheriff should be increased. The third body to consider the matter was the Maxwell Committee sitting under Lord Maxwell, who was yet another judge of the court who was brought in by the Government for the purposes of guiding the study.
So we have the Grant Committee, the Thomson Committee and the Maxwell Committee respectively for the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, heavy use of judges on criminal procedure and sentencing, a deep study preceding the Bill—every one of these bodies hearing evidence from outside—and an idea which matured for some 20 years before Parliament agreed in 1987 to raise the sentencing power of the sheriff from two to three years. I contrast that with the present situation where absolutely no study whatever preceded the proposal. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell me that I am wrong in that respect, I hope that he will do so in the clearest terms. Perhaps he can tell me who conducted the study, who was invited to give evidence, who gave evidence to it, and who approved of it. I know of nothing of that kind except in relation to the White Paper. So far as I can tell, the responses to the White Paper had very little effect upon the contents of the Bill. Therefore, so far as I can see, there was no effective consultation in relation to the matter.
There was no study preceding this proposal. It has come out of the blue; it has not taken 20 years, 20 months or even 20 weeks for us to move suddenly from the period that was recommended after deep consideration by the Government, according to the then
2066
Solicitor-General in the Select Committee, a copy of whose remarks I have with me. The then Opposition, led by Donald Dewar, indicated that that was accepted with some reluctance on the basis of the evidence from the legal committees to which reference has been made. He concluded by saying that,
"although we are right to express some of our doubts, I think that we should now let the matter go".
I believe that the late Lord Morton of Shuna adopted a similar line when the matter was discussed in this Chamber.
As a result of the amendment made in 1987, the two-year period was raised to three years. As Members of the Committee will instantly recognise, that was a 50 per cent. increase. So the effective length of the sentence went from 16 months to 24 months. I hope that noble Lords will bear those figures in mind. Then, Section 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 increased the remission in respect of persons sentenced to prison for less than four years to one half. Accordingly, the effective sentence that a sheriff could impose was one half of 36 months, so the period was down to 18 months. That was the effective length of the sentence under the 1993 Act.
The present Bill would, first, increase the sheriff's period of sentence to five years; that is 60 months. I put the figure into months for easy comparison with the other figures. Secondly, in a part of the Bill that has not yet been dealt with, it would abolish the remission created by the 1993 Act and replace the one-half remission by a remission of a maximum of one sixth. Therefore, the effective imprisonment that the sheriff may impose goes up in one leap, so to speak, with two strands to it—if I may mix my metaphors in that way—to 50 months.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the figures: pre-1987, 16 months; 1987 to 1993, 24 months; 1993 to 1997, 18 months; and the figure for 1997 is 50 months plus. So you almost treble the sentencing power of the sheriff in one go. As I said, that was preceded by no study that I can determine, no consultation that meant anything at all, and no deep reflection. It is just the sudden decision of one or two Ministers behind the scenes to make a dramatic change in the criminal justice system of Scotland. I cannot exaggerate the importance of it and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay exaggerated the position. What on earth is the hurry?
My amendment might at first sight seem a retrograde step. We reduce the three years to two, but we must think of the effective sentence. As I have said, at the moment three years means 18 months. By reducing it to two—and accepting the early release provisions of the Bill—we arrive at two years less one-sixth; in other words, we reduce it from 24 months to 20 months. The effect of my amendment, reducing the period of three years to two years, is to give the effective power of the sheriff an increase from 18 to 20 months. If one wants to increase the power of the sheriff, one does so in this particular way.
These are important matters. On a separate tack, I have deep reservations about giving sheriffs the power to impose a sentence of this character. As I say, it is almost

2067
three times as much as they can currently give. At the present time a High Court judge could impose a sentence of, let us say, six years. Under Section 1 of the 1993 Act the person automatically receives one-third remission and so he gives effectively a 48 month sentence if he imposes a six year sentence. A sheriff will have a greater power than the High Court judge now enjoys if he imposes six years, or six years and three months. The sheriff will effectively be able to do what the High Court judge imposing a six and a quarter year sentence can now do. That is absurd.
I shall not mince my words. Far too many of the sheriffs are temps. On far too many occasions one sheriff hears the trial or takes the plea, a different sheriff hears the adjournment of the consideration of the sentence, and yet a third sheriff imposes the sentence, or bats it back to the first or the second. Therefore people accept, or do not accept, responsibility. Many of the temporary sheriffs are competent, but not all of them. There are some people sitting as temporary sheriffs today who are not fit to sit on the shrieval bench. There are sheriffs about whom we in the High Court have written to the Lord Advocate of the day pointing out that they are not fit to sit. These people are to be given a power now enjoyed by the High Court judge.
But quite apart from the quality of some of the sheriffs, which is poor, the quality of the whole sheriff court is not really worthy of a court which can send people to prison for this period of time. I shall not go into that until I have heard what has been said. When the Government justified—on the basis of the Grant Committee, the Thomson Committee and the Maxwell Committee reports—the move from two years to three years, the then Solicitor-General put before the other place the number of High Court cases and justified it on the basis that there was a substantial increase in the High Court cases and accordingly sheriffs had to be given a greater power. I hope we shall hear the figures equivalent to those figures tonight, and that they will be compared with the 1987 figures. Unless we do, and unless the figures are convincing, one will he forced to agree with the conclusion—which I shall be reluctant to agree with—advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that this is a Treasury-led experiment with justice. I regard that as extremely dangerous.
I also draw attention to the other feature which I mentioned in my speech at Second Reading. I cannot over emphasise this. Because the Lord Advocate enjoys the power to determine which court a person is indicted in, this increase in the sheriff's power from an effective sentence a 18 months to an effective sentence of 50 months is a massive increase in the power of the Lord Advocate. It gives him the right to decide which court a person will be indicted in and what kind of court. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has pointed out, there is also the danger that at present legal aid is not allowed for the employment of counsel in the sheriff court. If that is carried through into this measure, people will not be represented by counsel and yet could be sent to prison for what is the equivalent today of a six and a quarter year sentence.
2068
These are deep and serious matters. They should not be brought forward in this fashion, so late in the life of a Parliament and in the run-up to a general election. I do not know what the Government are thinking of in treating the Scottish criminal justice system in this deplorable fashion.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, is grouped with a large number of amendments, although they do not all deal with this issue. For the convenience of the Committee, it might be helpful if I go through them all at this stage and then deal with the points that both noble Lords have made.
Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 107 propose to revert to the position before 1988 when the last increase in sheriff solemn sentencing powers occurred. The amendments would reduce the existing powers of the sheriffs to two years. We have had proposals to maintain their power and those of the stipendiary magistrates and sheriffs sitting in the summary court at their present level. That is covered by Amendment No. 106A.
Amendments Nos. 103A, 104A, 105A and 107A propose an increase in the maximum sentencing powers from three to four years instead of five, as in the Bill. Amendment No. 102A would not allow any increase to sheriffs and jury trials. Amendment No. 106 would not permit an increase in sheriff summary powers. Therefore there are a great number of options open to the Committee when one goes through the range of the amendments.
These amendments have not been inspired by the Treasury, as has been suggested, but because the Government believe, as was set out in the White Paper and as was explained in another place, they would assist the operation of the courts and the criminal justice system of which these courts form part. They would increase the level of flexibility and relieve pressures which exist in the system from time to time. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
They would also provide sheriffs with a range to determine the most appropriate sentences for the cases before them without the need to remit to the High Court for sentence. I accept that that power exists, but experience in recent years indicates that it is a power used infrequently and only in the most serious cases. Undoubtedly the proposals will have implications on the marking policy of the Lord Advocate and his Crown counsel, but, as I have explained to the Committee and indeed at Second Reading, the role of Crown counsel is well established. I see no reason why any proposals in the Bill, let alone these, should cause Crown counsel to depart from the high standards which they have sought to achieve over the years.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated, the matter was last considered in 1994 when the consultation document, Sentencing Appeals: Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland, was published as part of the Government's proposals. Since that time there have been a number of developments, particularly in the High Court.

2069
In the year 1995–96 there was a 36 per cent. increase in the number of cases called in the High Court of Justiciary on the previous year. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be aware from his experience, the court is now sitting much longer than it used to. It faces an increasing number of adjournments as cases are transferred from one circuit to another.
I should explain to those noble Lords who are not entirely familiar with the procedure for the operation of the High Court in Scotland that circuits occur in various towns and cities in Scotland to which a number of cases are allocated. The circuit normally lasts a period of two weeks before, in busy cities such Glasgow or Edinburgh, the next circuit begins and the judge allocated to the circuit returns to Edinburgh to conduct other business. The experience has been that there have been numerous occasions when cases indicted for one circuit cannot be tried because there is insufficient court time. That is a major practical problem, not only for the court but for practitioners as well. The volume of business in the High Court is increasing.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, wishes to have more precise figures I am happy to provide them. I have already referred to the figures for 1995–96. For the initial period in the year 1996–97 again there were increases. As we are rapidly coming to the end of that period, it should be possible for me to write to the noble and learned Lord giving a fairly clear indication of what level of increase we are dealing with compared to the previous year.
The number of cases indicted is increasing, as is the number of days on which the court sits. So there is a major practical problem to be faced by the Crown, which has to prosecute in the court, by defence counsel and solicitor advocates, who defend there, and by High Court judges who sit there.
For that reason it appears to the Government that there is scope for re-examining the issue of transferring cases to the sheriff and jury court, which would be one of the practical consequences of the Government's proposals, and, for instance, transferring cases at the lesser end of gravity that are currently tried in the sheriff and jury court into the sheriff summary court. For those reasons we are unable to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, which would seek to negate our proposals.
At this stage it might be helpful to mention that in the sheriff summary court sheriffs already try a number of cases where the maximum period of imprisonment is 12 months. They lie in the field of contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. As the Committee will appreciate, such offences are quite regularly committed in Scotland. It is not uncommon for sheriffs sitting on their own deciding issues of guilt and the question of sentence to send offenders to prison for a period of 12 months. So far as the sheriff summary court is concerned the proposal is to give that power in relation to all offences unless the maximum sentence is a lower figure specified by Parliament. In certain cases of police assault under the Police (Scotland) Act they have power to impose sentences of nine months. Therefore we believe that
2070
there is no significant problem in increasing their share of summary powers up to 12 months, and certainly no major constitutional issue arises on that matter.
Another important development since the matter was last looked at by the Government and by Parliament is the power of the Appeal Court to issue sentencing guidelines. As I have already indicated to the Committee, the Crown would welcome the use of that power.
Another topic is the issue of judicial training. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who suggested that no amount of lectures would achieve consistency. I have slightly more faith in the value of judicial training. Certainly those members of the English judiciary, both permanent and part-time, to whom I have spoken place great faith in, reliance upon, and commend the efforts of, the Judicial Studies Board in England. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will be aware that, upon the installation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, as Lord President, he made it clear in the remarks he addressed to the court that day that he too would welcome developments in the field of judicial training, so presumably he shares my view that there is benefit in it.
It is for that reason that the Government have put resources into the matter and are very grateful that the recently retired Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, has agreed to play an important role in setting up the committee and putting judicial training in Scotland on a more formal and extensive basis than has been the position until now.
A number of points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. Perhaps I may deal with some of them, without seeking to comment on every one of the criticisms he made of the Government's proposals.
He mentioned the issue of temporary sheriffs and invited me to publish a list of everyone who is a temporary sheriff. I am happy to consider that matter. It cannot be anything other than a matter of public record who the temporary sheriffs are and what their ages and professional qualifications are. I think the noble Lord wanted to go beyond that and explore their motive for doing the work—whether it was limited to earning a little money on the side, or something of that kind. Whether it would be appropriate to form a view on that matter and publish it, I rather doubt; but certainly, if there is a concern that the names, ages, and professional qualifications and current positions of temporary sheriffs are not known, I see no reason why that should not be addressed.
Clearly, temporary sheriffs have to sit in different parts of Scotland, but that is because there are variations in the volume of business from time to time in different parts of the country. There are over a hundred permanent sheriffs. They are entitled to so many weeks' leave each year; on occasion they fall sick and require to be replaced by temporary sheriffs, attend courses or are seconded to do other work which takes them away from their regular shrieval duties.
The temporary sheriffs have an important role to play in the day-to-day management and staffing of the courts and, if they are interested in a permanent appointment,

2071
they are also provided with a useful opportunity to explore whether this is a post that they really wish to have and for which they feel they are qualified. Equally the system assists those involved in the appointment of permanent sheriffs to receive reports.
The commissions of the temporary sheriffs are reviewed annually at the present time. They are formally reported upon each year by the sheriffs principal. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated, from time to time the Appeal Court has written to the Lord Advocate of the day complaining about the performance of individuals who have sat as temporary sheriffs. Without breaching any confidentiality, I am in a position to assure the Committee that when such reports are received they are acted upon: the papers in the case are called for, reports are obtained from those involved and the renewal of the commission is by no means automatic.
The allocation of work in the sheriff court is a matter for the sheriffs principal. They decide which permanent sheriffs do which cases and what use they make of temporary sheriffs within their jurisdiction. We believe that that is the correct approach, in the same way that I explained to the Committee earlier in our deliberations. So far as the High Court is concerned, how the business falls to be allocated is a matter for the Lord Justice General. Because we believe that temporary sheriffs have a role to play, we are content to leave it to the sheriffs principal to decide which work they do. In the same way, the Lord Justice General no doubt has regard to the complexities of individual cases in deciding which judges to allocate to which cases. So there is every reason to believe that sheriffs principal, who are all experienced lawyers, would do likewise.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raised the question of the availability of defence lawyers in the sheriff court. In the sheriff court, there is the opportunity to be defended by solicitors, whether or not they are qualified as solicitor advocates. There is also the opportunity to seek authority from the legal aid fund for the employment of counsel. The Government have no plans in the context of this Bill to reform the legal aid scheme. They are content to leave it to the Legal Aid Board to decide in relation to particular cases whether the employment of counsel is justified. Obviously, if there is an increase in the sentencing powers of the sheriff, it is possible that the Legal Aid Board will take the view that there is more scope for sanctioning the employment of counsel in a particular case than there may be at the present time. But that is a matter for that body.
I resist quite firmly the suggestion that this proposal is put forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay said, in some way to erode the quality of justice in Scotland and to reduce it from a Rolls-Royce system to something much less. I believe that that view will be shared by many others who currently practise in Scotland, although I recognise that it is not a view shared by everyone who has spoken tonight and certainly not everyone who responded to the consultation document, about which I shall have more to say in a moment.
2072
I turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who accurately, as one would expect, went over the history of the Grant, Thomson and Maxwell Reports. He will recall that in 1994, when consultation took place, the issue of increasing the sentencing power of the sheriff and jury court to four years was seriously considered.
I do not suggest that there has been an examination in the same way as occurred with the reports under the chairmanship of the High Court judges in bringing forward these proposals, but they were set out quite firmly in the White Paper and were responded to by many parties. My information is that a total of 31 responses to the White Paper were received. On this particular issue, 15, including those members of the senior judiciary who responded, were against the proposal; and 14, from most of the bodies representing those interested in the work of the lower courts (including the professional associations, which are composed of solicitors and solicitor advocates) and the sheriff association, supported the matter.
The proposals had a measure of support, but equally they had a measure of opposition. It is a matter of regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, considers that these proposals will cause deep resentment. I do not believe, and my understanding of the views of those who practice in the sheriff court is, that that resentment would be universally shared. Clearly there is scope for differing views. But in view of the factors that I have mentioned, in particular the increase in the number of cases being indicted in the High Court, in the lengths of trials and in the number of adjournments, there is scope for looking at the matter again. That is what has been done.
Fortified by the additional safeguards provided by the power which the High Court has to lay down sentencing guidelines—a power which to some extent is reinforced by the Lord Advocate's power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences and by the right of an accused to appeal against sentence—we believe the guidelines provide a safeguard and judicial training will fortify that safeguard. These are important measures and ones which ought to command the approval of the Committee. I hope therefore that the Committee will not support Amendment No. 102A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, or any other amendments focused in the group we are presently debating.
Lord McCluskey: I regard that reply to the points I made as abysmally unsatisfactory. First, will the Lord Advocate kindly note that I drew attention to the fact that the power of the sheriff is effectively to be raised by 278 per cent.? That is the figure I gave and he can ask his officials to check it. The effective power of the sheriff today is 18 months; the effective power of the sheriff when this Bill becomes an Act will be 50 months. That is an enormous increase in power. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will be good enough to acknowledge at some stage that that is correct.
Secondly, when this matter was debated at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, expressed support for certain measures in the Bill and his discontent over this specific matter. He drew

2073
attention to the lack of need for any such power. He also pointed out that there is considerable danger of a greater risk of inconsistent levels of sentencing in the sheriff court. He pointed to the fact that in the High Court the judges often meet in the morning; they meet for lunch; they occasionally have conferences; and they have regular meetings every Thursday morning. They can exchange information with one another and achieve a degree of consistency through that method and also through the sentencing information system. There are no such mechanisms available for sheriffs and the degree of inconsistency will rise dramatically.
The Lord Advocate said that we should have confidence in the continued competence and role of Crown counsel. I say with the utmost sorrow that I do not have the same confidence that I used to have. That is partly because the present Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, decided, against the advice of many people, including myself—we made representations to him, to his predecessor and again to him—that he should continue to appoint to the office of Crown counsel people who were independent, departing from the tradition that has existed for the entire history of Scots law and putting into that office permanent, full-time servants of the Crown Office with a salary and promotion prospects. I cannot believe that the continuation of that practice, which was brought in around Christmas-time without any intimation to me—I read it in the Scots Law Times—is good for the independence of Crown counsel.
I also drew attention to the fact that the justification for this measure in 1987 was given in terms of the absolute numbers of cases. I would seek to have from the Lord Advocate, preferably before Monday—because this matter will arise again on Monday, and again on Report, either on the first day of Report or the second day of Report, or whatever day of Report is required in order to have satisfactory answers on this matter—the absolute numbers of cases. It is those numbers that count, not the alleged increases. I do not know what the increases mean. The Lord Advocate referred to circuits. I thought they were abolished in 1987, but he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.
If there is a pressure upon the High Court because of some increase in the number of cases, the correct answer is to appoint High Court judges. Why, instead of having High Court judges imposing sentences of six-and-a-half years, should we have temporary sheriffs? One thing is clear. It is a sight cheaper to have a temporary sheriff than to have a High Court judge. That points to the truth of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—I hope it is not true—that this is a Treasury-led initiative.
The Lord Advocate also referred to the power to issue sentencing guidelines. That power is not being used. For reasons with which I do not greatly sympathise, the Criminal Appeal Court in Scotland chooses not to issue sentencing guidelines. It chooses to make decisions on the basis of individual cases, and that in a sense sets a trend. There is a kind of incremental wisdom. There is no attempt to prescribe great principles.
2074
On the matter of judicial training, I have the advantage of having attended the Judicial Studies Training Board in England. I found to my surprise that a great many of the people who were being trained there had virtually no experience of the criminal law and so they really did need the training. When we had our exercises to discover what possible sentences should be passed, they varied from probation or a slap across the wrist to 18 years in one case. They really needed the training. That is an entirely different situation from the one in Scotland, where almost universally the people who go onto the Bench have some experience of criminal work. I do not have the same confidence that Lord Ross, with all his experience, will somehow create a kind of even and consistent level of wisdom among temporary sheriffs. That seems to be a quite ridiculous idea. Why on earth should we give temporary sheriffs this enormous power?
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the suggestion that the sheriff principal somehow allocates work in the same way as the Lord Justice General did. I do not believe that the Lord Justice General does allocate work in the criminal courts on that basis. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will write to ask him whether he does. I should like to know whether the sheriff principals, some of whom cover enormous areas with vast numbers of sheriffs, have any possible time and energy for allocating particular sheriffs to particular work. I do not think that is a possibility and I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord should suggest that to us.
He also said that it is possible that the Scottish Legal Aid Board will sanction counsel. I hope he will make inquiries of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to see whether in the light of these new provisions it intends to vary its practice from that which obtains now.
In relation to the matter of consultation, the matter that was put out for consultation in 1994 was a proposal that possibly the sheriffs powers might be raised to sentencing for four years at a time when the remission was going to be a half of that. Under the provisions in the 1993 Act the sheriffs power was to put a person in custody for 24 months. That was effectively what it was. There was no consultation about a proposal to give the sheriff an effective power to send someone to prison for four years and two months; in other words, a five-year sentence with one-sixth remission.
I would like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to write to me as soon as may be to explain who were the 15 persons or bodies who were against this proposal and who were the 14 for it. That is 29 out of 31 and I would like to know who the other two are as well. They were not being consulted on the measure which this Bill contains. It is important that this Committee should hear and that the Chamber should know what are the absolute numbers. The Lord Advocate mentioned the increase in the number of cases. No doubt we shall hear the numbers fairly soon—that is to say, the actual number of cases indicted in the High Court. We shall also hear something about the length of cases. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate spoke about the number of adjournments and that suggestion baffles me. The idea is that because

2075
cases are adjourned therefore he should send more cases off to the sheriff court. I do not understand the logic of that argument at all. I express myself as being deeply dissatisfied. I hope that at some stage we shall have an opportunity to vote on the matter.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may respond briefly to some of the points he makes. As regards the figures, I shall do my best to ensure that a letter is dispatched to him tomorrow addressing the various issues which he raised, including the number of cases coming into the Crown Office each year; the number of cases indicted and the number of adjournments which take place and so on. I hope that his experience in sitting regularly in the criminal courts will convince him that there is at least some support for my contention of an increase in the volume of business of the High Court of justiciary in Scotland.
The noble and learned Lord made certain comments about Crown counsel which I should deal with. It is a matter of regret that a High Court judge sitting in this House, let alone anywhere, should feel it appropriate to express reservations about the confidence that the court has in Crown counsel. As Members of the Committee will know, they are the advocate deputes who prosecute daily in the High Court in Scotland. I personally regret that the noble and learned Lord has chosen to criticise me for deciding to appoint to that team a lawyer who had been a procurator fiscal for many years. He has now resigned from the service and taken up an appointment as Crown counsel. I did so after I received a report from a group chaired by the Solicitor-General, including others unconnected with the Crown Office, which recommended that such appointments should be made if individual candidates merited appointment. In accepting the recommendations of that group last December, I have been considering when to make an appointment.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that since I was an advocate depute in the early 1980s—certainly since the noble and learned Lord was an advocate depute many years previously—the willingness of members of the Faculty of Advocates to serve as Crown counsel has not been as enthusiastic as it used to be. It would be wrong to go into that matter in any detail, but it is a consideration that has to be taken into account. Obviously, even if only one person approached declines to serve, that limits the field from which the Lord Advocate can select his team of Crown counsel.
All I can say is that the views that the noble and learned Lord expressed about my decision are not universally shared by those involved in the legal profession in Scotland. It is probably inappropriate that I should say any more. I am glad that he agrees with me that there would be value in the power of the sentencing guidelines being used. He is in a better position than I am to encourage his colleagues to do so and I look forward to his support in that regard.
It would be constitutionally wrong of the Government to interfere in the work of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and in how it exercises its powers, but I shall certainly
2076
draw to its attention the views which have been expressed tonight. Whether the lawyers who serve on that board include members of the faculty and solicitors who share the views which have been expressed tonight is a matter for them to decide, but I undertake to ensure that the observations that have been made here are drawn to the board's attention.
The consultation exercise, as set out in the White Paper, related not only to these proposals but to those on early release. It was therefore open to any consultee to examine the issue in the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has done. I shall do what I can to provide the noble and learned Lord before Monday with a breakdown of those who supported the proposals and those who did not. As I said at Second Reading, the consultation exercise took place on the basis that consultation responses would be made public unless the individual consultees requested otherwise. It is possible that some who supported the proposals and some who were against them requested that their views should be private. Subject to that qualification, however, there should be no difficulty in meeting the request that has been made.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord feels strongly about this matter, as does the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. All that I can do is to assure other Members of the Committee that the matter has been considered and that the proposals command a measure of support—albeit that they command a measure of opposition also. In the Government's view, however, they are appropriate to deal with the practical problems which the Scottish courts face. I personally have greater faith in the sheriffs, in those who sit as temporary sheriffs and those who practise in the sheriff courts, than has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, tonight. On that basis, I continue to invite the Committee not to support the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In replying to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I should like to make it clear that I was in no way demeaning the value of judicial training. It has its own place in the system. I was certainly not suggesting that temporary sheriffs are Arthur Daleys with wigs on who go around Scotland making a little bit on the side. I never used that expression. I said that if someone offered me £300 a day I would no doubt take it, if I was suited for the job. As I understand it, temporary sheriffs are paid somewhere around that rate on a daily basis. I do not want that to be taken in any way as a criticism of them for doing the job.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pointed out, we are now dealing with an issue which is fundamental to the Scottish legal system. I have been qualified in the law for 40 years. I do not like personalising argument or debate, but I genuinely find this one of the saddest occasions at which I have been present in relation to the Scottish legal system. What the Lord Advocate is telling the Committee is that Scotland's population of slightly over 5 million people cannot run its own legal system efficiently.

2077
So, what do we do? The High Court becomes overloaded, yet more judges are not appointed. I remember that in either the 1990 or 1993 debates I suggested that we should have a pool of judges in order to give us flexibility and to enable judges to have proper holidays and proper writing time. There may be a bit of slack in the system, but the system could be tightened when required. The Government rejected that out of hand. I was told—rightly or wrongly—that when the suggestion was made that we should have more judges (even if they had a day or even a week off occasionally) the excuse given by the Treasury was that if you appoint a judge you have to appoint a macer and find him a court and all the rest. The Treasury said that that could not be afforded, so the system has got constricted.
Is the noble and learned Lord now telling the people of Scotland, the people who matter—the noble and learned Lord does not matter; I do not matter; it is the system of justice in Scotland that matters—that the whole judicial system has ground to a halt and that there is no answer to it except to shift the problem around the corner from the High Court into the sheriff court to let the sheriffs deal with it and give them increased powers? Is he saying that everyone should say "hurrah", go home clapping their hands and say that we have solved the problem? The situation is absolutely preposterous.
Although I speak from the Opposition Front Bench, I am in no position to give any undertakings about appointing more judges. But is it not time that someone faced up to the situation, looked it square in the face, and set up a commission urgently to decide how we solve the problem? We do not solve it with a piecemeal approach, and, as I say, shove it around the corner.
I must say that I am surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate complaining about adjournments in the High Court. From practice in the sheriff court, I can assure him that it is the easiest place in the world to obtain an adjournment. It is difficult to get an adjournment in a High Court trial because the judges are very conscious of the court's duty not just to the accused and the Crown but to the public and jurors. There is not much of a problem in obtaining an adjournment in a sheriff court.
If you walk into a busy sheriff court, from time to time you will see a fiscal coming in at half-past nine in the morning with a pile of papers that he has not even read. He has not had time to read them. That is the way the system works. To suggest that there is room in the sheriff court to push in important cases such as, presumably, attempted murder, attempted rape and so on, which can attract a sentence of five years' imprisonment, and that that will solve the problem, is just not facing up to the problem.
There is the question of counsel available in the sheriff court. It is all very well to say that it should be left to the Legal Aid Board and it will decide. Anyone facing a sentence of five years' imprisonment is prima facie entitled to the best representation available within the legal system and even within the legal aid system. Who on the board makes the decisions? The Legal Aid Board comprises a great many people. I do not know
2078
how many of them are legally qualified. Of course, the committees are legally qualified. If you speak to practising solicitors they tell you about the difficulties they sometimes have with the Legal Aid Board. At times it can be helpful; at others it can be obstructive. There is no consistency.
Why not appoint more judges? I have no doubt that in accordance with recent tradition the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might be sitting in a high position within a few months. I do not know. He may be sitting as a High Court judge and looking at matters in a different light, as his predecessor is now doing as the head of the judiciary. Why do we shrink from leaving the system the way it is and improving the High Court/sheriff court structure and instead dodge the column altogether?
If the system is grinding to a halt, the people of Scotland are entitled to know that. Although no one in the Scottish press pays much attention to what is said in this place unless it is sensational, I hope that the message will get through from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the High Court can no longer cope with its business, and so the only answer is to increase the powers of temporary sheriffs and sheriffs in the sheriff court and shove the problem out of the way so as to ease the burden.
It is an absolutely disgraceful situation. The accused in particular, as well as the victim's family, is entitled not just to the best service available in his or her defence but to the best judges available in the land in cases where the sentence is likely to be five years' imprisonment.
Not often am I lost for words, but I repeat that this is a sad, sad night for the legal system of Scotland if what the noble and learned Lord said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and to me about the state of the Scottish criminal legal system is true. The matter will be investigated again and again, and we will come back at the Report stage once we have more information. We do not have the backing of government researchers, but once the figures are available one can rest assured that they will be examined. The matter will then be brought back, perhaps not only in this House but in another place, and brought back with a vengeance to ensure that justice and not expediency prevails in Scotland. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 103
Page 19, line 34, leave out (""five") and insert (""two").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have largely spoken to Amendment No. 103, but there are one or two comments that I would have added had I been on my feet in time before the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, withdrew his amendment.
First, I believe that I have an unrivalled breadth, depth and length of experience in the criminal courts in Scotland. I have been a law officer for more than five years and an advocate depute for more than seven years. I have practised in every court; the district court, the

2079
borough court, the sheriff court, the sheriff solemn court and the High Court over a period of 41 years, the last 12 as a judge. I feel passionately about this matter because I see the system being corrupted by what the Government are doing.
In my time in the Crown Office, which started in 1964 and ended in 1979, there was pressure from the permanent staff to become full-time prosecutors and to get rid of the advocate depute system which had obtained for centuries. That pressure was successfully resisted during my time. The first crack in the dam appeared when the noble and learned Lord's predecessor was Lord Advocate, and I discovered that he was contemplating appointing members of the fiscal staff in the role of Crown counsel for the first time.
I wrote to him and he asked me to attend a meeting with him. He promised to set up a committee and so he did. It was chaired by the then Solicitor-General, who now sits as Lord Advocate; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. He in turn, having become Lord Advocate, appointed as the chairman of the committee in his place the new Solicitor-General, Mr. Paul Cullen.
The report which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned to this Committee was a majority report. The persons on the committee were the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who could hardly be described as independent in a matter of this kind; the Deputy Crown Agent; a solicitor from the Scottish Office; two or three people who had no connection, so far as I could understand, with the law; and a distinguished Queen's Counsel with substantial experience of the Crown Office. It was a majority report and he was the one who dissented. I was not allowed to see that report, but I was given a summary of it. That is the position. On the basis of that majority report from people who were substantially and plainly chosen for their support for the idea, the Lord Advocate purports to act on the basis of a committee report.
I do not know how difficult it is to find advocate deputes. In my day, there were 100 people from whom one had to choose the advocate deputes; now there are about 360 people. Therefore, I do not see how the difficulty can be as great as the Lord Advocate seems to suggest.
There is one other figure that the Lord Advocate will wish to put before the Committee, or alternatively the House at a later stage. He will find the answer extremely easily from the sentencing information system. How many sentences above six years have been imposed in the High Court in each of the last five years, or been imposed on remit from the sheriff court to a judge of the High Court in accordance with the remissions?
If this measure goes through, the likelihood is that the work of the High Court will be reduced in that fashion. That will please my noble and learned friend Lord Clyde who thought that the High Court ought to be spending more time dealing with civil business and less time dealing with the criminal business of sending people to prison for a substantial period of years.
These are deeply important matters and in respect of the amendment standing in my name, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I think it would assist the Committee if I limited my response to deal with two matters which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. One was the suggestion that my predecessor had picked for that committee those who supported the idea which it was to examine. I regret that such an allegation was made. It is an allegation that those who know well my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry will know has no foundation whatever in fact. I hope that on further reflection the noble and learned Lord will not persist in it.
As regards my searching the sentencing information system for the information which the noble and learned Lord seeks, I regret that on this occasion I am unable to assist because, as he may have forgotten, that system is private to the judges. Neither the Crown nor defence lawyers have any access to it whatever. But as I see no reason why the public should not be aware of the information which he seeks, tomorrow I shall invite the Lord Justice General to search the system on my behalf and I hope that the information will be available for Monday or, if not, for the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: I do not propose to press the matter at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103A:
Page 19, line 34, leave out (""five") and insert (""four").
The noble Lord said: We have been over the course probably twice too often in the course of the evening. I do not press this amendment today but I reserve the position for Report stage.
[Amendment No. 103A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 104A not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 19, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 6 on page 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with others but it is a separate matter because it relates to the summary sentencing power of the sheriffs. Again, I do not wish to weary the Committee at this late hour, although there are not many to be wearied. But at present the sheriff has power to send a person to prison for three months which effectively for reasons that I have already explained is a period of six weeks, and in the case of a second or further offence of dishonesty or personal violence he can impose six months, and there are one or two higher powers to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred at an earlier stage.
Under the Bill, the effective power of the sheriff will be increased in the maximum case from, presently, 12 weeks to a period of 40 weeks. That is a massive increase in the power of the sheriff. I make it a 333 per cent. increase in the effective power of the

2081
sheriff. If the Committee were to accept my Amendment No. 106, the result would be that the effective power of the sheriff would increase from six weeks to 10 weeks in the one case and from 12 weeks to 20 weeks in the other case—a 166 per cent. increase. That is surely enough of a jump to take at one time. I cannot understand the basis on which the power of the sheriff is to be increased in that fashion.
There is another feature of this to which I wish to draw attention. In England at present there is considerable disquiet, as I understand it, at the possibility that the right to jury trial will be removed from a number of people in certain circumstances. I know nothing about the merits of that. But if we allow the sheriff to have the power to send a person to prison for an effective period of 40 weeks instead of 12 weeks or for 20 weeks instead of six weeks, in effect we are saying, "You can now go to prison for such a lengthy period without the benefit of jury trial in Scotland". All of a sudden a large number of people are to be deprived of the right to jury trial, which they would enjoy at the moment before they faced a sentence of that length.
Again, I must raise the question: who is it who decides whether a case is to go summarily or on indictment? The answer is the Lord Advocate and his staff. Is it done in public? No. Is it reviewable? No. Are they accountable for it? No. I regret to say that I stay with the constitutional principle that you should not give Ministers powers of this kind if they have not established a need for them. I am not convinced that the power that we are conferring upon the Lord Advocate in relation to the allocation of cases in this fashion has been demonstrated to be necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not offer any criticism in this respect, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord has just spoken to Amendment No. 106 rather than Amendment No. 105, which is the one that the Deputy Chairman of Committees called. However, to avoid further delay, perhaps I may respond briefly to it.
Lord McCluskey: I am sorry. The Marshalled List is incorrect. There has been an unfortunate mistake which I did not notice. Amendment No. 105 ought to be printed under my name and not that of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. Therefore, when my name was called, I spoke to the next amendment that I had tabled.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to respond to the substance of the argument, whatever the precise amendment may be, in the hope that that may save time.
I do not dispute the arithmetic of the noble and learned Lord as to the increase in the period spent in custody as a result of later proposals in the Bill. However, as I indicated earlier, I believe that if Parliament has previously entrusted sheriffs with the power to send people to prison for 12 months in the knowledge that the provisions for early release tend to vary from time to time—possibly more frequently than some noble Lords would wish—there is nothing
2082
constitutionally improper in the proposal to give that power in relation to all sentences that come before that court.
The issue of a jury trial is a separate matter. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there has never been the right to jury trial which there is in England. I understand that there is some misunderstanding in England as to how far back that right has existed, certainly as regards the type of cases which would be tried in the sheriff court in Scotland and which under current proposals would attract up to a period of five years' imprisonment. However, that is a debate for another country and another day.
I regret to say that I have a greater faith in the competence and experience of sheriffs to do justice in the sheriff summary court than could be inferred, whether or not this is the intention of the noble and learned Lord, from some of the comments that he and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, have made in the course of the past hour or so. It would be wrong, in my submission, to give any credence whatever to the suggestion that the people of Scotland should understand that they receive inferior justice if they are tried by a sheriff than if they are tried by a sheriff and jury. It would be unfortunate if that conclusion were to be drawn from the comments that have been made. However, having regard to the hour and the discussion that we have had on previous amendments, it may not be necessary for me to say any more on the matter, especially as it is not of relevance to Amendment No. 105.
Lord McCluskey: I accept that I addressed Amendment No. 106. That was the next one standing in my name on the Marshalled List, which is plainly wrong. I apologise for that fact. However, we would not, of course, be dealing with Amendments Nos. 105 or 105A, for reasons that are plain.
In relation to the substance of the matter, the right to jury trial is effectively going to be lost by people who face imprisonment for between 13 and 40 weeks. At the present time if they face such imprisonment they have the right to a jury trial; in future it will be lost. This is an important matter and I regret to say I am not satisfied by the answers I have been given. However, at this hour of the night, I do not propose to press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105A to 108A not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that Amendment No. 109 should be in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 20, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of the 1995 Act, no person appointed under section 11 (temporary sheriffs principal and sheriffs) of the Sheriff Courts Act 1971 shall impose a sentence of imprisonment or detention exceeding two years.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: There is a mistake in the Marshalled List. This amendment should be in my name. This is specifically directed at a point which is already clear from the earlier discussion. At the moment the temporary sheriff can impose the same sentence as the permanent sheriff. Under the provisions of the Bill—if it comes into force, of course—all the sheriffs will have the increased power to which I have made reference, and the arithmetic of which is not in dispute.
I think it would be highly unsatisfactory that people who are temporary sheriffs—some of whom turn out to be plainly unsuitable and some of whom do not find their commissions removed—are given a power which now is enjoyed only by a High Court judge. For the reasons that I have already explained, I am opposed to this.
I see a vast number of appeals from sheriffs because I see about a fifth or a quarter of all the appeals in Scotland as a sifting judge, a sifting appeal judge, or as a judge sitting in the Criminal Appeal Court. I am not satisfied. I do not have the same confidence in the sheriffs and temporary sheriffs that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate expresses. One sometimes finds that people who occupy temporary judicial office seek to impress someone by being rather macho in their sentencing. One gets this impression from time to time. It is an impression which I have discussed with my colleagues in the Criminal Appeal Court, some of whom rank even higher than I in the judiciary, and it is not a matter upon which there is much disagreement. In those circumstances I hope the Government will undertake to think carefully about the suggestion that temporary sheriffs should not have the power to impose the full sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble and learned Lord said, we have already touched on this matter, but in view of the comments he has just made I am quite happy to reflect on the matter further, discuss it with my colleagues in government and engage in such discussion with others as might assist to form a view as to whether this development would be acceptable. On that basis I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McCluskey: On that basis I am happy not to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose the Question, That Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill on these grounds. I believe that the extension of powers of sentencing by sheriffs should not exceed the point where a prisoner is regarded as a long term prisoner and subject to different liberation arrangements and different conditions of supervision and conditional release. If the
2084
clause had laid down a maximum of four years, I might have found it a little easier to accept. Certainly SACRO suggested this.
This have been a worrying debate. I am sure that we shall return to it on Report. I was going to say that we shall return to it with a vengeance, but perhaps I should not do so. The debate has been particularly significant.
Lord Sewel: At first reading, Clause 12 may not appear to many of us to be a high profile clause. However, as the debate has progressed the more worried I have become. There is at least the likelihood—I acknowledge that it may be the unintended consequence—that the clause will significantly and adversely affect the nature of the criminal justice system, and in particular the court system, in Scotland. I do not level the charge that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate seeks to bring that about. I think that it would be unintentional. But because of that it is necessary to pause and reflect.
What has struck me most forcefully during the debate is that such a qualitative change in the past has been based upon prolonged consideration and deliberation. From what we have heard this evening, that is lacking in this case, and we should proceed slowly. It is always the case historically that major changes to institutions have occurred by stealth and unintentionally rather than deliberately or by revolution. We may be on the threshold of such a change as regards Clause 12.
I am particularly disappointed that the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the reasons for this change has been based on somewhat shortsighted pragmatism—that is, the pressures on the High Court. If there are pressures on the work of the High Court, as there may well be, the challenge is to sort out the High Court, and to make sure that it has the processes, the means and the resources, to do the job properly rather than seeking to transfer down to the sheriff court those cases which should properly rest at the High Court.
During the debate I have become increasingly worried that, quite unintentionally, we may be changing the nature of the criminal justice system and of the court system in Scotland. It is time to reflect. I do not wish to see the House divide on the matter tonight. However, I believe that it would be to the benefit of all parties and of the court system in Scotland if we were to think long and hard about what has been said, perhaps returning to the issue at a later date.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have listened to the debate with increasing dismay. It is a matter of deep regret to me that there should be an issue which is so bitterly divisive between respected and senior members of the legal profession and of the judiciary on all sides of the House. I fully concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said: that when one has a situation such as this it is wise to go very slowly indeed. Alterations to the constitutional make-up of the courts in Scotland are a matter that must progress with consent on all sides. It cannot be for the benefit of a country for which I have great respect and regard and a legal system that I have long revered to have as divisive an issue as this.

2085
The Committee will recall that I have frequently said that the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system is critical. I do not believe that confidence has been increased in Scotland by the debate that we have heard tonight. I, too, oppose this clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I endorse the noble Lord's final remark. I hope that when this subject is raised at a later stage it will be possible for distinguished members of the Bar and the judiciary in this House to discuss it without criticising sheriffs, temporary sheriffs, Crown counsel and others. I do not believe that that helps the public appreciate the legal system at all. We can discuss the issue without criticising different members of the legal profession. I have been quite ashamed this evening to have to be present in this Chamber, with the public listening and where noble Lords may come and go—it is a public forum—and to hear that going on. I hope that we shall not have it next time. I am sorry if I sound pious but I am very depressed by it indeed. The issue is another thing; but the way we do it matters.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We have had a long debate on the issues that arise in relation to this clause. It may be wrong for me to say much more at this stage. Perhaps later I will discuss with the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Thomas, the possible unintended consequences of constitutional change in view of certain matters about which one has been reading in the newspaper in recent months. It was the noble Lord who said that constitutional change sometimes bring about unintended consequences.
Lord Sewel: We have been consulting for 18 years.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: And look where it has got the noble Lord.
Lord Sewel: With a massive majority looming.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: There are one or two points that I might profitably feed into the discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Thomas, and to the noble Earl for the measured way in which they have sought to bring this debate to a conclusion.
One is that the percentage of High Court judges in Scotland is significantly higher per head of population than in England. That is a factor upon which people may profitably reflect. The second is that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about seeking to sort out the problems is one of which I am all too well aware as being a very sensible way forward. Certainly so long as I have been Lord Advocate I have sought, with the co-operation of the Dean of Faculty, the President of the
2086
Law Society, the former Lord Justice General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the present Lord Justice General to address some of the practical problems which the court faces. However, as the statistics to which I referred earlier made clear, there is a major increase in the number of days when the court sits, the number of indictments and so on. It is not just a temporary phenomenon; it is a major practical problem.
The suggestion is that it is important to have consensus on all sides before one goes forward. I think it is fair to say that when the sentencing powers of the sheriff sittings and the sheriff and jury court were increased from two to three years there was not overall consensus about that at that stage. Some people were of the view that it should not be moved at all. There was a substantial body of opinion that it should be moved to a higher figure. A view was taken by government, presented to Parliament and approved at that time. So while I fully accept that these are legitimately matters of public debate, it may be totally unrealistic to expect a unanimity of view. In the event that this House were ever called upon to consider legislation dealing with a Scottish assembly, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would not expect unanimity of view no matter how long and how eloquently he talked.
Perhaps I may endorse what was said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy as to the comments made when debating issues of this nature. I do not offer any criticism as such but I am concerned that, reported in part, some of the comments that Members of the Committee have felt it appropriate to make could give the impression that there are serious weaknesses in the criminal justice system in Scotland in so far as it relates to the work done in the sheriff court. No doubt there are occasions when mistakes are made and when temporary sheriffs—and indeed permanent sheriffs—fail to get things right. The very nature of our justice system is that there are built into it appeal courts to sort these matters out. I hope that when we return to this matter at Report stage, as we undoubtedly shall, it will prove possible, armed with the additional information I have undertaken to provide, to have a productive debate on issues which are clearly important. In the meantime I hope that Members will be content that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
House resumed.

Southampton International Boat Show Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Extradition Statistics
  Extradition Statistics
  Fire Service College
  Fire Service College
  Museums and Galleries: Insurance
  Museums and Galleries: Insurance
  The Sevso Hoard
  The Sevso Hoard
  Hedgerow Loss
  Hedgerow Loss
  Show Houses: Rates
  Show Houses: Rates
  Light Dues: Reduction
  Light Dues: Reduction
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
  Special Schools for Emotionally and Behaviourally Disturbed Children
  Special Schools for Emotionally and Behaviourally Disturbed Children