Sitting of 10 March 1997

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

    River Thames
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the establishment of regular passenger services on the River Thames. [17753]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): My Department is in regular contact with boat operators, the millennium exhibition organisers, the Port of London Authority and other interested parties about the possibility of introducing new passenger services on the River Thames. I met my hon. Friend, with representatives of the Transport on Water Association, to discuss this subject last September.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the Festival of Britain, 5 million people took to the river for transport? Does not the millennium exhibition at Greenwich represent an outstanding opportunity to establish a regular passenger service on the Thames?
    2
    What is the prospect of public funds for piers, the essential infrastructure if this long-awaited and much to be desired service is to become a reality?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right persistently to draw attention to the need to attract more passenger traffic to the Thames, particularly in the context of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. Bids can be made to support the building of piers, and in the recent capital challenge allocations we have been able to support a pier for Bankside which will serve both the Tate and the Globe. The pier for the millennium exhibition, which will be at north Greenwich, is within the plans of the millennium company. I hope that it will attract a great many people as a result of the park-and-sail opportunities at the pier and at the sites at Barking and Woolwich.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the concept that I have presented to him, along with the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and the Transport on Water Association, has the advantage over the London First scheme in that it would be integrated with the transport network and would not result in tourists paying £5 or £10 a go? The Minister has received the correspondence and should be aware that no fewer than 10 piers could be constructed between Vauxhall and the Tower for a third of the cost of the London First proposals, and that those could be used not only by passenger services but by other vessels. Would not such a public investment be good value for money compared with the £80 million to £100 million being spent on two platforms of the Jubilee line—albeit, of course, that that could interchange with passenger services such as I have described?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Jubilee line extension will carry many more people to the millennium exhibition and the other stations on the route than could possibly be transported by water. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that he has consistently supported travel on water. With his twin interests, I suspect that he will one day press us to introduce a Thames pedalo. We have taken on board his points, and he and my hon. Friend the

    3
    Member for Romford have written to me. We have passed on their information and calculations to the cross river partnership, the organisation that we are part-funding to carry out an in-depth study of the possibilities of cross-river transport.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I welcome the Government's keen interest in regular passenger services on the Thames? May I remind my hon. Friend that the Thames does not stop at Greenwich—or even at the great barrier—but extends all the way to Gravesend, where we have excellent piers and much maritime industry and tradition? I welcome what he says, and I give him all encouragement to make greater use of our great river.
    Mr. Bowis: I am happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend's support for extending the use of the river right along to the mouth of the Thames, and he will know that the Thames gateway initiatives are working on that in terms of road and rail links. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue promoting the interests of north Kent for many years to come.

    Millennium Festival
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road improvement measures he proposes to improve access to the site of the millennium festival at Greenwich. [17754]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The completion of the Hackney-M11 link road and the provision of an escape ramp for lorries at the southern end of the Blackwall tunnel will help coaches get to the site and help cars get to off-site car parks. The only additional roads needed for the exhibition are the local access roads, linked to the A102(M) by improved sliproads. We have made it clear from the outset that access to the exhibition site itself will be by public transport and river, not by car.
    Mr. Timms: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will know that the organisers' plans entail only 1 per cent. of visitors reaching the festival site in their own cars. That means that there will need to be a great deal of parking elsewhere, almost certainly including sites over the river and north of the river in Newham. Does he share my concern that, to make that possible, there will need to be road infrastructure improvements? It is now getting rather late for some of them to be put in place. For instance, if Newham docklands is to be used for parking, there will need to be a new bridge on the A406 over the A13, and it will take 18 months to build; and if the Stratford rail lands are to be used, there will need to be new bridges over both the rail lands and over the River Lea.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to plan ahead to avoid traffic chaos around the time of the millennium festival; and will he consider carefully what needs to be done now to ensure that the necessary road improvements to facilitate off-site parking are in place in time?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there will be a large number of park-and-ride and park-and-sail sites. Of course it is right to plan ahead for
    4
    adequate provision. The promoters are still in the process of finalising their plans for both park-and-ride and park-and-sail sites. All sites will require adequate access arrangements, and those will have to be included in planning applications. It will then be for the promoter to agree the details with the planning and highways authorities.
    Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend may or may not be aware that I had the opportunity this very morning to visit the site of the proposed millennium festival at Greenwich. It was very interesting to see how little opportunity there has yet been for hotel development. Does he agree that if the promoters on Greenwich council and in Millennium Central are to be able to fulfil their ambitions to have hotels, there will need to be a great deal of improvement to road access and car parking?
    Will my right hon. Friend also look into the matter of the pier mentioned during exchanges on the first question today? The Port of London Authority needs to take a careful look at the standard of that pier and at road access to it.
    Sir George Young: I shall certainly pursue the point about the end of the pier. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Jubilee line extension will access the millennium site and open up a large number of sites for development in the part of London in question, which urgently needs fresh investment. I am sure that hotels also have a role to play. But their location, and whether they are to be developed, are matters primarily for the local planning authority.

    Traffic Congestion, London
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated cost to business of traffic congestion in London in the last year for which figures are available. [17755]
    Mr. Bowis: There is no agreed measurement of the cost of traffic congestion to businesses, but we have in place a programme of road and rail improvements designed to reduce congestion to enable buses and bicycles to move more freely and to encourage greater use of rail services.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree with the London Pride partnership, which recently said that London cannot succeed with a deteriorating transport system? If he does, what does he have to say to the millions of London commuters who have been told in the past month that the maintenance and renewal programme, worth up to £400 million, has been scrapped as a result of the Government's incompetent handling of the network?
    Mr. Bowis: I would say to them: unlike the Labour party's programme of no new money, no new lines, no new roads, and no privatisation—for ideological reasons—we have in place a programme of about £200 million for London's trunk roads, £22 million for the red routes, over £100 million for the transport supplementary grant and capital challenge network enhancement projects, about £47 million for bus improvements, and hundreds of millions of pounds for rail

    5
    improvements. More than £1 billion, moreover, is in the programme for the London underground system—and all this in the coming year.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only answer to traffic congestion in London is an improved underground system? He and I have both successfully driven one of the new Northern line trains, but does he agree that the privatisation of London Underground is the only hope for increased investment and that it is absurd of the Labour party to oppose it for purely doctrinal reasons?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is 100 per cent. correct. We have a programme of renewing investment in London's underground over the years leading up to privatisation and thereafter, within five years, completing the task of bringing the system up to date, in addition to the work and investment in new lines. Privatisation will come with all the guarantees in terms of fares and travelcards that the public expect. Any party that stands up in London at the general election without a policy to match that does not deserve the support of Londoners.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Traffic congestion in London and the south-east costs billions of pounds every year. It is no good for the Minister to say that the problem will eventually solve itself: it can be solved only by proper traffic-restraining measures. We should stop private cars coming into central London, enforce parking regulations and have a decent tramway system. Those are all positive proposals and I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will endorse them when they are in government.
    Mr. Bowis: I am tempted to give way and let the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues endorse that, if it is new Labour's policy to stop cars moving at all in London. I have already described to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) our investment in a range of policies for road and rail, as well as the underground. Much of the road investment is aimed at improving traffic movement and includes traffic calming. Congestion in London is a result of the continuing improvement in London's economy, which we can be proud of, but to manage the increased traffic and to encourage greater use of public transport we shall have to take the steps that only the Government are prepared to take.

    South West Trains
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations he has had with the chief executive of Stagecoach Holdings plc about the operation of South West Trains. [17756]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The performance of franchised train operators is a matter for the franchising director. [Interruption.] Just wait. I have discussed the situation with Mr. Brian Cox and Mr. Peter Cotton of South West Trains.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent running, or rather re-running, of South West Trains by Stagecoach has been characterised by gross incompetence on the part of that company's management?
    6
    However, does he further agree that that is an unacceptable exception to the general rule that privatisation has brought improved punctuality, reliability, information to passengers and, above all, investment? [Interruption.] That is in stark contrast to the bad old days of British Rail, when passengers were at the mercy of so many Labour Members, sponsored by the very trade unions that were meant to be running that inadequate system.
    Mr. Watts: Yes. My hon. Friend will know that I described the handling of the situation by South West Trains as inept. The good news for him and his constituents is that from Easter South West Trains will be back to its original timetable. He will be aware that since the emergency timetable was introduced in the middle of February the number of peak-hour cancellations into London was reduced to one, and that of the remaining services cancelled 24 are outside the passenger service requirement: services between West Croydon and Guildford, which were introduced with the franchise as part of the new arrangements and are also served by Network SouthCentral. The arrangements were made to minimise the impact on passengers, particularly those coming into London during the peak hour.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister wants to be taken seriously, he should talk to the passengers who have had to wait for many hours on Waterloo station. What fines will be imposed on South West Trains for its behaviour to date? Unless they are punitive, no one will take him seriously.
    Mr. Watts: The penalties for poor performance are as set out in the franchise agreement, and are of the order of £600 per train in the peak hour. They will be imposed in the normal way, when the performance figures for an accounting period are determined.
    Mr. Norris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary to hear Labour Members urging the franchising director to fine South West Trains for its acknowledged errors and mistakes when, under the previous nationalised railway, such nonsense occurred regularly and the only redress for passengers was the usual unintelligible announcement of some vague excuse? Is not the reality that this time, South West Trains will be made to pay for its mistake, and that there is real accountability? Does he agree that the one thing that we can guarantee is that this problem will not happen again?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right. There was no regime to ensure that poor performance in the public sector was penalised. We have a regime that will penalise those responsible for poor performance. We expect far better of the private sector than we became used to accepting from the public sector. We are determined to ensure that passengers enjoy the better standards of service to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Chidgey: Can the Minister confirm reports that South West Trains mark 1 slam-door coaches will not be replaced until 2007? Does he remember that after the Clapham rail disaster some years ago, which injured many people including some of my constituents, the Health and Safety Executive condemned slam-door coaches as

    7
    increasing the risk to passenger safety? Does he agree that not only passenger interests but passenger safety are being compromised by the inept rail privatisation programme?
    Mr. Watts: No. On the contrary, I can confirm that South West Trains intends to buy £90 million of new rolling stock to replace some of the mark 1 stock that it inherited from British Rail. On safety in general, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the rolling stock is inherently unsafe. The matter is under review by the Health and Safety Executive, which will report its conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend will, like all of us, recall that the situation is just as bad as the old British Rail system. I welcome his message from South West Trains that services will be back to normal from Easter, but will he take the message back that it must maintain total consistency of service thereafter and accelerate the programme of improvements such as closed circuit television in car parks at stations such as Surbiton in my constituency?
    Mr. Watts: I assure my hon. Friend that that message is understood clearly by South West Trains. He is right that the regrettable level of cancellations that passengers have suffered recently is no worse than the pattern of cancellations that was commonplace throughout the decades of state ownership.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: How much penalty has South West Trains paid to date under the performance regime and has it broken the franchise agreement?
    Mr. Watts: As I said in reply to an earlier question South West Trains will pay £600 for every cancelled peak-hour train. It would be foolish to try to give a total, because, as I said, there is still one scheduled peak-hour service to London that is being cancelled under the emergency timetable.
    Mr. Forman: Does the Minister agree that the real point of these exchanges is that we expect better things and higher standards from a privatised railway, and on the whole we are likely to get that? Is he aware that those of my constituents who travel regularly to London Bridge from Carshalton Beeches and Wallington expect the 8.07 from Carshalton Beeches to arrive on time and for that train to go on to Wallington at 8.10, and to be there on time? As one of those who travels from those stations regularly, it is distressing to find that cancellations take place. Will my hon. Friend make extra efforts to ensure that such cancellations are the exception rather than the rule?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right that we expect higher standards of performance from the private sector. We will continue to demand that those higher standards are delivered. I am sure that my hon. Friend would also acknowledge, however, that until the unfortunate past month of regular cancellations, the reliability and punctuality of South West Trains was very much better when compared year on year with the services provided in the last year of operation under British Rail.
    Taking the year as the basis of comparison provides a more valid measure of the performance of the company than studying a period of four weeks in which it has
    8
    handled matters ineptly. It is now taking rapid steps to deliver the standard of service that it wishes to deliver to its customers, and which we demand that it should deliver.

    Barking to Gospel Oak Line
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations are being undertaken by his Department into the safety of the infrastructure of the Barking to Gospel Oak railway line. [17757]
    Mr. Watts: None.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable and deplorable that no investigations are being undertaken into the safety of the infrastructure of the line when on 7 February all services were cancelled because of concerns about the safety of one of the bridges over the River Lea? Many concerns have also been expressed about the safety of the infrastructure of many other bridges. Many people suspect that in the absence of any programme of investment, modernisation, upgrading and improvements to the safety features of the line, someone somewhere wants it closed altogether. Can the Minister assure us that that line is secure and safe? Will he also assure us that a full safety inspection will be undertaken as a matter of priority?
    Mr. Watts: It was as a part of Railtrack's routine inspection of bridges along the route that a particular problem was discovered on bridge 35 over the River Lea. The services over that bridge were suspended while a more thorough investigation took place. That work has now been completed. The affected abutment of the bridge was exposed for detailed examination, which revealed that the piled foundations were unaffected, but concrete was poured into an eroded hole in order to strengthen the bridge until a more permanent repair could be undertaken. The Health and Safety Executive was aware of the problem and is satisfied that Railtrack has managed it adequately. All restrictions on the bridge have now been lifted.
    As to the withdrawal of services on the line, that is no part of our plan or that of National Express, which is now the operator. Indeed, that company is committed to replacing all the slam-door mark 1 rolling stock on the Barking to Gospel Oak line and the Bedford to Bletchley line within two years.

    South West Trains
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to the franchising director to ensure the disruption on South West Trains is not repeated (a) on that company's lines and (b) on other lines. [17758]
    Mr. Watts: The franchising director's objectives, instructions and guidance require him to secure an overall improvement in the quality of services available to railway passengers. Franchise agreements contain provisions which give operators both direct and indirect incentives to achieve that.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that fining South West Trains £600 per train is completely inadequate given

    9
    that the taxpayer is subsidising it to the tune of £60 million a year? May I inform the Minister that only on Saturday a constituent of mine found himself stranded at Ascot on a journey to Aldershot when a train was cancelled with no more than two hours' notice? Is not it true that although the leading company behind South West Trains is called Stagecoach, it has acted like a bunch of cowboys while it has run the rail service? Is it not time that the Minister did something to take effective action to stop that company from leaving our constituents stranded at stations such as Ascot?
    Mr. Watts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituent was inconvenienced. As someone who lives in Ascot, I would say that there are worse places to be stranded. However, that performance is not acceptable and I am sure that his constituent will obtain recompense from the company for its failure.
    The Opposition's protests on behalf of passengers might have a ring of truth were they not comparable with the sponsored silence that we hear whenever passengers are inconvenienced by the activities of their friends in the trade unions.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is it not remarkable how the Minister stands there as though all this had nothing to do with him? He cannot tell us the total penalty, nor even whether the franchise agreement has been broken, yet after all the chaos with South West Trains, Connex South Central is reported to be breaking its agreement and West Anglian-Great Northern is now planning to cut peak-hour services to Stevenage by a third. What responsibility will the Minister accept for that utterly disgraceful state of affairs on the privatised railways, or do the Government think that, having privatised the railway, they can now wash their hands of all responsibility? The House demands action from the Government to sort out the mess that they have created.
    Mr. Watts: I am just as willing to take credit for all the good things that are happening as a result of privatisation, including the improved service to the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Oxford on the Oxford to Paddington line, as I am to criticise if performance slips below the standard that we have the right to expect. The hon. Gentleman based his question about West Anglian-Great Northern on false information. A one-third reduction in services to Stevenage is not proposed. Between 7 am and 10 am, there are 26 trains from Stevenage to London and the proposed number is 22; in the evening, there are 25 departures from London and the proposed number is 23. What the hon. Gentleman has missed is that peak-hour commuter services into London are regulated both in terms of a minimum number of train movements and, more importantly, by load factor regulations. The obligation on the train operator, which was never an obligation on British Rail, is to ensure that overcrowding does not exceed specified limits. If a certain number of train movements is not adequate to meet passenger demands, there is a requirement to provide more trains. The dual protection of a minimum number of trains per hour and load factor regulations ensures that passengers will have a far better standard of service than they ever had from British Rail.

    European Ground Handling Directives
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what organisations and companies he has consulted with regard to the European ground handling directives; and what representations he has received. [17759]
    Sir George Young: My Department consulted extensively within the aviation industry during the negotiation of the European Council directive on, round handling, and will shortly consult again on its implementation into UK law.
    Mr. Steen: As, unlike European airports, most British airports have already carried out the spirit and competitive requirement of the directive, will the Secretary of State explain why his officials seem determined to extend the directive and interpret it even further so that the British support services at British airports will have to tender all over again, at enormous cost to them but with no real advantage to the public or the airports? Why cannot we just enforce the directive as it is, as every other European country does?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the directive will bite much harder on European airports than on UK airports because in many European airports there is no competition. Indifferent services are sometimes provided at a high cost whereas within UK airports, especially the larger ones, there is an element of competition. It is therefore in the interests of passengers generally and of the UK ground handling industry that the industry should have access to European airports, and the directive provides that.
    As for implementing the directive in the UK, we are not in the business of gold plating directives. Our objective is to implement the directive with the minimum burden on UK industry, and we shall shortly consult industry on the draft regulations. I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's exhortation to heart.

    London Underground
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the long-term capital funding requirements of London Underground. [17760]
    Sir George Young: The Government have considered very carefully the long-term capital funding requirements of London Underground. That was a key factor behind our decision that privatisation of the underground was the right way forward. I do not believe that any other approach to the funding of London Underground could deliver the same results.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the significant investment in London Underground in the past five years, which doubled in real terms compared with the previous five years, and given that much more investment is needed to improve the underground's infrastructure for the benefit of Londoners, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been shown conclusively that the underground should be privatised? Privatisation will deliver much-improved services to the people of London, and I warmly support that initiative.
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we have done better than our

    11
    predecessors on the level of core investment in London Underground, which is now 50 per cent. more than in the 1980s and 100 per cent. more than in the 1970s. None the less, we want to do even better. Against that background, I introduced proposals for the privatisation of London Underground, with the key element of recycling the proceeds back into the underground to remove the investment backlog within five years of privatisation.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State knows that I am a big supporter of the Jubilee line. What is the funding position of the extension? Will it be open in March next year, as originally planned? If not, when will it open?
    Sir George Young: Funding of the Jubilee line extension is not an issue: it has underspent against budget. There is no question of resources being inadequate to secure the completion of the extension. It looks likely that the extension will not open in full in March next year. London Transport hopes to make an announcement shortly about the precise dates.

    Road Markings
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicular accidents have been caused by defective road markings in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [17761]
    Mr. Bowis: The information collected by my Department about accident sites and road conditions does not distinguish between road markings and other traffic signs, but only 0.5 per cent. of all reported accidents involve defective road surfaces or signs.
    Mr. French: Has my hon. Friend noticed the increase in diagonal hatch marks, the original purpose of which was to improve lane discipline? Has he also noticed that, on certain stretches, the part of the road that has a diagonal hatch mark is considerably wider than the part that has no mark? The motorist sometimes has to drive down a stretch of road that is narrower than is reasonable for a motor car. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the use of such excess road markings is curbed?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right: the purpose of such road hatching is to segregate traffic, discourage overtaking, encourage driver discipline and provide crossing opportunities for pedestrians. However, as he said, it can also lead to vehicles being closer to pedestrians. Great care is required when planning such measures. It is the responsibility of the highway authority concerned. The Department issues guidance, and we shall review that guidance during the coming year. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken on board.

    Rail Investment
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in the national railway infrastructure. [17762]
    Mr. Watts: In the first six months of 1996–97, Railtrack spent an additional £100 million on the renewal
    12
    or enhancement of its infrastructure, 25 per cent. more than it spent in the first six months of 1995–96. In its network management statement, published last month, the company announced that it intends to spend an average of more than £4 million a day between 1995 and 2001—some £10 billion in total—on maintaining, renewing and enhancing the rail network.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister explain to the users of the midland main line what possible benefits they will receive from privatisation, given that Railtrack's plans show no significant investment in that line, although it is one of the slowest and worst-maintained main lines in the country? Does he accept that the franchise operator has told me that there is no provision in the franchise for tilting trains, which is the only other way in which speeds on the line can be significantly increased? Was any thought given during the privatisation process to the interaction between investment in track and investment in rolling stock? It seems that users of the midland main line will get neither under privatisation. Apparently, the only benefit that my constituents will get will be free cups of tea and coffee, and longer times sitting on the trains in which to enjoy them.
    Mr. Watts: The main benefits for passengers on the midland main line will be the provision of an extra 22 trains a day, served by new rolling stock which the company has ordered, and the refurbishment of all existing high-speed train sets. Because of the additional services that will operate each day, journeys to Sheffield will be shorter, and because stations will be served by the new rolling stock and the extra 22 services, the high-speed trains will have to make fewer intermediate stops. Moreover, passengers are already benefiting from the "foursight fare", which allows four people to travel anywhere on the network for a flat fare of £29.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend continue to put pressure on Railtrack to implement, sooner rather than later, the multi-million-pound plans for upgrading the west coast main line? Does he accept that those of us who use the line regularly expect to experience an altogether higher level of service in the coming years as a result of Mr. Richard Branson's takeover of the line?
    Mr. Watts: Railtrack will spend £1.5 billion on the west coast main line, in addition to the £500 million that Virgin Rail will spend on the new tilting rolling stock to reduce journey times on the line. On current plans, the tilting trains and shorter journey times will be introduced from 2002, and there will be further improvements in journey times in subsequent years.
    Mr. Bradley: Can we really have any faith in Railtrack's investment plans, given its record to date? Has the Minister seen the findings of the Railway Development Society? According to those findings, because of a lack of investment and for other reasons, private train operators in southern England are running fewer trains than agreed in the minimum service level requirements.
    May I ask the Minister again whether the private train operators have broken their franchise agreements? Will they do anything about that? Will the Minister intervene? What protection will he give the public, given that

    13
    thousands, if not millions, of pounds of taxpayers' money is still going to the private train operating companies, to ensure that they are given the decent, reliable, efficient service for which they are crying out?
    Mr. Watts: As I said in response to the initial question, Railtrack's expenditure is £100 million, or 25 per cent., up on last year in the first half of the current year. As for the passenger service requirement, on South West Trains there are some minor discrepancies between the PSR and the timetable that was written by, and inherited from, British Rail. Those discrepancies will be corrected when the new timetable is introduced in May or June.
    The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has described the discrepancies to me as minor. They arise from the fact that the private franchise operator has not yet written a timetable based on the PSR. As I said, it inherited timetables drawn up by British Rail.

    Air Services Agreement
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made with the negotiation of a new air services agreement with the United States of America. [17763]
    Sir George Young: Good progress has been made, most recently at a round of discussions in Washington last month.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend ensure in the concluding phase of the negotiations that they remain bilateral, and that there is no question of European Union interference, especially in the special relationship that the United Kingdom and the United States have in regard to air transport, as in so much else? In so doing, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the need for British carriers, such as British Airways, to have adequate gateways into the United States will be maintained at the conclusion of the agreement?
    Sir George Young: I can confirm that responsibility for air service negotiations between this country and the United States is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. That responsibility is discharged by my Department, and we are opposed to any extension of the competence of the European Union into this dialogue. The hon. Gentleman will know that British Airways is a successful and competitive international airline. It would in the interest not just of British Airways but of other airlines in the UK if we could move towards a more liberal regime between the UK and the United States. I am sure that our airlines would compete effectively in that liberalised environment.
    Mr. Pike: The Secretary of State will know that there has been a particular difficulty in opening up United States airlines' access to regional airports such as Manchester. Do the Government fully support the case for the regional airports? What progress has been made in that direction?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I recently had the pleasure of attending a meeting of the all-party group supporting Manchester airport, where hon. Members registered their pleasure at the recent decision on a second runway. We support regional airports.
    14
    We will do all that we can in international dialogues to make it easier for people to access Manchester airport, so that that highly successful airport can continue to expand.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Disabled Staff
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the recruitment of disabled staff. [17783]
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has to improve the conditions of disabled staff. [17786]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): All disabled people applying for House staff posts are offered an interview, provided that they have the minimum qualifications and that their disability would not prevent them from satisfactorily carrying out the duties of the advertised post. Provisions and adjustments are made to ensure that disabled people can work in the precincts, and candidates for jobs are asked to say what special arrangements they would need if taking up a job. The House of Commons complies with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and follows the guidance in the code of practice.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the right hon. Member aware that, on 13 January, he told me that only 13 people with disabilities were employed by the House of Commons Commission, and that it would pursue vigorously a policy of increasing the number of people with disabilities who work for the Commission? In that case, will he tell the House where these jobs are advertised, what contact he has with disability organisations and, above all, what serious steps have been taken to ensure that this building is fully accessible to people, whatever their disability? Many of us have been raising this issue in the House for more than 10 years, and we have had the same evasive and delaying answers from him and his predecessors, saying that it is very difficult and very complicated. Every other public building usually makes efforts to ensure that it is fully accessible—why not this one?
    Mr. Beith: Strenuous efforts are made to make this building more accessible. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of some of the particular difficulties. As far as I am aware, the Commission has never refused to fund any improvements suggested by its expert advice that would assist disabled people, but of course ensuring that they take up posts in the House involves ensuring that advertisements invite them to apply, as they do, that they are given positive consideration, which I have just described, and that, wherever they need special help to be able to do the job, that too can be given. Those are valuable developments, although we are far from satisfied with the results achieved so far.
    Mr. Flynn: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not responded to the questions that I tabled two, three and five years ago seeking improvements to this Chamber?

    15
    If there were a box in the corner of the Chamber and it were used by civil servants—which of course it is not—it would be totally inaccessible to some civil servants, and there would be a bar on their career prospects if they could not use such a box.
    There is another problem in the Chamber which might immediately arise, because some candidates in the election are wheelchair-bound. Why have arrangements not been made for those people to be able to do their work as Members of Parliament? That should have been done many years ago. The problem will be with us in a few weeks.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know that considerable steps are taken to assist one of his hon. Friends who has a disability to ensure that he can do the job of a full Member of Parliament properly, although that does not arise directly from this question. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about facilities for civil servants attending the House.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not simply a matter of statistics, but that the House has to try to set an example and lead the rest of the country? Although we recognise that this is an ancient building, over a period we need to make further investment to make it more accessible, not just to visitors but to people who work here.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission agrees with that view and seeks to act accordingly.

    Staff (General Election)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement about the financial arrangements for staff on short-term contracts during the general election period. [17784]
    Mr. Beith: In general, House of Commons staff on short-term contracts are not affected by the general election period. Their duties and remuneration remain unchanged.
    Mr. Banks: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a large number of Conservative Members will jump ship before the general election and that perhaps a larger number will be going down with it at the election. In both cases, a generous financial lifeboat is available for them. What about the staff here? For example, what about those who rely on overtime payments because they serve hon. Members in the canteen? What happens to them? Would it be possible to have a general election financial bonus for those staff, to go along with the bonus of having a Labour Government after the election?
    Mr. Beith: None of the House of Commons staff will lose his job or not have his contract renewed as a result of any outcome of the general election. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers primarily to the staff of hon. Members who are not the responsibility of the Commission. He must address questions about them to the Leader of the House. Most Refreshment Department staff will continue to be paid in full during the Dissolution, although they are not
    16
    required to attend, and they will be able to carry out other activities if they wish. Those on evening duty are on half-pay during the Dissolution.

    Staff (Overtime)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the Commission's current estimate of the staff overtime bill for 1996–97. [17785]
    Mr. Beith: The House expects to spend £850,000 on staff overtime in 1996–97.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our staff who work this overtime serve the House with skill, courtesy and charm? Therefore, does he further agree that it is quite unnecessary for 70 members of our staff to go to a charm school during the general election campaign? Would not the money spent on that charm school be better spent on some hon. Members?
    Mr. Beith: No overtime payments are involved in the training programmes that go on in the House and affect a far larger number of people. If there are valuable courses of this kind, I should be tempted to go on them myself, but I expect to be busy during the general election period.

  TRANSPORT

    M25
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the delay in completion of the widening works of the M25 at Reigate; and who will meet the additional related costs. [17765]
    Mr. Watts: The principal reasons have been the need to replace more of the existing road than was expected and the formation of ruts in the resurfaced carriageway. These costs of unforeseen works will be borne by the Highways Agency. I am happy to say that four lanes in both directions were opened on Saturday 8 March.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister understand that the people of Reigate are not interested in the petty squabbling and spite of the Conservative party but want to know why they have been frustrated in using the motorway between junctions 6 and 8, along with thousands of other people who use that road for commerce and for getting to and from work? Who will pay the additional costs that have been incurred by the inordinate and unacceptable delay over which the Minister has presided? What is the cost to the taxpayer of the absolute shambles and scandal over which he is presiding?
    Mr. Watts: I have been inconvenienced from time to time in travelling from my home, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has also been inconvenienced. Throughout the roadworks, three lanes in each direction have been kept open. Until the contract is completed and the final accounts settled, the final cost cannot be determined.

    Road and Rail Traffic
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy of transferring traffic from road to rail. [17766]
    Mr. Watts: I review the effectiveness of this policy regularly. Newly privatised train operators have ambitious plans to attract new passengers and freight by getting traffic off the roads and on to the trains.
    Mr. Grocott: That was not an answer to the question. May I help the Minister? Since the Conservative party came to power, despite its declared support for the transfer of traffic from road to rail, the proportion of passenger traffic by rail has gone down from 7 per cent.—admittedly low—to 5 per cent., and the proportion of freight traffic has gone down from 11 per cent. to 6 per cent. I have a simple proposition which is common sense to everyone except the Government. If a national rail system is dismembered and fragmented, as the Government have done through their privatisation policy, any strategy of trying to transfer goods from road to rail, which is difficult at the best of times, is made almost impossible.
    Mr. Watts: There might be a little more in the hon. Gentlemen's argument on the effects of restructuring if it were not for the fact that, in 1996, the level of rail passenger traffic was higher than at any time in the previous five years. I am sure that he will welcome the intention of the new franchisee for the west coast main line to investigate the feasibility of through services to Shrewsbury, which I believe would be of benefit to his constituency.
    The newly privatised rail freight operators have been succeeding in winning new business. More than 150 rail freight grants have been awarded, securing traffic to rail—which is equivalent to more than 3 million lorry journeys per year. Last Thursday, I announced that we are introducing regulations to extend to piggyback operations the 44-tonne derogation that is currently enjoyed by lorries taking containers and swap bodies to railheads. That is a further measure to encourage the switch of freight from road to rail. Those are some of the actions of which we are justifiably proud.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the much improved service to Southend on the London-Tilbury-Southend line—it used to be called the misery line under British Rail—since privatisation is being helped further by the promise of new and faster trains? Is that not only one example of how we can get traffic from road to rail, and bring great benefits to the travelling public?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The order for new rolling stock placed last week will be widely welcomed by passengers on a line that used to be called the misery line but is now among the most popular lines on the entire railway network.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Legislative Programme
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of the Government's legislative programme he plans to complete by Easter. [17787]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): As much as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: I suppose that is about par for the course. On my calculation, 25 Government Bills are still before one or other House of Parliament. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House would give us a slightly more accurate estimate of how many of those he proposes should be completed—he must have a timetable. Just a postscript: will the extraordinary and possibly farcical change of party by the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) have any effect on the composition of the Committees considering any of those Bills?
    Mr. Newton: It is not for me to determine the composition of Committees, as that is done under an order of the House which was passed only about two years ago. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that relatively few Bills are now in Committee.
    On the hon. Gentleman's general question, I am no more able to give him an answer now than I was when he asked it on a previous occasion, when I said that the number of variables involved would make any estimate merely speculative. That remains the case.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to give us a better answer this Thursday? Will he give us some indication of whether the House is likely to sit until 27 March or to come back after Easter and a short recess?
    Mr. Newton: I am mindful of the interest in that question.

    London Grand Committee
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will establish a Grand Committee for London. [17789]
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Cohen: Why have the Tories brought nothing but decline to London? They abolished the Greater London council and will not allow Londoners to have any strategic say in their own affairs. Consequently, traffic chokes up the capital; the health service and public transport have been run down; and there is large-scale homelessness, crime and unemployment. It has also damaged London's prosperity and prospects. As Labour will establish a new democratic authority for London and raise London's status, is it any wonder that discerning Londoners are turning in droves to Labour?
    Mr. Newton: According to my information, London already has 84 Members of Parliament, more than 2,000

    19
    councillors, if we include the Corporation of the City of London, and 10 Members of the European Parliament. I have seen no evidence that Londoners want to pay for yet another level of expensive bureaucracy. Far from the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman, one reads almost daily in newspapers of London's reputation abroad and of the number of people brought here by that reputation.
    Mr. Dykes: Obviously every capital city needs some type of collective system of government for the entire capital territory. Which system does my right hon. Friend personally prefer?
    Mr. Newton: I personally prefer the position which the Government have adopted whereby there is, for example, a designated Minister for Transport in London, who was in the House only a short time ago, and whereby my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as Minister for London, co-ordinates a Cabinet sub-committee for that purpose.

    Summer Recess
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many recent representations he has received on the length of the annual summer recess; and if he will make a statement. [17790]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked about this on a number of occasions during questions on my weekly business statement.
    Mr. Llwyd: With respect to the Lord President, that was not a very good answer, was it? I am interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any
    20
    representations on shortening the ridiculously long long vacation and having a set working week to finish at a given time on Thursdays.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked about that a couple of times during business questions in the past six or seven months, or perhaps a little longer. I have commented on the matter fairly frequently and referred to the report of the Jopling Committee, which made no recommendations for changes along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    European Directives
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward measures to ensure that all European directives are debated on the Floor of the House. [17791]
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: As it has become the practice to get European matters in and out of Committee as quickly as possible and with as little debate as possible, will the Leader of the House consider dealing with all European matters on the Floor of the House until the general election, as happened years ago, so that the whole country can see the extent of Brussels' interference in our way of life?
    Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern, but were we to proceed as he suggests and were all European matters to be discussed on the Floor of the House, I would want a signed undertaking from him that he did not wish to have an Easter recess at all.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to a response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) about the disposal by landfill of cattle carcases. He was told that 6,100 carcases suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy had been disposed of by landfill, but that the locations, details and dates were too expensive to be provided. As a Back Bencher interested in environmental protection, I have been endeavouring to pursue the issue for some months but am finding it frustrating and almost impossible to operate solely by means of parliamentary questions and answers which are later contradicted and countermanded. I wonder whether you could advise me, Madam Speaker, whether you keep a record of the number of times Ministers have to correct their parliamentary answers to hon. Members so that, in the absence of any authoritative report on the disposal of carcases from the BSE cull, a Back Bencher like myself can arrive at the truth.
Madam Speaker: There is no way in which I can keep track of all that Ministers say in the House, any more than I can keep track of what Back Benchers say—[Interruption] I am perfectly aware of what is happening. I was asked a question by the hon. Lady and I have every intention of replying to the point of order.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Lady is not referring to the over-30-months scheme, which of course came into operation in the spring of last year; clearly, she is referring to earlier periods. I give her and the House an undertaking that I shall discuss the matter further with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then return to the House.
Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. The Minister has answered the hon. Lady; he will take the matter up with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will report back to the House as a result of the hon. Lady's point of order.

Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
  Opposition Day

    Public Responsibility For Social Justice
    3.33 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
    That this House calls for a concerted effort to eradicate poverty and create full employment; believes in a society free of social injustice and inequality where decent, democratic values ensure that priorities become the defeat of homelessness, the maintenance of free health care and the guarantee of dignity from cradle to grave for all citizens; pledges itself to working against the politics of selfishness and greed and to developing a society where the contribution of the whole community is sought and valued; and, for the above reasons, rejects the Government's proposed spending plans for 1997–98 and 1998–99.
    I welcome the opportunity to highlight social and economic justice and our public responsibility in this House for those issues. Central to the debate is the political will to effect change to the benefit of all our constituents, the communities that we represent and people outwith our country.
    Politicians are not held in the highest regard at any level of political activity—community council, local council, Parliament or Europe. However, my experience during 15 years in the House is that the majority of Members of Parliament work very hard on behalf of individuals and hold dearly concepts of social and economic justice. We do not always achieve the results that we want, but there is a genuine consensus among politicians that we are here to represent people and we want to achieve the best for them.
    It is tempting to concentrate on what the media tell us are the critical issues of the day, but we should step back from that from time to time and consider what we are doing as legislators, because that is fundamental to all of us. Everyone in the House—I am glad to see a substantial number of hon. Members present—should ask themselves why they signed up to represent their party and why they decided to become involved in politics, particularly when many people appear to regard politics as despicable.
    I joined my party for a simple reason. People are always asked why "they" did not do something. That "they" was a grey, amorphous organisation. People should ask, "Why don't I become involved? Why don't I do something about what is happening in my community and my country?" As a young student at Glasgow university—that well-known breeding ground for politicians—I listened to our lecturers talking about history, culture and literature. I was struck by the words of John Donne, the metaphysical poet. Metaphysical poets are one of my great joys in life. I read them regularly. John Donne wrote:
    "No man is an Island, entire of it self… And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
    Whatever our party or our constituency, we are all here to talk about the people for whom the bell tolls. Politics is about the involvement of people. It is about thought and analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves.

    23
    When this institution was founded, we did not have electronic media or journalists wanting a quick quote on every issue. In one respect, insularity and immediacy have perhaps undermined our political process. Those who fought for you and me, Madam Speaker, to have the right, as women, to be members of this House and to vote did so because they believed that society would be changed irrevocably through representation. Indeed, such campaigns have changed many aspects of society.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady made some interesting observations about people saying not, "What can I do about it?", but, "What are they going to do about it?" I received 30 letters from children at a school in my constituency asking what I, the Government or somebody else could do. Only one out of 30 letters said, "What can I do?" It seems to me that the desire to fob off responsibility starts at far too early an age and I honestly do not know how to tackle that problem.
    Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Lady has raised a genuine point that I shall address later in my speech. We all, as individuals, have a responsibility to contribute to society and the values and visions that we hold dear.
    I studied history at university and it is clear from our history books that many social reforms would not have occurred without representation. One such example is slavery. People were told that black people could not be freed from slavery as they would not cope with society. I pay tribute to those who argued against that in Parliament and, with great difficulty, achieved the abolition of slavery.
    Representation helped to remove the horrendous attitudes that allowed small boys and girls to work as chimney sweeps and stopped them being sent up chimneys to clear out the soot. I do not believe that the welfare state would have been established without representation. Those fundamental issues should underpin every aspect of our work as Members of Parliament, councillors, Members of the European Parliament, members of community councils or any organisation that works for society.
    One reason why the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and I tabled today's motion is that there seems to be a lull in politics. We no longer talk about visions and values. Perhaps it is the immediacy of having microphones stuck under our noses and having to make comments to journalists.
    Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Lady will be aware that only this week my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security announced far-reaching changes to the pensions system, looking well into the next century. Does that not suggest that we take a long-term view rather than relying on short-term soundbites as she suggests?
    Mrs. Ewing: I shall return to pensions later in my speech. The problem has been with us for many years and it is sad that such a major issue now seems to be part of a general election campaign rather than being addressed seriously by the House of Commons through a series of meetings in relevant Committees and elsewhere.
    24
    As I was saying, there seems to be a lull in politics whereby we deal with immediate rather than long-term issues. Lloyd-George described himself in "Dod's" as a Welsh nationalist and a radical, but he dropped that description in 1922. I wonder why we have dispensed with the idea of being radical and examining long-term issues. Did it start in the 1960s with the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy, or was it with the "Sermon on the Mound", as we refer to it in Scotland, when Baroness Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society"?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): What my right hon. and noble Friend said was that there was no such thing as society; society consisted of individuals who have to make their contribution. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to misrepresent my right hon. and noble Friend. In the spirit in which her speech is intended—to have a serious debate and move away from soundbite politics—and given that her party is quoting that Scotland has had a surplus since 1978 of £26 billion, will she confirm that, on the basis of her own figures and her party's calculations, which are of course misconceived, Scotland in fact had a deficit of £25 billion over the past four years and therefore received a contribution from England?
    Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman raises two points. First, society consists of individuals and the contribution that they make to it. Society has to take account of general perspectives and how we help all the people. Secondly, he wants to challenge the figures that his Government have produced. If he is really saying that Scotland is a poor nation, I wonder what he wants to do. Quite honestly, Scotland is not a poor nation. If it is, why do those sitting on the Treasury Bench want to hang on to it and not let us go? The money is to provide the kind of society that we want in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: On the specific point about the figure, I asked a simple question. Perhaps I put it in too complicated a manner. Will the hon. Lady confirm that, on the basis of her own party's figures, Scotland had a net contribution from England of £25 billion over the past four years—that there was a deficit of £25 billion? That is her party's figure; will she confirm it?
    Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a United Kingdom deficit. The Government's statistics have shown that Scotland has been subsidising that UK deficit for a very substantial period of time. We want to change that and use the resources in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is trying once again to reduce the debate to the bandying around of statistics. All the analysis that has been undertaken by economists in Scotland and by the Government has shown that Scotland is a net contributor to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a substantial deficit. If we could restore our assets to Scotland, we could achieve a great deal.
    Underpinning all our actions are the philosophical arguments that I want to put to the House. I believe that it is important to have a philosophical debate about values and vision in the House of Commons before the election. We are all privileged and honoured to have been elected to serve in this place, but we need to see out of our own back windows into a world where fear, poverty and depression dominate the lives of citizens in our

    25
    constituencies and countries, and indeed abroad. Today's headlines, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland was trying to draw attention, must not distract any of us from the vision and deeply held value that we are all Jock Tamson's bairns. Today's debate is about vision and values, and Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are proud to lead it.
    Any of us in the House who read the mail from our constituents and listen sincerely to what people say in our weekly surgeries or in formal or informal meetings with organisations in our constituencies know that real concern is centred on vision and values. Let us take education, for example. In a social democratic society, we have always believed in Scotland that education was a means by which people from a poor background could rise through the meritocracy and project themselves into a better life. That is what my parents wanted for my brother and me and what everybody's parents want for their children. Yet education is under severe threat in Scotland at the moment.
    We are told that every home should be a castle, but 75,000 Scots were homeless last year and there were 50,000 homeless people in Wales. Those figures are horrific. Imagine not having the right to go home after a day's work, walk into a warm home and say, "This is mine, this is my security and this is where I feel good." The statistics are appalling.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on housing. I draw her attention to the amendment tabled to the Finance Bill which would reduce the level of VAT on energy-saving materials to 8 per cent. Does she agree that that would have a beneficial environmental effect, improve health and comfort and create jobs? Is she as disappointed as I am that, by all accounts, Labour Front Benchers will not support the amendment tomorrow night? Does she agree that that is significant? If the amendment is not supported, we will fail to make an important gain for the fuel poor, and to take the opportunity to inflict a defeat on the Government.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that amendment. He may be interested to learn that when the Scottish Labour party held a conference this weekend in Inverness, it issued an executive statement stating:
    "Because of the pressing need to renovate Scotland's housing stock, we will make housing repairs—including energy efficiency measures—one of our key priorities for our environment task force".
    It is strange that a measure that has been investigated by the all-party warm homes group, of which my hon. Friend is a member, and that would cost only £8 million, has been abandoned by the Labour party.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am not trying to argue with the hon. Lady, but she said that there were 75,000 homeless in Scotland. I thought that the Shelter figure for last year was 31,000. Whom does her figure cover?
    Mrs. Ewing: I gave the most recent figures given to me by Shelter in Scotland. Substantial debates on housing were initiated by my party in the Scottish Grand Committee and in Adjournment debates in the House. It is always difficult to assess exact numbers, but we have
    26
    pinpointed the extent of the problem that we face. Our councils are hard pressed for cash. The measures in the Budget will make it even more difficult for our councils to address the problems, both by new build and by renovating existing stock.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady's arguments, but I wonder why we should be less concerned about people in England who are homeless than about those in Scotland and Wales. A proportionate number of people are homeless in England, many of whom are Scottish or Welsh in origin. Does that upset the primary nationalist argument that England is somehow a land flowing with milk and honey at Scotland's expense?
    Mrs. Ewing: That is a flippant remark. If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion carefully, he will discover that we are discussing public responsibility for social and economic justice. I am speaking specifically as a Scottish Member of Parliament about Scottish issues—and some of my colleagues will speak as Welsh Members on Welsh issues—but I am deeply concerned about the problems faced by everyone in the United Kingdom and, indeed, all those further afield in the international community. That is why we have put the subject of social and economic justice back on to the political agenda in the run-up to the general election.
    The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) mentioned the issue of health and care for the elderly. We await with interest the White Paper to be published later this week, but I wonder why we have had to wait so long for such a document to be produced.
    When I worked in the administration of training social workers in the west of Scotland—an area that included the whole of Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway—there was always deep concern about care for the elderly, which was then called "the sleeping giant". Why have we suddenly started to discuss this problem on the eve of an election? It is cheap electioneering, rather than a serious attempt to address a situation that should have been dealt with years ago. The facilities exist in this House to allow us to have a considered review of the difficulties that we now face.
    Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Ewing: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, but I have promised that I would be brief. I have been generous in giving way to other hon. Members.
    We must have principles in the run-up to the general election. The vast majority of people throughout the United Kingdom—irrespective of their country of origin or beliefs—dislike selfishness and greed. The motion aims to encourage a society where the contribution of the community is sought and valued, and where social injustice and inequity are eradicated. The constitutional change that we seek will benefit not only the nations of Scotland and Wales, but will act as a catalyst for a rethink and a rejection of vested interests, traditions and attitudes. We seek the removal of centralisation, and this has been one of the most centralising Parliaments in the EU—and, indeed, throughout western civilisation.
    Eurosceptics talk about a democratic deficit between Europe and the United Kingdom, but they seem to be blindly ignorant and unaware of the democratic deficit

    27
    between this place and the nations of Scotland and Wales, as well as the regions of England. We have to face up to new challenges, and we should not simply bandy around figures or cheap sound bites and slogans at the election. The new challenges involve the EU, and raise questions. Where does it go? Will it be confederal? Will it be federal? What decisions will be taken? How many countries will join us? The United Nations is as representative an organisation as we would want at a time when we face the crisis in Albania, and when we have yet to resolve the problems in Bosnia. There is a plethora of international organisations—both voluntary and statutory—in which we should be involved and in which we must take a more long-term view. We should represent citizens at home and abroad and we must say to them that we have visions and values.
    I still believe that politics is an honest profession. I can only reiterate that in my 15 years as a Member of Parliament, I have gained a great deal of respect for those men and women who give so much to try to resolve people's problems. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are today challenging the failure of the two major parties and of this institution. The two main parties are political clones—although their Back Benchers are not—and are in a mood of retrenchment rather than reform. Nothing is likely to change after the election, whichever party is in government.
    Politics is at a crossroads. The public are cynical, and I defy any hon. Member to say other than that. What are we to do? Do we keep on in the same direction, with the same political and social philosophies of the two main Unionist parties? On the other hand, should we tell the public that there is now an opportunity for a change of direction, as signposted in the motion that we have tabled today? We want social and economic justice to be at the heart of the coming election campaign, not just because it is what we believe in but because it is a cause dear to all the peoples of the United Kingdom.
    3.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing a debate on this important topic. I am not sure which the Labour party in Scotland is more afraid of: the Scottish National party, or a debate on social and economic justice. I never thought to see such an appalling turn-out of Scottish Labour Members for a debate on these issues; we are reduced to one spin doctor posing as a Labour Back Bencher.
    Public responsibility in the SNP sense means more state interference, in the form of public ownership, for instance. That used to be a widely shared view among Labour Members. Those of us who, not so many years ago, proclaimed that only the market could generate wealth were derided as outcasts—but where are the outcasts now? They appear to be on the Opposition Benches, doubtless bruised by their fraternal conference in Scotland last week.
    The truth is that market forces reign unchallenged around the world. More and more people in more and more political parties understand the importance of the market as a means of creating the wealth to ensure prosperity and social and economic justice. Indeed, Scottish Labour Members seem to have bowed rather
    28
    spectacularly to their masters in Islington; the party elections were the final pogrom against the old left. Today, socialism appears to be the creed that dare not speak its name. New Labour seems to have new priorities, forged in the harsh environment of the Islington cocktail party—more socialite than socialist.
    The guttering flame of socialism, however, still burns bright in Scotland. The Scottish nationalists appear to be the last remaining socialist party in Britain: the most left-wing party in Europe. That is what makes a mockery of their prattle about social justice. Dispensing social justice means having the resources, and the SNP's programme is a blueprint for the impoverishment of Scotland—a one-way ticket to the third world.
    SNP Members want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom, where they apparently feel stifled among a population of 55 million, and into a federalist Europe of, eventually, 500 million. They have, of course, no guarantee of getting into Europe at all. They have no admission ticket; and the price of admission would be entry on the most integrationist of terms.
    The SNP, like the Labour party, would sign up to the social chapter and the minimum wage, and in so doing would condemn hundreds of thousands of Scots to the dole queue. Unemployment in Germany in the past two months rose by 500,000; unemployment in France and Spain showed the same trend. That shows where these policies lead—not to social justice. They may lead to better conditions for those in work—conditions governed by legislation—but that comes at the expense of other people's jobs, and long-term job security.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to German unemployment. How does he think this country would have managed if it had had to absorb a country of 17 million people with a rotten economic system?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall treat that as the hon. Gentleman's argument against economic and monetary union.
    The Scottish nationalists would enter their brave new world with a deficit of £8.2 billion. Even if they got all the oil and gas revenues, which they will not, that would shrink to a mere £6.4 billion.
    The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) produced some fantasy figures, claiming that Scotland has a budget surplus of £400 million. He did it by applying 1994 Treasury figures to 1996, assuming that 90 per cent. of North sea oil revenues would accrue to Scotland, and rounding up Scottish income tax receipts to inflate them by a mere £60 million—15 per cent. of the alleged surplus.
    There are 68 Scottish National party spending commitments, including extravagances such as the renationalisation of Railtrack which were not costed in its programme, which promises a 20 per cent. increase in public spending, with no increases in taxation.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: In a moment: I want to finish with the hon. Gentleman first.
    The hon. Gentleman then got more ambitious, did a paste-up job of Treasury answers to disparate parliamentary questions, and magicked out of the air a

    29
    Scottish cumulative surplus of £26.7 billion since 1978. That figure keeps appearing in letters in The Scotsman and elsewhere. I know that our policies in Scotland have been brilliantly successful, but the figures are a mirage. The calculations assume that Scotland's share of United Kingdom general Government borrowing requirement was constant at 17.9 per cent. throughout the period, but it was not: in 1991, it was 54 per cent.
    As the hon. Member for Moray confirmed by her silence, and as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can confirm now, over the past four years—using the SNP's own assumptions, which are, of course, crackpot—Scotland had a cumulative deficit of £25 billion.
    Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State is wrong about the figures in several ways. They come from an answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, not from the Scottish National party. Without any argument, the United Kingdom general Government deficit over the past five years is £176 billion, which has doubled the national debt. Does the Secretary of State therefore conclude that the UK is non-viable?
    This debate is about public responsibility, and we read in the press over the weekend that the Scottish Office had a copy of the draft report on slaughterhouse hygiene that was not passed on to Professor Hugh Pennington. Does the Secretary of State think that his Department had a public responsibility to pass that vital information on to the professor whom he appointed to study the issue of E. coli?
    Mr. Forsyth: The report has been passed on, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    It is significant that, for weeks on end, the hon. Gentleman has been going around saying that Scotland is subsidising England to the tune of more than £26 billion. I have now asked the hon. Gentleman, his party's leader, whether the SNP's bogus calculations show that England has been subsidising Scotland for the past four years to the tune of £25 billion. I do not accept his figures for a moment; they are his own figures, and he has refused to confirm the position.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: Only if the hon. Gentleman deals with the specific point.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not intend to deal with the specific point, so I will not give way to him.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Forsyth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will show that he is prepared to deal with the specific point.
    Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State should know that he cannot set conditions on giving way.
    In the past five years, the United Kingdom had a general Government deficit of £176 billion, so it is hardly surprising that Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom,
    30
    was in deficit over that period; it is perhaps more interesting that, if we apply the Secretary of State's and the Scottish Office's calculations for the next five years, the Scottish subsidy to London becomes £12.5 billion. Does he accept that calculation, based on the Treasury answer of 30 January?
    Mr. Forsyth: All I can say is that I am glad that I am not the hon. Gentleman's bank manager. He has been travelling the length and breadth of Scotland saying that England has been subsidised by Scotland, but he has made a clear admission this afternoon that, for the past four years, England has, on his calculations—which I do not accept for a moment—provided £25 billion for Scotland.
    If the SNP were honest, and said, "Tighten your belts to the last notch and accept a massive slump in living standards, for that is the price of separatism," it would find few takers, but it would earn respect for its integrity, which it certainly does not deserve on its performance this afternoon.
    Mr. Rod Richards: My right hon. Friend has struck at the very heart of the nationalists' argument. Is he aware that, in Wales in 1994–95, the last year for which figures are available, the fiscal deficit was £5.7 billion, and that the total tax take from all sources was £9.9 billion, which means that taxes right across the board in Wales would have to be raised by about 57 per cent. merely to maintain the current level of public services?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. What is offensive about nationalists in both Scotland and Wales is that they prate about social justice when their programme entails national bankruptcy. The SNP's only ideological allies in Europe are in the south of Albania. Further afield, there are the encouraging examples of socialist North Korea and Cuba. There can be no social justice without wealth creation
    At its 1995 conference, the SNP voted to renationalise the public utilities. Is that still its policy? It is committed to renationalising Railtrack and similarly destroying Scotland's bus services. It would lose our seat at the top table everywhere: NATO, the G7, the UN Security Council. Our voice would be unheard in the councils of the world. How would that help the disadvantaged?
    The SNP would abolish the assisted places scheme—a kick in the teeth to every lad and lass o'pairts in Scotland. [Interruption] The groans come from an Opposition who are led by a man who enjoyed a public school education, and who would kick the ladder away from families with incomes of less than £9,000 a year. That is new Labour: "Don't do as I do—just take the message."
    Only one thing can strike down poverty and bring social justice to every Scot: the sound Conservative free enterprise policies of privatisation, deregulation and devolution of decision-making to families and individuals. Opposition Members did not want Scots to buy their council houses or even to decide what colour to paint their front doors or to make any other decision. Now that Labour in Scotland is being led by the nose and forced by its Islington ringmaster to go through the capitalist hoop, the last unreconstructed socialists in Scotland are the Scottish nationalists.
    Mr. Dafis: We can assume that the Secretary of State for Wales will pursue the same line of reasoning on

    31
    Wales, with which I shall deal later. Does he think that the voice of Ireland, a country similar in size to Scotland and Wales, is unheard in the councils of the world? Would Scotland really suffer the deficiency that he described?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should examine what is happening in Ireland. It has far higher unemployment, because it has embraced the social chapter. He may have read the recent article in the Financial Times about the Irish business community complaining about how they lose inward investment because of the burden of the social chapter. The difference between us and Ireland is that we are a net contributor to the Community; Ireland is dependent on subsidy from the Community. That is how successful the policies advocated by the nationalists have been in creating prosperity in Ireland.
    If the hon. Member for Moray wanted a serious debate on what is being achieved in dealing with our social and economic problems, she should have examined what has been achieved in Scotland by the Government's policies. Some £7.7 billion of investment has been attracted to Scotland since 1981, with the expected creation or safeguarding of 130,000 jobs. That investment has come because we rejected the policies of Opposition Members, who have had to come round to supporting policies that they had vehemently opposed.
    The percentage of households in owner-occupation has risen to almost 60 per cent., compared with 35 per cent. in 1979. That huge revolution in giving people a stake in the community is matched by the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security for a new deal for pensioners. Once again, the Opposition parties suck their teeth and oppose anything that transfers real power to individuals and real ownership to the people.
    The proportion of school leavers with no Scottish certificate of education qualifications fell from 31 per cent. in 1980 to less than 8 per cent. in 1995. The proportion of pupils staying on for the fifth year at school has nearly doubled. The number of full-time students in higher education has risen by more than 90 per cent. since 1980. The crime clear-up rate has risen by one quarter from 30 per cent. in 1978 to 39 per cent. in 1995. Recorded crime has fallen by 15 per cent. since 1991. Average full-time earnings have increased by nearly one third in real terms since 1979.
    Where has the hon. Member for Moray been? All that has been achieved in Scotland by a Conservative Government, who have pursued the right policies for Britain.
    We have achieved those results because of our commitment to three principles. First, we are committed to economic and fiscal policies that create the environment for business to succeed—an environment of low inflation and low taxes. The United Kingdom is currently reaping the benefits of that policy stance as it approaches its sixth year of sustained growth. It is enjoying the strongest economic recovery of any major European country, yet all we hear from people who describe themselves as Scottish nationalists is prattle about Ireland. Why do they not start singing the praises of Scotland instead of running their country down?
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked for this to be a
    32
    debate about the principles, vision and values that should be directing our society. Instead, all that the right hon. Gentleman has produced are selective statistics that are designed, first, to rubbish his opponents and, secondly, to put the best possible gloss on his own opinion. That is why people are turning off politics. If the Minister is so clever and is running Scotland so well, why has his party been totally rejected? The Conservatives have been wiped out from local councils and from Europe. They are now about to meet the wrath of the electorate.
    Mr. Forsyth: We shall see.
    Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have read the Opposition motion on the Order Paper. It refers not to principles but to poverty and the means of addressing it. As far as I am aware, that is precisely what my right hon. Friend is doing.
    Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of argument. Let us continue the argument.
    Mr. Forsyth: In fairness to the hon. Member for Moray, I think that the record will show that she said that parties must have principles in the run-up to a general election. That is the difference between us and the opposition parties: we have principles that we have applied and stuck to all the time that we have been in power.
    Our second principle, which has been responsible for the transformation of our country, is that we have ensured that Scotland's distinctive priorities and needs are fully taken into account by the Government as a whole. The post of Secretary of State for Scotland would be lost as a result of the proposals for devolution from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
    Mr. George Robertson: No, it would not.
    Mr. Forsyth: What would happen if there was a Tory Government at Westminster and a Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? Would the Labour leader come and sit in a Tory Cabinet? Of course not. He will be a message laddie, which is no doubt why the hon. Member for Hamilton is being groomed for that role. My voice in Cabinet ensures that the Scottish dimension is never overlooked in the policies of the United Kingdom Government, and that, wherever appropriate, a distinctively Scottish approach, which reflects Scottish circumstances, is taken.
    The third principle to which we have been committed is to ensure that, wherever possible, we have moved government closer to the people. Our consistent approach has been to devolve power downwards from centralised bureaucracies to local consumers and the community. [Interruption]
    I note that the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), who has earned a reputation in Scotland as the voucher snatcher, is laughing. She cannot abide the idea of parents being able to choose the nursery education for their families. She cannot stand that. She would rather have a bureaucracy telling people who can and cannot have a place, and one which patronised people by telling them what it thinks is good for them. That is the difference between us.

    33
    Take, for example, the reforms that we have introduced into the health service to make it more effective. The clear distinction that we have made between the purchase of health services on behalf of the population in a given area and those organisations that provide those services has led to greater clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities. [Interruption] I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is trying to find out who is here from the Labour party to speak up for economic and social justice.
    The benefits of our reforms, which apparently the Labour party now accepts, including the separation of the purchaser and provider roles—remember how the Opposition used to oppose that—are seen in the increased willingness of the national health service trusts to be innovative and to develop new ideas to provide a better service to patients. Those benefits are also reflected in the imaginative way in which the health boards are able to look more strategically at the health service that their population really needs.
    A key feature of our reforms is the emphasis on the primary care sector, which is closest to patients on a day-to-day basis and which is obviously in the best position to identify worthwhile improvements that patients want. GP fundholders now cover half the population. They have benefited patients by bringing down waiting times for in-patient treatment and increasing the range of services available locally in GP premises.
    Taken together, those key changes allow the NHS to focus ever more clearly on the needs of the individual citizens whom they are there to serve. In that way, we ensure that change is driven by what people need. Our recent White Paper on the Scottish health service, "Ready for the Future", signals our intention to build on achievements so far to make the Scottish health service even more responsive to patients' needs. A more detailed agenda for action in primary care will be issued later this week.
    We shall continue to ensure that services are accessible, and provided as close as possible to patients' homes. We shall ensure that decisions about the pattern of services are taken by those with the greatest awareness of patients' needs.
    That is underpinned by our unequivocal commitment that the health service will continue to be free at the point of delivery, funded largely by general taxation—and, of course, funded for every year of the next Parliament, so that there is a real increase year by year. How sad that the Labour party, which claims to have been involved at the start of the health service, now finds itself muddled and unable to give the same commitment to the health service.
    Not only will the hon. Member for Hamilton not make that commitment, but the Labour party—in opposition, not in government—is writing to NHS trusts in Scotland, telling them to sack health service employees. The Leader of the Opposition told his party that it must not be complacent, that it must take nothing for granted, but the hon. Member for Hamilton wrote to chief executives of NHS trusts in Scotland:
    "I am writing in advance of the General Election to intimate what the approach of an incoming Labour Government would be towards NHS Trusts, especially in relation to the number operating in Scotland."
    34
    He goes on at length and then comes to the main point of his letter:
    "I would therefore like you to start immediate consultations with other Trusts with the overall objective of reducing the total number of Trusts in Scotland from 45 to 25. The elimination through the common sense merger of 20 NHS Trusts will in time free substantial funds for patient care and the National Health Service will be the stronger for it.
    There is only a maximum of nine weeks to the General Election and it is the constitutional convention"—
    I think that that is meant to be a joke—
    "that the government machine does prepare contingency plans for a change of government. This notification therefore is perfectly in order and I hope it is also helpful in allowing you to plan ahead for a government with very different priorities to the present one."
    The hon. Gentleman's priorities are to sack staff in the NHS, centralise services, and merge hospital services as part of a hatchet job on the NHS to provide money for his chums in local government. That is Labour's agenda.
    Mr. George Robertson: Our priority is patient care, not bureaucracy. By reducing the number of bureaucracies in Scotland, we can help the interests of patients.
    I rose to the Dispatch Box to ask the Secretary of State a specific question: will he rule out any future privatisation in the health service along the lines that we saw in Stonehaven hospital? Will he rule out the possibility that a future Conservative Administration will include clinical services in bids, as they did at Stonehaven hospital?
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has answered that question on a number of occasions.
    The hon. Gentleman has not addressed the point that I put. He is writing to the chief executives of NHS trusts, telling them to sack staff in advance of Labour winning a general election. That is a piece of arrogance of enormous proportions, and we now know the hon. Gentleman's agenda for the health service. [Interruption] The hon. Gentleman says that it would save £30 million as a result of merging those NHS trusts. I have asked my officials to work out exactly how many people we would need to sack to save that sum—[Interruption]I am perfectly entitled to ask my officials to tell me how many people I would have to sack to save £30 million by merging NHS trusts.
    The hon. Gentleman has made it his policy, so he can now give me the answer. Will he tell the House how many people, whom he dismisses as bureaucrats and administrators, would be sacked to achieve savings—on top of the savings that we are already making—of £30 million, net of redundancy costs? I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman either does not know, or will not say. I suspect that he will not say.
    Mr. Robertson: A merger or amalgamation of national health service trusts in Scotland should be easily attainable. Some trusts are already talking about amalgamations, and the Secretary of State for Scotland goes on endlessly about local authorities stripping out levels of administration.
    Why will the Secretary of State not answer the central question? The people of Scotland want to know before the general election whether his policy is to privatise clinical

    35
    services. That was tried at Stonehaven, but no one has tried it in England yet. Will he rule out the privatisation of clinical services in the NHS?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer, but I shall repeat it if he really wants to hear it again. We would not rule out any proposal from clinicians themselves.
    Mr. Robertson: So clinical services could be privatised?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if clinicians brought forward a proposal, we would consider it, and would not rule it out in principle. We think that the health service should be driven by the demands and needs of those who are involved in the provision of front-line services.
    The hon. Gentleman held a press conference, and with a great flourish announced that he would save £30 million by merging NHS trusts. He said that that is where the money for patient care would be found. Our White Paper put £40 million extra into the NHS. The hon. Gentleman knows that savings have been achieved. He cannot tell us how many jobs would be lost in the NHS under his proposals, because he does not want to say. He knows that, in order to save £30 million, he will have to cut into clinical services.
    The hon. Gentleman dismisses administrators, and talks about posh reception areas. People who work in the front room of the health service take the details of distressed patients who come into hospital. Are they not part of the NHS team? Are those administrators to be swept away? Does he denounce as unimportant the people who look after patients' records? Where will the money be saved? Let us have the figures.
    If the hon. Gentleman cannot give them now, perhaps he will give them in his speech, after he has received the information from those in Islington who tell him what to say these days. [Interruption] The hon. Gentleman is now getting worried about the time. It is time he answered some of these questions. We want to know in which parts of the health service people's jobs are on the line, thanks to his commitment to that policy.
    In education, as in the health service, the Government have ensured that decisions are increasingly devolved to the people in schools who know what is required.
    Sir Hector Monro: We have been talking about unemployment in the health service as a result of Labour's policies. Could my right hon. Friend extract from the Scottish National party a figure for the number of jobs that would be lost at the Royal Air Force bases at Leuchars, Kinloss and Lossiemouth, and among personnel in the Royal Navy, the Scottish regiments and the defence industry were we to have Scottish independence? I am sure that the figure would be substantial.
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Moray has to say on the subject, but I will happily give way to her if she wants to answer that question. She is also not prepared to say what
    36
    the consequences of her policies would be, although she opened the debate by saying that we should have a proper discussion on these important issues.
    Mrs. Ewing rose—
    Mr. Forsyth: I give way to the hon. Lady—it is like fishing.
    Mrs. Ewing: I will not take any lectures from Conservative Members, given that the Government have amalgamated and destroyed some of our proud regiments in Scotland. They have reduced by 31 per cent. the number of personnel employed in the RAF.
    We have made it perfectly clear that no bases will be closed. Such arguments are propounded by a desperate party. It is moral blackmail. The Government try to destroy people's confidence in their own ability to participate in the international community in all aspects of our life, including defence. We have made it clear in our defence policy document, which we have put in the public domain, that an independent Scotland would have no implications for the key elements of our defence forces. That is against a background in which the defence forces themselves, and international defence communications, are changing.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not want to be distracted too much, but I suggest that, if the hon. Lady gives that answer again, she should begin it with "Once upon a time".
    Let me make another point about the consequences for Scotland's economic prosperity. [Interruption] The Labour party used to be concerned about such issues. It used to be concerned about jobs. It is this Government who have delivered prosperity to Scotland and created new opportunities for employment, thanks in part to the efforts of the enterprise network and Scottish Enterprise, which we established. Now a Scottish parliament is being proposed, with tartan-tax-raising powers that would destroy jobs and prosperity, and damage people's savings and their income from dividends and other sources.
    Not content with damaging the business climate in Scotland and allowing business rates to be sent sky high by the irresponsible councils that their party runs in Glasgow and elsewhere—the same people who would be in a Scottish parliament—Opposition Members who are committed to a Scottish parliament want to destroy Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. They want to destroy the engine—the job creation machine—in Scotland.
    We have that on the authority of a Glasgow councillor, no less—Councillor Jean McFadden, who produced a report from the John Wheatley centre. We are told that, under a Scottish Parliament, the functions of the LECs would be transferred to local authorities, and that the structure of the national enterprise bodies, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, would be reformed—in other words, crushed. As for the Scottish National party, we have confirmation from Mr. George Reid, who is described as the party's trade and industry spokesman, that the transfer of the LECs to local authorities would also be its policy.
    Here we have a structure that has been successful in delivering jobs, but both those Opposition parties plan to wreck it in order to find the money to pay the £80 billion for their "pretendy parliament"—as I believe Billy Connolly called it— in Edinburgh.

    37
    That is in complete contrast to the Government. We will continue to support Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, because we support people who deliver. I am therefore pleased to announce further support for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the current year. I shall be providing a further £5 million for Scottish Enterprise—
    Mr. George Robertson: Where will you find the money?
    Mr. Forsyth: We shall find it by not spending it all. Local government under Labour control has something to learn from that.
    Among other things, that support will allow Scottish Enterprise to meet existing and planned inward investment pressures created by the recent successes of Locate in Scotland in attracting overseas companies to Scotland, particularly in relation to the Hyundai project, and will ensure that the priority that the Government attach to supporting Scotland's indigenous companies is continued.
    The recent successes of Locate in Scotland are a significant boost for the Scottish economy, with the Hyundai project alone expected to bring an additional 2,000 direct jobs to Scotland. The extra resources will allow Scottish Enterprise to consolidate and build on that success, while protecting the equally important support currently given to Scotland's indigenous companies.
    As the hon. Member for Moray represents a constituency in the highlands, I could not allow this occasion to pass without announcing that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will receive £525,000 in extra support in the current financial year. Those extra resources will enable it to spend on a number of key projects, and will help to relieve funding pressures in the coming year.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: Wait for the good news.
    The projects to benefit reflect the wide range of programmes through which Highlands and Islands Enterprise pursues its role to promote the economic and social development of the highlands and islands. This is good news for the highlands and islands: it will allow Highlands and Islands Enterprise to continue to play a full part in the regeneration of the highlands and islands economy, and to build on the success of its achievements to date.
    Mr. Salmond: We should obviously have more of these debates, so that the sweetie bag can be brought out even more often.
    Once upon a time—last Thursday night—the Scottish Office was briefing against the Ministry of Agriculture, to the effect that the slaughterhouse report had not been received by Scottish Office civil servants. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as was reported in the newspapers at the weekend, the draft report was in the hands of the Scottish Office? Does he accept that he, as Secretary of State for Scotland, was responsible for the fact that the report was not passed on to Professor Hugh Pennington?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman reads his newspapers a bit better, he will be aware of the facts. The original report that referred to E. coli was never given to any meeting attended by a Scottish Office official.
    38
    I ask the hon. Member for Moray: is it not embarrassing to have the hon. Gentleman intervening in the debate? She started off by saying that she wanted it to be on a serious subject and to move away from soundbite politics, and here we have the hon. Gentleman, as normal, trivialising the debate. I think we must conclude that he fears that the hon. Lady's performance has not quite delivered what he had hoped for in terms of the coverage tomorrow.
    It is probably time for me to draw this speech to a conclusion. I realise that it is proving an uncomfortable experience for Opposition Members, who used to say that they were in favour of jobs, prosperity and investment in the health service, but who are now beached like whales, unable to deliver and doomed.
    Scotland is flourishing, and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to flourish as long as the Union is maintained. The truth is that the Union has secured for all of us, whether English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, a long history of freedom, prosperity and stability under the Crown.
    It is our historic partnership of nations that has forged a role throughout the globe. It is together that we have influenced affairs on the world stage. That is why the maintenance of the Union is fundamental to the prosperity and well-being of the people of Scotland. We have identified and will continue to seek ways to help Government to listen to the people of Scotland and to respond to their concerns and priorities in a way that does not threaten the United Kingdom. That is the best way forward for Scotland, and for all the people of the United Kingdom.
    4.36 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: It is a little unwise for the Secretary of State for Scotland to quote what Billy Connolly said about anything because, if he does that again, I might tell him what Billy Connolly says about him.
    It was a bit tasteless for the Secretary of State to wax lyrical on the subject of national health service teams. Probably no hon. Member has done more personally to destroy the concept of teamwork in the NHS than the Secretary of State. Some of us are old enough to remember his private business life, much of which was devoted precisely to the business of breaking up teams in the NHS by denying the concept that all auxiliaries and non-medical staff in hospitals were part of a team, privatising, cutting their wages, and making their positions as insecure as possible—all for the private profit of Michael Forsyth Associates and its client companies. For the Secretary of State to arrive here a decade later and bleat about the role of teams in the NHS provokes the memories of what he built his dubious reputation on.
    The Secretary of State referred to me as a spin doctor. That cannot possibly be true—I am more of a consultant, I think. However, if he wants to go down that road a little, I will give him a little lesson. This is from a spin consultant. If he wants to retain any credibility, he should not send out a special adviser one night to say that he is incandescent and to brief against another Minister and appear the next morning wide-eyed and innocent, claiming to have forgotten all about what was done in his name and at his instruction because, frankly, no one believes that sort of performance. He does not even have the virtue of subtlety to commend him. His performance

    39
    last week did no good for Scotland and even less good for the office he holds. If he has anything to say against his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he should have the guts to say it out loud and not leave the Prime Minister in the ridiculous position of saying the next morning that the stories were ridiculous and absurd and that he could not imagine where they had come from—when everyone in the House knew that the stories came from only one man: the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short speech. I do not currently make many speeches for a simple reason: I have the nominal title of shadow Minister for election planning. As is all too conspicuous, there is no Minister for election planning, which may account for the Tories' current difficulties.
    I shall take the quite unusual course of picking up some of the points that have been made in the debate. I come from a good Scottish education system in which I was taught that that is what debate is about; not about set speeches but about dealing with issues that have been raised.
    I support the distinguished hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). The hon. Gentleman intervened on the Minister to ask about employment in Germany, and was given a typically trite response. The Secretary of State seems to think that a debating point is a substitute for an argument. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was important. I travelled in east Germany at the time of the first democratic elections in the whole of Germany and saw the incredible industrial museums that employed 10,000 to 12,000 people. The only possible course on health and safety grounds alone was to close them and start again.
    Germany has done an incredible job for the whole of Europe by taking on that task. It has encountered difficulties, largely as a result, and that has given rise to schadenfreude among Conservative Europhobes who have temporarily suppressed their prejudices to toe, not very successfully, the Cabinet line. That is a sad reaction. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, imagine what state this country would have been in even with North sea oil and the proceeds of privatisation if it had had to do that. We are in a bad enough economic mess. What would it have been like if we had inherited a country of 17 million people with the incredible economic problems that east Germany presented to west Germany on reunification?
    On a more micro level of debate, I should like to refer to the assisted places scheme. I shall start by registering a complaint. How many families in my constituency benefit from that scheme—if benefit it is? I am by no means convinced that sending kids to the environment of a private school provides any lifetime benefit for them, but that is a wider issue. I have tabled questions asking to be told, by constituency, how many children are funded under the assisted places scheme. The Scottish Office has refused to give me that information under the facade of the usual evasion that the information could be collected only at disproportionate expense. Yet every family that benefits must have an address and there are not so many of them that they cannot be easily listed and divided among 72 constituencies. The reason for the Scottish Office's not giving that information has nothing to do
    40
    with the expense of collecting it. It does not want to give the information because it would reveal how few children from a constituency such as mine are catered for by the scheme.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: That is another scurrilous allegation from a rather nasty Member, if I may say so. It is quite wrong to suggest that the information is not being provided by the Scottish Office because it would not be politically expedient to do so. The cost of collecting the information—perhaps this is the answer that the hon. Gentleman has been given—would be beyond the established guidelines. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants the information to be collected I have no objection to that being done. I imagine that it will reveal that the city in the United Kingdom with the greatest number of assisted places and the greatest dependency on the assisted places scheme is Edinburgh. I said in my speech that that city had provided the Leader of the Opposition with his ladder up. What is the hon. Gentleman's objection to children from families with incomes of less than £9,500, as half of them are, being able to get the same opportunities as the Leader of the Opposition? Why does it matter which parliamentary constituency they live in?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The same rules apply to the Front Bench as to other hon. Members. That was a rather long intervention.
    Mr. Wilson: I am delighted to be called nasty by the Minister. Given his political creed, I would be distinctly worried if he did not describe me as nasty—I am opposed to everything that he stands for, dogmatically and philosophically. Nothing could be as juvenile as judging anybody by the school to which his parents sent him. [Interruption] I do not know which is the organ grinder and which is the monkey, but I should be pleased to hear from either the Secretary of State or his parliamentary private secretary. Neither wants to respond.
    No one is judged by the school to which his parents sent him. There is no envy involved because, by and large, I believe that sending kids to private schools is not good for them. Even if I thought differently I would recognise that, in any society, priorities must be set. An interesting parliamentary reply last week showed that even in Scotland, where there is a legal maximum of 33 children in a primary school class, 74,000 Scottish children are in primary classes of more than 30. That shows that the resources have much work to do. I want to know how many children in my constituency are in the assisted places scheme because I want to be able to tell my constituents that one, two or three children benefit under the scheme but that, by an alternative use of the resources, 500, 600 or 700 children could benefit. That is a reasonable point for any hon. Member to make.
    Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wilson: The last time the Minister tried to make four interventions in a speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition he made a complete fool of himself. I do not see why he should be anxious to do that again.
    Mrs. Ewing rose—
    Mr. Wilson: I do not propose to take any more interventions.

    41
    The Minister said that we wanted to crush—I think that that was the word he used—Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. Those two bodies would never have existed but for Labour Governments. The Highlands and Islands development board and the Scottish development agency were among the great creations of Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s.
    I am reminded of the kind of stuff that the Minister comes out with. In his heyday in the 1980s he described the Women's Rural Institute as a Marxist front organisation. In the 1960s, when Willy Ross was setting up the HIDB, Michael Noble, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, described it as a Marxist conspiracy. There is a long tradition of that.
    I assure the Secretary of State that, long after he has gone, the successors to the Highlands and Islands development board and Scottish Enterprise will be not only secure, but will once again be enhanced as agencies of economic and social change. The great feature of the HIDB was that, originally, it was not simply an economic organisation, but had a strong social remit which has been largely eroded by the Government's ideological changes.
    The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) moved the motion with dignity. Its spirit is absolutely right. It is entirely proper, in the run-up to a general election campaign, that the agenda of poverty and homelessness and the conditions that afflict a substantial proportion of our constituents should be given an airing, and not brushed aside in the general melée of agendas that are set either by the media or by politicians.
    In the past couple of weeks, I have had a couple of all-party meetings in my constituency. They were organised by Church organisations which said that the issues that they want to put across form what might broadly be called the humane and social agenda. The issues include homelessness and poverty, not just in our country, but throughout the world. It is entirely right that, in the period before a general election, those subjects should receive an airing.
    Sometimes, we are all too clever. If there is a problem of homelessness in any society, it is very likely that its very simple cause is that there are not enough houses. That is the case in this society. We have a Government who are driven by ideology—with the Secretary of State playing his full role—and have refused to allow local authorities to provide houses for rent. That has been the primary cause of homelessness, including hidden homelessness, in any community—and certainly in those that I represent.
    I believe that a national minimum wage will be one of the major social innovations of the post-war years. It will be a landmark reform, which the Tories will despise and oppose because they cannot bear the idea of the introduction of a minimum standard of decency into any sphere of a society that they want to be driven by the market. However, once a national minimum wage is established as a concept, they will never dare overturn it. Until the day the national health service was created, the Tories bitterly opposed it, because they opposed the idea of people having access to the best medical care irrespective of their ability to pay for it. Once it was in place, they could chip away at its edges, erode it and
    42
    remove bits of it, but they never dared to attack its core. A national minimum wage will be in that category of great social reforms.
    Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's comments on a minimum wage may well be true. A minimum wage exists in other countries. In France, for example, it is set at the equivalent of about £2. Would he like to tell the House at what level he thinks a national minimum wage would be set on its introduction here?
    Mr. Wilson: No, I would not. The level at which a national minimum wage is set will be determined by a commission, which will consider the views of both employer and employee bodies. I understand why the hon. Gentleman takes a very short-term view of politics. I take a slightly longer-term view, however, and believe that it is far more important to establish the principle of a national minimum wage. That is what will be done in the next Parliament. Once the principle is established, it will never be abolished.
    Part of the tragedy, and the indictment of the events of recent years, is that there is almost no level at which a national minimum wage could be set which would not benefit a substantial number of people. In this supposedly wealthy society and successful economy, hundreds of thousands of people are earning below £2 an hour, and millions of people are earning below £3 an hour. In his last days in the House, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) would do well to support the concept of a national minimum wage.
    The motion is ostensibly unexceptional, although I have not conducted a close textual analysis of it. It states that the House
    "rejects the Government's proposed spending plans"
    for the next two years. I did not hear the hon. Member for Moray say whether that means that she rejects the Government's global figures or only their detailed breakdown of them. I hope that she does not really believe that, after 18 years of Tory government, every penny—or even every billion pounds—of public expenditure has been so closely scrutinised and intelligently applied that there is not an awful lot of room to reapply priorities so that we can provide very different forms of public expenditure.
    Mrs. Ewing: What would the hon. Gentleman cut?
    Mr. Wilson: It would have been more helpful if the parties that tabled the motion had made some suggestions on that subject. It is extraordinary that, since the previous general election, expenditure on social security, for example, has increased annually by £15 billion. That is astonishing. It would also be astonishing if an incoming Government could not produce a great deal of intelligent thought on how that money could be better spent, to create a successful economy rather than subsidised failure. Expenditure on subsidising low pay—for which the taxpayer pays—instead of providing a national minimum wage is one very obvious example of that.
    The thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray is right. I also do not think that anyone needs to go further in politics, when looking for a big idea, than the eradication of poverty. The real debate is about the means of attaining that goal, about the speed at which it

    43
    is possible to move in achieving it and about the priority that it should receive. Despite all the brickbats that are tossed and all the attempts to sap the morale of those looking forward with hope and optimism to the advent of a Labour Government, I have not the slightest doubt that, in the future, as in the past, eradicating poverty will be the priority of a Labour Government.
    Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray should remember that Labour Governments delivered all the desirable features in society—such as the education system, which provided opportunity to her and me; and the national health service, which entitled us both to high-quality health care, to which we insist our children should be entitled—and the broad range of social reforms that have made the United Kingdom a civilised place in which to live. I have never heard much credit given to those Governments by the Scottish National party, but that goal is our hope and our inspiration—in which the public are now sharing. They look forward to the return of a Labour Government, to address the issues raised in today's motion.
    4.56 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) seems to have made a reputation in politics for attacking organisations and people who are involved with organisations that assist companies. It was therefore interesting to hear him praise the Highlands and Islands development board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. He did so without declaring an interest: the fact that he and his company have been substantial beneficiaries of those organisations. It seems that he has one rule for others and another for himself. If he wants to speak in the House about standards and values, I suggest that he should first look in the mirror.
    Mr. Wilson: The company with which I am very proud to be involved is probably the only one in the highlands and islands which, before grant and loan disclosure existed, made a specific request that every penny given to the company—it was not very much—should be made public. That is the openness that we have practised ourselves and have always expected from others. Having made that point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now tell us how much he has received from his time with Stagecoach.
    Mr. Walker: Nothing—absolutely nothing. The hon. Gentleman has picked on the wrong target. He should do his homework more carefully. I say again that, if he wants to be critical of other hon. Members, he should first look in the mirror. Those who live in glass houses should not chuck bricks.
    Like the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), hon. Members care about the society in which we live. I do not think that any individual or party can claim sole concern for people's well-being—the only difference is that some of us see different routes for arriving at similar answers. The issue is whether the route one travels will or will not produce the answer.
    I should also tell the hon. Member for Moray that I have always respected people in Scotland who say that they want independence and who are prepared and willing
    44
    to pay the costs, whatever they are, for it. There will be costs, because no one yet knows what the debate will entail. All we currently know is that separation, in whatever form, can be very expensive if it is achieved in acrimonious circumstances. Also, independence in Europe is simply a slogan. It is nonsense. Jim Fairley, a well-respected nationalist in Tayside, has written and spoken at great length about it, and much more effectively than I.
    If the hon. Member for Moray seriously believes that the Royal Air Force bases in Scotland would remain unchanged, she is not living in the real world. She has only to consider the aircraft on those bases to realise that the Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod are very expensive and require massive support from the many people who work on the bases, in or out of uniform. Their number would change substantially if the types of aircraft were changed. Anyone who has any experience of military matters will tell the hon. Lady that. I do not believe that the Royal Marine base at, for example, Condor in Arbroath would remain in its current form, because it is part of the Royal Marine Brigade, which requires certain things that would not exist if the base were operating alone.
    The SNP's policies, especially those relating to social and economic matters, belong, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland clearly said, to the world of fairytales and make-believe. If Scotland and the UK are as bad as the hon. Lady claims, why are so many people from all over the world desperate to come and live here? If this is such an awful place, why do we face the ghastly problem of more people wanting to come here than we can possibly take? Of course, some people in the UK and Scotland have problems, but the vast majority have a quality of life of which our grandparents never dreamed. I have seen a dramatic change in my lifetime. I was one of six children living in a two-roomed house with my parents.
    Of course there are problems—anyone who thinks that there are not does not hold surgeries—but it is interesting that a substantial number of the problems brought to Members' surgeries are really local authority matters, involving the failure of those authorities. Councillors are there to deal with them. The system that other hon. Members and I operate shows that, if one writes to the chief executive of a local authority, it is surprising how quickly one can unclog things that should have been unclogged without their having to be brought to the authority's notice.
    I could use all my speech to comment on the SNP's military budget, which is a fairytale, but I shall deal with some matters that the SNP fails to address. How does it account for the fact that so much is missing from its budget? One of the problems with operating a budget, whether in government or in business, is that one has to state everything, or there will be a deficit at the end of the day.
    The SNP wishes to remove standing charges for gas, electricity, telecommunications and other utilities and says that the cost will be met from the profits of the companies involved. The SNP has obviously never run a company if it thinks that such a change will not have an impact on profits. If we link this idea with Labour's utility tax, it is clear that profitable companies will quickly cease to be profitable. I recommend that the left-wing SNP recall the

    45
    selective employment tax, which Labour introduced many years ago and which savaged employment levels and the profitability of businesses in the service sector.
    The SNP wishes to abolish the assisted places scheme—so does Labour—but does not tell us how the youngsters currently in the scheme will be educated and how the cost of their education will be met. It wishes to abolish nursery vouchers—it will be a voucher snatcher—and transfer the provisions to local authorities. No mention is made of how the cost of changes to the administration will be met. The list is endless—I should like to ask questions about some 50 items in the SNP's budget, but I shall not.
    This is an interesting debate, because it has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity to demolish the SNP's arguments. We can all wander around with our hearts on our sleeves—that is easy and costs nothing—but we have to consider how to implement policies and cost ideas.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North mentioned the massive increase in the social security budget. Had the Government not looked after people who had been adversely affected by the recession, they would have been condemned—and rightly so. The Government, however, quite properly dealt with matters, as any Government would be required to do.
    Funnily enough, that brings me to the point about Germany made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him a pointed response about the single currency. I have recently been talking to representatives of business and business organisations and talking at seminars, conventions and annual general meetings. I put to them a question that I now put to the House: if one is running a company that is the leader in its field—that accurately describes the UK's position relative to the rest of Europe in that UK plc is outperforming all the other countries—would the directors link that company to others that are not doing nearly so well, or doing very badly, and leave to them all their company's financial policies? The directors said that of course they would not and that it would be crazy to do so. I pointed out that that is exactly what some people are suggested UK plc should do, because that is what joining a single currency would mean. It would mean giving control to those who are not doing as well as we are and allowing them to make judgments on economic and fiscal policy affecting this country.
    Whatever the merits—if there are any—of a single currency in theory, in practice if one is doing well, one does not allow the decision making to be taken over by those who are doing worse. That is basic to the running of any organisation.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is skirting around my point. I said that it was unfair of the Secretary of State for Scotland—it is not unusual for him to be unfair—to compare our employment position with that of Germany, given that Germany had just managed to absorb into its economy 17 million people who are economically backward. I said that we could not have done that, and that is perfectly true. By the way, on the question of a
    46
    single currency, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask Toyota what it thinks and take notice of the fact that inward investment in France is higher than that in Britain.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework more carefully. Toyota has done a U-turn on the single currency; it now says the opposite of what it was saying and, given the UK's current performance, can see an advantage in its being outside the single currency. It is important to note that, during unification, the Germans miscalculated the basis on which the various currencies should be made one. They are now paying a terrible price and will continue to do so—chickens always come home to roost in relation to financial and fiscal policy.
    As with a company's balance sheets, it may be possible to hide things for a year or even two but, over a period, the truth always emerges. The SNP wears its heart on its sleeve but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed using the SNP's own figures, its budget reveals a massive deficit. That does not mean that Scotland could not be an economic entity on its own, if it was able to get somebody else to pick up the tabs, as southern Ireland has. Our money—United Kingdom taxpayers' money—has made southern Ireland what it is.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend recall a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee not long ago when the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) suggested that Scotland would have to subsidise the rest of Europe, unlike Ireland?
    Mr. Walker: I do not believe any figures that come from the hon. Member for Moray or any other member of the Scottish National party. I would not want to be involved in any kind of merger on the figures that they produce, which do not stand up to close examination. Their figures are wishful thinking and fairytale economics.
    One can address the problems of society only if one has a thriving economy in which employers can create jobs, producing goods and services for which the world will pay. Scotland and the United Kingdom have no option—we have to be a world trading nation. Just to stand still, we have to export more than one third of the goods and services that we produce. It is essential that we have an economic climate in which entrepreneurs—risk takers—can create jobs.
    The problem for members of the left-wing Scottish National party is that they have not learnt the lesson of modern history, which is that their kind of socialism does not work. They cannot point to any country in which it brings home the goods. Despite our difficulties during the recession, the United Kingdom has come out of it better than anyone else and the world is looking to us.
    I remind Opposition Members that the hours that we spent in Standing Committee changing trade union legislation helped to create today's enterprise economy. To throw all that away would be crazy, whether in an independent Scotland or in the United Kingdom. Jobs would vanish, as has happened in every other socialist country, and we would end up with money being printed and ever fewer people being employed.
    The Scottish nationalists wear their hearts on their sleeves and tell people that they care, but they would not be able to sort out the problems because they would

    47
    not have the necessary economic circumstances. After 18 years, the Conservative Government have produced a situation that we dreamed about in the post-war years. We have had growth for nearly six years and we have low inflation and low interest rates. We are the dynamo of Europe. We would be crazy to throw all that away with hearts-on-sleeves, fairytale, economic policies.
    5.12 pm
    Sir Russell Johnston: I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) introduced the debate. I shall try to follow the path that she set. Social justice and the problem of poverty are proper subjects for serious debate, focusing attention not only on specific policies, but, as she tried to do, on the principles and attitudes that animate the main political forces in Scotland and Wales, throughout the United Kingdom and across the European Union.
    I have been in the House for 32 years. I came here in 1964—at a younger age than the number of years I have since spent here—motivated by idealism and hope. My deepest disappointment, 32 years on, is that so many of those ideals seem not to have been shared by others, although I continue to regard them as self-evidently right.
    Long exposure to shock newspaper headlines rather anaesthetises one, but I remember the headline in The Independent on Sunday on 21 July last year. It said, "UK most unequal country in the West". The Secretary of State might well remember that, as might other Conservative Members. Let me quote a little from the article:
    "Britain is now the most unequal country in the Western world, an authoritative new United Nations report reveals. The gap between rich and poor is as great as in Nigeria.
    Detailed statistics in the Human Development Report published last week also demonstrate that inequality has grown sharply during Conservative rule and that the poor in Britain now have to live on much the same incomes as their equivalents in Hungary and Korea."
    The article goes on:
    "The report shows that the poorest 40 per cent. of Britons share a lower proportion of the national wealth—14.6 per cent.—than in any other Western country. This is only marginally better than in Russia, the only industrialised nation, east or west, to have a worse record."
    Later, the article says:
    "The British poor are much better off in absolute terms than the poor in most Third World countries, but they are worse off than those in other Western nations."
    I draw this particularly to the attention of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who has just sat down after vigorously blowing his trumpet. The article says:
    "The poorest fifth of Britons have an average per capita income 32 per cent. lower than their equivalents in the US and 44 per cent. lower than in the Netherlands."
    The social protection offered in the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and other European countries—
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Russell Johnston: One moment. I should like to finish this point, then I shall give way. The social
    48
    protection that led those countries to devise the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty is openly rejected by Conservatives. The Secretary of State did so this afternoon. I find that the most bizarre political stance that I have ever witnessed from a party.
    Mr. Walker rose—
    Sir Russell Johnston: I can see the hon. Gentleman. He does not need to flap his hands all the time. I shall give way to him in a minute.
    It seems odd for a party that has had responsibility for government for 18 years to try to get votes by going around saying, "The great thing about us is that we are going to reduce social protection for you."
    Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman go back to his newspaper article and tell the House about different spending priorities and what money can buy? That is what is important, and I think that he will find that it is missing from the article.
    Sir Russell Johnston: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman—with effort—I do not accept what he says. That factor has been taken into account.
    I find it a matter for shame to be told that my country is the most unequal in the west. It should be a matter for shame for the Government that their 18 years of uninterrupted, unfettered power have produced such inequality.
    One of the affirmations of the 1947 founding document of Liberal International refers to
    "security from the hazards of sickness, unemployment, disability and old age."
    That is part of the reason why I am a Liberal. Further on, the document says:
    "The welfare of the community must prevail and must be safeguarded from the abuse of power by sectional interests."
    I do not agree with the Secretary of State's attempt to excuse the comment of Lady Thatcher—then Mrs. Thatcher—that she did not believe in society. That meant that she did not believe in the community. Much damage has been done to the concept of public service in this country by her ideological commitment to the free market. It has also contributed to the increase in poverty, which we are now debating. She and her equally ideologically driven advisers, such as Sir Alan Walters and Lord McAlpine—where are they now, pray?—espoused the trickle-down theory, in which perhaps the Secretary of State still believes. She said—he cannot get out of this one—that
    "It is our job to glory in inequality."
    She argued that scraps from the rich man's table would, in the end, be widely distributed. Presumably, the poor should be appropriately grateful. As we know, that did not happen and life at the bottom became worse. The deliberate promotion of inequality, far from encouraging growth, hinders it.
    Last year, the chief economist of the World bank, Michael Bruno, said:
    "Reducing inequality not only benefits the poor immediately but will benefit all through higher growth."
    The economic arguments are not the determinant of my opinion, which is based on concepts of fairness and generosity and the political imperative—certainly for a

    49
    Liberal Democrat—to work towards a harmonious society, not only of opportunity but of kindness and concern, but it is significant to find the moral and economic arguments coinciding.
    One of my mentors—I have a number—has been the great American liberal economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. Let me quote a portion of a speech he made to the Liberal International Congress in Ottawa in 1987, as it remains entirely relevant today. It is not very long, but it will certainly be good for the Secretary of State. As I am in the business of helping the underprivileged, including—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Intellectually.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, whose sharp legal brain seizes the right words so solicitously.
    Professor Galbraith said:
    "There is a further matter on which liberals take an adverse view of current ideological fashion"—
    it is still current for the Secretary of State—
    "As always, we seek an economic world in which all can participate and from which all have a decent return. We want progress towards a greater equality of return; we see this as a broadly civilizing tendency in modern society. In support of this goal we stand firmly for the principle of effectively progressive taxation and for income and other welfare support to the disadvantaged and the poor.
    Here we encounter another ideological aberration of our time."
    That is not a personal remark about the Secretary of State, although it could be. Professor Galbraith continued:
    "That is the effort to make increasing inequality socially respectable. It is not permissible in the modern democratic polity ever to legislate explicitly for the rich. Accordingly, there must be a cover story, however implausible; what is wanted cannot be admitted. We have had, in these last years, large reductions in the effective rates of income tax on the very rich."
    Professor Galbraith was referring to the United States, but his comments are relevant to Britain. He continued:
    "And also a powerful crusade against the welfare services to the poor. The rich, it is held, need incentives to greater economic effort; the poor need release from the debilitating effect of welfare; they must, in the words of one exceptionally convenient contemporary philosopher, have 'the spur of their own poverty'. The rich have not been working because they have too little money; the poor have not been working because they have too much."
    That is the nonsense that has underlined the Government's economic approach over the years and has done so much damage.
    The hon. Member for Moray was fair and generous in speaking of the commitment of the great majority of hon. Members to solving the problems of their constituents and the search for general betterment.
    We argue a lot about ways and means and the effect of specific policies. We also argue about intention and motivation. It can be said absolutely fairly that, in 18 long years, the Government have not demonstrated any drive to reduce poverty or inequality.
    The hon. Lady also spoke about the fear of poverty. According to Shelter, last year there were 31,000 homeless people on the streets of Scotland. We had a small exchange on the figure; the hon. Lady said that it was 75,000. I do not know which is correct, but it is still awful. The responsibility for that lies cross the Floor of the House.
    50
    I shall read one further quote from Galbraith. It is only short, but it is good stuff:
    "There are some matters on which the market is in inescapable default. In no industrial country does it supply good housing to people of moderate income or below. Nor does it supply medical and health services and care to the least advantaged people. Or good mass transportation in the cities. Or needless to say, education of the required universality and quality. These things the market does not do."
    The hon. Member for Moray referred to education. The Liberal Democrats have said clearly that we would support an increase in taxation to improve educational provision. The public response has been positive; Labour's response has been silence. We are committed to arguing for the removal of nearly 500,000 of the lowest earners from income tax by increasing tax on earnings above £100,000 a year. That would be a practical contribution to the alleviation of poverty and a redistribution of wealth, as is our concept of low-income benefit.
    The hon. Lady deserves our gratitude for raising an important set of issues in a very reasonable way. Sadly, the Secretary of State did not exactly follow her example. In his speech and his approach, the Secretary of State epitomises what is wrong with British politics. He is interested only in point scoring. He is very good at it, but it is a superficial, nihilistic exercise. Rational debate and calm reflection are concepts that are alien to him, as are consensus and co-operation. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has vanished, but he spoke about team work. Those qualities characterise so many successful countries in continental Europe, but they are ideas that the Secretary of State simply does not understand. He thinks that politics is about fighting. It should not be about fighting. I fear that his style will dominate the forthcoming general election. Let us hope that some will not follow him, but will try to maintain higher standards.
    5.26 pm
    Mr. Phil Gallie: I understand that we could well have heard the valedictory speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It is a privilege to follow him, and I congratulate him on his 32 years in the House and the way in which he has conducted himself throughout. The humour in his speeches—certainly in those that I have heard in the past five years—is always welcome. I cannot hope to match his use of long words and the way in which he strings them together, and I shall not attempt to do so, but I certainly admire him. Having said that, I have to add, as he would expect me to do, that I seldom agree with the principles in his word: that is a difference between us.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed that, after 32 years in the House, he had not achieved all his aims. I am pleased about that, because I disagree with many of them. None the less, I congratulate him, and I feel sure that the House will be the poorer for his absence after the general election.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is being very kind, but he is speaking as if I was about to be borne out of here and buried.
    Mr. Gallie: I hope that will not be the case, and that the hon. Gentleman may return to another place, but

    51
    that is beyond my knowledge and power. I am quite sure that all hon. Members join me in congratulating him on his 32 years in the House.
    I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on several points. He referred to my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher. Countries throughout the world have taken her lead on privatisation. Her handling of the economy is now the model for other world economies. She deserves great credit for that. At the same time, she recognised that, unless a country has a successful economy, is able to earn and its privatised companies do well, the poor are the people who suffer, because there is no cash to go into the services that we would all like to supply. One difference between the hon. Gentleman and those on the Opposition Front Bench is that he has at least stuck to his principles over the years. It seems strange that, at this late stage, those in the Labour party have abandoned theirs.
    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber spoke of the great majority in the House who back the words of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I suggest that, if there were any substance to that statement, the hon. Lady would win the vote, but I suspect that she will not. That point underlines the inaccuracies of the hon. Gentleman's words tonight.
    I return to the point that the hon. Member for Moray made about pensions, on which I intervened. I should point out to her that Conservatives have been aiming for reform of pensions over many years. That is why this country has such a pool of private and works pensions backing up the current state pension. The Government have achieved that by taking a long-term view. It is right at this time to speak out about the longer term, well into the next century, and the fact that provisions will have been made, unlike in other countries such as Germany and France, which have buried their heads in the sand on the issue. The Government should take great credit for that.
    One of the keys to the eradication of poverty has to be employment, aiming perhaps for full employment—although whether that is ever achievable is open to question. In this country, unlike every other country across Europe, jobs are being created and unemployment is falling.
    Since I came into the House, unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 11.4 per cent. to 7.7 per cent. I welcome that. In that time, we have had great difficulties. Companies such as British Aerospace have had to change priorities; instead of the Jetstream programme being a big seller, it greatly cost that company. Jobs have been lost in such enterprises, but at the same time, they have been created around the periphery and in other areas, especially in small business. The Government should be given great credit for their efforts.
    I turn to inward investment in Scotland—I make no apology for concentrating on Scotland. The United Kingdom takes 50 per cent. of the inward investment coming into Europe. Of that, 50 per cent. goes to Scotland. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Moray and her colleagues would be singing the praises of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, those who have operated Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise, and everyone else who has been involved in those great successes.
    52
    In considering employment, we have to look at the threats to it and the risks that would arise from the social chapter—another major difference between Conservative and Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Gentleman saying that half of all inward investment coming into the United Kingdom goes to Scotland. We are told in Wales that half of the inward investment goes to Wales. Does nothing at all go to England and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gallie: I cannot speak for England and Northern Ireland, but I would certainly expect them to have got something. I am prepared to be corrected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose figures I never dispute, because I find accuracy behind them. I do not know the figures for Wales, but I do know what I understand to be the factual figures for Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The United Kingdom gets about 40 per cent. of the inward investment coming into the whole of Europe, and Scotland and Wales get considerably more than their proportion according to population, as one would expect.
    Mr. Gallie: I shall re-examine my figures. If the figures were not what I understood them to be, I would be quite happy to apologise to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in advance and thank him for correcting me on the issue.
    The amount of defence spending in Scotland and in my constituency is a major factor. I know that the hon. Member for Moray takes great interest in the Nimrod programme. The fact is that that programme will sustain jobs in my constituency just as it does in hers. If we were to go the way of the hon. Lady and her colleagues, I suspect that that programme would have very little chance of retention in Scotland, given the importance of its strategic defence aspects.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the minimum wage, but did not specify the level. I concede that a minimum wage of £2, such as that in France, would not be a great danger to jobs. The hon. Gentleman's words were very guarded. He moved well away from any thought of a minimum wage of £4 or £4.30, as suggested by the trade unions. I suggest that my figure of £2 an hour is much nearer to the hearts and minds of those who lead the Labour party than to the hearts and minds of trade unionists who advocate adoption of such a policy.
    We are told that one reason why the United Kingdom attracts so much inward investment is that we have low-wage policies. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, average wages in the United Kingdom have risen by 30 per cent. since 1979 under 18 years of Tory government. Where does that put the last Labour Government? That certainly paints them as a Government of low wages. Hopefully, the electorate will reflect on that in the coming election—not as an afterthought but as a consequence of ill-conceived and ill-judged decisions.
    Tackling homelessness involves much more than simply building houses. We must look at the structure of society. We must consider the number of divorces. At one time, the chance of a marriage breaking up was well

    53
    above 4:1, but it has since dropped to 3:1 and is on its way down towards a 2:1 chance. There lies one reason for homelessness rising. There have been changes in family life—youngsters leave home at an earlier age.
    Irrespective of such matters, I understand that, over the past three years, 18,000 new homes have been built each year in Scotland. The housebuilding target for the next 10 years is 130,000 homes. On that basis, the Government are well ahead of the targets that have been determined. When we consider housing programmes, we cannot avoid the fact that, nowadays, almost 60 per cent. of people in Scotland own their own homes compared with 35 per cent. in 1979. That means that individuals are putting their own cash into housing, housing is being improved to meet the needs of individuals and rising housing standards are funded differently from in the past, when public housing was to largely under the control of local authorities.
    Those were the days of slum housing and bad judgment on housing issues. The public sector building programmes of the 1950s have been followed by the demolition of many of the houses that were built then. The local authorities' plans were ill conceived. Thank God we have moved on and now allow people to make their own judgments, even if they are not home owners. People now have a say in the provision of their homes, through Scottish Homes, co-operatives, contracts with private companies and shared ownership schemes. Those approaches are the way forward, rather than the old ways of local authority domination and dictatorial behaviour.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Budget will mean that local authorities' budgets for housing renewal and improvement will be cut by 35 per cent.? That is a severe cut. I have no objection in principle to the concept of home ownership—which is right—but the houses that are left in council hands need much renovation and improvement. The Conservatives' Budget will make it much more difficult for councils to solve that problem.
    Mr. Gallie: I do not know what the local authorities in the hon. Lady's area are doing, but in my constituency in the past five or six years, we have been blessed by a Conservative majority on Kyle and Carrick district council. It has done more than any other local authority in Scotland to improve the standard of local authority housing. It achieved that partly with capital receipts and partly with the capital allocations made available to it by the Scottish Office. Our housing stock is now better than ever before.
    It is true that some steps must be taken to reduce the debt burden on the reduced number of houses in local authority control. The clawback of 75 per cent. for next year will reduce capital expenditure by local authorities, but perhaps they should have reduced the debt burden earlier. If they had, we might not have needed to take the stringent steps now necessary.
    The Labour party claims that the health service has problems with bureaucracy. It should remember the situation in 1979, when there were real cuts in the health service; when nurses were underpaid; when the number of nurses and doctors was cut; and when patients had to send their bed linen home with their families to be washed. New voters will not remember that time, but many others will. God forbid we ever go back to those days.
    54
    I have taken the trouble to find out how much administrative costs have changed in the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust's hospitals. Since the trust was established in 1993, the number of nurses has increased by some 5 per cent., the number of junior doctors and clinicians has increased by 22 per cent. and the number of administrators has fallen by 21 per cent. So much for the claims by Labour Members. I suggest that they do their homework on the subject.
    It was interesting that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) had no answer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's question about the savings that could be made by changes in trust structures. Those structures have worked well for people in my constituency.
    The nationalists live in a dream world. They offer increases in every area of public expenditure, but they do not believe that any burden would be passed on to the taxpayer. However, I commend them for sticking to their socialist beliefs. Such socialist beliefs were responsible for the problems in eastern Europe that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned, but the people paid the price for the socialist regimes and their mistaken policies.
    The Labour party, on the other hand, is like St. Peter, because it now denies socialism at every opportunity. The poor would be threatened by Labour's plans for a Scottish Assembly, which would mean wasted resources. The only jobs that a Scottish Assembly created would be for politicians and bureaucrats. If the Labour party wants to tackle bureaucracy, I suggest that it abandons plans for an ill thought-out Scottish Assembly.
    The windfall tax would not be a new tax. I would have expected the Labour party to abhor such a tax, because it will be a tax on fuel. As the regulator has pointed out time and again, the gas, electricity and telecommunications industries will be required to pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer.
    The well-being of people in Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, would be risked further if the Labour party sought to give back to local authorities the power to tax local businesses, industry and commerce. The establishment of the uniform business rate was a great achievement by the Government, and we jeopardise it at our peril. I wonder whether anyone on the Labour Front Bench is prepared to say now that the Labour party has no intention of making any changes to the uniform business rate.
    Our debate today is about poverty. To combat poverty, we need a prosperous and thriving nation. Our industries must be competitive and able to trade with Europe and the world. Inflation has been under control for some years, and interest rates are balanced. Economic growth in the past five or six years has been higher than in virtually every other nation in Europe. We have much of which to be proud, and the re-election of a Conservative Government is the best hope for those who feel the pangs of poverty.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on her opening speech, setting the scene for the debate? I also congratulate the hon. Member for

    55
    Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on an excellent and thoughtful speech that I enjoyed immensely and from which I learnt a great deal.
    I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate, and it is noteworthy that there are no Welsh Labour Members in the Chamber—[Interruption.]—apart from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who has come back into the Chamber. I am pleased to note that there is one Welsh Member in the Chamber.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): What about me?
    Mr. Llwyd: I meant Labour Members. I will come to the Minister in a minute. I would like to get on with my speech, as this is a serious subject. I must not fall into holes that I have dug for myself.
    This important area of policy appears to have been overlooked by the Government and the Official Opposition. The reason is that neither the Conservative party nor the Labour party has any distinct policies that could in any way be described as recognising the core values that are so vital to millions throughout the United Kingdom.
    I wish to confine my remarks to the effects of the last few years' financial settlements on local government. I well recall serving on the Standing Committee which scrutinised the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—among others—also served on that Committee.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: So did I.
    Mr. Llwyd: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who seeks further attention.
    The Government's view was that change was vital because of perceived confusion among the public about the roles and functions of district and borough councils and county councils. So vital was it that the status quo was retained in large swathes of England a short time later. During the debates, there were fine words from the Government about the future role and aspirations of local government—"equipping local government for the 21st century" and so on. Fine words they were, but the reality was considerably different.
    More than 110 measures have been passed by this House in the past 18 months which have curtailed or adversely affected local government's powers and responsibilities. It is therefore logical that the Government should starve local authorities of funding. After all, the local authorities will have to bear the brunt of complaints from constituents. The same smokescreen which appears between health trusts and the Government is now also appearing between constituents and the Government. Increasingly, people complain to local government when, frankly, the fault lies at the feet of the Government. If the Government do not give local government the resources, it cannot possibly to its job.
    It is important that the public know and understand what is happening in local government. The dead hand of central Government is clearly upon it, and councils are
    56
    expected to make substantial cuts year on year. This year is the sixth successive year of cuts, and one must ask where on earth those cuts are to be made.
    On Friday evening, a headmaster of a small primary school came to my surgery and said that he was being asked to cut £10,000 from his budget for the coming year. Last year, he had to cut £4,000. The upshot is that there will be fewer members of staff teaching, and he—in addition to all his administrative tasks—will have to teach in the substantial special needs section of the school. He is desperately concerned and anxious about the future and about the quality of schooling that the school will provide. The school is Dolgarrog school, a few miles away from the school I attended at Llanrwst.
    Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Llwyd: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    The school will suffer a cut of £160,000 from its budget and, inevitably, this will mean the loss of between eight and 12 teaching jobs as the cuts cannot be made anywhere else. This will adversely affect those whom the system is designed to serve. Schools the length and breadth of Wales—and Scotland, I am sure—are faced with huge crises. The one area left to cut is teaching staff, but it is obvious that those cuts are at best counter-productive, and at worst downright damaging to children's education.
    The Government today are all about cost, cost, cost. I fear that, during the past 18 years, a culture has emerged that is best summarised by saying that people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It is surely plain that no cuts should be entertained which affect the quality of education, but that is precisely what is happening—to everyone's dismay.
    Plaid Cymru-controlled Gwynedd must make cuts, as will all other local authorities in Wales, and is facing huge cuts again this year. But it values the provision of good education and, consequently, is cutting less from its education budget than any unitary authority in Wales. That is the right approach, and a shining example of a council putting values first and costs second. I am not saying that everything will be rosy in Gwynedd—far from it. Like everywhere else in the British Isles, Gwynedd will face savage cuts in leisure, planning, highways and social services. But it has decided to cut only 3 per cent. from the schools budget, and that is a recognition that education is extremely important to us all. We must invest in the future.
    The worst possible example of short-termism is effectively to cut society's investment in its greatest asset—young people and children—for the sake of limiting public expenditure so as to offer tax bribes to middle England in an attempt to secure the re-election, God forbid, of this ineffective and morally bankrupt Government.
    We will also see cuts in policing budgets. The budget for North Wales police, for example, will not even meet the force's pension commitments. That police force is expected to continue to deliver an excellent service and to buy into the latest computer networks to gain easy access to criminal records. It simply cannot do that. At best, it will stand still, while at worst, there will be cuts. The force is severely undermanned at the moment, in any event.

    57
    However, I acknowledge that the Home Office recently agreed to forward extra moneys to help cover the crisis North Wales police is facing with regard to the north Wales abuse inquiry. For that, I am grateful.
    Mr. Wigley: Although any additional resources for the police are to be welcomed, does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities' social services departments in north Wales need additional resources so that their budgets are not adversely affected to a greater extent next year?
    Mr. Llwyd: That is the next worry, and local government seems to be going from one crisis to the next. It grieves me that we have ended up in this situation in important services that need to be planned well in advance.
    The Conservative Government and the Labour party have fully signed up to the "lock 'em up" brigade. I served on the Committee discussing the Crime (Sentences) Bill, and I found it astonishing that it appeared to be a right-wing beauty contest between the two parties. There was no question of investigating why youngsters offended—it was simply a case of lock 'em up. That is the easy way out, as it takes no skill and no care, and it appears to be the only answer available to the larger parties.
    I am intensely worried that the core services so valued by our constituents will be subject to cuts. Schools are in crisis, homes for the elderly are closing, and spending on social services will be cut. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) fits in neatly there. Once again, the weak and defenceless in society will bear the brunt of the cuts. Those who benefit from special needs and the community care budget—including the elderly and the infirm—will bear the brunt of savage cuts.
    We are taking a huge retrograde step, and attacking the very values that we hold dear. I find that deeply unacceptable. Do the Government or the Labour party have any values left? They seem content to cut income tax and preside over cuts in the services for the vulnerable. What kind of values are those?
    As long as the bulk of local government finance comes from central Government, the former will for ever be at the mercy of the latter. I want greater local financial autonomy—probably in the form of a local income tax. Tension between local authorities and central Government will continue to increase; local authorities are daily criticised for having to cut services but they are not really responsible for the cuts they are forced to make.
    Often before in the House I have referred to the common-sense idea that, if we want someone to act responsibly we must give him responsibility. That may be a truism, but it is a useful maxim. Local government should have far more direct responsibility and financial responsibility. Our system of paying for local government is antiquated, and needs a complete overhaul. The standard spending assessment approach is deficient in many ways. It is unfair to rural areas, because it does not sufficiently recognise the added cost of providing essential services for rural communities with sparse populations. Certainly, lip service is paid to those indices, but the system remains unfair, and it is not adequate to meet the needs of local government.
    The nursery voucher scheme is another gimmick that owes more to politics than education. It will undermine and damage Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, the Welsh
    58
    language playgroup organisation, a much valued body, which has been built up on good values and a great deal of excellent voluntary work. I should hate to see that excellent provision damaged for no other reason than the exercise of Tory dogma and a vain attempt by the Tories to come up with a so-called big idea.
    It would not be overstating the problem to say that local government is in crisis this year. The immediate future is extremely worrying, and there will be widespread distress and anxiety. What compounds this desperate situation is the fact that both the Conservatives and the Labour party believe firmly in a tax-cutting agenda. The shadow Chancellor has said that he will abide by the spending plans for the next two years—so no change there.
    What on earth, therefore, is the point of voting for Labour? If people want to vote for a reactionary, regressive, ambitious party which has lost touch with the common people, they now have a choice between the Tories and the Blair Tories. Each party is as devoid of values as the other. Neither is listening; both are scrambling to be the most right wing when it comes to social and penal policy. In short, they are virtually indistinguishable.
    The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) mentioned increased wages. It is, however, a great shame that the link between wages and pensions has not been retained. Had it been, pensioners would at a stroke have been far better off today—even on the evidence of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    I have been delighted to note the emphasis in this debate on the needs of the vulnerable, but no one speaks for the pensioners any more. They form a large section of society, who gave their all to secure our futures. We owe them a large debt, which we ought to set about paying honourably. They deserve better; Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party will ensure that this most important issue is given due political priority. I respectfully remind the House that it was the Conservatives who, by decoupling pensions from earnings, created this problem and made our senior citizens lag behind. Surely a society that espoused proper values would address that unfairness as a matter of urgency.
    The Government are content to spend £940 million a year on part of the defence programme, but they deem improving the lot of tens of thousands of pensioners prohibitively expensive. That is plain immoral.
    The Labour party, in its craving for power, has jettisoned all the values it once had. I sincerely hope that the people of Wales and Scotland will realise that they are mere pawns in a power game. The other evening I listened to the leader of Glasgow city council complaining bitterly that she was getting no change from her Labour colleagues in Parliament—the crisis facing Glasgow, she said, was falling on deaf ears. And that is happening even before the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) reaches No. 11.
    I have always thought that the Opposition were meant to oppose, not to go along with everything regardless of its merit. The truth, however, is dawning on the electorate. The people of Wales and Scotland are beginning to realise that they are being sacrificed on the altar of Labour's search for power—which is the all-consuming passion surrounding Blair and the Labour party. But come the election, the people of Wales and Scotland, I believe,

    59
    will say that Labour has taken them for granted once too often. They will, I hope, realise that all core values have been abandoned in the race for middle England and the affluent south-east.
    What is more, as the dreadful local service cuts begin to bite throughout Wales and Scotland, the people of Wales and Scotland will realise that the Labour party has no core values any more, and no regard for the interests or well-being of ordinary folk. In Wales, only one party opposes these cuts; just as the SNP opposes them in Scotland. Labour will not intervene, for fear of not reaching those ministerial limousines.
    Both Labour and the Tories agreed to cut income tax last year and this year. Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats did not agree. At least we can stand on our record, and say that we were prepared to stand up for ordinary people. Tax cuts are fine, but tax cuts for the sake of cuts are immoral at a time when services are being cut and people are struggling to make ends meet.
    If values are to be upheld, if the voices of ordinary men and women are to be heard. and if vital local services are to be protected, the choice for the people of Wales is clear. A vote for Plaid Cymru is a vote for the future of Wales—and not just for one part of it, but for the well-being of everyone in Wales.
    6.6 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). All I can say to him is: best of luck at the national stadium on Saturday, when Wales play England. The rest of what he said, and of what the Scottish National party and Labour party spokesmen have said, was most disappointing. They always run the country down and never say a good word about the achievements of the past 18 years. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for Wales will put the hon. Gentleman right about the tremendous economic achievements in Wales under a Conservative Government. I refer particularly to the remarkable amount of inward investment, of which we are all justly proud.
    For some months now I have thought that each speech I made in this place would be my last, but more Scottish business seems to come up week by week. Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I arrived here in 1964 and made my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Finance Bill in November of that year—in front of a much more crowded and rumbustious House, during the white heat of the 100 days of socialism which ended in the raging disaster of the late 1960s.
    Today represents a dreadful climbdown for the SNP. A fortnight ago there were headlines all over the Scottish press to the effect that the SNP would press for a vote of no confidence in the Government today. The Labour party, the Welsh and the Irishmen would support SNP Members in that endeavour, we read, and the Government would fall. In fact, hardly a socialist or Labour Member has been present for the debate—just two of them on the Front Bench and no Back Bencher, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). So the whole idea of a vote of no confidence in the Government has failed. That just goes to show how the Labour party, the SNP and other parties in the House are at war with each other.
    60
    Perhaps Labour deserted this debate because of its significant fall in the polls last week; or perhaps it was to do with steamrollering democracy through the Labour party conference in Inverness at the weekend. Most disappointing of all is the fact that neither Labour, nor the Liberal Democrats, nor the SNP will clearly outline their policies even though we shall, in a week or two, be entering a general election period. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in particular refused absolutely to explain his party's policies for Scotland. He waved the question aside and said that the debate was over.
    We shall enter the election period not knowing the Labour party's position on the West Lothian question, the tartan tax, pensions and how many Scottish Members of Parliament should be in Westminster; on local government expenditure in Scotland, all we know is that Labour is not prepared to give a penny more.
    We are bemused by the fact that the Labour and Liberal parties have decided to have a referendum after a decision and legislation on proportional representation—our electoral system is an extremely important matter—yet the same Labour party is prepared to go ahead with a referendum on a Scottish Assembly before legislation is introduced, which is quite the wrong way round. The Opposition cannot have it one way for proportional representation and the other for the constitution.
    Economic growth, success in controlling inflation and interest rates and the general expansion in industry with the consequent reduction in unemployment are all going well, as voters will know, yet the Opposition can do nothing but pour cold water on every aspect of Government activity over recent years.
    The motion is full of fine phrases. We all want to
    "eradicate poverty and create full employment",
    although it would be interesting to ask the Opposition what they mean by full, because all Governments have accepted that there is a limit beyond which one cannot go. Of course we want to create
    "a society free of social injustice"
    and to espouse "democratic values". Conservative Members have those values, but we sometimes wonder about the Labour party and the Scottish nationalists.
    The Government have provided
    "free health care… from cradle to grave"
    with ever increasing significance and to an ever higher standard. We help elderly folk as much as we can, and further information will be forthcoming later this week on an important step forward in health care for the elderly. We all believe in the community values advocated in the motion.
    The motion contains all those ideas, with which all hon. Members would agree, but ends without any indication of how they are to be paid for. The Opposition say that they do not accept the Red Book figures for this year and the next, which shows that they have no idea whatever how to pay for the additional facilities that they have called for in this debate.
    The hon. Member for Hamilton, in particular, was rumbled, because he was nonplussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's attack relative to the health service. The health service is doing exceptionally well in Scotland and quality is improving all the time. My local health board spent £121 million in 1994–95, increasing to

    61
    £131 million this year. That is a huge increase in real terms in health service spending. The hon. Member for Hamilton is prepared to cut staff and reduce expenditure by £30 million, which we all find hard to understand, bearing in mind our definite decision to continue increasing health service expenditure in real terms, year in and year out.
    I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about defence. The hon. Member for Moray dodged the issue. Nobody worked harder than many of us in the House of Commons to retain the Scottish regiments. We effectively lost two: the amalgamation of the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders, and the second battalion of the Scots Guards.
    As much as I disliked its happening, the total lost was only 1,000 men, while the Scottish National party's policy would affect many thousands of men currently serving at Lossiemouth, Kinloss and Leuchars and in the Royal Navy and the Scottish regiments. That would be a serious setback for Scotland in terms not only of employment but of the prestige of the services and our great love for our regimental and Royal Air Force service men.
    The SNP also refused to accept the point about the inevitable loss of our voice in the world were we to go for independence. The United Kingdom as it is today has tremendous power throughout the world, but if we are cut down to a relatively small country, we shall lose the importance of our vote not only in Europe but further afield.
    I find it hard to understand why, when the SNP continually complains, as does the Labour party, about quangos, it intends to set up a host of new ones, such as a Scottish land commission, a Scottish export unit, a Scottish forest enterprise board, a Scottish commission for racial equality—
    Mr. George Robertson: I said no such thing.
    Sir Hector Monro: I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman: I am talking about the Scottish National party; he should listen occasionally. He is not always in trouble—only 99 per cent. of the time.
    There are costs, costs, costs under Opposition parties' socialist proposals, but no indication of where the money is to come from: it will come inevitably from increased taxation. The shadow Chancellor said that there would be no increase in income tax, but that means only that tax will go bang, bang, bang on everything else. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly said, the windfall tax, especially on electricity, will inevitably have more impact than value added tax on electricity had. It will have a dramatic impact on fuel and power, yet the Labour party is prepared to go ahead with it.
    Between now and the general election, Labour has a great deal of explaining to do about how the country is to be taxed out of existence to fulfil the many promises that it has made, largely with the support of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats.
    All in all, the debate has been a tremendous disappointment to the Scottish National party: it set out to have a great day and show what a great party it was, but it has ended up with no Labour Back Benchers whatever to support it, precious few from any other party, and one Liberal. The debate has been the biggest damp squib that
    62
    I have attended in all my years in the House of Commons, and I hope that the nationalists feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. John McFall: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing the debate and on the way in which she expounded her views. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on their distinguished service in the House. I do not want them to be spirited away and would like their wise counsels to be available to us in the next Parliament from outside the Chamber, so I shall not go on for as long as did the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
    Is not it amazing that the Secretary of State knows which the next party of government will be, in that he spent almost 90 per cent. of his 32 minutes attacking Labour in the style of a true oppositionist? He mentioned the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the national health service trusts and job losses.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): What is the hon. Gentleman going to say about that?
    Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman asks what I am going to say, but with immaculate timing the Under—Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), when asked in a written question today by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards),
    "if he will make a statement about the development of NHS Trusts in Wales",
    said:
    "There are currently 30 NHS Trusts in Wales.
    My right hon. Friend and I have received a joint application from the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS Trusts to dissolve and create a new single trust from April 1997. Public consultation on this application ended on 17 February 1997.
    Taking full account of the many representations received, and of the individual merits of bringing the two trusts together, we have decided to approve the merger."
    All the huff and puff—
    Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
    Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State had 32 minutes. He has said enough. If it is good enough for Wales, what is wrong with Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth rose—
    Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State cannot bully his way to the Dispatch Box. He was hyper in his 32 minutes. Let him sit down, take the tablets and listen to the debate. He has had his say.
    Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Perhaps he can further clarify that.
    Mr. McFall: It is not on for a member of the Cabinet to call hon. Members nasty and then expect to get his way

    63
    thereafter. He must sit in his place because I have the Floor. The question is, if it is good enough for Wales, why not Scotland? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales will answer that question in his civilised way, unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The message from the Secretary of State for Scotland was about privatisation of the health service in Scotland. He is on record as saying that if clinicians want it, privatisation of clinical services will take place. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Health has ruled it out, the Secretary of State for Scotland says that privatisation of clinical services is on the agenda for Scotland. The agenda for a fifth Tory term in Scotland is going to strike at the heart of the NHS. The message to the people of Scotland is that is the Secretary of State for Scotland will destroy the public element of the NHS, another example of his being at odds with his Cabinet colleagues. It is not enough that he is at odds with them on E. coli; he is now at odds with them on health service privatisation.
    We have come to a pretty pass when we read in the weekend papers that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has instructed his officials to write to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, about the Secretary of State for Scotland's off-the-record criticism of him last week during the row on the report on failing hygiene standards in abattoirs. The Secretary of State for Scotland ordered his staff on Thursday night to tell the press that he was "incandescent with rage" with another member of the Cabinet. Reporters to whom we have spoken gave us the names of the press representatives he sent out. One newspaper said:
    "Said one seasoned Whitehall observer: 'It's every man for himself. And if that is the case, you can bet on Michael Forsyth being among the first on board.">
    There are serious questions on E. coli for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I listened carefully to his remarks. If the Scottish Office received the Swann document from the Minister of Agriculture, why did the Secretary of State not pass it on to Professor Pennington? He said in the Chamber that it was not received by a Scottish Office official but that it was received by the Scottish Office. When did the Scottish Office receive it? The Secretary of State, with a great wave and flourish, announced that he had persuaded the Prime Minister to establish a Cabinet sub-committee. By doing that, he took the issue to a national level. How many times did the sub-committee meet and what documents and papers did it request? Those questions are still pending. I hope that the Secretary of State will apologise to the people of Scotland for the inaction of his Department and his Government, and for the fact that 20 people died of E. coli in Scotland. An apology is required and so are answers on the E. coli document. The Secretary of State will not get away with it.
    The debate is about public responsibility for social justice. The Government's record on social and economic injustice in Scotland is nothing short of disgraceful. Let us rehearse quickly the statistics of 18 years of Conservative Government in Scotland. One in five households of working age have no one in work. That is the direct result of Conservative policy. Since the Prime Minister took over, 1 million Scots have experienced unemployment. The number of people living on means-tested benefit has
    64
    doubled since 1979. Some 85,000 Scots earn less than £2.50 an hour. That is why the Labour party argues the case for a minimum wage. There is, first, a moral case and, secondly, an economic case. I have never heard Opposition Members explain whether it is fair that a security guard earns £1 or £1.20 an hour or say what they will they do about it.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Opposition?
    Mr. McFall: I said "Opposition" because my mind is travelling ahead, as it should be. The Government have not answered the case morally or economically.
    The Secretary of State goes on about the tartan tax, but the people of Scotland do not believe what he says. The real tartan tax is VAT on fuel. He and his colleagues voted, not once, but twice for that unfair tax: they voted to introduce it and then to double it. The Tories are the party of unfair tax. A fifth term of Tory Government in Scotland would see the reintroduction of VAT at 17.5 per cent., but they will not get in.
    The Secretary of State and his colleagues have devalued Scottish democracy. Ten Scottish Conservative Members—and the five in St. Andrew's house—are responsible for the £6.9 billion that has been spent on quangos. There are now nearly four times as many quango members, personal appointees of the Secretary of State, as local councillors.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Where is the fifth man?
    Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State asks about the fifth man; is there not a Minister in the House of Lords?
    The Tory years have been an absolute disaster for Scotland. We agree with the Scottish National party about that, but we differ on what to do next. Scottish nationalists believe that destroying the Union and making wild and unrealistic spending pledges will solve Scotland's problems, but it will not. Scotland needs the realistic plans to combat social injustice and poverty which Labour will deliver, not the pie-in-the-sky promises of the separatists.
    Let us consider some of the separatists' promises. They raise the issue of defence. Like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I do not have the time to go into the matter in detail, but they estimate that the annual cost of a Scottish military would be £1.7 billion. However, evidence from similar sized countries such as Norway, suggests that the bill would be at least £800 million higher, at about £2.5 billion. Moreover, most comparable countries achieve that level of spending only by relying on less expensive troops through conscription. The only way in which the SNP's spending targets could be even nearly met is by the large-scale reintroduction of conscription in Scotland. The separatists are telling the young people of Scotland, "Two minutes spent voting for us and we will give you two years of military service." The SNP cannot run away from that.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McFall: I will not give way because I have only a few minutes left. The Secretary of State made a few points on the SNP's wild financial promises. Its economics is fantasy politics.

    65
    Let us look at some of the SNP promises. It has said that it will restore benefits to 16 and 17 year-olds—that would cost £20 million a year. It has said it will abolish housing debt and build 15,000 new houses—that would cost £1.3 billion. It has said it will reduce whisky duties to 10 per cent.—that would cost £90 million a year. It has pledged a 15 per cent. increase in income tax allowances—that would cost £4 billion a year. It has also said that it will introduce a maximum charge of £45 a week for residential care—that would cost £45 million a year. It has also pledged a £5 increase in the single pension and a £8 increase for a couple's pension, which would cost £200 million a year. Those promises are equivalent to a total of £5.65 billion a year. Where would that money come from?
    Perhaps the cartoon that appeared two weeks ago in The Herald got it better than any of us when it portrayed the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) outside a business park which carried the sign

    "Scottish National Phantasia

    Business Theme Park

    Sponsored by the Brigadoon Self-belief Tartan Think Tank

    No Rates No Taxes

    No Bad News

    Free Oil

    Massive Bungs

    'Together we can blow it'.

    Beware flying pigs."

    That is the scale of the SNP's promises.
    What about what the Tories have done to Scotland? The Secretary of State should go back to his constituents in Stirling and tell them that, since 1992, the Government have raised an extra £47 million from them. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), should tell his constituents that the Government have raised an extra £54 million from them. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) should tell his constituents that the Government have raised an extra £50 million from them. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) should tell his constituents that the Government have raised £57 million from them, while the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should tell his constituents that the Government have raised £59 million from them. Since 1992, the Government have raised a total of more than £500 million from those constituents. That is the real tartan tax and that is why the people of Scotland will not tolerate the Conservatives' future.
    For my text at the end of my speech—
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Text?
    Mr. McFall: Indeed, it is an epistle. Let me read it out.
    Mr. Salmond: An epistle?
    Mr. McFall: This is the epistle. It states:
    "When parents dare not let their children out to play; when senior citizens who have given a lifetime of service to the community are forced to spend their sunset years—which should be amongst the most rewarding in their lives—as prisoners in their own homes, then we have reached a point where action must be taken."
    66
    My hon. Friends and I say "Hear, hear" to that. Who wrote that? Was it my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton? No. It was the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a testimony to the 18 years of misrule by the Conservative Government in Scotland. The people of Scotland will appreciate those comments, and they will never again appoint a Secretary of State like him, or a Conservative Government. They will vote for the return of decency and fairness to Scotland and to Government.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am glad to have a few minutes to draw together the strands of the debate. I do not want to spend too much time responding to the depressing line of reasoning pursued by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, I dare say, the Secretary of State for Wales will repeat. They have tried to prove that Scotland and Wales are dependant nations and that they do not have the resources, wherewithal or ability to stand as nations in their own right among the other nations of the world. That story was peddled to every colony, internal or external, throughout the history of imperialism. It was usually peddled by the Governor General—there was no difference tonight.
    Plaid Cymru will effectively challenge the figures that have already been bandied about by the Secretary of States for Wales, just as our colleagues in the Scottish National party will challenge those relating to Scotland.
    This is an important time for the debate to take place because we are approaching an election. It is a time when profound misgivings have been expressed about the direction in which our society is moving. Just one manifestation of that concern was the conference held last week by the Forgotten 30 Per Cent. Group. That group, which consists of Church of England clergy, supported by Church Action on Poverty, expressed its profound concern about the exclusion of 30 per cent. of our people from society through poverty. That group called for the
    "revitalisation of community and public resources"
    and a "fundamental shift in values". Our debate is a response to that concern.
    One aspect of that concern relates to inequality, deprivation and social breakdown; another is the trend towards serious short-termism, which has starved society of the resources that we need in public investment to guarantee future stability, sustainability and success. The current political concern stems from the fact that the two big political parties are vying with each other to prove that they are capable and willing to reduce public expenditure and cut taxes. That is the game that they are playing.
    Getting public expenditure below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product has become an economic and political virility symbol for the two largest parties. According to that Tory-Labour consensus, public expenditure is seen as problematic and burdensome. The only measure of success is the level of private consumption. That was the clear message of the undertakings on taxation and public expenditure from the shadow Chancellor in January. He justified the refusal to raise the top rate of income tax by saying that it reflected Labour's acceptance of the need to reward work.
    What about the importance of rewarding the work among the low paid and those who are insecurely employed in the public sector? What about rewarding

    67
    those working in the health sector and in social services, who currently work well over the hours for which they are paid because they are unwilling to see the people they care for left without care? What about rewarding those people rather than just those who pay the top rate of income tax? How are we to address such inequality except by providing adequate public expenditure? It comes back to that.
    One would not, of course, expect better of a Thatcherite Tory party than the pursuit of a line of reasoning dictated by the desire to cut public expenditure. The party is still Thatcherite although the lady of that name has departed from the scene. There is widespread dismay, however, at the fact that the Labour party seems to be accommodating Thatcherism. That dismay was well expressed in an editorial in The Guardian following the shadow Chancellor's statement on 20 January. It stated:
    "It is a frightening admission that Labour may not put the moral and political case for redistribution except at the margins of social deprivation…Labour is relinquishing the chance to make the much-needed changes to the Britain it inherits."
    That is a pretty severe indictment.
    What does that rightward shift portend for Wales? According to current targets, the Welsh Office budget for public expenditure for 1997–98 will be reduced in real terms by 0.9 per cent. In 1998–99, there will be a real terms reduction of 2.3 per cent. The going is already tough for service providers and service users, but it will be worse next year, and very much worse the year after. In other words, "They ain't seen nothing yet," unless a Labour Government are prepared to increase Welsh Office spending at the expense of other departmental budgets. It is just as possible, however, that that Government will reduce the Welsh Office and Scottish Office budgets according to other priorities in order to increase the budgets of other Departments. A recent article by the Labour leader on defence in The Daily Telegraph suggested that there was no likelihood that Labour would shift resources from the defence budget to the Welsh Office and towards other more progressive activities.
    Where will the resources come from for the health service in Wales—for example, in Dyfed Powys, where trusts already face significant deficits at the end of the next financial year? Their staff are already under severe pressure, but the trusts will be forced to cut vital services unless extra resources are made available. There is no doubt about that. I should like to hear tonight that extra resources will be found.
    What about the severe pressure facing colleges of further education in Wales, which will have reduced budgets next year? Higher education is a key area of the Welsh economy, as well as a public service, employs more than 14,000 people, and has teaching and research programmes that are vital for the future prosperity of Wales. Its staff, too, are under pressure. University staff salaries have fallen well behind those of other sectors of society as their work loads have increased. They have called for a pay review body to look at the salary issue; we strongly support that call. They have delivered efficiency gains of some 30 per cent. over the past decade, but what is to come next?
    In the two years from 1996 to 1998, cumulative cuts will amount to 7 per cent., and over the next three years capital funding will be cut by 64 per cent. in the vain
    68
    hope that the private finance initiative will pick up the tab. Such cuts in a key sector amount to short-termism of the worst kind. The Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research is in my constituency. It is not a Welsh Office responsibility. It should be, but in Wales scientific research does not come under the ambit of the Welsh Office. The institute has an outstanding record: it is world famous and successful, and it attracts commercial funding but, this year, funding cuts by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will lead to a reduction in IGER funding of some 10 per cent., seriously imperilling the coherence of the programme and the institute's ability to attract commercial funding because core funding makes it more, not less, possible to attract commercial funding.
    My final example is housing. Next year, the Tai Cymru budget will be cut by £259 million—a 31 per cent. cut in one year—moving us even further away from a programme that will eliminate homelessness and raise the quality of the housing stock in Wales, which we should be putting together. Such a programme was identified in the well-researched document issued by the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations entitled "Target 2000", which called for a doubling of the housing budget. What we get, however, is a halving of the housing budget.
    That is the inheritance left us by the Tories as they face oblivion. We all earnestly desire that oblivion as soon as possible, the Labour party is intent on maintaining that inheritance for two years, and probably more. There is a clear contrast between that perception of matters and the perception of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The alternative approach can be seen, in terms of Plaid Cymru's policies, in the "100,000 Answers" programme for employment creation and for sustainable economic, social and environmental development. We are talking about a public investment programme, at a net annual cost of £400 million, funded from a progressive taxation system, which would reduce the burden on the low paid while requiring wealthier people—including me and many more like me—to pay more. That is a reasonable trade-off in terms of the benefit to be gained.
    That is a programme for a self-governing Wales, but its principles are relevant to the rest of Britain. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the programme of the Real World coalition of more than 30 organisations, published just last year. That document, aptly named "The Politics of the Real World", calls for a major programme of public investment over 10 years to create work opportunities and meet social needs. It also emphasises the national status of Wales and Scotland and calls for powerful parliaments for both those countries.
    The final chapter of the document talks of the dangers of the politics of self interest and the pursuit of what it calls "safety through insulation". It speaks about the dangers of the better off and about
    "withdrawing… into the bunker of narrow self-interest: reducing taxes, cutting public services, ending overseas aid, restricting immigration, erecting security walls"—
    and so on. It continues:
    "In the short term, this approach looks cheaper"—
    it does—
    "it seems to offer a private way out, not dependent on the uncertain cooperation of others. But it is doomed to failure."

    69
    It is important to emphasise that such an agenda is doomed to failure. Real World goes on to say:
    "Most people in Britain, we believe, will regard this prospect"
    —retreating into a security bunker, which already happens in significant parts of the United States where that kind of economic agenda has been pursued—
    "as appalling, and will wish to avoid it. The alternative seems to us inescapable. Responsibility for the whole community—globally, and within the UK—must be accepted by all. The problems we face must be reduced by common action, not shut away. Though there will be financial costs, the return in terms of genuine security and the quality of community life will be far higher. This is in everyone's interest, even that of the reasonably affluent who will have to pay the larger share."
    The document concludes:
    "If Real World's vision looks radical this is a measure of how feeble the idea of political purpose in Britain has now become."
    That is true of the debate that we have had over the past couple of years.
    We are seeing the convergence of the two big parties on social and economic policy. It springs from Labour's wish to take votes and seats from Tories in England. That is misguided and the Labour leadership is going well beyond what is necessary to achieve it, given the current change in attitudes. In any case, there is a different consensus in Wales and Scotland; it is not a necessary exercise in our countries. What is happening shows how vital it is for the SNP and Plaid Cymru to take votes and seats from both Tories and Labour in Wales and Scotland on our kind of agenda—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is very likely to happen.
    That is vital for Scotland and Wales, but it is also important for England because it is one of the few ways in which we can keep alight the torch of the values that we have tried to debate with some success, but not a great deal, tonight.
    6.46 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting and varied debate. It was opened by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who began by saying how pleased she was that it was well attended. Unfortunately, she was greeted by a sea of green, particularly on the Benches of the official Opposition. They continue to be a sea of green. It was an early example of what characterised the hon. Lady's speech—an expression of wishful thinking in the absence of factual support. However, she is the mover of the motion and she deserves special attention, which I shall give her later.
    First, I pay tribute to what were probably the valedictory speeches of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Given that they have been Members of this House for almost as long as I have been alive, I must pay tribute to them with appropriate humility. The whole House will wish to pay tribute to their length of service and their consistency of view and, in the case of my right hon. Friend, to his contribution to the good government of the United Kingdom in general and of Scotland in particular.
    Those of my hon. Friends who spoke in this wide-ranging debate drew attention to the huge economic progress being made in this United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales, particularly in the creation of jobs.
    70
    Opposition Members called for vision, but were unable able to provide any; they called for more spending, but did not describe where they would find the money; and they called for a re-ordering of priorities, but did not say what the priorities should be.
    Only two members of the official Opposition spoke. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to the merger of the Pembrokeshire and Derwen trusts, which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), announced earlier today. I must stress that the merger came after proposals from the trusts themselves and after a long consultation period. That is different from issuing diktats, which is what the shadow Scottish Office team appears to be doing.
    The real question about the health service, to which the motion refers, is that, given that the Government have guaranteed that in every year of the next Parliament we shall increase health spending over and above inflation, why do not the official Opposition give that guarantee? What are they trying to hide about their plans for the health service?
    Mr. Morgan rose —
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), whom we welcome to the debate, and whose recent haircut we welcome even more, now wishes to intervene.
    Mr. Morgan: In spite of the Secretary of State's obvious jealousy at the proliferation of my hair, I put it to him that, far from being cast-iron, the guarantee about real terms increases in national health service expenditure in Wales has already been broken. The increase for next year is only 2.4 per cent. more than what is being spent this year, which is less than the Bank of England's projection for the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman's hair style is the only thing about him of which I am jealous. I am not jealous of his arithmetic. Our plans for the coming year compared with those for the corresponding period last year provide for a like-for-like increase in spending on the national health service in Wales of £94 million. That increase is above the rate of inflation, and the hon. Gentleman does not promise to match it in the next Parliament.
    The other speech by a member of the official Opposition was made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). He said that a national minimum wage would be a landmark reform and would transform the situation of many people. His speech was all the more remarkable because he could not answer the most elementary questions about it, such as at what level it would be set. If we had been able to ask him, I have no doubt that he would not have been able to tell us how many jobs would be lost. He said that such issues would be considered by a commission. The deputy leader of the Labour party once said that a minimum wage would lead to a shake. Evidently not every fool knows that.
    The hon. Gentleman said that, with such a huge amount of public expenditure, there was bound to be room for a re-ordering of priorities. He said that there must be scope to re-order priorities, given that the Government spend

    71
    billions of pounds. Where is that argument when we discuss local government spending? How come Labour wants the Government to give more money because there is no scope whatever to re-order priorities in local government?
    The hon. Gentleman called for a long-term view and left in a great hurry to get on with his role as shadow Minister for election planning.
    Mr. Wilson: On another aspect of the property debate, will the Secretary of State tell us whether any Cabinet Minister is holding out the prospect of a doubling of the rate of VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent.? Is he going against the views of the Government and of the Conservative party? Yes or no.
    Mr. Hague: As far as I know, no Cabinet Ministers are making announcements about that matter.
    We have achieved a revolution in the job prospects of the people of this country. That has gone widely unnoticed by Opposition Members during this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) referred to the rise in living standards in recent years, and the performance of the United Kingdom economy in topping the league for inward investment. Do Opposition Members think that Hyundai would be coming to Scotland and LG to Wales if those companies thought that this country was the no hope wasteland that the Opposition often describe it as?
    Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hague: I shall not give way any more: I am dealing with the points raised in the debate, as the Minister who winds up is meant to do.
    We have the highest proportion of people in work of any major European economy. In Wales, we have more people in manufacturing employment than it was 10 years ago. Total employment is almost 100,000 higher than 10 years ago. None of those points was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). He spoke about the financial position of local authorities. Local government in Wales receives 88 per cent. of the money it needs from the Welsh Office. It gets a higher level of assistance than local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It has had an increase in line with inflation, which adds up to £64 million for the coming year. Local authorities should explain to their electors how they are spending the money.
    The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy complained that the link between pensions and wages had been broken. If that link were to be restored, it would, at a stroke, cost the taxpayer more than £8 billion a year. How would Plaid Cymru finance that in an independent Wales? It is all very well to behave like a pressure group, writing cheques that it knows will never be cashed, but some of us have to deal with the practical realities of government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to our success in attracting inward investment, and pointed out the dangers of the social chapter. Opposition Members have not grasped the fact that the
    72
    Government are addressing those issues by extending opportunity for people. The new generation in Britain today has a greater opportunity to go on to higher and further education than any previous generation, and a wider choice of career than any comparable generation in Europe, because new jobs and investment are going to Britain. When young people start a career, they have the freedom to join or not to join a trade union, which was not previously possible. In the past few years, it has been easier and cheaper for them to buy a first home than at any time for 35 years. When they have their own children, they will be able to choose how they will be educated. Opposition Members do not believe in giving people that choice.
    This is a curious motion to put before the House: some hon. Members have actually read it. It bears all the hallmarks of having been written by a committee. It mentions almost any subject that anyone could think of, and throws in a variety of terms that are not defined, and which were not defined in the debate. It ends up with a mixture of pious hopes and vague wishes, rather like a composite motion at a Labour party conference, which probably explains why most Labour Members have not been present.
    The hon. Members who introduced the motion have not said where they would get the money from to meet their pious hopes. I said that I would comment on the opening speech of the hon. Member for Moray. The most memorable moment in her speech was the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who said that people have to take responsibility for themselves and their families, and that they want to do so. My hon. Friend said that individuals, as well as the Government, should ask what they can do about social justice.
    The hon. Member for Moray said that people no longer talk about visions and values. Conservatives talk about visions, which is why we have launched a new vision of the pension system. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has just come into the Chamber, should welcome that. The Government have a vision of rising living standards and increased personal freedom. We value freedom of choice in education rather than the hypocrisy of denouncing choice and then exercising it oneself, as practised by some Opposition Members. The hon. Lady said that we must have vision, and then gave a list of issues on which we must have vision. She asked, "Where does the European Union go?" Imagine John F. Kennedy standing up to announce his vision and saying, "Where do we go?" She said, "Is the United Nations as respected as it should be?" Imagine Martin Luther King saying, "This is my vision: is the United Nations as respected as it should be?" She said that we should be involved in a plethora of international organisations. She may not have noticed that we are involved in a plethora of international organisations. She said that we should reach out and show that the political body still has a vision. If the debate is anything to go by, the political bodies sitting on the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Benches have no vision.
    The hon. Lady complained that people were cynical about politicians. People become cynical about politicians when they raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled and present misleading information. What is the real vision of nationalist parties? Insular Governments in declining countries with bankrupt economies. That is what they

    73
    offer to the people of this country. They have come to the House with unsubstantiated assertions, out-of-date statistics and futile wishful thinking. They have called for justice and equality without defining it, for spending without saying how they would finance it and for jobs while pursuing policies that would destroy them.
    The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru have reminded us that the distinction of being wrong about every major issue of the late 20th century does not belong to the Leader of the Opposition on his own. They share that distinction. Being wrong about every issue that they have raised in the debate, and, most important of all, being wrong about their wish to destroy the United Kingdom, means that their motion deserves to be emphatically rejected by the House.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 281.

    Division No. 90]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

    Salmond, Alex

    Chidgey, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    (Perth Kinross)

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Tyler, Paul

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    Wallace, James

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Harvey, Nick

    Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Alexander, Richard

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Burns, Simon

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Burt, Alistair

    Amess, David

    Butler, Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cash, William

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Baldry, Tony

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Churchill, Mr

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clappison, James

    Bates, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bellingham, Henry

    Coe, Sebastian

    Bendall, Vivian

    Congdon, David

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Conway, Derek

    Body, Sir Richard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Booth, Hartley

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Boswell, Tim

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Couchman, James

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bowis, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

    Brazier, Julian

    Day, Stephen

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Devlin, Tim

    74

    Douglas-Hamilton,

    Johnson Smith,

    Rt Hon Lord James

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dunn, Bob

    Key, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Elletson, Harold

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kynoch, George

    Evennett, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Faber, David

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Legg, Barry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Leigh, Edward

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lidington, David

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lord, Michael

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garnier, Edward

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gill, Christopher

    Malone, Gerald

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Mans, Keith

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marland, Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nelson, Anthony

    Harris, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Norris, Steve

    Heald, Oliver

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Page, Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Paice, James

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

    Pawsey, James

    Horam, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, David

    Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Richards, Rod

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    75

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Tracey, Richard

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Sackville, Tom

    Trend, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Soames, Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watts, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wells, Bowen

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Steen, Anthony

    Whittingdale, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Stem, Michael

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stewart, Allan

    Wilkinson, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Willetts, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilshire, David

    Sykes, John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thomason, Roy

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

    Thompson, Sir Donald(Calder V)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that Members from Northern Ireland voted for the motion that we have just debated, can you arrange to have the seating arrangements in the House reconfigured to allow new Labour to be positioned to the right of the Ulster Unionists?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a bogus point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

    Building Societies Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    12 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill changes the balance of power and the relationship between building societies that converge and those that remain mutual. Three or four major societies, including the Halifax, are in the process of conversion. That is going to mean that a lot of money will go to members of those societies. Is it not in order to ask Members speaking on the Bill, if they are going to benefit from a building society's conversion, which is going to give them free shares or money, to declare that as an interest?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are, I am sure, aware of the rules of the House.
    7.13 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    It gives me great and long-awaited pleasure to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I understand that the opposition parties are prepared to co-operate fully in passing it into law in good time and, if that is true, I thank them for it.
    There have been two years of consultation on the Bill. It is one of the first Bills ever to be produced in draft form. The benefits of that have been seen in changes that have been made to the Bill as a consequence of the consultation. Everyone who has been involved has been pleased by that process.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Minister says that there has been extensive consultation. With whom has the consultation taken place? Is there not a problem in that some building societies have wanted to convert from their mutual status so that the directors can receive share options? That has been one of the big driving forces. Whom has she consulted other than those who will make a considerable amount of money out of selling the trust that members have built up in those societies?
    Mrs. Knight: Those are points that I shall come to later, but, if I may answer the hon. Gentleman briefly, the consultation has involved all building societies and all financial institutions. I am delighted that a considerable number of others with an interest in those matters, both individuals and groups, have also given their comments on the Bill. It has not been a confined consultation in any way. It is one of the broadest-based consultations that has taken place.
    Mr. Field: I am a member of a number of building societies. I have not once been asked by the leadership of those societies what my views are. If political parties asked for or were involved in consultation and did not consult any of their members, there would be a lot of flak in a debate such as this, yet it appears that that is precisely what has happened with members of the building society elite. They have all talked to the Minister, but none of the members has.
    Mrs. Knight: That is not quite correct. We have heard from mutual building societies and from building societies

    77
    that propose to convert, but we have also heard from the associations that represent them, from the associations that represent the employees of the building societies, of which there is more than one representative group, and from a range of individuals who are members of societies—both ones that are converting and ones that are staying mutual. We have also heard from organisations such as the Consumers Association. That is why I say to the hon. Gentleman not only that this is one of the widest-ranging consultations that has taken place, but that we published at an early stage a draft Bill, which enabled individuals and all those groups to go through it in considerable detail—in far greater detail than would otherwise have been the case. We therefore have answers and comments that we would not otherwise have had. For those reasons, I believe that we have before us a Bill that is wanted by the mutual organisations, perhaps in particular, as they are seeking that level playing field in which to operate in future.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the consultation has been so long, and it is certainly true that much of the review work began in January 1994, if the Bill has been ready for so long and if the societies are so interested in it, why is it being introduced now in this scuttle-like fashion in the dying days of a dying Parliament?
    Mrs. Knight: The Bill was first published in draft form in March last year. There was then, if you like, the last stage of consultation and it was published in its final form in the autumn of last year. I am sorry, too, that it was not possible to include it in the Queen's Speech, but the hon. Gentleman will know that some legislation was required, particularly that relating to the tragedy at Dunblane, which meant that something had to give way.
    I always said that, if it were possible to find a slot towards the end of this Parliament, which is when slots come up, I would introduce the Bill. A Treasury Minister and a shadow Treasury Minister are taking part in the debate. We have only just come out of the Committee that considered the Finance Bill, the last stages of which are tomorrow. It is difficult to see any earlier point at which this legislation in its final form could have been introduced.
    Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I whole-heartedly agree with the decision to present the Bill in this Session. Many building societies such as the Alliance and Leicester and the Halifax are about to become plcs and it is good that societies should know the precise form for doing that. The Bill makes more evident the changes in the building society world.
    Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend is correct. Those organisations have been involved as much as the mutual societies in the consultations not only after the Bill was published in draft form but before that.
    The Bill is strongly supported by a wide range of people. The Building Societies Association has said that societies warmly welcome its proposals and the Portman building society has said that it could not have come at a better time. The Bill will ensure that societies which choose to remain mutual can develop their business as they wish without the unnecessary constraints of the current legislation.
    78
    The Building Societies Act 1986 was a liberalising measure. For example, it enabled building societies to become banks if they wished to do so and it allowed mutual societies to provide more services while remaining mutual. As a consequence of that Act, societies have thrived and developed. Some have decided that their future is as banks. The 16 million people who are due to receive a windfall as a consequence of the Halifax, the Alliance and Leicester, the Woolwich and the Northern Rock building societies converting would not have been able to benefit in that way without the 1986 Act.
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made some of those points quite clear in a Sunday newspaper. I was surprised to find, in that same newspaper, that my right hon. Friend's remarks—that it would enable building societies to convert to publicly quoted companies—were taken to be the Bill's prime aim. That is incorrect. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the 1986 Act enables that conversion to take place. Although much is made of the four converters, 72 societies will remain mutual. The 1986 Act prevents them from offering the range of financial services that their competitors, such as banks, can offer. That means that that Act unfairly restricts the mutual sector.
    The Government are not in the business of wishing societies to choose one route or another. We aim to change the legislation so that a society can make its own decisions about its future. To use that rather hackneyed expression, we seek to give societies a level playing field because, currently, it is tilted against them. The Bill will introduce permissive legislation because none of us can second guess the future, especially in the financial sector, which is a fast moving market. I expect that, as a result of the Bill becoming law, the mutual societies will flourish and develop and will continue to have close ties with home ownership and with local communities.
    The Bill will preserve the unique characteristics of building societies as mutual organisations that are owned by members and that look after savings, ranging from small amounts towards Christmas or a holiday to the larger sums built up over a long time for retirement. Their primary purpose will be to enable people to make the most important purchase in their lives—the purchase of their homes.
    As I have said, the Bill is the result of a long consultation process but its objectives are simple. It aims to increase the commercial freedom of societies and bring in increased competition and wider choice for customers. It will also update the prudential supervision of societies by the Building Societies Commission, and it will bring societies even closer to their members and underline their mutual identity.
    Building societies are renowned as safe havens for money and are rightly popular with their members. At present, even with gradual deregulation, societies are not free to plan for the medium to long term in the way that their business requires. They are constrained by legislation because they have to wait for new powers to be added. Under a permissive approach, societies do not run the risk of being shut out from new developments, such as considerable technological changes. The Bill will sweep away the qualifying assets holding which places strict limits on societies with commercial assets of £100 million or less. Further freedoms will be created by widening the scope of the lending limits and the principal

    79
    purpose so that lending to finance rented housing will, for the first time, be part of a society's core business, if it chooses.
    Preventing societies from developing their full potential and preventing customers from getting the friendly and efficient service in the wide range of retail financial services that they have come to expect from savings and mortgages does not make sense in 1997. Societies have a proven track record for prudence and performance, and should be allowed to use their financial experience and expertise to compete with other institutions to provide people with the services that they want. The Bill provides that a society can carry on any business that is set down in its memorandum, subject to keeping within the nature limits, and to the Building Societies Commission's prudential supervision.
    There will still be a few restrictions. Societies will not be permitted to trade in commodities or currencies or to be market makers in securities for transactions over £100,000. As with the lending limit, the Bill provides a power to vary those restrictions if that becomes desirable in future. The Bill makes some improvements to the ombudsman scheme. Every authorised society is required by law to belong to an ombudsman scheme that meets the requirements of the 1986 Act and the Bill. The supervisory body is the Building Societies Commission. Its functions include promoting the protection of funds that people have placed with societies and the financial stability of building societies generally.
    The framework of day-to-day supervision has stood the test of time. Under that system, the building societies are healthy, well capitalised and well managed and investor funds have been protected. No regulator can be complacent and we see scope for sharpening the commission's power to deal with problems if and when they arise. Everyone knows that a stitch in time saves nine.
    Accountability to members will also be improved. Societies are already accountable. Many customers enjoy and appreciate their position as members and the extra relationship with the society that that brings, which is more than simply being a purchaser of goods or services. However, Parliament and societies can improve on that. During the consultation, the champions of mutuality often pointed out that in a building society there is no interest apart from that of the customers: they and they alone are the people for whose benefit a society is run. Directors are the custodians of the society for its present and future members and owe no allegiance to any outside group. Improving the availability of information for members and enhancing their ability to have a say in what they think should happen will strengthen those bonds of mutuality. Borrowing members will have broadly similar rights to a say in the running of a society as investing members.
    Mr. Renton: Perhaps my hon. Friend can inform my ignorance. She is rightly talking about the importance of members in societies that continue to be mutual. What rights or possibilities have those members if, given the examples of the Alliance and Leicester and the Halifax, they would prefer their societies to convert into plcs so as
    80
    to have the sort of windfall that members of the Halifax and the Alliance and Leicester building societies will receive?
    Mrs. Knight: In terms of accountability, members of societies which wish to remain mutual will have a far greater amount of information about their societies, and that is good. Equally, it is undoubtedly correct that members will be able to make their views known to the directors of their societies. Of course, only the directors could propose to a society general meeting or annual general meeting that it should convert and become a public limited company.
    I should tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Sussex (Mr. Renton) that those are serious decisions. Some societies see their future as banks—we know their names only too well—but many others have undoubtedly served very well as mutuals. In recent articles, mutual societies have very clearly made the case for the benefits that they can offer to borrowers and savers by remaining mutual. I think that any member of any society must not only consider what might happen tomorrow but take a long-term view of their mortgage or savings with a society and attempt to attain benefits over the long term and not in the short term.
    Accountability is part of the overall package, and it was a part of the points made by my right hon. Friend. It is important that a society should not change its strategic direction without consulting its members. Any proposal to expend more than 15 per cent. of a mutual society's own funds on the acquisition or establishment of a business outside the society's core activity of mortgage lending will require members' approval.
    There are some changes to the mechanisms of conversions and of takeovers, although the broad framework and required threshold for voter turnout and support remain intact. Furthermore, if a society intends to transfer out of the sector and simultaneously to increase the remuneration of any director or other officer of the society, the members should be able to vote on that proposal separately from the main transfer resolution.
    A special and important feature of mutual organisations is that customers are the members, with the right to vote on the society's resolutions. The Bill will provide that, in future, any individual who saves with a society will have a membership account. Societies will still be able to use deposit—non-membership—accounts for corporate accounts and, if they choose to, for those who want current accounts, deposits at overseas branches, qualifying time deposits or certain other services.
    During the consultation and before the introduction of the Bill, there were calls for changes to the rules on distributions of bonuses on a conversion or takeover. The 1986 Act forbids distributions of cash bonuses to shareholding members of less than two years and to borrowers, although the courts have held that the Act does not rule out certain flat-rate distributions of free shares to members of less than two years. Societies and some others have asked that Parliament revisit and change that to rule out any bonuses for members of less than two years—which is often referred to as strengthening the two-year rule.
    The Government do not propose to make that change, and I shall say why we have taken that decision. First, a society that wishes to convert or to be taken over already

    81
    has a discretion, if it so chooses—by choosing the qualifying date for bonuses—to rule out recently arrived members. It is not for the Government to dictate to a society which members it should rule in and which it should rule out. It is for the society to make those decisions, and we have given societies the freedom to do so.
    Secondly, the law as interpreted by the courts has now stood for almost eight years. During that time, a number of societies have proposed to convert or to be taken over. In terms of member numbers, a bigger shift has already occurred than is likely to recur in future. A change made now affecting any possible future conversion or takeover would be seen as unfair and incomprehensible by a society's members. I say in all seriousness that, if the Government made a change now to rule out any future distribution to members of less than two years, and in future should another society convert or be taken over, the Government of the day would be under unstoppable pressure to reinstate the current law.
    A part of the Bill affects the position of building societies that become public limited companies by transferring their business to a specially formed company—by conversion rather than by takeover. Clause 40 abolishes the priority liquidation distribution right—the PLDR. The reason for abolishing it is that it is no longer valid, as the situation in 1986 is not the current situation.
    Clause 41 deals with the so-called "five-year protection period" for converting building societies. The 1986 Act states that, during a five-year protected period after a building society has converted to plc status, the successor company is required to prevent any one shareholder from holding more than 15 per cent. of shares, effectively protecting the company against takeover. At the time that that provision was made, the situation in financial markets was very different from that of today. Moreover, the converting societies are substantial and strongly capitalised, and three out of four converters are likely to be in the FTSE 100 index.
    I realise, however, that a converted society may need to take time to become established in its new form as a bank. We have therefore decided on a middle approach. I propose in most circumstances to leave in place the five-year protection. However, if a converted society, which is of course a new bank, wants to acquire other authorised financial institutions—such as another bank, building society, insurer, friendly society or investment business authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986—it will lose its protection. It quite clearly would be unfair on other financial institutions if one type of institution which is protected is uniquely allowed to go on the acquisition trail of another financial institution that is not protected.
    The Bill is one of the first to be published in advance as a draft, and I believe that the benefits of that practice have been shown. I thank all those who have taken an active part in contributing to it. The legislation is an endorsement of mutuality, and it will take into the next century the best elements of self-help—which were the basis for the movement in the past century. The Bill gives mutual building societies an assured future, and I commend it to the House.
    7.36 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Labour welcomes the Building Societies Bill, which is at last before the House. It will benefit millions of consumers
    82
    and building society members across the United Kingdom. For that reason, the Bill deserves—indeed, commands—widespread support, both inside and outside Parliament. Labour would not have drafted particular aspects of the Bill in the same way as the Government, and I shall outline those differences later. Overall, however, we want the Bill, amended or unamended, to become law before the general election. We will give it a fair wind in this debate on its Second Reading, and we will support its broad principle next week in Committee and in the debate on Third Reading.
    Labour's position on conversion is that it is for members to decide whether they want their building society to convert or to remain as a mutual. Many new shareholders have substantially benefited from conversion. Of course we wish them well, if that is the course that they want to take. We also wish the converted building societies well in their new endeavours as banks.
    The conversion process has also—perhaps paradoxically—helped mutuals, as it has awakened in them the need to be in close contact with their members. In recent years, the overall philosophy of mutuality has been revived—after some building societies had undoubtedly become a little remote. Therefore, the conversions, bonuses to members and changes in the market have had important benefits beyond providing a stimulus to the economy. However, there is a need for balance, and that is what the Bill is all about.
    There is a public interest in maintaining choice in the market. The great strength of the British financial services industry is its diversity and choice. It provides access to investment and savings opportunities to millions of people. That choice currently includes the option to join a mutual building society, and it would indeed be regrettable to lose that choice.
    Mutuals do not have to pay dividends to shareholders, and they therefore have an opportunity to use their assets to offer cheaper mortgages and better interest rates on savings. Some mutuals are already doing so. A recent survey in What Mortgage suggested that, of 72 building societies, the 25 best opportunities were with mutuals. One of the large mutuals—I will not advertise its name—told me that on a range of products it is offering 0.7 per cent. higher savings rates than its main high street competitors. Its standard variable mortgage rate is 0.2 per cent. below that of other market leaders.
    Many would argue that mutuals play a unique part in securing good value for the consumer as well as the opportunity to join a self-help organisation and tap into the important heritage of mutuals. Of course, converted societies have their strengths too, but mutuals can arguably play an important part despite their smaller proportion of the building society sector.
    Today, many believe that mutuality is in danger. Last week, I heard a speaker on, of all things, the "Thought for the Day" spot on Radio 4's "Today" programme graphically warn:
    "We may be selling a great cultural heritage for a mess of pottage".
    The warning was that there may be large bonuses for individuals now, but that that may reduce the choices for all savers and borrowers in the future.
    Building societies were one of the great successes of the self-help movement among working people in Victorian Britain. Indeed, the first recorded building

    83
    society, the Kettley building society, was set up in Birmingham in 1775, many decades before Queen Victoria, in what is now my locality. Like friendly societies and co-operatives, their motivation was mutual self-help rather than profit, although, of course, the profit was the way to pay good interest rates on savings. They served local communities and were accountable to their members. Most of us in the Chamber, like the vast majority of the British people, bought our homes with the help of a mutual building society. However, their success produced problems.
    As markets became competitive, societies merged to reduce overheads. In 1900, there were 2,286 building societies; by 1950, the number had fallen to 819 and, by 1990, it was down to 80. The amalgamation of societies sometimes made them more remote from members. They had huge assets but could be unadventurous in using them. Their very reliability and stability were advantages in attracting customers but, in a few cases, constrained innovation.
    Societies were also operating under a prescriptive regime, introduced initially in legislation in 1874 and then amended by the Building Societies Act 1986. That legislation restricted their operations under an out-of-date and highly restrictive regulatory framework. It prevented them from taking advantage of the new opportunities of an expanding financial services market.
    In the late 1980s, some societies began to believe that mutuality had become a straitjacket. They wanted to provide a wider range of services for their members, and conversion was seen as the only option. Two thirds of the building society sector has converted. The process began in 1989 with the Abbey National flotation. However, one third of the sector remains mutual. It has £120 billion-worth of mortgages and 17 million customers and accounts for a quarter of the mortgage market. It should be protected from predators.
    The good news is that many mutuals have risen to the new challenge. They are back in contact with members, offering competitive mortgages and savings rates. They are rediscovering the spirit of mutuality, and we should encourage that process. However, they still need greater freedom to serve their members. That means that the prescriptive regime of the 1986 Act needs to be amended.
    Three years ago, Labour warned the Government that the future of mutuals would be in doubt unless they were freed from the shackles of the 1986 Act introduced by the Conservatives. We warned that choice and diversity would be lost, but the Government prevaricated and dithered. Promises of a new Bill were broken, but let me pay tribute to the Economic Secretary who, when she took on her current role, tried to press the idea of a new Bill.
    The Government said that the Bill would be included in the Queen's Speech last November—indeed, they had promised it the previous November—but it was dropped at the last moment. Why? I suspect that someone decided that there were no votes in it and, at that point, Conservative leaders were interested only in trying to revive their sagging fortunes. However, there was always public interest in the Bill. The Economic Secretary recognised that. Labour forced the idea back on to the political agenda and demanded an explanation of why it had been dropped.
    84
    To her credit, the Economic Secretary also fought for the Bill. It has been revived, but why has it taken so long to get to the House? We were told that a time slot was needed, but everyone knows that the House's business has been finishing early, certainly since Christmas, so why the mysterious delay? I do not doubt that the hon. Lady wanted the Bill. We both continued to press for it and now, at last, it is with us. It is very welcome.
    The price of delay, however, has been uncertainty and the undermining of the mutual sector. One aspect has been long queues outside many building societies as speculators open accounts to bet on the next conversion. In response, some mutuals have put up their minimum account rates to £1,000 or more, thus freezing out the small investor. That cannot be satisfactory. Of course, it must be up to members to decide whether a society should convert: we would want them to have the choice, but long-term members should not have the decision made for them by mere speculators.
    The Bill has its drawbacks, but we need to get something on the statute book soon. Labour wants to free mutuals to compete in the market. We regret the delay; we want the Bill passed, but we are disappointed by the failure to discourage speculation, which is not fair to long-standing members who have stood by their societies for years. We will give broad support to the Bill, and we want it passed before the general election.
    Labour will support the Bill, but the question is, do the Government? Of course, the Economic Secretary has sponsored it—I do not doubt that she supports it—and we presume that the Government understood the inadequacies of the 1986 Act and sought to change it. Our understanding of the Bill was that it was intended to put mutuals on a level playing field with other organisations so that members would not need to vote for conversion, if only because the Building Societies Act 1986 imposed a prescriptive regime on them which denied them access to particular investment opportunities and new capital.
    The Minister told us today that the Government did not seek to encourage building societies to convert or not to convert, but yesterday, the day before the Treasury introduced the Bill to protect mutuals from takeover and to reduce the need to convert to banks, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he supported the 1986 Act and wanted to support conversion from mutuals to banks.
    Writing in The Mail on Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister says that it
    "makes sense to make the ownership of building societies more transparent; to give the members—the lenders and borrowers who have always owned those societies—the direct rights of ownership which shareholding offers… These have long been central tenets of Conservative philosophy."
    The Deputy Prime Minister endorses the 1986 Act, which the Minister seeks to amend. He describes the transition from mutuals to plcs as "extraordinary and exciting", despite the fact that the aim of the Bill is to make it less necessary because, presumably, the Minister wants to see diversity and choice maintained, and that includes mutual building societies.
    The Deputy Prime Minister, however, seems to be challenging the very basis of the Bill. The Mail on Sunday, hardly a Labour newspaper, calls it
    "an extraordinary rebuff to building societies on the eve of the Bill designed to protect them."

    85
    Perhaps we have here an answer to the mystery of why it has been such a struggle to get the Government to bring forward the Bill.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Gentleman should stop reading headlines and read the articles. If he reads the article written by the Deputy Prime Minister, which is headed "Deregulation the way to greater financial freedom", all will become clear to him. My right hon. Friend rightly points out that 16 million people are benefiting from conversion, but he is also very much in favour of the mutual sector. The hon. Gentleman should read the article.
    Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the Minister again if she can tell me where in the article the Deputy Prime Minister says that he is very much in favour of mutuals.
    Mrs. Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is one of the backers of the Bill.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady has not answered the question; nowhere in the article is there any endorsement of mutuals—quite the contrary. The hon. Lady is suggesting that I might somehow be misleading the House about what the Deputy Prime Minister says. I shall read out some more of the article so that the House can judge for itself.
    The article says:
    "the extraordinary changes now taking place in the building societies come as a direct result of the Government's deregulation initiative."
    The Deputy Prime Minister claims that the conversion process is part of the deregulation initiative. He goes on:
    "In 1986 our building societies legislation enabled building societies to convert from their mutual status to plcs—in practice, to become banks."
    I do not deny that that is a statement of fact. He says further on:
    "with today's massive availability of funds it now makes sense to make the ownership of building societies more transparent; to give the members—the lenders and borrowers who have always those societies—the direct rights of ownership which shareholding offers and to allow the societies to compete more effectively in the modern world. Hence the legislation to give the building societies the ability to convert themselves"—
    he is endorsing the 1986 Act—
    "into publicly quoted companies.
    Hence the extraordinary and exciting changes we are now seeing.
    During the conversion process a large number of people have qualified for free shares. The Abbey National flotation took place in 1989."
    I am reading Conservative propaganda. I am waiting for a reference to how important mutuals are, but it does not come. The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that
    "Now the floodgates are opening",
    but still he has not mentioned mutuals. He seems pleased with the floodgates opening to conversion. On he goes:
    "As I write, the Halifax, Alliance and Leicester, Woolwich, Norwich Union, Northern Rock and Scottish Amicable are all poised to float on the stock market."
    He goes on about the £1,000 that people are getting and how 16 million people are benefiting. He says:
    "This outcome flows directly from the Government's policies, its determination"—
    86
    the hon. Lady has been engaged in some sort of altercation with others on the Back Benches, but she should hear this—
    Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: In a moment. Let me just finish, then I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because she has a lot of explaining to do. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the Government's
    "determination to deregulate business and promote competition".
    All the way through the article, he seems to be endorsing conversion. The Mail on Sunday regarded the article as extraordinary. I regard it is bizarre. The Deputy Prime Minister thinks that conversions are
    "giving people more choice, new opportunities and better service. These have long been central tenets of Conservative philosophy."
    Surely all that is an attack on mutuals and a promotion of the idea of converting.
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily silly. He is not normally this silly, but we have seen him silly before. He is reading an article about some of the societies that have converted or are converting and the benefits that that has brought and will bring to 16 million people. The object of the Bill, of which the Deputy Prime Minister is a sponsor, is to ensure that mutuals can compete on a level playing field. It is deregulatory. The Government are in favour of societies making their own choices on which way to go. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation is silly.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady cannot have read the article properly. I am not relying merely on my interpretation. The headline in The Mail on Sunday—normally a Conservative-supporting newspaper—calls it "Heseltine's snub for die-hard mutuals". If the Deputy Prime Minister did not understand the Bill, one might appreciate his comments, but he appears not to want to reduce the need to convert. He does not want to preserve for the consumer the choice of mutual status. He wants all building societies to be converted. That is what the article is all about. He says that conversions came about as a direct result of the Government's deregulation initiative.
    Mr. Douglas French: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: Let me answer the hon. Lady first.
    The Deputy Prime Minister advocates conversion. That is what the article is all about. The timing and the tone of the article, on the eve of a debate on the Bill, are a slap in the face for the Bill and, in many ways, for the hon. Lady. Why are the Government sponsoring a Bill of which the main purpose is to reduce the need for what the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that the Government want done? Why did he choose to launch his plea for more conversions yesterday, unless he intended to dissociate himself from the Bill? Why did he attack the core objective of the Bill? The truth is that, like rats in a sack, the Tories are at each other's throats again.
    Mr. French: I am not sure whether it is worth intervening, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly made up his mind and put his own construction on the article.

    87
    While he has been speaking, I have re-read the article. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly writing about societies that are choosing to convert. It is an article about conversion, not about mutuality. If it were about mutuality, he would be saying something quite different.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has made my case. The Deputy Prime Minister does not mention mutuals. He endorses conversion, claiming that the move away from mutuality is part of the central tenets of Conservative philosophy. I give credit to the Economic Secretary. She understands what mutuals are doing and wants the Bill passed, but I do not think that the Deputy Prime Minister has the same view.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment.
    That explains the mystery of why it took two years to bring the Bill forward. Why, despite promises, was it dropped from the 1995 legislative agenda and from the Queen's Speech last year? Why was there such resistance to the Bill? I know that the hon. Lady supported it, but why has it taken until now, since her announcement last November, for the Bill to be reintroduced? There has been more than enough time. Parliament has hardly been overburdened with work. Members of Parliament have been going home early. The reason is now exposed; the Deputy Prime Minister does not support the Bill.
    Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. He knows perfectly well why the Bill has taken a long time, as does anyone who takes an interest in the matter, including all the members of the all-party building societies group. There has been a delay, because various people who were consulted were not able to agree. The mutuals have not all been able to agree; nor have the converting societies. Other financial institutions, such as banks and insurance companies, have taken different views. It has been necessary to reconcile all those views to get a Bill that everybody can support. That is what has taken time, as the hon. Gentleman knows well.
    Mr. O'Brien: Three years? It takes three years to consult? It takes three years to find out what people think? That is nonsense. The consultation period has lasted much too long. Enormous pressure has been put on mutuals to convert, which has been damaging. The hon. Gentleman's excuses do not stand up. There has been so much delay because there have been internal rows in the Conservative party. We have seen that on Europe and on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. On all aspects of Tory policies, there are internal rows and public attacks on each other. Now the splits have been exposed on the Building Societies Bill.
    Let me defend the Economic Secretary and the Bill against the Deputy Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong not to endorse mutuality. It must be left to members to decide whether to convert. That is what the Bill is supposed to be all about. There is a public interest in keeping choice and diversity in the market. That requires a healthy building society industry that includes mutuals. Ten million people remain satisfied
    88
    mutual members. That figure rises to 17 million counting all those with links to mutual building societies. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to want to let that vital mutual sector wither on the vine. As well as demonstrating further Tory disorder, that also explains why the Bill was delayed for so many years. Let us get on with the Bill and get it through with no more prevarication. It is good for mutuals and good for the consumer and will strengthen Britain's financial services industry.
    7.58 pm
    Mr. John Butterfill: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for the assiduous and vigorous way in which she has promoted the Bill and brought it before the House. The House owes her a debt of gratitude. The task has not been easy. There have been considerable divergences of view throughout the financial services industry. We have all been subject to the lobbying of the various interest groups that have taken different views. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) knows that perfectly well. That is why it has taken longer than I would have liked to bring the measure before the House. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has done a splendid job, and I hope that the Bill speedily becomes law.
    The origins of the building society movement demonstrate that it is a uniquely valuable British institution. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire was quite right to say that it developed out of the self-help that working people created to enable them to own their own homes and to save and borrow money on a mutual basis. It is a uniquely valuable asset and I am quite confident that we would all be sad if it were ever to disappear.
    It was, however, quite right that, when we decided to liberalise the movement in 1986, significant restrictions were placed on the activities of building societies. At the time, many of us who supported a degree of liberalisation were quite nervous about going too far because of the nature of the societies. They had been constrained into a narrow sector of activity: accepting deposits from savers and lending them on to those who were purchasing their homes. That did not give them much experience in the wider range of financial services. I shared the fear that was expressed in the House that, if they were allowed to go too far, problems might arise and that management expertise was not always adequate and there might be ill-advised lending. That is why, quite properly, restrictions were imposed on the amount of unsecured borrowing that societies could undertake among other activities.
    Since then, however, the world has moved on. There have been significant changes in the way in which building societies are run. Most of them are now managed extremely professionally and are eager to offer a much wider range of services, and it is quite right that the Bill should allow them to do so.
    On the other hand, it is worth remembering that, even under the Bill, building societies are still not permitted to engage in all the activities that banks and other financial institutions can undertake. Indeed, part I of the Bill imposes severe restrictions on them. Primarily, they can lend only on residential property and, quite advisedly, they are not allowed to engage in some of the more sophisticated financial instruments that have brought problems to more sophisticated institutions. So the balance is right.

    89
    The 1986 Act also provided the two-year rule. Frankly, I am sorry that it is not included in the Bill. It would be a valuable power for building societies to possess, because there is undoubtedly rather undesirable speculation in building societies at the moment. The fact that some societies found it necessary to raise the threshold of deposits before conveying membership rights is undesirable, because it undermines a principle that building societies will take the widow's mite and provide a savings vehicle that quite poor people find useful. It would be a sad day if that principle were undermined.
    Similarly, the 1986 Act gave protection to societies that, having built up their businesses, decided that they wished to convert. It is known as the five-year rule. That was absolutely proper too. As many societies were quite unsophisticated in the world of financial services, it was quite clear that they could be vulnerable to more sophisticated institutions. The need for that rule has diminished over the years. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said, many converting societies are quite large businesses in their own right. Nevertheless, the need for that protection has not disappeared altogether. I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend has not included an element of protection in the Bill. It would be quite wrong if converting societies could then be predators on other mutual building societies. None of us would wish to see that happen, as we all want mutual societies to continue to prosper.
    I would have preferred an arrangement whereby any converting society that took over a mutual society—whether by hostile bid or by consent as we all know that consent sometimes involves an element of coercion—would lose its protection under the five-year rule. However, to say that to take over any other financial services business, or almost any such business, will lead to the loss of that protection is going much too far. It means that converting societies will be limited in the sectors in which they can expand their businesses without risking losing that protection.
    I know that my hon. Friend will say that it would be unfair to insurance companies and banks who will not be under the same constraints. However, the five-year rule never applied to them as they were never building societies. It was never designed to cater for their circumstances, so that would be something of a non sequitur. Far more important, they are not subject to the constraints that have applied historically to building societies. Before the 1986 Act, since then and even under the Bill, there have been significant constraints on the activities of building societies. Therefore, it is still appropriate that some degree of transitional protection should be available to converting societies, otherwise there is a danger that we shall end up with a two-tier market: we shall have very large banks and other financial institutions, a much smaller group of smaller bodies—the mutual societies—because everything in between will have been gobbled up by the big boys. We shall end up with four or five major lenders for those who wish to buy their homes or make a deposit and a dwindling band of mutual societies which will be very much at the small end of the market.
    That would be entirely undesirable. Some means by which we can have a middle layer of converting societies that are temporarily protected from predation seems to be desirable in providing the maximum choice to the consumer. I very much hope that, as the Bill progresses,
    90
    my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will go some way towards my point of view on that and on the two-year rule. I very much look forward to the Bill proceeding and succeeding, as it is an admirable measure.
    8.8 pm
    Mr. Alan Keen: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Bill, particularly in my role as chair of the Co-operative group of Members of Parliament. I shall be brief as others are waiting to speak and I shall concentrate purely on the mutualities.
    The co-operative movement understands mutuality better than most as it was founded by people who needed to band together to protect themselves against the difficult circumstances that they faced in the 19th century. In many cases, the monopoly suppliers—often their own employers—insisted that they bought their basic supplies from them. The building societies came later, but helped the same people. They provided a solid base of reliability and trust that enabled people with small savings—a small excess of income over expenditure—to invest and save with security. They of course also provided capital for the purchase of houses which was so necessary in those days, as it is today.
    As a young person, I tended not to trust banks. In saying that, I have not forgotten the contribution that the clearing banks have made to the functioning of Britain's financial industry and to industry and commerce itself. We were probably all misled by that famous "bank manager in your cupboard" television advert of 20 or so years ago. It did not take the public long to realise that that bank manager was not necessarily their friend and was beginning to be controlled from head office by computers and faceless people. People also began to realise that the bank manager had a different incentive—he was being pushed and pressed to produce profits early, quite often losing the good will of his own bank in the medium and long term.
    Despite the fact that I was very sad over the loss of mutuality, the movement of some of the mutuals into the banking sector gave well-needed competition to the clearing banks in an area where there had been little real competition. I am not being critical of the banks in a destructive way. I am mentioning them to try to highlight the difference between mutuals and the banks, with shareholders to satisfy. It is quite enjoyable to attack the banks, but that is not what I want to do in this debate.
    The contribution that the building societies have made can be understood fully only by those who have lived in working-class communities, where the surplus of income over expenditure was very small and people searched to find somewhere that could be trusted to put their money. Building societies provided such small investors with that trust. There is no doubt that those investing in building societies were greatly affected and influenced by mutuality. It gave them the feeling that they were among people who cared for each other. At the same time, they had the satisfaction of knowing that they were helping to put a roof over other people's heads. It was probably an example of a do-good factor as well as a feel-good factor.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, even after the current conversions, building societies will have assets of £120 billion and serve 10 million customers, which is quite an achievement for any organisation. Although I agree that mutuality

    91
    gained trust, the ability to compete in the open market has enabled building societies to continue to flourish. Mutuality does not mean the loss of the ability to compete.
    I shall not repeat the detailed arguments in support of the Bill—I support it very strongly. We want to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire in praising the Economic Secretary for her efforts. Let us get the Bill through. Let us allow building societies to compete on equal legislative terms with other corporate organisations in the market. The British people need building societies and the British economy certainly needs a flourishing building society mutual sector to look after the small savers and draw money in with trust as they always have done.
    8.13 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: In the spirit of the intervention of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I declare an interest as a modest customer of several building societies and as the chairman of the all-party building societies group, which is of course unremunerated.
    I greatly welcome the Bill, which is very important for the future of the building society sector. I greatly hope that it will pass through the House without delay. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on her persistence in bringing forward the Bill. I certainly dissociate myself totally from the conspiratorial interpretation of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I assure him that, had my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister been against the Bill, there is absolutely no doubt that we would not be here trying to give it a Second Reading because he would have made certain that his views had been properly heard.
    I regard the Bill as a natural and logical step in building societies legislation. The original Building Societies Act 1962 prohibited building societies from offering almost any service unless it was a savings scheme or a mortgage. The legislation was developed in the Building Societies Act 1986, which introduced partial deregulation—allowing diversification into many other services including current accounts, credit cards, life assurance and unit trusts—and paved the way for societies to convert to public limited company status, without which the public would not be about to enjoy share distributions and would not already have received bonus distributions from societies' conversions.
    Now that we are ready for a further tranche of deregulation, it is perfectly natural to get away from the still rather prescriptive nature of the 1986 Act and adopt the principle that a society can do more or less what it wishes—apart from that which is specifically excluded by the Bill. That is why, quite correctly, the Bill prohibits societies from trading in commodities, making markets in securities and involving themselves in derivatives—all of which we know are very risky, likely to lose money, likely to place depositors' assets at risk, and therefore not appropriate for a building society to engage in.
    I very much welcome the retention of the special operating characteristics of some societies. It is perfectly right that they should still have to raise at least
    92
    50 per cent. of their funds from individual retail investors; it is perfectly correct that 75 per cent. of their assets will still have to be invested in loans on housing—although not necessarily for owner-occupation. That opens the way for more building society funding of the rented sector, which is a very sound judgment. The remaining 25 per cent. of their assets can be invested anywhere that they choose, subject to the overseeing of the Building Societies Commission—to ensure that the management of a building society has the necessary skills and financial expertise to make competent decisions and to ensure that it keeps out of areas in which it ought not to be because it does not have the skills.
    I also welcome the fact that, to accompany the wider powers, there will be greater accountability of societies to their members. I noticed that, in the recent experience of building society conversions, there was much confusion among building society customers about the rights of those who had a proper share account and those who simply had a deposit account. It is desirable that that confusion should be cleared up. I am also pleased that there is confirmation in the Bill that, in future, borrowing members will have broadly the same voting rights as investing members. That helps to bring legislation into line with public expectation.
    Another point about accountability which I welcome was made by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. If a society transfers its business to a public limited company, the proposals for enhanced remuneration of the society's directors will be subject to a separate resolution for members' approval. That will address the concerns of those who felt that to accept conversion to plc status, it was necessary to accept the whole package, including what some people might regard as robust consideration for the directors of the society when they become directors of the plc.
    The most controversial provision in the Bill is the five-year protection from takeover, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned. I have thought carefully about the subject. Some people believe that the potential loss of the protection if a newly converted society embarks on a takeover is unfair. I cannot come to the same conclusion. Newly converted societies do not need the same protection as when the 1986 Act was passed. Such protection would create two classes of public limited companies—those that enjoyed the five-year protection after conversion and those that did not. My hon. Friend would argue that it is necessary to provide some transitional relief because building societies would be going out into the big wide world without having had long enough to establish their services on a level footing with the banks. However, protection from takeover for five years would place the newly converted building societies in a different position from banks that have not been through the process, and would add a new unevenness between newly converted societies, some of which are large and substantial, and banks that could not claim the same protection.
    Mr. Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend name a bank or major insurance company that has been subject, in the

    93
    past few years, to the constraints that we imposed on building societies' activities by the 1986 Act and will impose in the Bill?
    Mr. French: I cannot, but that is all part and parcel of the risks that a society has to weigh up when making the decision to convert. If societies that may convert believe that the competition that they will encounter as plcs is greater than they can cope with, they should not convert. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that point.
    It is not right if that conversion gives societies a protection that is not available to other institutions. A building society that does not enjoy the protection could be taken over by a predator, such as a former building society, which does enjoy the protection. That creates an uneven playing field between the newly converted building society, now a bank, and building societies that have not converted. In an extreme case—although I admit this is a theoretical example—the abandonment of mutual status could be a way to fend off a takeover. That is not acceptable.
    The Alliance and Leicester has argued that protection should be lost only after a takeover of another building society, and not in the case of a takeover of any other financial institution. I have discussed the issue with the Alliance and Leicester, and I cannot see that such a halfway house would provide a satisfactory formula. The company that wishes to make a takeover bid, of a mutual or other institution, should not be immune from receiving a takeover bid itself. Again, that would create an uneven playing field. It would also mean that the business that was being acquired attracted immunity from takeover by yet another institution, because it came under the umbrella of a new bank that already enjoyed the protection. However one approaches the issue, it creates an uneven playing field and an illogical situation.
    Mr. William O'Brien: The Halifax building society, which will shortly become a plc, has accepted that it will not enter into a takeover of a mutual building society on the principle of the five-year rule. In its application, the Halifax says that it would be wrong to have the right to take over a mutual building society after becoming a plc. Does that influence the hon. Gentleman's views?
    Mr. French: No. The Halifax building society is in a unique position because of its size. It is easy for the Halifax to choose voluntarily not to avail itself of the protection for five years because the number of institutions that would have the resources to take over the Halifax could be counted on one finger. The Halifax has not given up a practical protection that it would otherwise have enjoyed.
    The Alliance and Leicester seems to be arguing that it would be retrospective to make the protection for five years conditional on not taking over another institution, but it should accept that the possibility has been under discussion for a long time. It is easy when changes are made on the introduction of new legislation—we see it with the Finance Bills—for those who are affected to jump to the conclusion that it has a retrospective element. All institutions that make significant decisions need to
    94
    keep their eyes and ears open and anticipate possible policy developments. They should not base their decisions on guesses that something is never likely to happen.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Alliance and Leicester acquired the Girobank. The members of the Girobank, who are now customers of the Alliance and Leicester, have not shared in the windfall payments that it has made.
    Mr. French: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will come in a moment to the subject of windfall payments.
    My broad approach to the Bill is that mutuals need the legislation. It will give them greater operational flexibility. They will be better able to compete properly with the banks and will be better placed to respond to customers' needs. The Bill underlines the advantages of mutual status, which have been placed under pressure lately. Many people have expressed the view that the mutual movement is in its death throes, but the Bill will make an important contribution to ensuring that mutuality has a future. I support those who feel that the mutual movement, and building societies in particular, make a vital contribution to the financial services sector.
    Some four or five, perhaps six, major societies have converted or will convert. It is reassuring to note that the remaining large mutuals have reasserted their absolute commitment to mutuality, including the Nationwide, the Bradford and Bingley, and the slightly smaller Portman and Birmingham Midshires societies. I take those commitments not only as statements by today's chief executives, but as commitments on behalf of those societies in the future. They have all said that they cannot envisage circumstances in which they would abandon mutuality, and they are committed to it. The Nationwide, for example, is committed to demonstrating to its customers, and prospective customers, that mutuality offers customers tangible benefits through more competitive mortgage rates and better-priced savings products. It is seeking to feed the benefits of mutual status directly back to its members—exactly the way of conveying to the public and to members of societies that mutuality in practice delivers tangible results.
    The feeding back of the benefits of mutuality needs to be accompanied by a growth strategy by societies. Unless they can foresee an expansion of their business, the feeding back of benefits will in essence amount to giving back to members some of the profits that the society would otherwise have registered. The more societies dilute their profits in that way—even for sound commercial reasons— the cheaper they will be to a predator wishing to take them over. There needs to be a strengthening and a growth in the size and activities of mutual societies.
    None of the societies which have declared their commitment to mutuality has made any statement that they would not at some future stage merge, because the merging of societies may well be a necessary requirement to ensure that they are strong and able to protect themselves against future predators.
    Another benefit of the Bill is that it will make the relative attraction of plc status rather less. It gives operational freedom but makes the relative attraction of operating under banking legislation less obvious, as more can be done under the building society legislation. That is very important.

    95
    Issuing shares by societies which convert may be very good if one wishes to go on the acquisition trail, but it is not good if one is seeking to offer competitive mortgage and savings products. Typically, a bank pays about one third of its profits in dividends to its shareholders. In a society with a normal business profile, that is equivalent to about three quarters of a point of margin between mortgage and savings levels. That means that if a mutual society does not have to pay dividends to shareholders, it is able to offer products more competitively than might otherwise have been the case. In future, customers of mutual societies will be able to look forward to competitive deals on all products.
    Mutuality is a trading status that we should never allow to perish, and I emphasise that the Bill does a great deal to reinforce it.
    I would like to say a few words about the manner in which some building societies have chosen to convert to public companies. It is sad that some of the societies currently converting—in what seems to be a headlong rush to become plcs—seem to have forgotten the very ethos of mutuality which, for more than 150 years in some cases, has brought them commercial success and has given them their enviable image. Some societies seem to have forgotten that they started life trying to look after smaller savers, making sure that they treated all customers fairly and trying to return to members the benefits of membership of a mutual society.
    As a prime example of such an offender, I cite the Halifax building society. I very much hope that no society seeking to convert in future will approach the task as the Halifax has done in the past few months. When the Halifax prepared its flotation, it decided to leave out of the distribution several million of its customers, including people who were disabled and who could not sign their own accounts. This was a fundamentally flawed judgment. It was deeply offensive to those left out and, indeed, to some who were included, and who as a result would get more than they would otherwise have received.
    The Halifax first tried to justify its extraordinary decision by blaming the existing state of the law. That was incorrect, because nothing in the Building Societies Act 1986 would cause it to take such action. It went on to say that the disabled people—who were second-named account holders—were not members and therefore could not be included in the share distribution. That again was incorrect, because the 1986 Act gave a converting building society the power to include in a share distribution whoever it decided to include. The next excuse was that it was too difficult, administratively complex and would present practical difficulties that the society could not solve. In truth, however, there were a number of simple ways in which the dilemma could have been avoided.
    When the Halifax was asked if it felt that its formula was unfair, it replied that it regarded the scheme as perfectly fair. Incredibly, it tried to justify the formula on the grounds that no one should pick out the disabled as a group that had been left out because, in truth, the society had left out a number of other categories as well—as if that somehow justified the sad judgment. To cap the insults, the society went on to claim that many disabled
    96
    people had been included under the distribution formula, and any change to the arrangements would mean that some 8.5 million people would be upset by a delay.
    The Halifax then announced 97 per cent. support for the scheme—almost universal support—when the only people whose votes it was counting were those likely to be recipients of the distribution. Those not likely to be recipients did not have a vote, so it is hardly surprising that the proposal received near-unanimous support. What is so distressing about the conduct of the society was that its directors—who are doing nicely out of the conversion—seem to have forgotten that they are today's guardians of the assets of that society, which have been built up from the loyalty of customers over 150 years. The directors have a duty to pass benefits to customers and to be fair. In short, the Halifax building society has betrayed its founding fathers and the ethos of mutuality.
    Even at this stage, the Halifax could redeem itself by making a statement of intent that it will put on the agenda of the new board of the public company a resolution to allow the shareholders to decide whether they wish to make an ex gratia payment to the disabled people left out of the formula. Company law allows for that to be done now, and I very much hope that the Halifax will come to the right decision. It could follow the lead set by the Northern Rock building society and set up a charitable foundation to ensure that the very people left out of the distribution are helped via a donation to relevant charities. It is not a substitute for ensuring that all customers and members receive their rightful distribution, but it would at least go some way to making up for the appalling judgment exercised by the Halifax building society. Certainly, the Halifax directors ought to recognise that they should do something, not just maintain a stony silence. They might like to follow the example of the Alliance and Leicester, which, shortly before this evening's debate, wrote me a letter as follows:
    "It is intended that an item will be placed on the Agenda of the PLC Board after flotation, to seek approval in principle for the provision of funding for an appropriate charitable donation to disabled persons, or to a charity or charities on their behalf, subject of course to the approval of the company's shareholders."
    That shows a willingness to do the right thing which has thus far been manifestly lacking on the part of the Halifax.
    If the Halifax continues to act like a hard-nosed bank before it has even become one, and continues to spoil the good reputation that building societies have enjoyed for so many years, I for one hope that its customers will decide in their millions to move their accounts elsewhere, on the grounds that it is not a society in which they would wish to continue to hold their savings.
    8.40 pm
    Mrs. Diana Maddock: Like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), I declare my interest—in my case, as vice-chairman of the all-party building society group. I also have various other interests in building societies. I certainly associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the five-year rule and the future of mutuality.
    There may be arguments over whether we should have had a new Building Societies Bill somewhat sooner, but I begin as others have done by congratulating the Economic Secretary on getting the Bill to the Floor of the House in this form. Despite what was said earlier, hon. Members

    97
    know that there was consultation with a wide range of people. First, we had a draft version, then more consultation, then another draft before Christmas; finally we had the Bill as it appears today.
    That is in stark contrast with what happened to the Bill that became the Housing Act 1996. The day before we were due to discuss part of it, the people behind the security of loans for social housing suddenly discovered what was going on, faxes began to fly to and fro, and there was a great threat to the whole financing of some social housing projects. That is why I pay tribute to the Minister for her work to avoid the same happening again, and to come up with a Bill with which all parties are in broad agreement.
    Many of us were disappointed to find that the Bill, contrary to expectations, was not mooted in last autumn's Queen's Speech. Thereafter, however, the Minister promised to do all that she could to find time for the Bill—if she could get agreement on its contents. She has been as good as her word, on which I congratulate her. We may not know the whole truth, but I suspect that she may have had some difficulties with the Deputy Prime Minister. At least she won—that is the main thing.
    My one objection is to dealing with the final stages of the Bill all at one time next Monday. There should be a gap between the Committee and Report stages, however well the Bill's contents have been dealt with. There ought to be more time for consideration on a Bill as large as this.
    Why do we need another Bill 10 years on from the last one? If we examine the role of the building society movement, and what has happened in the financial world in recent years, we can see part of the answer. That movement has tremendous strengths and brings great strengths to our economy. Its traditional function—matching savings to housing finance—remains predominant: it does the job very well. For millions of savers and home buyers, building societies are the trusted one-stop shop.
    Over the years, the building society movement has taken care to protect its customers from the effects of society failures, which have been extremely rare. Building societies are also of great importance to the regional economies of Britain, not just because of the employment in their branch networks but because their headquarters, like those of the major insurance companies, are to be found not in London but in our provincial cities and towns. They act as a welcome counterbalance to the centralisation of financial affairs in London.
    Shortly after I entered this House three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), at that time financial affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, was asked to address the annual lunch of the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Exciting stuff.
    Mrs. Maddock: In fact, we did create some excitement at the meeting. Anyhow, my right hon. Friend described some of the problems to which the Bill today offers some solutions. For instance, he mentioned the problem, during the recession, of the over-promotion of credit which led to a lot of people ending up with negative equity. Some of them still have it.
    My right hon. Friend also said that building societies often help first-time buyers instead of looking after their current members' interests. He also raised the
    98
    accountability of building societies to their members—an element of the Bill that we all welcome. My right hon. Friend ended by saying:
    "The British people have invested a lot of their money and a lot of their trust in the building societies, and the results have included wider home ownership than in many other countries and a building society movement which is without equal. It is time for some public reflection on how the industry can build on these strengths."
    That reflection has continued in recent years.
    I was particularly struck by Will Hutton's comments in The Guardian in July 1995, when he stated even more forthrightly:
    "One of the great bequests of the last century to the modern world is withering before our eyes. British building societies, owned and run for the mutual benefit of their members, were a tangible expression of a form of common ownership. Now they are being cannibalised into becoming the latest standard bearers of the public limited company, complete with stock options and a lord on the board— and a credulous public is being offered a sweetener of some hundreds of pounds to offer its assent."
    Listening to the hon. Member for Gloucester saying how he thought building societies should think carefully before becoming public limited companies, with the attendant large payouts, I pondered Will Hutton's comments. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, though, that some of his Conservative colleagues are hoping that many people will get their feel-good factor before the general election, in the form of the massive payouts coming their way later this month.
    Mr. Butterfill: The payouts are likely to happen after the general election, not before it.
    Mrs. Maddock: There is some dispute about that.
    As I was saying, many of the concerns expressed in recent years about mutuality have been dealt with in the Bill.
    The Building Societies Association welcomes the Bill, as do many of us who are in favour of mutuality. It will preserve the unique characteristics of building societies and ensure that their record of safety continues. All of us welcome the fact that the legislation is to be permissive rather than prescriptive.
    The new legislation will place building societies on the same footing as other organisations, in that they will be able to do many more things that will be of interest to their members. However, many us believe that their concentration on the requirements of personal savers and on housing is important. I welcome the fact that they will be able to invest in rented housing. The need to do something to make lending for renting stack up has become obvious to me in my time as housing spokesman for my party. We have a problem in trying to expand the private rented sector, because the different tenures are so concentrated in one form.
    I especially welcome the measures designed to approve societies' accountability to their members. Election to the board will be more transparent, borrowers will have votes and, for many societies, fewer people will be required to nominate members for election. There will be a legal requirement to hold special general meetings at request, members will have to vote in favour if a society wants to make significant acquisitions of business not related to mortgages and savings, and if a society decides to transfer to plc status, it will have to ballot its members and have

    99
    an additional advisory vote on any proposed enhanced remuneration packages for directors. I welcome all those measures on behalf of my party.
    We want to enact the legislation quickly, partly because we are about to embark on a general election. Because of the problems that we have had in the rapidly changing financial world and because so many building societies have started to move towards plc status, we must move as quickly as possible to safeguard the mutuals that many of us want to flourish. That is why my party is happy for the Bill to proceed.
    At the same time, I hope that the private Member's Bill to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred will reach the statute book. All of us have received many letters in recent years about people who were named second or not included for one reason or another. That is one reason why many people will be in favour of the Bill. I associate myself entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the sad situation of disabled people being left out, and my party and I fully support the Bill.
    8.53 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I hope that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the general election, because it represents the best way of preserving the building society movement and the concept of mutuality.
    I declare an interest as a member, but not an officer, of the all-party group on building societies. I am also a member of several building societies. I voted no to the National and Provincial takeover by the Abbey National and to the Leeds takeover by the Halifax, and I was one of the 3 per cent. who voted no to the conversion.
    At the appropriate stage, I shall take the advice of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) and remove my custom, but, if the shares are to come, I may as well take them first; I make no bones about that. I have been a Halifax customer for many years and I feel that I may as well take the shares even though I disagree with what has been done.
    The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to the Building Societies Act 1986. He underlined the view of those of us who were in the House when that legislation was passed: we thought that it was a bold step forward and a challenge to the general concept of building societies at that time. Indeed, I remember saying that I was conservative on building societies and wanted them to remain as they were, because they had a good record over many years of service to both lenders and investors. I wanted banks to be banks, and estate agents to be estate agents.
    Times have moved on rapidly, however, and I accept that we are in a different world, so I fully support the view that we must change and that, if building societies are to be able to compete and indeed to remain as mutuals as we move forward to the 21st century, we must enact the Bill.
    I share many of the views and concerns about the Halifax expressed by the hon. Member for Gloucester. According to its figures, 3.5 million of its customers are not entitled to a handout as a result of its conversion, and I have heard that it could be as many as 4.5 million. Even 3.5 million is far from an insignificant number.
    100
    In 1986, the Halifax gave various briefings to Members of Parliament, and there was no doubt that, if we had had to bet on which building society would be the last to consider conversion, we would have chosen the Halifax: no society was more committed at that time to the spirit of mutuality. I do not know whether the board is guilty or whether it is Mike Blackburn, whom I criticised for leaving the Leeds and then taking it over in a so-called merger while at the same time recommending conversion, but, at the end of the day, the chief executive cannot act alone and must secure the board's approval. I greatly regret what has happened.
    The Bradford and Bingley building society rightly says:
    "The legislation will create a more permissive regulatory regime and is welcomed by those societies which, like the Bradford and
    Bingley, intend to continue operating as mutual organisations. It will provide societies with greater operational flexibility and enable them to compete on a more equal footing, as mutual organisations, with banks and other institutions."
    The briefing also mentions that there are 13 million building society members, 2,500 branches and that many staff are employed, especially in the provinces.
    It has been rightly said that the Building Societies Act made the banks more competitive and responsive to customer needs. The hours that banks open may have been influenced by the fact that they have to compete with building societies; they have had to change their approach. Some building societies were complacent, sat back and assumed that things were all right. The 1986 Act, what is happening now and the way that things have moved, may also have made building societies shake off the dust and recognise that, if they are to survive, they must be competitive in the marketplace. No harm has been done from that point of view.
    The Building Societies Association states that it and the
    "remaining 72 building societies have welcomed the introduction of the Bill."
    The association makes an important point on competition and notes:
    "A survey in the March edition of What Mortgage found that out of 72 lenders, the top 25 in terms of offering best value for money to customers were all mutuals."
    It is significant that the mutuals led the way with better deals for mortgages and for investors.
    I regret that the Bill does not, as several hon. Members, have said, deal with the two-year rule. It is not unreasonable that people should have been members for two years before they can benefit from a conversion. The Nationwide says:
    "Although, in principle, we would support a move to amend the Bill by inserting a two year clause to protect societies against speculators, our over-riding concern is for the Bill's passage to be eased so late in the parliamentary session."
    We all recognise that time is short and that the Bill must get through the other place if it is to get Royal Assent before the general election. I hope that an attempt will be made next Monday when we debate its remaining stages to introduce the two-year rule. I would support that. If such an attempt fails, I, like the Nationwide, would accept the Bill as it stands.
    Clause 41 deals with protection, the 15 per cent. rule and the five-year rule. If societies convert and become predators, they should lose protection. The protection is not dissimilar to that which existed for the Trustee Savings bank. Share dealing in that commenced on

    101
    10 October 1986. The Trustee Savings Bank Act was passed in 1985. The initial threshold imposed a maximum holding restriction of 5 per cent. of the company's equity. After 29 September 1991, that was allowed to rise to 15 per cent. There are parallels. There were originally many small shareholders, but, when protection went, that changed rapidly. As soon as the 15 per cent. rule came in, it was not a question of when it would be taken over, but of who would take it over. Ultimately, it became part of the Lloyds group, which had already taken over the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society.
    The biggest predator to date must be the Abbey National building society, which made an unfriendly bid for the National and Provincial building society. I know that society well because it was formed by the merger of the Burnley building society and the Provincial building society. It was supposed to be a merger, but it was more like a take-over, because everything was cleared out from Burnley in only a few years.
    The National and Provincial society rather lost its way. At one stage, it was going for conversion; then it was to merge with the Leeds—funny that the Leeds should come into it yet again. Finally, it said that it was committed to mutuality. It sent its customers many documents about mutuality. It held a meeting across the road for Members of Parliament so that Alistair Lyons and Lord Shuttleworth could brief us on its commitment to mutuality.
    Then, suddenly, out of the blue, came the bid from Abbey National. The National and Provincial did not want to accept that bid and said that it wanted to consider other bids. Nobody ever got to know what those other bids were and, ultimately, the Abbey National was allowed to take that building society over. It is funny, is it not, that Alistair Lyons is now the executive director of Abbey National and chief executive of its subsidiary, Scottish Mutual Life, while Lord Shuttleworth is the deputy chairman? They did all right out of it, but was it what the customers wanted?
    I said at the time of that vote that it was bound to go through. The hon. Member for Gloucester hit the nail on the head, because when so many people face the chance of getting £1,000 or whatever it happens to be, it is only realistic to accept that they will vote yes. At the time of the Abbey National takeover, more than 46,000 of my constituents were entitled to a pay-out in cash or in shares because of the Burnley building society connection. I have no doubt that they voted yes for obvious reasons.
    I believe that we want to see building societies remain mutual. I believe that the Bill represents a fair balance, which allows building societies the freedom to move into the markets in which they need to compete in order to survive. I recognise that they must provide customers with the services that they want and must be able to compete with others who are already able to provide such services. I believe that the Bill will enable those societies to remain mutual if they so wish, and I hope that the 72 which are mutual will choose to remain so.
    I support the Bill. As I said earlier, I hope that we shall amend it to bring in the two-year protection, because it is totally wrong that people should travel around the country and invest money in societies here, there and everywhere, when their only interest is in trying to get a windfall payment. They have no interest in the respective building societies and what they do.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I should begin with a declaration of interest, although given that it concerns a building society, I calculate that the rate will be fairly low.
    I tried to raise a serious point at the start of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I asked your predecessor in the Chair whether hon. Members about to benefit from distributions should declare that in their speeches. He replied that hon. Members know the rules of the House. It is not a rule of the House to declare building society accounts. Nor is there a rule about declaring distributions that hon. Members have not yet got, but they could have a vital bearing on the debate.
    The Alliance and Leicester, for example, wants clause 41 to be modified so that it can be protected if it takes over anything but a building society. That building society is about to embark on a major distribution from which many hon. Members will benefit. I suspect that more Labour Members than Conservative ones will, because we are more likely to put our money in building societies than are Conservatives, who are prepared to go for the bigger returns. The distribution by the Alliance and Leicester could have a bearing on hon. Members' judgment about whether clause 41 should be modified. I therefore think that it is right to declare such an interest, especially as the total distribution is estimated at about £18 billion. It is so big that, at one time, the Conservatives hoped that it could be expedited because they believed that it could influence their election chances. It will obviously influence hon. Members' views on the Bill.
    I should like to declare my interest in the Halifax building society. My parents came from Halifax, so it was a tradition that their children should be given a Halifax share account, as it was called then. I have had that account ever since. I will now benefit from that local association. However, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I voted against demutualisation, and voted against merger with the Leeds.
    It was a sad day when I saw all those solid Yorkshire folk shuffling into the meeting, looking like people at the "Antiques Roadshow" who had just been told that their antique was worth a thousand quid. They had all been bought by the lure of the money. The ancient Halifax cry, first popularised by Wilfred Pickles, went up: "Give us the money, Barney." Their desire to get their hands on the distribution coloured their judgment. It did not colour mine. I shall keep my account in the Halifax until I get the money; I shall then transfer all the money in the account to the Bradford and Bingley building society, which will stay mutual and which is doing far more to provide an effective service to the benefit of its customers. That is my declaration of interest.
    I hope that my withdrawal of the Mitchell millions from the Halifax will bring that building society to its knees to punish it for betraying the mutual principle. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, I deplore the rush to demutualisation. I should have liked the Bill to do more about that and to retard and penalise the rush to abandon mutual status because the mutual principle is good. I am one of only two people in the Chamber to have survived the Standing Committee on the 1986 Bill, where the principle was described as "socialism in action". It might have been old Labour in action, but it is a good principle—a principle of local self-help and of support for members to purchase houses.

    103
    The strength of building societies was built on those roots—the involvement of members and local self-help—and that strength remains. It has been built up over the years—100 or, in some cases, 150 years—by the investment of previous generations of members and it is simply being dissipated as shareholders are effectively being bribed with their own money to accept the principle of demutualisation. They are encouraged by the example of the gains made by people who bought shares in privatised utilities. That has produced a culture of shareholder greed in which shareholders have no loyalty to the building society or company but "Give us the money, Barney" becomes the universal cry.
    That culture is encouraged by the top brass of building societies— the directors and top management—who see light at the end of the tunnel. They see that they can do well for themselves: they can become survivors in a merged organisation and, more important, they can put up their own salaries to levels in other enterprises. They feel that mutual status is a drag, especially on their salaries. They want that drag eased, so they encourage the move to demutualise. That move is also encouraged by the example of the directors and top management of privatised utilities. The greed that stems from that privatisation procedure has permeated and undermined the culture of the mutuals.
    No good can come of this. Good can come to the City, which takes huge fees for advising on the process of demutualisation and the launch of shares, but no good can come of it from the point of view of building society customers, who will have to pay higher rates—albeit only slightly higher—for their mortgages. Moreover, those who invest in demutualised societies, as is the tradition in the Halifax, will receive slightly lower rates of return on their investments. The dividend drain that will now be embarked on by those companies must be financed. It is a steady and remorseless drain on all British companies. In order to buy support from the market and increase the value of their shares, building societies will be forced to embark on a dividend drain from which mutuals are free.
    The Nationwide says that it is committed to
    "passing on to its customers the money that would otherwise be used to pay dividends to shareholders".
    If the money is used for that purpose, customers will get a better deal from a mutual society than they will from a demutualised company.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, it is important to note that the top 25 of the 72 companies that, according to a What Mortgage? survey, offer better value, are mutual companies. Their customers—members, shareholders and people taking out mortgages—get a better deal, and demutualisation undermines that. It means new status, new dangers.
    Building societies that have demutualised are wandering away from what they are good at, what made them strong and what they know well: the housing market. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) that building societies should provide support for rented accommodation, because they know the housing market. They are good at that, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    104
    There is a remorseless drive towards diversification. Diversification is a risky business. The 1993 research by McKillop and Ferguson showed that societies that diversified the most had the lowest return in profits, because diversification was a drain. It has led to several disastrous mistakes, which could have been avoided by sticking to the principles of mutuality and the business that building societies are good at, rather than trying to play big bankers.
    I agree with the fears that were voiced earlier. Building societies will be lured away from their provincial roots and status in places such as Halifax, Leeds, Bradford and Burnley to play bit parts in the City of London. They want financial gain and they want to be big players in that market. They will lose out, because they will be battered and skinned by the competition.
    Building societies that are considering demutualisation or have demutualised, and their shareholders who vote for it, should take what happened to the TSB as a warning of the dangers involved. It was a virtual disaster. We passed privatisation legislation in 1985 and the TSB received a huge dowry, which it promptly squandered. It was the most ruinous process, because it tried to play a game that it was not used to, was not equipped for and had no skills in, and the bank and its shareholders lost out disastrously. The Bill should have done more to protect mutual status.
    I was inclined to object to the speed with which we are passing the Bill, because I hate rushed legislation. When the pressure groups, as well as the spokesmen for the three main parties, say that we must pass the legislation with speed, I get suspicious and think, "Hang on, what's at issue?" However, I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire that the Bill should be supported, because it will slightly ease the pressure to demutualise, which is now so strong in the movement.
    Building societies that are considering demutualisation will think twice if, once they are demutualised, they will be deprived of the ability to be protected if they take over another financial organisation. A building society that is thinking of demutualising will be a plc and will be a small player in the new market, so it will need to merge with others. Even then, it will still not have the critical mass and will be vulnerable to takeover, especially by foreign banks and financial institutions that are trying to get a foothold in this country. I think that clause 41 will be a deterrent. The Halifax, of course, is too large to be worried, but the provisions will weigh with some of the building societies that are currently considering demutualisation. It certainly weighed with the Alliance and Leicester, which is now trying to amend clause 41 in a way favourable to its interests.
    Because of that, I feel that—somewhat reluctantly—we should support the Bill. I would have liked us to devote more consideration to it: I would have liked us to consider what could be done to protect mutual status. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, I would have liked a two-year rule to act as a deterrent to those who wished to take advantage of the tides of money that are currently washing around looking for accounts in companies that might demutualise where there is a quick profit to be made. The essence of investment should involve a wish to stay and work with the company involved, rather than just rushing in and out to get a quick buck. I think that two years' membership should be the minimum requirement before people benefit from the distribution.

    105
    Unfortunately, the deepest instinct of British shareholders is to take the money and run. The two-year rule would check that tendency, and we should bear that in mind in our consideration on Monday. I favour that modification above all because it would help the mutual societies to compete by allowing them more flexibility. It will provide a slight deterrent to demutualisation, and I believe that we should encourage building societies to believe that the mutual principle is vital. That is why I am delighted that 70 building societies are determined to remain mutual. I hope that they will be encouraged. That system is crucial to a diversified, pluralistic lending sector and to competition in the market from all kinds of institution.
    I think that mutual building societies can give their customers a better deal—including those who take mortgages—and, above all, conserve the interests of their members, including the smaller members in their locality, far better than huge, impersonal institutions that try to play at being banks.
    9.21 pm
    Mr. Jon Trickett: Like a number of other hon. Members, I shall speak in defence of the principle of mutuality, for a number of reasons. First, let me pay tribute to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who, I believe, firmly intends to restore the balance—or, at least, to establish a level playing field between the mutual building societies and public limited companies.
    I wish to speak—even if I do so only for a few minutes—for a number of reasons. First and most important, as a putative Yorkshire nationalist, I must point out—as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) might have done—that many building societies were born in Yorkshire and developed great financial strength there, particularly in my home sub-county of the West Riding. I still insist on using that term. Building societies such as the Leeds Permanent, the Halifax, the Bradford and Bingley and the Leeds and Holbeck—there are a number of others—provided much-needed support for working-class people living in difficult circumstances, and enabled them to acquire their own homes. They also provided a significant amount of employment in large cities in the West Riding. That is much appreciated, especially nowadays, when many of the more traditional industries are dying.
    My second reason for speaking is that, in a sense, the building societies represent a peculiarly British solution to the problems involved in home ownership, and I think that every hon. Member would applaud that. About two thirds of people in Britain today own their homes: I am told that about 15.9 million homes are either owned or in the process of being acquired. As a society, we can take pride in that, and I think that we are well advanced relative to countries in Europe and elsewhere.
    The building society movement and, above all, the principle of mutuality, allowed our people to make significant gains over the decades in acquiring their own homes. Building societies were the people's solution to the problem of how to acquire their own homes, and possibly to escape from some of the worst excesses of slum landlordism, particularly before the first world war.
    My third reason for rising to defend mutuality is the principle of mutuality itself. Much has been said about it. I do not wish to add to what has been said about the
    106
    co-operative principle—that each account holder and customer in a building society shared, through the mutual principle, in the direction of that society—save perhaps to claim, or to lay stake to the claim, that that perhaps was one of the first examples of the stakeholder society in practice. I shall return to the principle of mutuality or stakeholding in what I say about the Deputy Prime Minister's recent tirade, which has already been referred to.
    The fourth matter I wish to raise can be demonstrated with some precision: the financial advantage that mutuality offers to people who own accounts. Examples have already been mentioned this evening. A What Mortgage? survey demonstrated that the top 25 of 72 surveyed mortgages were offered by mutual societies—a significant factor. The Mail on Sunday was able to demonstrate even more graphically the significant differential that is offered by a mutual society relative to a plc. There was a £200 benefit to be gained from taking out a £50,000 mortgage in the past year with the Yorkshire building society—as a Yorkshire nationalist, I probably should refer to a Yorkshire building society—relative, for example, to the National Westminster bank. That is not an insignificant amount of money. The difference in price must be to do with the fact that plcs must provide for dividends to be remitted to shareholders. The mutual principle demonstrates, even today, the advantages that our forefathers and foremothers probably were able to identify when they created building societies.
    I worry, too, about the mutual ethos to which many of the mutual societies have declared they will remain attached when they move to plc status. Some hon. Members have said that they wish to conserve the mutual ethos that has been so important to the building society movement over the decades. Every customer is a stakeholder in a mutualised building society; ultimately, the driving force behind a plc is the shareholder. When a building society is demutualised, every stakeholder is given shares but, significantly, there is a rapid, almost cataclysmic, diminution in the number of stakeholders immediately after the shares have been issued.
    We have discussed the Abbey National building society. At the date of conversion, there were 5.5 million shareholders. Every stakeholder was given shares and put on the register. In February, their number had effectively halved to 2.7 million. That was a rapid diminution in the number of people able to give direction to that building society.
    Financial institutions are looking to the accretion of larger and larger shareholdings. My office was in contact with the Alliance and Leicester today. It estimates that 25 per cent.—a quarter—of all the stakeholders who receive shares will dispose of them immediately. The word immediately is being used from day one. That means that 2.4 million people with a stake in that building society and the ability to give it direction and secure its objectives will immediately dispose of their shares. That constitutes significant disinvestment.
    Mr. Pike: Under clause 41, which replaces a section of the 1986 Act, 15 per cent. of those shares can immediately be acquired by institutions, which will look to the future potential of converted societies.
    Mr. Trickett: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I am worried that institutions are already circling over

    107
    the no doubt juicy prospect of demutualisation. I am also worried that our generation, the so-called me generation, is able to dispose of assets that were built up over many generations and which were supposed to be passed to future generations.
    The Minister says that she wants to establish a level playing field and to restore the balance between the mutual societies and the plcs. I take her at her word.
    I am as worried as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) about the article by the Deputy Prime Minister in The Mail on Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be the great communicator. I understand that part of his job description states that he is to co-ordinate presentation of Government policy. He is the great presenter, the great communicator. On the eve of the Second Reading of a Bill that is supposed to defend the mutual principle, how can he write an article lauding the process of demutualisation and not mention the mutual principle, its defence or the Bill? That is quite extraordinary. There is either a clear conflict in the Government, which would explain precisely why the Bill has been significantly delayed, or the great presenter, the magnificent communicator, has somehow failed to communicate precisely what the Government are doing.
    I have said that mutuality is a prime example of stakeholding. I draw the attention of hon. Members to a sentence, which has not been read to the House, from the article by the Deputy Prime Minister. He states:
    "We don't have to put up with phoney Left-wing jargon about stakeholders."
    That is a direct attack on the principle of mutuality and building societies. How else could that article be represented and how could the delays be explained other than by tension and possible conflict within the Government?
    Despite the reservations that I have described, I have no doubt that the Bill, timid as it is, is worth supporting and that, on Monday, we can have detailed discussions in Committee.
    9.33 pm
    Mr. William O'Brien: I had not intended to take part in the debate; I have listened to the contributions and support much of what has been said and I hope that the Bill has a smooth passage. However, a couple of issues give rise to concern.
    Almost every hon. Member who spoke referred to the five-year protection period. The Minister said that there has been extensive consultation on that matter. Many people have been involved in the consultations or have been approached for their views on how the Bill should proceed. I imagine that the five-year rule was one of the most controversial matters to be debated. In meetings of the all-party building societies group, we have heard speakers from building societies and twice from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and the issue of the five-year protection period has always featured high on the agenda. We must consider that matter.
    I hope that sufficient time will be allowed to examine the five-year protection period in greater detail when we consider amendments dealing with it. Some hon.
    108
    Members fear that, once we reach the later stages in the Bill's passage, either the guillotine will come down or the Government will use steamroller tactics to push through their proposals without allowing a fair opportunity to debate any amendments.
    In its briefing material, the Building Societies Association states that the fate of the five-year protection period is one of the most important issues. I think that the association is more aware than many others of the causes of and remedies for the problems dealt with in the Bill. I therefore take great note of its briefing material.
    The two-year rule is another controversial issue. It has been discussed widely, and views on it were expressed during the consultation period. I hope that we will also be allowed sufficient time to consider the implications of any amendments tabled on that matter. I think that the rule should be continued, to obviate the progression of carpetbaggers—who have gone from one building society to another to make a quick buck and windfall—should more societies lose their mutuality, as has happened more than once.
    We should be fair to those who are genuine members of building societies and who believe in mutuality. My colleague, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who is chairman of the all-party group, explained the importance of mutual association in building societies. I believe that the two-year rule will give comfort to those who, like me, believe in building societies. I also believe that it will ensure that we are not taken for a ride, and that the 72 remaining building societies are not used to extract easy money should future demutualisation occur.
    I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns expressed in this debate by hon. Members from all parties, and that sufficient time will be allowed in Committee to consider the two key issues in depth: the five-year protection period and the two-year rule.
    9.39 pm
    Mr. Nick Raynsford: We have had an extremely good and interesting debate on issues of importance to the future of building societies and, indeed, mortgage lending. I add my voice to all those who have paid tribute to the important contribution that building societies have made over the past 150 years or so to enhancing opportunities for people to obtain houses and finance for those houses, thus supporting the extension of home ownership to a level approaching 70 per cent. of the population.
    That important contribution has made it possible for people of modest means in all parts of the country to obtain the advantages of owner-occupation which would otherwise not have been available to them. That particular contribution grew out of the commitment of building societies to meet the needs of people in their area when those societies were small, local organisations representative of their small communities. Gradually, over the years, the building societies have grown in size and inevitably their role has changed. Nevertheless, there has been that consistent commitment to meet the needs of the population, which has found its expression in the principle of mutuality. Tonight, we have heard hon. Members express their strong support for that principle and its maintenance. I think we can all echo that belief in the importance of mutuality.
    We are especially concerned that societies that are seeking to change from mutual status to, essentially, the status of a bank should be free to do so, but not on terms

    109
    that give them an unfair advantage over societies that remain mutual. One of the important changes proposed in the Bill is in clause 41. It is an amendment to the five-year rule which creates a proper and fair balance between the interests of societies that have chosen to convert and those that have chosen to remain mutual. It is clearly insupportable for societies that have chosen to remain mutual to find that they can be picked off by societies that convert and seek to defend their interests by acquiring mutual societies during the five-year period in which they themselves cannot be challenged.
    Mr. Butterfill: I do not think that that has been suggested by any of the converting societies. They are happy to concede that they would lose that status if they were to bid for a mutual society, on either a contested or an uncontested basis. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the five-year rule, which was thought to be very important in 1986, is no longer relevant and, indeed, no longer desired by his party?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the situation has changed considerably in the intervening 10 years. During that time, the number of societies considering conversion has increased, while the number that might choose to remain mutual has decreased significantly. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the subject, so he will know that many societies are clear about the fact that, if the five-year rule were not to be amended as proposed, there would be a serious erosion in the number of societies, which would be picked off for precisely the reasons that I outlined. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his full support to clause 41 which, in its current form, will ensure fairness so that societies that choose to remain mutual may do so and those that choose to convert may also do so, but without obtaining an unfair advantage during the transitional period. The provisions of clause 41 create that framework. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support them.
    During the debate, we have heard some interesting conjecture about the Deputy Prime Minister. Why he chose the opportunity of a column in The Mail on Sunday the day before the Bill was due to have its Second Reading to set out a straightforward paean of praise for the act of conversion is a curious mystery that only he can answer. It has not gone unremarked, and cannot have been unnoticed by the Economic Secretary who, just when she is presenting a Bill to ensure proper protection and support for mutual societies, suddenly finds the ground cut from under her feet by her deputy leader.
    I remind the Economic Secretary of the Deputy Prime Minister's language in the article, talking about the windfall gains from conversion. He says:
    "16 million people will benefit from these windfall gains. This outcome flows directly from the Government's policies, its determination to deregulate business and promote competition".
    The Deputy Prime Minister is unquestionably setting out a prospectus for conversion. Nowhere in the article is there the slightest reference to the virtues and merits of mutuality.
    The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said that, if the Deputy Prime Minister had really opposed the Bill, it would not be before the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has proposed a number of measures in the past that he no longer proposes so enthusiastically. He used to
    110
    propose the use of capital receipts to get more housing investment: he urged that councils should plough back their capital receipts into building more houses; he has changed his tune on that. We have heard of his support for Europe and his enthusiasm for a move towards a single currency; he has changed his tune on that, as well.
    I do not know the explanation for his curious antics, but what is set out in The Mail on Sunday is very poor fare for the Bill's advocates. The defence of mutuality is in far safer hands with the Economic Secretary than with the Deputy Prime Minister, who, in an article published the day before the Second Reading debate, could not bring himself even to mention the word "mutuality", let alone to praise it.
    We have had a useful and valuable debate, with excellent contributions from a number of hon. Members. I single out in particular the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), as well as those of the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Gloucester.
    The Bill is necessary and timely. It is unfortunate that it is being rushed through in the last minutes of this Parliament, but it is necessary to ensure the future of mutual building societies. It sends a powerful message that the principle of mutuality is too important to be sacrificed in the interests of the Deputy Prime Minister. We must defend mutuality. The passage of the Bill will be an important statement of the House's commitment to that principle.
    9.47 pm
    Mrs. Angela Knight: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak a second time in this important debate.
    I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I am pleased that they all support the Bill. I should like to pick up on some of the points raised, starting with the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who made a number of extraordinary comments. After giving us a history lesson, he waxed lyrical on a subject on which other Opposition Members have concentrated—the article in The Mail on Sunday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    I can only presume that Opposition Members concentrated on the article because they had nothing decent to say about such an important Bill. They should read the article because, quite frankly, their interpretation of it, or their spin, in the modern parlance, is misleading. I can only conclude from the points that they have made that they are against the decision to convert by the members of converting societies. Therefore, they are against 16 million people receiving shares in converted societies.
    I can only say that the message that has come loud and clear on a number of occasions from the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is that the Labour party is clearly against 16 million people receiving a windfall.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
    Mrs. Knight: On a number of occasions, I have heard from the hon. Gentleman and from Opposition Back

    111
    Benchers those exact comments misinterpreting the contents of the article by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I would not want her to misrepresent our position. In no way have we criticised those who have decided that their building societies should convert. That is a matter for them. We have always adopted that position and we wish them well in that conversion. The hon. Lady should stop throwing around little bits of abuse, as she did earlier, and deal with the points in the article, which was an attack on mutuals. It was a call for conversion and the Minister must deal with it.
    Mrs. Knight: The article was not an attack on mutuals. If the hon. Gentleman maintains that position, he is misleading the House and the country.
    I found it surprising that that was all the hon. Gentleman had to say on the subject, except that apparently the Government have taken too long in bringing the Bill to the House. We have carried out a first-stage consultation and made changes accordingly under the powers in the 1986 Act. We have continued listening to the societies in order to make the changes that they want in the Bill. The Bill was introduced the day after it became clear that the Opposition parties would co-operate. We have moved very speedily and I look forward to continuing co-operation in Committee.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made his usual useful speech on a subject of which he is a well-known master. We have one or two disagreements which we have discussed before. Let me expand briefly on the two-year rule and the five-year protection that were mentioned by most hon. Members who spoke in the debate.
    Let me turn first to the two-year rule. At present, converting societies can distribute shares to members of less than two years, but they do not have to do so: the choice is theirs. The Act operates in that way not because Parliament passed it that way but because it was changed as a consequence of cases taken by societies themselves. That is why the two-year rule exists in its current form.
    The key issue is how best to help societies with the problem of speculation and carpetbaggers. I am sure that no hon. Members are in favour of carpetbagging, which results in the societies feeling destabilised in some respects and overcome by the number of people queuing up outside their doors. However, one chief executive recently told me that the influx of customers was the best free advertising that the society had ever had.
    At present, societies have powers to react and many have taken a range of measures to minimise the disruption of business caused by a flurry of new customers. They can take two principal actions against speculation: first, they can say loud and clear that they plan to remain mutual and, secondly, they can take the simple steps available to them to prevent speculation from continuing.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The third method that the hon. Lady did not outline is to up the level at which people can invest. Some societies are demanding minimum investments of £1,000. Why is it not possible to put an overall rule in the Bill that people can participate, decide and vote on such issues only on the condition of two years' membership?
    Mrs. Knight: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman briefly, as he will be aware that time is ticking away rather quickly. It is quite correct that, when societies have been faced with speculation, some have increased the limit that an individual has to subscribe in order to become a member. They have then dropped the limit back down. They have also restricted membership in some instances to a very localised basis, but then relieved those restrictions. That is the normal operation of the marketplace. I do not want to interfere in their business practices.
    Mr. Butterfill: How can a mutual society protect itself—whatever it does—from a hostile bid via shares?
    Mrs. Knight: If my hon. Friend will bear with me a moment, I shall come to that point. At this point, I want to answer his earlier questions relating to five-year protection, which was raised by several hon. Members.
    A converting society does not automatically lose its five-year protection. It loses such protection only if it takes certain specific steps. Thus, if it feels that it requires time to stabilise itself in its new form as a public limited company, it is protected for up to five years. If, however, it feels that it is strong enough and wants to go on the acquisition trail of another authorised financial institution, it is only fair on it, and indeed other participants in the marketplace, that it should lose its protection. The question relates not only to other mutual societies but to insurers and banks. The converting societies are big organisations. The Halifax will be the fourth largest bank in this country. Indeed, the Alliance and Leicester and the Woolwich would both be larger than the Royal Bank of Scotland and Guardian Royal Exchange, a well-known insurance company.
    The key proposals in the Bill will allow societies to develop their financial services in the way they want while staying mutual. There will be more competition in the high street, which means better rates for savers and borrowers. Building societies will still have the unique close relationship with home owners and local people. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
    That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
    Question agreed to.
    Committee tomorrow.

    Building Societies Bill

      BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Societies Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

      (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Building Societies Act 1986; and

      (b) the payment of any amounts into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Knapman.]

      Question agreed to.

      POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

      POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise—(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other act; and (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions Nos. 6 to 9 together.
      Motions made, and Questions put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
        That the Special Grant Report (No. 24): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers' Accommodation (HC 257), which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

        GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
        That the draft Driving Standards Agency Trading Fund Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
        That the draft The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Trading Fund Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

        TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
        That the draft Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
        Questions agreed to.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

        COURT OF AUDITORS
        That this House takes note of Official Journal No. C340 of 12th November 1996, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1995, together with the institutions' replies, and Official Journal No. C395 of 31st December 1996, the Court of Auditors Statements of Assurance concerning activities financed from the general budget for the financial year 1995 and of the sixth and seventh European Development Funds for 1995, together with the associated special reports and the institutions' replies; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to improve financial management and control within the European Community.—[Mr. Knapman.]
        Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      DELEGATED LEGISLATION

        GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
        That the draft Medicines Control Agency Trading Fund (Variation) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
        Question agreed to.

      WASTE PREVENTION BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste Prevention Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Knapman.]

    PETITION

      Health Care (Cambridgeshire)
      9.59 pm
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg leave to present a petition which has been sent to me by some of my constituents. The petition is from the community practitioners and health visitors associations of Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire and residents of the area. The petition has more than 3,000 signatures, collected in a short time, and it declares:
      That the proposals of the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority to reduce the budget for health visitors and school nurses by £300,000 in 1997–98 are deplorable and will result in a marked deterioration in the standard of services that could be offered by health visitors and school nurses, frustrating their ability to fulfil their responsibilities to deliver primary preventive care and health promotion throughout the community.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health to review the proposals of Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority to reduce its expenditure on health visitors and school nurses by £300,000 for 1997–98 and to take any necessary steps to ensure that the provision of primary preventive care and health promotion in Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire remains at least at current levels.
      And the Petitioners remain etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Street Children
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway]
    10 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Those hon. Members who have left the Chamber are, almost without exception, on their way to a warm house and—usually—to their own beds. Those of us who have that privilege do not always understand the completely different lives led by the street children of the world.
    Those children have been abandoned or have run away, and are at risk of suffering the most appalling individual disasters. They are always at risk of theft or exploitation, both sexual and commercial, and many of them live in conditions that we in this so-called compassionate country would not accept for animals. It is therefore important that countries such as our own, which have access to large sums of money and influence in international organisations, should use both to affect the lives of children.
    It is a sad fact that it took a long time, even in the House, for people to accept that women are an important focus for overseas development aid. It is even more depressing that we are in the same situation with regard to children. Children are not at the forefront of our decision-making processes. We sit here and talk in detail about legislation that affects our constituents, but we sometimes forget that we have an impact on the lives of children across the world.
    I am privileged to represent a constituency in which the railway was an important industry. A railway town was created from a green-field site, and the men and women who work in the railway industry have some important traits. They care desperately about the railway system, and they are committed to providing a service. They also understand the need to care for others. It is therefore not an accident that my constituency is home to a charity called the Railway Children.
    The project grew from the response from various railwaymen and women—particularly a remarkable man called David Maidment, who spent his working life with British Rail working on safety. In his capacity as a qualified engineer, he travelled the world and saw to his considerable dismay children living on railway stations. Some were sleeping on luggage carts or in corners, while some were begging, stealing and doing anything they could to stay alive. Some of these children were as young as five.
    It is only when one translates that into one's own life that one understands. I am a happy, if poor, grandmother of 10—some of whom are quite tiny. I have only to think of those children being abandoned by their parents and being left to the vagaries of this bitterly cruel world to realise the circumstances in which those railway children live. David Maidment came to the House of Commons to talk to me about helping to create a charity to provide support for those children. He was particularly concerned with the children of India, as he had seen large numbers of them in Calcutta and elsewhere.
    As soon as Mr. Maidment began to talk to other railwaymen and women, he realised that they too were concerned about the problem. They brought to the matter not only a strong commitment to human rights, but

    117
    compassion and a desire to change those intolerable circumstances. So the Railway Children was born as a useful and important charity. We are still aiming to have an exhibition in the House of Commons, showing some of the more poignant pictures taken by a photographer who had travelled throughout India to see those children. We have not yet come up in the ballot, but I am hopeful that we shall in the future. The Railway Children then grew and became part of a greater consortium of charities concerned with the children of the streets.
    One reads case histories of children on Mexican or Indian stations, or children abducted in time of war in Africa and incorporated into an army they neither understand nor wish to be a part of and forced to follow a large number of armed men and women to survive. No matter what kind of circumstances those children live in, every one of them needs help urgently—they need it today and tonight. Therefore, why do the Government tell us that there are a number of important measures, but never give us the specifics?
    I feel that it would be useful for the House to know some of the statistics. Obviously, some are the result of informed guesswork because, after all, no one knows how many children are in these situations. In Lima, the capital of Peru, there are 850 children living on stations, and possibly 2,000 nationwide. In Mexico City, the figure is 11,000 children. In Guatemala, it is 5,200. In Romania, Albania and Bulgaria, it is 12,000. In Manila, there are 50,000 children living in stations and perhaps 75,000 living on the streets, often working in slave conditions. There are 20,000 such children in Bombay, 10,000 in Dhaka and more than 5,000 in Khartoum. These are appalling figures, demonstrating world misery and unhappiness that we should be doing something about.
    I want to ask the Government a simple set of questions. First, can they tell me how many special projects they can identify within their vote are targeted towards children? I would like to call such a programme "Children First". Any number of marvellous social service terms could be used, but what projects can the Minister tell us about that are directed specifically at children and make sure that children receive the money?
    How many NGOs, when they approach the FCO or the ODA, are given special help? How much support do bodies that help children receive? How much of our money, outside the direct support that we give via the European Community, goes into child-based subjects? How often does this country demand transparent child-based priorities in these forums? We want action this year, not next year or the year after. We want to tell those carrying out the good work with tiny amounts of support that we share their sense of urgency and want to do something about the problem.
    The Minister may say, of course, that the Department has been involved. There seems to have been an unfortunate incident when one of his colleagues gave the House the impression that the Government had come to the conclusion that there should be special child-based projects and that they were already working on them. I will not go into detail, save to say that a letter from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) offered a long explanation, as follows:
    "You asked whether the Oral answer, as recorded in Hansard of 27 February 1995, reproduced the advice of officials or whether it was a freelance offer by the then Minister… It was neither."
    118
    The Minister
    "made a mistake when he said that ODA was providing financial support over a five year period to the Consortium. In answering a question on ODA help to street children in Kenya,"
    the Minister
    "inadvertently confused support to the Consortium with support of a Joint Funding Scheme project which had been approved for a five year cycle. I agree entirely that this was a most unfortunate error."
    It most certainly was—most unfortunate for the children who could immediately gain from the support of the child consortium if the Minister were prepared to accept that that should be one of his priorities.
    The Minister could do several things this evening. He could come to the Box and say that he will designate within the FCO and the ODA certain desk officers with responsibility, in particular regions, for child-based projects. That might include Africa and Asia, where the enormous growth in numbers of these children is taking place. It could also include other parts of the world that desperately need help. The Minister could say that he has set priorities and targets for those officers, and that he will ask them at the end of the year to report to him.
    Norway decided that it was not doing enough; the Government initiated an assessment; after five years they looked at what had been done and at what needed changing. Why cannot we do the same? We are quite capable of it, and we should be prepared to do it.
    Above all, the Minister knows how easy it is for us all to go away to a warm and comfortable room and close the door, forgetting what is happening on the streets—and not just in the third world, either. Part of the consortium's money goes to the Suzy Lamplugh trust to support a telephone service in one of the mainline stations of our capital city. Let us not therefore think that it is only other countries that have the problem. Every time we close the door and forget these children, saying that tomorrow will do, we contribute almost as much to their doom as do those who are abusing them. This very night children will be getting off trains at our larger stations, and they will need support and help.
    We must understand that, unless such help comes from the British Government, there will he very few people to care about what happens to these unfortunate young ones.
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for allowing me a couple of moments of her well won time to discuss this important subject and to say a few words on behalf of the all-party street children group.
    I have been amazed by the influence that a small number of Members of the British Parliament can have in trying to prick the conscience of countries throughout the world and to encourage them to solve the problems. Our friendship and advice are valued, and the small number of people working on the issue in the various countries are extremely grateful for our support.
    I know that the Government have been very active in many issues of this nature, and I believe that, the more they can use their enormous influence in international bodies, the better it will be. I do not want in any way to detract from the appeals that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has made, and I am sure that the Minister

    119
    will respond to those, but I know that many people are keen for a special place to be created in the United Nations for dealing with the problems of street children. I appreciate that that is often a wide definition of the types of children who need help, and I would not want to understate the needs and difficulties of children living in poverty within families.
    I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of appointing a rapporteur in the UN specifically for street children, or finding another way to reinforce the voice of street children within the UN and all its agencies.
    10.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): First, I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for bringing this subject to the notice of the House. It is a distressing and upsetting subject that too many people, sadly, would rather not know about.
    I know from my own recent visits to some of the places that the hon. Lady mentioned, especially India, how distressing it can be. I do not know how many hon. Members read the article in the Observer recently about street children in Madagascar, which painted a distressing picture of some of the horrors that may await tourists in some parts of the world.
    I had an unfortunate experience that will have been shared by many hon. Members. I was confronted with children who had had limbs amputated, and I wondered whether to give money to the parents; having given them money, I wondered for the rest of the day whether they might have another limb amputated simply to increase their ability to get money. It is a most distressing subject.
    The needs of children have always been at the heart of the United Kingdom's development assistance programme. As the hon. Lady correctly said, street children face particular problems, finding difficulties in gaining access to health and education, and suffering sexual abuse and a lack of human rights. Even so, for some, the sad reality is that life on the streets may be more attractive than life elsewhere.
    The hon. Lady asked at the outset the total number of programmes targeted at children. We adopt an integrated approach to children's needs in our development assistance programme, so we cannot specify the number of projects of benefit to poor children, but I should like to answer some of the specific points about some of the projects that can be identified.
    Street children's needs vary. Some live entirely on the streets, while others work on the streets but go home to their families. In responding to their needs, we must ensure that children are given a voice in decisions that affect them. that is why we support several relevant non-governmental organisations through our joint funding scheme in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Kenya, India and the Philippines.
    While some of the projects provide safe havens for the children, the main common thread throughout is access to health care and education. Skills training to give the children the opportunity for a better future is particularly important.
    Some of the larger NGOs that receive block grant support from the Overseas Development Administration, including Save the Children Fund, also respond to the
    120
    needs of street children in their country programmes: for example, in Brazil, Angola, India, Bangladesh and the Philippines. We have also supported various initiatives of the Consortium for Street Children UK.
    We gave £30,000 in 1994–95 and 1995–96 for the production of a resource directory; £16,000 for a pilot project on girl street children; and £12,000 for a legal handbook. At the international level, the United Kingdom has taken a prominent role in promoting the rights of street children.
    In 1992, we produced a resolution on the plight of street children to the United Nations General Assembly. We followed that up at the UN Commission on Human Rights in March 1993, and we continue to take every opportunity to ensure that children's rights are at the forefront of the international agenda. In particular, we have encouraged all countries to ratify the UN convention on the rights of the child.
    I regard this issue as very important, and I raise it at every meeting that I can in the countries I visit. As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said, the issues must be raised by western politicians to keep them up the agenda of developing countries, and to make it clear that we have not forgotten about them.
    Perhaps I can clarify the situation relating to the inadvertent mistake of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). My officials have discussed the matter at length with the director of the consortium, and she accepted that it was a genuine mistake. The consortium knows that we do not provide core support. As a general principle, the ODA does not provide funds for core activities such as staff salaries and overheads for non-governmental organisations in the UK. We consider the funding of specific projects with time-bound activities that complement the ODA's policy and programmes. We believe that that is a more appropriate and worthwhile use of development assistance.
    On future support to the consortium, the ODA remains happy to consider project proposals from it. The outline proposals for 1997–98 are already being seriously considered by my officials. Individual members of the consortium can make proposals for consideration under the ODA's joint funding scheme.
    We have already provided comments on the consortium's briefing paper to its director. I have read the paper in depth, and have much sympathy with the issues raised. Many of its proposals cover areas in which the ODA is already active; others involve actors and organisations outside the scope of the ODA's day-to-day work. We agree that the needs of children, including street children, must be addressed in an integrated way in our aid activities. The ODA's policy on children in development is evolving in the light of growing experience in the field, and it will continue to do so.
    The ODA already has a strong commitment to a strategic, integrated policy on children, which regards them as positive actors in development and not only as passive recipients of aid. We support several NGO initiatives through our joint funding scheme. They include two ChildHope projects in Brazil. The one at Casa de Passagem aims to strengthen and develop various educational mechanisms to improve local NGO activities that provide information on health, reproductive health, gender and human rights to young girls on the streets.

    121
    In Salvador province, ChildHope is working with the Ibeji management committee to provide street children with a safe haven, where they receive shelter, medical attention and skills training. The aim is to provide children with income-earning opportunities for the future.
    We are also tackling the problems of street children through our main bilateral programmes. Our urban poverty project in Kenya involves specific support to street children. Another urban poverty project in Kingston, Jamaica, will help street children more generally by improving livelihoods and living conditions in deprived, inner-city areas. Young people are encouraged to become involved in discussions on community planning, reducing conflict and violence, and the provision of better access to leisure and informal education services. In our poverty reduction project in Cochin, India, the provision of safe havens for street children in poor areas is a priority for this identified vulnerable group.
    Several specific recommendations were made in the consortium's briefing paper. I should like to deal with them, because both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset raised them. First, there is the question of a special rapporteur for street children. The idea of creating one has been raised in the past. It is important to consider existing mechanisms to avoid duplication. Sadly, in too many aid programmes, there is still too much international duplication.
    The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the progress of states parties in implementing their obligations under the convention on the rights of the child. The convention has near-universal ratification, so the committee's monitoring role has wide application. In considering states party reports, it can examine problems such as street children and make recommendations. The United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, is also active in that area. The UN special rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography addresses issues of direct relevance to street children. The most recent report makes recommendations at local, national and international level.
    Countries seeking practical help can approach the UN Centre for Human Rights in Geneva, which runs a technical assistance programme. In addition, since 1992, the European Union has sponsored resolutions in the General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that call on all countries to seek comprehensive ways to address the root causes of street children and to bring to justice those responsible for acts of abuse. Sadly, as the hon. Lady said, we are not even aware of scale of such abuses. The more information we can get on that, the better. I am grateful to her for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
    It is worth pointing out that such resolutions were originally a United Kingdom initiative. We continue to take a prominent role among our partners on the issue. Therefore, the plight of street children will be more effectively addressed using a combination of the mechanisms, rather than concentrating functions in a single individual. That is our current belief.
    The hon. Lady also alluded to the proportion of aid allocated specifically to children's issues. As I said earlier, most ODA projects cover the wider population, and it is not possible to isolate expenditure on specific target groups within it. Although the data may be readily
    122
    available for those projects that are designed specifically for children, given the expenditure on all areas that impinge on children, and given what I said about different projects, such a number is involved that they cannot be separated from the more general expenditure. I shall look at the figures to see whether I can provide the hon. Lady with better and more particular information.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset also mentioned the possibility of a children's desk officer in the ODA. The ODA now has about 30 social development advisers based overseas and in London with specific responsibility for carrying out social appraisal in project design, monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the needs of people, including children, are taken into account in aid activities. All countries where we have a development assistance programme are covered from a social development angle. I believe that, in that broad sense, we are covering the need for such a desk officer.
    I should like to touch on two issues which the hon. Lady mentioned briefly—child labour and sexual exploitation of children.
    A recent International Labour Organisation conference in Amsterdam on child labour has played a significant part in furthering international consensus on the issue of combating the most intolerable forms of child labour. Those are seen as comprising slavery and slave-like practices; forced or compulsory labour, including debt bondage and serfdom; the use of children in prostitution, pornography and the drugs trade; and their employment in an type of work that is dangerous, harmful, or hazardous, or which interferes with their education. When I read the briefing provided by the Department, frankly, I found it hard, as does everyone in this country, to imagine that children are subject to child labour anywhere in the world in 1997.
    It is also important that we differentiate between the abuse of children in child labour and the child labour that occurs in many poorer parts of a country, which acts as a supplement to low-income families and does not fall into the category of child labour. I am pleased that that definition has been understood more widely in the world debate on the matter.
    The conference was hosted by the Dutch Government as a contribution to the ILO's programme to develop a new convention to deal with combating the most intolerable forms of child labour. It is hoped that that will be ready for submission to the ILO's annual conference in 1999. The United Kingdom supports the intention to develop such a convention, and we will be a full and willing partner in the preparatory discussions.
    It is worth stating that poverty is a root cause of child commercial sexual exploitation in developing countries. Income from child sex work is often seen as a way out of poverty for many families. Therefore, it is extremely important to tackle poverty. Children, particularly girls, are often completely powerless in such situations.
    The ODA funds a number of projects, including support through NGOs, which help to provide alternative income opportunities, education and improved health care for children who have been forced into prostitution. I was involved in discussions on child prostitution in Thailand just a few weeks ago. We also provide funding to UNAIDS and to UNICEF. Support is also given to programmes that address the sexual needs of commercial sex workers—for example, in India, where I also had recent discussions.

    123
    In the follow-up to the World Congress Against Commercial Exploitation, which was held in Stockholm in August 1996, the ODA organised a meeting with NGOs working in the United Kingdom and developing countries. We have invited the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism to let us have a proposal for data collection and information gathering.
    There are many factors which force children on to the streets throughout the developing world—for example, poverty caused by population growth and increased numbers of people seeking a new life in urban centres. The hon. Lady mentioned Calcutta and Dhaka. I recently visited those cities, and saw children on the streets, which is a distressing sight.
    Other causes that force children on to the streets include conflicts and war, which cause loss of family or separation. Poor education and health provision are also factors, as well as the need for children to make money
    124
    to support themselves and their families. Another simple fact could be that home life may be so difficult and terrible that street life is preferable.
    In many developing countries, the issue of street children can be very sensitive. We need to support ways in which to promote changes in public attitudes towards children to show that they have rights and the ability to play an active role in their communities. Health education programmes are also important for street children, especially in relation to HIV-AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and drug abuse. The ODA addresses all those issues in our development assistance programme. We have a strong commitment to a strategic and integrated policy on children, which sees them as positive actors in development, and not just passive recipients of aid.
    This is an extremely important subject, and I am sorry that more hon. Members were not present to hear such an important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Commission Awards
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the awards from the Millennium Commission announced this week and also the applications refused, broken down by region. [148191

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the Sheffield schools which have received funds from the Government schools renewal challenge fund. [18264]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We have made the following allocations to Sheffield local education authority under the schools renewal challenge fund:Waltheof school (£1,251,000)
  Earl Marshall school/Owler Brook nursery infant school (£96,000)
  Reorganisation of special educational need provision (involving Firth park secondary school, Angram bank primary school and Ecclesfield secondary school) (£150,000).

  Additionally, we have recently issued Sheffield with supplementary credit approvals for the following two schools:
  Silverdale school (£65,000)
  King Ecgbert secondary school (£210,000).

  Jobmatch Scheme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 265, what is her estimate of the number of people who would benefit from an extension of the jobmatch scheme to (a) all people unemployed for two years or more and (b) those aged over 50 years unemployed for two years or more. [18980]

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1997, the number of people who had been unemployed for at least two years was just over 390,000, of whom some 90,000 were over the age of 50. Our experience of the jobmatch pilots has suggested that up to 10 per cent. would take advantage of the jobmatch programme. However, that is not necessarily an accurate guide to likely take-up among particular groups, such as people over 50.
  2

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of bills to her 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. [18811]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: 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 506–07. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pupil Statements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in rank order the number and percentage of school pupils who are(a) statemented and (b) awaiting statementing in each local education authority in England. [19304]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the number of school pupils with statements, and this number expressed as a percentage of total school pupils, attending school in each local education authority in January 1996. Figures are taken from returns to the Department in the annual schools census. For any particular LEA, they will include pupils with statements placed by other LEAs, and exclude such pupils placed by the LEA in other LEA areas. Information on numbers of pupils awaiting statements is not collected centrally.

  Pupils with statements in schools by Local Education Authority area in England—January 1996

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Doncaster

  2,470

  4.59

  St. Helens

  1,399

  4.52

  Cornwall

  3,113

  4.19

  Wigan

  2,112

  4.12

  Cumbria

  3,222

  4.00

  Norfolk

  4,368

  3.83

  Shropshire

  2,662

  3.76

  Wandsworth

  1,288

  3.68

  Lancashire

  8,472

  3.57

  Greenwich

  1,391

  3.56

  Islington

  887

  3.52

  Hammersmith

  703

  3.52

  Devon

  5,497

  3.46

  East Sussex

  3,619

  3.46

  Derbyshire

  5,360

  3.42

  Tower Hamlets

  1,252

  3.41

  Sunderland

  1,785

  3.39

  Kirklees

  2,244

  3.35

  Suffolk

  3,473

  3.31

  Camden

  955

  3.28

  Bury

  1,041

  3.27

  Lincolnshire

  3,180

  3.25

  Buckinghamshire

  3,703

  3.24

  Durham

  3,264

  3.22

  Leeds

  3,896

  3.20

  Cheshire

  5,354

  3.19

  Rotherham

  1,463

  3.18

  Knowsley

  963

  3.18

  Waltham

  1,117

  3.11

  Surrey

  5,156

  3.10

  Avon

  4,817

  3.08

  3

  Pupils with statements in schools by Local Education Authority area in England—January 1996

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  North Tyneside

  1,015

  3.05

  Wirral

  1,808

  3.03

  Isle of Wight

  594

  3.03

  Stockport

  1,464

  3.02

  Hampshire

  7,454

  3.01

  Lewisham

  1,090

  3.01

  Bromley

  1,426

  3.00

  Kent

  7,844

  2.98

  Barnsley

  1,054

  2.98

  Hillingdon

  1,207

  2.96

  Somerset

  2,234

  2.92

  Lambeth

  835

  2.90

  Hackney

  865

  2.90

  Sefton

  1,495

  2.86

  Berkshire

  3,849

  2.86

  Liverpool

  2,494

  2.85

  West Sussex

  3,129

  2.84

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,110

  2.78

  Hounslow

  1,007

  2.78

  Leicestershire

  4,291

  2.78

  Gloucestershire

  2,481

  2.77

  Bedfordshire

  2,736

  2.76

  Staffordshire

  4,864

  2.75

  Cambridgeshire

  3.060

  2.74

  Walsall

  1,369

  2.70

  Tameside

  1,048

  2.70

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,260

  2.69

  Sutton

  763

  2.68

  Northumberland

  1,416

  2.67

  Hertfordshire

  4,881

  2.67

  Havering

  971

  2.67

  Southwark

  1,029

  2.65

  South Tyneside

  713

  2.63

  Wiltshire

  2,463

  2.63

  Merton

  708

  2.57

  Cleveland

  2,744

  2.56

  Wakefield

  1,458

  2.54

  Newham

  1,121

  2.51

  Bolton

  1,234

  2.48

  Dorset

  2,477

  2.46

  Warwickshire

  2,006

  2.45

  Harrow

  810

  2.44

  Wolverhampton

  1,089

  2.39

  Haringey

  821

  2.39

  Kingston upon Thames

  551

  2.39

  Sheffield

  1,848

  2.38

  North Yorkshire

  2,787

  2.37

  Birmingham

  4,475

  2.37

  Northamptonshire

  2,561

  2.36

  Manchester

  1,798

  2.33

  Brent

  892

  2.30

  Claderdale

  821

  2.30

  Bexley

  857

  2.27

  Essex

  5,536

  2.27

  Barking

  630

  2.26

  Oxfordshire

  2,157

  2.25

  Humberside

  3,352

  2.22

  Bradford

  2,076

  2.19

  Coventry

  1,152

  2.16

  Trafford

  795

  2.06

  Gateshead

  653

  2.00

  Solihull

  775

  1.98

  Enfield

  904

  1.97

  Dudley

  971

  1.93

  Barnet

  972

  1.90

  Ealing

  876

  1.83

  Sandwell

  961

  1.80

  Richmond upon Thames

  482

  1.80

  Redbridge

  718

  1.75

  Westminster

  403

  1.75

  Salford

  668

  1.67

  Croydon

  905

  1.65

  4

  Pupils with statements in schools by Local Education Authority area in England—January 1996

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Isle of Scilly

  4

  1.51

  Oldham

  628

  1.42

  Kensington and Chelsea

  258

  1.23

  Nottinghamshire

  2,011

  1.18

  Corporation of London

  2

  0.11

  England

  227,324

  2.80

  LEAs (Capital Borrowing Allocation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the capital borrowing allocation to(a) Lancashire and (b) Buckinghamshire for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1996–97. [19302]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the education annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals we have allocated to Lancashire and Buckinghamshire local education authorities in 1997–98 and 1996–97.

  All figures in £'000s

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Lancashire

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  5,225

  8,166

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  826

  1,224

  Total

  6,051

  9,390

  Buckinghamshire

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  4,235

  10,140

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  251

  593

  Total

  4,486

  10,733

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by decile the household income of parents of students in the assisted places scheme for the most recent year for which figures are available. [19303]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The following table gives figures, by decile and in bands to the nearest £250, relating to the relevant incomes of parents of pupils receiving help under the assisted places scheme in England in academic year 1995–96. Over 43 per cent. of assisted pupils in that year received a free place because their parents' income fell below the threshold of £9,572 for full fee remission.

  Assisted Places Scheme: Academic Year 1995–96

  Decile

  Relevant incomes of assisted pupils' parents (£ per year)

  Lowest

  less than £250

  Second

  Between £251 and £3,500

  Third

  Between £3,501 and £6,000

  Fourth

  Between £6,001 and £8,250

  Fifth

  Between £8,251 and £10,500

  Sixth

  Between £10,501 and £12,750

  5

  Assisted Places Scheme: Academic Year 1995–96

  Decile

  Relevant incomes of assisted pupils' parents (£ per year)

  Seventh

  Between £12,751 and £15,250

  Eighth

  Between £15,251 and £17,750

  Ninth

  Between £17,751 and £21,000

  Highest

  Over £21,001

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school pupils had places under the assisted places scheme in(a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Rossendale, (d) Hyndburn, (e) Ribble Valley and (f) Blackburn in each year since 1992; and what was the total value of the payments made. [19580]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are no schools participating in the assisted places schemes in the Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale, Hyndburn or Ribble Valley constituencies. The information requested is given in the following table in respect of the three participating schools in Blackburn:

  Assisted Places Scheme in the Blackburn constituency

  Academic Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School

  Number of assisted pupils

  260

  261

  267

  270

  Cost of places £000s

  £726

  £803

  £832

  £848

  Stonyhurst College

  Number of assisted pupils

  35

  34

  37

  37

  Cost of places £000s

  £161

  £174

  £215

  £215

  Westholme School

  Number of assisted places

  20

  25

  30

  37

  Cost of places £000s

  £59

  £75

  £98

  £125

  Total number of places

  315

  320

  334

  344

  Total cost £000s

  £946

  £1,052

  £1,145

  £1,188

  Number and percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in local education authority areas in England.

  Position as at January in each year

  1995

  1996

  primary

  secondary

  primary

  secondary

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Corporation of London

  119

  54

  0

  0

  116

  54

  0

  0

  Camden

  4,808

  43

  2,857

  27

  4,950

  44

  3,088

  28

  Greenwich

  8,376

  39

  5,209

  37

  8,596

  40

  5,397

  40

  Hackney

  9,729

  54

  4,938

  66

  10,195

  56

  4,884

  66

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,514

  48

  2,269

  38

  4,493

  47

  2,096

  35

  Islington

  7,796

  49

  4,081

  55

  8,129

  50

  4,330

  57

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,797

  44

  1,290

  41

  2,960

  45

  1,364

  43

  Lambeth

  8,941

  47

  3,460

  53

  8,907

  47

  3,366

  52

  Lewisham

  8,103

  38

  4,400

  40

  8,284

  38

  4,668

  43

  South wark

  10,911

  48

  5,209

  57

  10,921

  48

  5,147

  56

  Tower Hamlets

  13,240

  60

  8,110

  66

  14,534

  65

  8,369

  66

  Wandsworth

  6,360

  36

  3,190

  35

  6,359

  35

  3,346

  36

  Westminster

  4,462

  47

  3,335

  44

  4,347

  45

  3,237

  42

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,465

  26

  2,144

  22

  4,707

  27

  2,485

  25

  Barnet

  4,330

  18

  2,844

  15

  5,119

  21

  3,112

  16

  Bexley

  3,431

  16

  1,769

  12

  3,662

  17

  1,979

  13

  Brent

  6,806

  30

  3,651

  28

  6,862

  30

  3,655

  27

  Bromley

  4,099

  18

  2,426

  14

  4,395

  18

  2,683

  15

  Croydon

  7,355

  26

  3,128

  21

  7,783

  26

  3,350

  22

  Ealing

  7,038

  27

  4,491

  32

  6,576

  24

  4,143

  29

  Enfield

  5,315

  22

  3,744

  21

  5,682

  22

  4,058

  22

  Haringey

  7,945

  39

  4,073

  42

  8,668

  41

  4,404

  44

  Harrow

  2,177

  11

  1,211

  14

  2,273

  11

  1,462

  17

  Havering

  3,055

  15

  1,657

  11

  3,115

  15

  1,815

  12

  6

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the new registered nursery education inspectors under the voucher scheme are also providers of pre-school education. [19012]

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

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total sum made available for each schools renewal challenge fund round to date; and if she will list those projects successful in each round and the sums allocated to them. [19035]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The total allocated in the first tranche of the schools renewal challenge fund was £29.5 million with a further £15.117 million in the second tranche.

  Details of individual allocations are in our press notices of 23 July 1996 and 5 February 1997, which are in the Library.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals in each local education authority in England in each of the last two years for which figures are available, indicating separately the percentages for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [19557]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  7

  Number and percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in local education authority areas in England.

  Position as at January in each year

  1995

  1996

  primary

  secondary

  primary

  secondary

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Hillingdon

  2,582

  12

  2,040

  14

  2,727

  12

  2,186

  15

  Hounslow

  5,040

  26

  3,282

  22

  5,216

  26

  3,414

  23

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  957

  9

  763

  10

  933

  8

  820

  10

  Merton

  3,425

  22

  1,501

  20

  3,468

  22

  1,567

  21

  Newham

  10,238

  37

  6,390

  43

  10,835

  39

  6,653

  44

  Redbridge

  3,726

  19

  2,698

  17

  3,921

  19

  2,932

  18

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,544

  13

  1,315

  17

  1,582

  13

  1,382

  18

  Sutton

  1,899

  14

  982

  8

  2,067

  14

  1,125

  9

  Waltham Forest

  6,915

  33

  4,247

  36

  6,764

  32

  4,277

  36

  Birmingham

  40,536

  37

  23,158

  35

  41,521

  38

  24,308

  37

  Coventry

  7,921

  26

  4,646

  24

  7,312

  24

  4,447

  23

  Dudley

  5,494

  18

  3,044

  17

  5,631

  18

  3,144

  17

  Sandwell

  9,447

  29

  4,872

  26

  9,203

  28

  4,755

  25

  Solihull

  3,427

  17

  1,688

  12

  3,520

  16

  1,808

  13

  Walsall

  7,621

  27

  4,844

  24

  7,364

  26

  4,730

  24

  Wolverhampton

  7,049

  27

  4,097

  25

  7,013

  27

  3,994

  25

  Knowsley

  9,268

  46

  5,005

  53

  9,054

  45

  5,176

  55

  Liverpool

  20,983

  42

  12,636

  41

  21,345

  42

  13,216

  42

  St. Helens

  4,299

  24

  2,121

  18

  5,573

  31

  2,665

  23

  Sefton

  6,816

  24

  4,290

  22

  6,978

  25

  4,450

  23

  Wirral

  9,829

  31

  5,754

  27

  9,948

  31

  6,066

  27

  Bolton

  6,131

  22

  2,926

  17

  6,463

  23

  3,011

  17

  Bury

  3,214

  18

  1,508

  14

  3,297

  18

  1,497

  14

  Manchester

  22,394

  48

  9,858

  45

  22,218

  47

  10,006

  45

  Oldham

  6,894

  28

  3,945

  24

  7,067

  28

  4,028

  24

  Rochdale

  6,781

  31

  3,885

  29

  7,149

  32

  3,851

  29

  Salford

  8,279

  35

  3,264

  27

  8,526

  36

  3,422

  29

  Stockport

  4,680

  18

  2,529

  16

  4,817

  18

  2,689

  17

  Tameside

  5,809

  25

  2,819

  20

  5,884

  25

  3,165

  23

  Trafford

  4,091

  19

  2,578

  21

  4,137

  19

  2,775

  22

  Wigan

  6,297

  21

  3,557

  18

  6,033

  20

  3,600

  18

  Barnsley

  5,939

  27

  3,022

  23

  5,783

  26

  2,922

  22

  Doncaster

  8,130

  28

  5,533

  24

  8,520

  28

  4,862

  23

  Rotherham

  6,341

  25

  3,614

  19

  6,426

  25

  3,617

  19

  Sheffield

  12,536

  28

  6,771

  25

  13,105

  29

  6,766

  25

  Bradford

  11,108

  27

  14,489

  31

  11,131

  26

  14,221

  31

  Calderdale

  4,526

  22

  2,429

  18

  4,363

  21

  2,561

  19

  Kirklees

  8,823

  23

  4,738

  19

  9,135

  24

  4,922

  19

  Leeds

  15,183

  22

  8,451

  19

  16,457

  23

  8,694

  20

  Wakefield

  6,376

  20

  3,690

  18

  6,564

  21

  3,578

  18

  Gateshead

  5,399

  29

  3,108

  26

  5,254

  28

  2,924

  25

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  9,091

  40

  4,794

  28

  9,042

  40

  4,753

  27

  North Tyneside

  4,236

  25

  2,709

  19

  4,179

  25

  2,726

  19

  South Tyneside

  6,002

  37

  2,681

  27

  6,163

  38

  2,721

  28

  Sunderland

  9,019

  30

  5,416

  28

  8,866

  29

  4,375

  23

  Isles of Scilly

  17

  11

  38

  40

  11

  7

  9

  10

  Avon

  16,638

  20

  7,850

  14

  16,920

  20

  8,116

  15

  Bedfordshire

  9,196

  21

  7,692

  17

  9,387

  21

  7,686

  17

  Berkshire

  8,909

  14

  4,176

  9

  8,960

  14

  4,357

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  5,568

  9

  3,381

  9

  5,706

  9

  3,710

  10

  Cambridge

  10,003

  17

  5,562

  13

  9,944

  16

  5,738

  14

  Cheshire

  15,254

  17

  7,923

  12

  15,917

  17

  8,390

  13

  Cleveland

  20,094

  31

  10,515

  28

  19,302

  29

  10,385

  28

  Cornwall

  7,893

  19

  4,631

  16

  8,587

  21

  5,267

  18

  Cumbria

  7,427

  17

  3,691

  12

  7,965

  18

  3,983

  12

  Derbyshire

  16,114

  19

  8,400

  14

  16,253

  18

  8,509

  15

  Devon

  16,706

  20

  8,114

  13

  16,885

  20

  8,241

  13

  Dorset

  4,297

  9

  4,268

  10

  4,663

  10

  4,324

  10

  Durham

  14,217

  25

  7,647

  20

  13,599

  24

  7,080

  19

  East Sussex

  11,152

  21

  6,069

  17

  11,878

  22

  6,274

  18

  Essex

  23,219

  18

  12,497

  13

  23,562

  18

  12,783

  13

  Gloucester

  6,661

  15

  3,325

  10

  6,556

  14

  3,434

  10

  Hampshire

  21,687

  16

  9,358

  11

  21,639

  16

  9,475

  11

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,517

  11

  4,735

  10

  5,264

  10

  4,903

  10

  Hertfordshire

  12,139

  14

  6,788

  10

  12,595

  14

  6,845

  10

  Humberside

  19,207

  22

  10,044

  18

  19,479

  22

  10,432

  18

  Isle of Wight

  1,782

  24

  2,065

  19

  1,803

  24

  2,053

  19

  Kent

  25,034

  19

  14,668

  14

  25,440

  19

  15,123

  15

  89

  Number and percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in local education authority areas in England.

  Position as at January in each year

  1995

  1996

  primary

  secondary

  primary

  secondary

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Lancashire

  32,095

  24

  17,232

  20

  32,182

  24

  17,439

  20

  Leicester

  14,271

  18

  7,747

  13

  14,508

  18

  7,900

  13

  Lincolnshire

  4,213

  8

  3,941

  10

  4,565

  9

  4,052

  10

  Norfolk

  11,100

  17

  4,339

  11

  11,188

  17

  4,561

  11

  North Yorkshire

  7,159

  12

  3,454

  8

  7,512

  12

  3,799

  8

  Northamptonshire

  6,705

  13

  5,811

  13

  6,960

  13

  6,050

  13

  Northumberland

  4,071

  19

  3,957

  13

  3,988

  18

  4,206

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  23,264

  25

  13,462

  21

  23,801

  25

  13,364

  20

  Oxfordshire

  5,273

  12

  3,394

  9

  5,301

  12

  3,392

  9

  Shropshire

  6,605

  18

  3,507

  14

  6,457

  17

  3,376

  13

  Somerset

  4,756

  13

  2,963

  11

  4,734

  13

  2,965

  10

  Staffordshire

  18,513

  20

  9,550

  14

  18,668

  19

  9,730

  14

  Suffolk

  7,379

  16

  6,001

  12

  7,746

  17

  6,445

  13

  Surrey

  8,380

  11

  3,905

  8

  8,531

  11

  3,969

  8

  Warwickshire

  6,316

  14

  2,251

  9

  6,146

  13

  2,166

  8

  West Sussex

  8,035

  15

  3,709

  9

  8,244

  15

  3,566

  9

  Wiltshire

  7,164

  15

  3,605

  10

  7,248

  14

  3,566

  10

  England

  956,497

  22

  539,438

  18

  974,281

  22

  550,902

  18

  Bradfield House School, Cullompton
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answers of 5 March,Official Report, columns 631–32, if Bradfield House school, Cullompton, has agreed to comply with its statutory requirements regarding its recent Office for Standards in Education report under sections 20 and 21 of the School Inspections Act 1996. [19637]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In response to my officials' letter dated 3 March warning the school that non-compliance would result in legal action, the Department has received written confirmation from the school that it will distribute the Ofsted report and produce an action plan in accordance with these statutory requirements.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of his answers to parliamentary questions in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19337]

  The Prime Minister
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my office to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Parliamentary Finances
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the reasons why he will not refer the subject of party finances to the committee chaired by Lord Nolan; and if he will make a statement. [19358]
  10
  The Prime Minister
  The Home Affairs Select Committee has already considered the question of party funding.

  Engagements
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister what official engagements he undertook in Ayrshire on 28 February. [19405]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his office is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18928]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. In 1996, the Cabinet Office let one PFI project—the provision of the Government's metropolitan telephone service, involving capital expenditure of £1.25 million in each of the years covered by table 5.5 of the Red Book. The figures for this project have been included in the totals given in the Red Book, but were not given a separate entry in table 5.5 where figures are shown to the nearest £10 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anti-personnel Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries have (i) discontinued and (ii) stated their intention to discontinue the use of anti-personnel land mines by their own forces. [18725]

  Mr. David Davis
  Comprehensive information on this is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, based on information
  11
  supplied by the International Committee of the Red Cross, we believe that 24 countries have discontinued the use of anti-personnel land mines by their own forces and a further 29 countries, including the UK, have stated their intention to do so when certain conditions are met.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the recent shelling of Tamil border villages in Vavuriya and Mannar districts by the Sri Lankan armed forces and (b) the flight of Tamil civilians from these areas; and if he will urge the Sri Lankan Government to cease the offensive and withdraw Sri Lankan forces from Tamil areas. [18868]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We have called on both sides to make every effort to avoid injuries to civilians during the current conflict. We understand that there were no civilian casualties during the Sri Lankan Government's most recent offensive. When I visited a camp for displaced Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka last year, I was granted uninhibited access to the inhabitants. The conditions were rudimentary but the inhabitants appeared clean, well fed and generally content. I was impressed by the valuable part British aid was playing in the Sri Lankan Government's continuing work to provide humanitarian supplies to those displaced by the conflict. We continue to support the Government's efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to facilitate talks between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Government of Sri Lanka by establishing modalities for such talks. [18871]

  Dr. Fox
  We have offered to facilitate talks, provided both sides agree. This offer remains on the table.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Sri Lankan President and Foreign Minister in regard to(a) the lifting of the restrictions presently placed on journalists travelling to the Tamil northern and eastern provinces, (b) the removal of the embargo on food and medicines on the Tamil people and (c) violations of the human rights of Tamil people by the army and security forces; and if he will consider the withdrawal of aid to the Government of Sri Lanka. [18869]

  Dr. Fox
  We regularly take opportunities to urge the Sri Lankan Government to maintain their commitment to press freedom; to continue to provide humanitarian supplies to those displaced by the conflict; and to give the highest priority to human rights issues, ensuring that violators are prosecuted. The British aid programme to Sri Lanka is for the benefit of all communities. A significant proportion supports people affected by the civil conflict.
  12

  Disarmament
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government expect to ratify the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. [19219]

  Mr. David Davis
  We intend to ratify the additional protocols as soon as we can.

  MacBride Principles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who instructed the UK assistant consul at New York to request an invitation to the celebration marking the 10th anniversary of the passing of the MacBride principles in New York; if the assistant consul attended the function; and if he will make a statement. [17958]

  Mr. Rifkind
  No-one instructed the consul—information, Northern Ireland—in New York to request an invitation. The consul attended the event in order to hear the views of the main speakers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who instructed the UK consul in Seattle to write to members of the state legislature of Washington concerning the response of British companies if Washington state enacted legislation incorporating the MacBride principles; in how many US states the MacBride principles have been enacted; how many British companies have refused to invest because of the enactment of the MacBride principles; if he will list such companies and the relevant states; and if he will make a statement. [17957]

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is the long-standing policy of the Government to oppose the enactment of US federal and state legislation based on the MacBride principles, because such legislation is(a)unnecessary—the requirements of the 1989 Fair Employment Act being much more stringent and precise—and (b) a potential deterrent to trade and investment with Northern Ireland. All Northern Ireland political parties represented at Westminster are opposed to MacBride legislation. Macbride principles have been enacted in 15 states. We are not aware that such legislation has yet affected the operations of British companies in the United States, but remain concerned at its potential to damage trade and investment in either direction.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Whitemoor Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many tapes were recorded by each of the staff present in the emergency control room at HMP Whitemoor on the evening of 9 September 1994; and when each of these tapes were made available to(a) the police, (b) the Woodcock inquiry and (c) other investigative bodies. [16866]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Three video recorders were in operation in the emergency control room at Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor on the evening of 9 September 1994. The Cambridgeshire constabulary took possession of the
  13
  three video tapes from those recorders on 9 and 10 September in the course of their investigation of the escape. The Woodcock inquiry was given access to the video tapes at the outset of its work at Whitemoor and was subsequently provided with a copy of them. The video tapes have not been made available to any other investigative body.

  Telephone Interception
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued on the methods of listening to telephone calls made on mobile and cordless telephones which are classified as interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 following the definition of the interception of a telephone call in the Court of Appeal in R v. Ahmed (29 March 1994) and the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in R v. Effik (1994). [18949]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department issued no such guidance in the light of those judgments.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protection exists for citizens in respect of listening to telephone calls made on mobile and cordless telephones by a method falling outside that covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985; and what assessment he has made of the compatibility of such protection with the Government's obligations under the provisions of articles 8 and 13 of the European convention on human rights. [18950]

  Mr. Howard
  Section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 makes it an offence to use wireless telegraphy intending to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message or to disclose any such information except in certain specified circumstances.

  I am satisfied that the Government's obligations under articles 8 and 13 of the European convention on human rights are met in respect of the interception of communications.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the amount of grant in respect of access for disabled people to polling stations; and if he will make a statement. [19228]

  Mr. Sackville
  We encourage acting returning officers to apply to the Home Office for grants towards the cost of providing temporary ramps, where they cannot use as polling places buildings which afford easy access for the disabled. Grants are also available for specially adapted 14
  polling screens for use by the disabled. Funds for grants of this kind are not capped. Total expenditure on such grants since the last general election now stands at £175,400 compared with £17,948 at the 1992 general election.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for external appointments regarding recent appointments and re-appointments to the Commission for Racial Equality. [19312]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We made contact with the Commissioner for Public Appointments to clarify the acceptability of a reappointment which I considered desirable.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require appointees or re-appointees to the Commission for Racial Equality to declare their political affiliation. [19313]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We will follow the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies which states that records should be kept"of the political activities of candidates for appointment in so far as they are a matter of public record".

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if appointments and re-appointments to the Commission for Racial Equality are made in accordance with the Nolan rules for appointments to public bodies. [19311]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Yes.

  Extradition
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extradition requests to and from the United Kingdom remain outstanding from each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [19024]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for extraditions to and from England and Wales and from Northern Ireland. The information in the first table relates to such cases.

  Year

  Outstanding requests to the United Kingdom

  Outstanding requests from the United Kingdom

  1987

  0

  1

  1988

  0

  1

  1989

  1

  1

  1990

  2

  3

  1991

  5

  2

  1992

  9

  3

  1993

  6

  2

  1994

  24

  6

  1995

  38

  13

  1996

  60

  32

  15
  The table includes all requests which have not been brought to a conclusion. This may be because the request is under active consideration by the Home Office or the courts; because further documentation has been requested; or the individual concerned may be in prison for a domestic offence, in which case extradition action is suspended until he or she is released.

  Extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland takes place under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the corresponding legislation in the Republic of Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible where the case involves seeking the return of a fugitive who has been convicted by a court in England or Wales, while my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is responsible where the case involves seeking the return of a person accused of an offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Since 1992, the earliest year from which figures are available, the total number of extradition requests outstanding from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland is as follows:

  1992: 0

  1993: 3

  1994: 4

  1995: 17

  1996: 15.

  Country

  Number of requests made by the United Kingdom

  Requests where fugitive returned to United Kingdom

  Number of requests received by United Kingdom

  Requests where fugitive returned to requesting country

  Australia

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Austria

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Belgium

  1

  —

  7

  1

  Botswana

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Canada

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Croatia

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Egypt

  —

  —

  1

  —

  France

  3

  1

  9

  1

  Germany

  4

  —

  17

  3

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  1

  —

  India

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Israel

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  1

  1

  7

  —

  Lithuania

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  5

  —

  9

  6

  Norway

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Portugal

  —

  —

  6

  1

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Africa

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Spain

  15

  2

  4

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Switzerland

  1

  —

  4

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Turkey

  2

  —

  4

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  1

  —

  United Arab Emirates

  —

  —

  3

  —

  United States of America

  2

  —

  21

  4

  Total

  44

  4

  116

  20

  16
  Figures for requests made by the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom are not available centrally.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extradition requests the United Kingdom(a) made and (b) received in the last year for which figures are available; how many were successful; if he will list the figures (i) by country and (ii) in total; and if he will make a statement. [19028]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for extraditions to and from England and Wales and from Northern Ireland. The information in the table relates to such cases. The figures refer to extradition requests made and those received during 1996.

  In addition to the figures in the table, a further 15 persons were returned to countries other than the Republic of Ireland in the course of 1996 from requests made in previous years. A further nine persons were returned to the United Kingdom in the course of 1996 from countries other than the Republic of Ireland from requests made in previous years.

  Five of the requests made by the United Kingdom were withdrawn. Twenty-two of the requests made to the United Kingdom were withdrawn, and in two cases the fugitives concerned were discharged.
  17
  Extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland takes place under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the corresponding legislation in the Republic of Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible where the case involves seeking the return of a fugitive who has been convicted by a court in England or Wales, while my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is responsible where the case involves seeking the return of a person accused of an offence in England, and Wales or Northern Ireland.

  The United Kingdom made 24 extradition requests to the Republic of Ireland in 1996. The defendant was returned to the United Kingdom in eight of those cases. An order for return was made in a further four cases but appeals are outstanding.

  In addition, five persons were returned in the course of 1996 from requests made in previous years.

  Figures for extradition requests made by the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom are not available centrally.

  Rehabilitation of Prostitutes
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposed EU pilot scheme for the rehabilitation of prostitutes; and what is the current status of these proposals. [18087]

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  In January 1996, the European Commission announced that it would grant funding to 86 projects—including a pilot scheme for prostitutes in Austria. The aims of the projects were similar to those covered by an earlier Commission proposal for a programme to combat social exclusion. The proposal was blocked by the UK and Germany in the Council, on the grounds of subsidiarity and value for money.

  The Government are opposed to the Commission's action, which has been taken without an adequate legal base. The Government have therefore challenged the expenditure in the European Court of Justice. We await the date of the oral hearing.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Gross public expenditure

  Percentage of spend on Basic Social Services (BSS)

  10

  9

  10

  9

  9

  Percentage of spend on BSS, including all Emergency Aid

  18

  17

  21

  22

  17

  (b) ODA programmes

  Percentage of spend on BSS

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Percentage of spend on BSS, including all Emergency Aid

  20

  20

  23

  27

  21

  The figures quoted are percentages of the UK bilateral programme which accounts for about half of total UK development assistance. Recipient countries also benefit from the UK's substantial contributions to the multilateral agencies.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans have been made to curtail the planned phased withdrawal of the United Nations Angola verification mission III from Angola should the provisions of the Lusaka protocol not be met before August. [19119]
  18

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the scope, nature and extent of the aid(a)which has been made available to the Government of Sri Lanka during the past five years and (b)which is currently being made available.[18870]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The ODA has provided more than £42 million to Sri Lanka during the past five years.

  Our assistance helps to tackle national environmental problems; improve the quality of education, particularly at primary level; promote good government; and alleviate poverty. It has included a significant programme assisting internally displaced people of all ethnic origins who are affected by the civil conflict, which is channelled through Oxfam and Save the Children Fund. Last month, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development approved a new £4 million phase of this programme. Support has also been provided through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  In the current financial year, we expect to spend around £6 million.

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, columns 541–42, what percentage of the United Kingdom's (a) development assistance and (b) national overseas development budget has been spent in each of the last five years and is planned to be spent in the forthcoming year on basic social services; and if he will make a statement. [19352]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Assistance to poor people, including the provision of basic social services, is a key element in the ODA's efforts to help recipient countries in the fight against poverty. Levels of bilateral assistance in this area over the last five years are estimated as follows:

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In his report of 7 February, the United Nations Secretary-General stated that the pace of the planned withdrawal of UNAVEM III should take into account the situation on the ground. He will keep the Security Council informed of any developments that may affect the withdrawal schedule.
  19
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to UNITA in Angola to abide by the provisions of the Lusaka protocol. [19118]

  Dr. Fox
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker spoke to Dr. Savimbi during her visit to Angola in January and urged UNITA to fulfil without delay its remaining obligations under the Lusaka protocol. She continues to do so. Our ambassador in Angola takes every opportunity with senior members of UNITA to encourage full compliance. Representations also continue to be made at official level in London.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated number of UNITA personnel in Angola outside the UN quartering areas. [19117]

  Dr. Fox
  On 13 December, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Angola declared, subject to certain reservations, that all UNITA's military tasks, including the quartering of troops, had been completed. As at 5 March, 26,513 personnel were registered as absent or deserted from the quartering areas.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on reports that personnel of UNITA of Angola are operating in support of Government forces within Zaire.[19120]

  Dr. Fox
  We are aware of these reports. If they are true, we deplore such UNITA involvement. We condemn any action which exacerbates the conflict in Zaire. We are warning both UNITA and the Government of Angola that military involvement in Zaire would not be in their, or anyone else's, interests.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what external finance limit has been set for the current financial year for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [19686]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The external finance limit for CDC for 1996–97 is being increased by £1,400,000 from £15,000,000 to £16,400,000. The change allows for the take-up of an entitlement under end-year flexibility arrangements and a temporary increase in borrowing by the CDC. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TREASURY

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to public funds of the attendance of(a)Ministers and (b) officials of his Department at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland since December 1994; and if he will list the meetings of the Committee which (a) and (b) have attended indicating the cost of attendance and the names of those who attended. [16572]
  20
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Ministers attend Scottish Grand Committee meetings as part of their normal parliamentary duties and officials do so as part of their normal departmental duties. Expenditure falling to my Department has been limited to travelling costs. I attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting on 19 February 1996 in Aberdeen and had officials in attendance as necessary.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking that the activities of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise do not hamper(a) the work of the Environmental Trust and (b) the operation of the landfill tax. [18571]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Landfill tax is under the care and management of the commissioners of Customs and Excise. On 16 October 1996, they approved the Environmental Trust Scheme Regulatory Body Ltd., Entrust, under regulation 35 of the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 1527), to act as the regulatory body for environmental bodies.

  It would not be appropriate for me to interfere in the way the commissioners discharge their responsibility. If the hon. Member is concerned about a specific difficulty, he might care to write to the chairman of Customs and Excise, or myself, about it.

  Chancery Bank
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the monitoring by the Bank of England of Chancery bank's dealings before its voluntary liquidation; and if he will make a statement. [18703]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Banking Act 1987 places statutory responsibility for banking supervision directly on to the Bank of England. The Treasury is not responsible for making or monitoring supervisory decisions.

  Secretaries of State (Annual Reports)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions in the last three years a Secretary of State has failed to lay an annual report Parliament, in accordance with his or her statutory duty; and what action has been taken on each occasion; [19242]

  (2) what is the maximum length of time which should elapse between the laying of annual reports before Parliament by a Secretary of State under a statutory duty; [19241]

  (3) what exemptions apply to the statutory requirement of Secretaries of State to lay an annual report before Parliament. [19240]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Departmental reports for all the major Departments have been laid annually before Parliament in a timely manner since their inception in 1991. However, these reports are not laid under statute. If the hon. Member has other kinds of annual reports in mind, perhaps he would identify them.
  21

  European Funding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net transfer of European funds to Wales in each of the last five years. [17874]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Because the data used to determine the United Kingdom's own resources contributions are collated for the UK as a whole, it would be possible to estimate only disaggregated net transfers of European funds to Wales at

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  EAGGF (guidance)

  11

  9

  9

  7

  9

  ERDF

  57

  44

  50

  53

  53

  ESF

  0

  0

  13

  10

  12

  Other receipts

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total for Welsh Office

  68

  53

  72

  70

  74

  1Signifies existence of receipts of less than £0.5 million.

  Self-Assessment Tax System
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters of complaint he has received so far in 1997 from taxpayers concerning(a) the self-assessment system and (b) inaccurate tax demands arising under the system. [17851]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: In 1997, I have received (a) 11 letters expressing concern about the self-assessment system and (b) two letters of complaint concerning inaccurate tax demands arising under the system.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a VAT reclaim cap on repayment traders; what form this will take; and if he will make a statement. [18501]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: Drafts of the regulations introducing a three-year cap on repayment traders to parallel the measure in force for payment traders are well in hand, and they will be laid before the House as soon as possible.

  Petrol and Diesel Oil (Tax)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the tax payable on a gallon of each grade of(a) petrol and (b) diesel oil in each of the last five financial years and the current financial year; and what percentage of the retail price the tax represented in each year. [18517]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Financial year

  Tax (duty + VAT)

  Percentage of price

  Leaded petrol (4 star)

  1991–92

  151.52

  67

  1992–93

  161.56

  69

  1993–94

  180.27

  72

  1994–95

  194.04

  74

  1995–96

  209.66

  77

  1996–971

  221.45

  78

  22
  disproportionate cost. Furthermore, receipts from the Community which benefit Wales, but which do not pass through the Welsh Office, are not collected by the Government on a territorial basis, so that the total of Community receipts benefiting Wales is also not readily available. Welsh Office receipts, as published in the last departmental report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's smaller Departments (Cm. 3217), from the Community for the five-year period 1991–92 to 1995–96, are set out in the following table.

  Financial year

  Tax (duty + VAT)

  Percentage of price

  Derv

  1991–92

  129.6

  65

  1992–93

  135.5

  65

  1993–94

  152.15

  67

  1994–95

  167.00

  70

  1995–96

  184.20

  74

  1996–971

  196.93

  74

  Unleaded petrol

  1991–92

  133.19

  64

  1992–93

  138.70

  65

  1993–94

  155.00

  68

  1994–95

  168.44

  71

  1995–96

  183.78

  75

  1996–971

  196.31

  75

  Super unleaded petrol

  1996–971

  219.65

  74

  1To December of 1996.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [18809]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: In the current financial year to date, the Treasury has paid 96.8 per cent. of its bills within contractual conditions. These normally require payment within 30 days of the receipt of the invoice. Bills in dispute constitute the great majority of the remaining 3.2 per cent.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the answering of parliamentary questions, with particular reference to blocking answers and disproportionate costs. [17788]
  23
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government recently reviewed the answering of parliamentary questions as part of their consideration of the Public Service Committee's second report, Session 1995–96 on "Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility". In their response (HC 67), the Government reaffirmed their commitment to openness in all their dealings with Parliament, and published new "Guidance to officials on drafting answers to Parliamentary Questions".

  Information that is available to the Government will be withheld only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, this being decided in accordance with relevant statute and the Government's code of practice on access to government information. Where information has to be withheld, the Government are further committed to providing the House with the reason in each case.

  The advisory limit, above which Ministers may decide to decline to provide an answer on grounds of disproportionate cost, remains £450, the level set in February 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of his answers to parliamentary questions in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19335]

  Mr. Freeman
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Ministerial Visit (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 588, what method of transport he used in carrying out his official duties in Scotland on 31 January; and how much this transport cost. [19422]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I flew to Glasgow to carry out my official duties in Scotland on 31 January. The cost to official funds was £130.50, as half the cost of my return air ticket was met by Conservative central office. I used the official car of the Under Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) between Glasgow airport and the venue for the launch of the White Paper. The transport for my political engagements was provided by Conservative central office.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 588, if he will list the official engagements which he undertook in Scotland on 31 January in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minster; and what specific duties he undertook in this capacity in Troon. [19423]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  In my capacity as Deputy Prime Minister, I joined my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 31 January to launch the White Paper on education and skills development in Scotland. I undertook no official duties in my capacity as Deputy Prime Minister in Troon.
  24

  Deregulation
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made on the deregulation initiative over the last two years. [19731]

  Mr. Freeman
  Since passing the Deregulation and Contracting Act 1994, we have made considerable progress in removing unnecessary burdens on business including:

  repealing or simplifying more than 1,000 regulations, more than 500 in the past year—examples include:

  44 deregulation orders submitted to Parliament benefiting business and charities by over £100 million a year. This includes amendment to the Trustee Investment Act which will benefit charities by up to £40 million a year

  500,000 of the smallest companies no longer need to have their accounts audited

  over 100 sets of out of date health and safety requirements are being amended or repealed

  abolishing or simplifying 148 business licences

  commitment to reduce the burden of Government surveys by 25 per cent. by 2000 saving business £17.5 million a year.

  Introduced business-friendly enforcement procedures giving business new rights when enforcement action is taken against them in key areas such as health and safety and the environment.

  125 local authorities have undertaken to establish local business partnerships to promote co-operation between local business and local regulatory authorities

  new regulation subject to an analysis of benefits and compliance costs. Ministers must certify they have read a compliance cost assessment and risk assessment and are satisfied that benefits justify the costs and for regulations implementing EC legislation that they have applied the European law checklist to prevent unnecessary gold plating and double banking.

  Direct Access Government launched as a pilot one-stop shop service eon the Internet for accessing regulatory information and forms

  in Europe, the simpler legislation for the internal market initiative has produced concrete proposals for improvements in certain areas including trade statistics and construction products.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground (Privatisation)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the future of London Transport. [17768]

  Sir George Young
  Following my recent statement to the House, a wide range of views have been expressed about the Government's proposals to privatise London Underground.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to privatise the London Underground. [17772]

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future ownership of London Underground. [17777]

  Sir George Young
  I announced to the House on 25 February,Official Report, columns 149–52, that the Government intend to privatise the London Underground. Privatisation will enable the Underground's infrastructure to be modernised as soon as possible, while capping fares

  25
  and safeguarding the aspects of the present system which passengers value, such as travelcard, safety and service levels. We are now developing our proposals and aim to publish a White Paper in the summer.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) members of the public and (b) organisations on his proposals to privatise the London underground network. [18273]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of representations from members of the public and organisations on our proposals to privatise London Underground.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has for the improvement of London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [18014]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government believe that, while great strides have been made by the underground's management and staff in recent years, the best way to improve the London Underground is to privatise it. Privatisation will enable the Underground's infrastructure to be modernised as soon as possible, while capping fares and safeguarding the aspects of the present system which passengers value, such as travelcard, safety and service levels.

  Eversholt and Porterbrook Leasing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the valuation at the time of the Government's sale of(a) Eversholt and (b) Porterbrook Leasing. [17769]

  Mr. Watts
  The values of these companies were determined by sale to the highest bidders in an open competitive bidding process.

  Government Investment
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of Government investment in(a) road and (b) airport infrastructure over the last four years. [17770]

  Sir George Young
  Since 1993–94, my Department has invested, in England, over £7.2 billion of public money in the national roads network and around £3.6 billion in local authority roads. Investment in airport infrastructure is very largely from the private sector.

  Charter Flights
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the reliability and punctuality of charter flight companies on long-haul flights. [17771]

  Mr. Bowis
  Reliability and punctuality are matters for the airlines themselves. My Department publishes quarterly reports on the punctuality of flights at UK airports. All UK airlines must attain the high standards of safety required by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to persuade companies running charter flights to improve their punctuality. [17779]
  26
  Mr. Bowis
  Punctuality is a matter for the airlines themselves. My Department publishes quarterly reports on the punctuality of flights at UK airports.

  Road and Bridge Maintenance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from the Highways Agency on the backlog in road and bridge maintenance. [17773]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1991, the Department told the Public Accounts Committee that its aim was to reduce the proportion of the trunk road network with less than zero residual life to the economic minimum of 7 to 8 per cent. by 2000. The most recent national road maintenance condition survey shows that only 3.9 per cent. of motorways and 7.3 per cent. of other trunk roads have less than zero residual life.

  A5
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of the A5 Weeford to Fazeley road improvement scheme. [17774]

  Mr. Watts
  The A5 improvement between Weeford and Fazeley was a scheme in the longer-term programme withdrawn in November 1996 because it could not be taken forward in a reasonable time scale.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the contribution made by transport to air pollution in British cities. [17775]

  Sir George Young
  Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have commissioned several studies on this subject. The findings of these studies are summarised in section 3 of the Green Paper, "Transport: The Way Forward", published in April of last year, and in the United Kingdom national air quality strategy, which will be published soon by the Department of the Environment. A new study, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, which focuses on 10 cities and large urban areas in the UK, is now under way.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Railtrack's railway investment since privatisation. [17776]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) earlier today.

  London, Tilbury, Southend Line
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons per week use the LTS line to Fenchurch Street station; and how passenger numbers have changed since privatisation. [17778]

  Mr. Watts
  Weekly figures are not available. A count in November 1996 showed that 27,300 passengers travelled into Fenchurch Street on a weekday, which was an increase of 1 per cent. over the year before.
  27

  Sea Empress Disaster
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost of the Sea Empress disaster which may be claimed from the international oil pollution compensation fund. [17780]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 February,Official Report, columns 49–50.

  Road Links (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve road links in East Sussex. [17781]

  Mr. Watts
  We are supporting a number of road proposals in East Sussex, at an estimated cost of £205 million. These include three schemes to improve the A27 between Lewes and Polegate; and A27 Southerham to Beddingham improvement; the A27 Selmeston bypass and the A27 Wilmington bypass, at an estimated cost of £53 million collectively. In addition, there is the A27 Polegate bypass which is included in The Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate project and has an estimated cost of £17.8 million.

  Bypasses for Bexhill and Hastings are also included in this DBFO project. These are, with their estimated costs; the A259 Bexhill and Hastings western bypass, £68.2 million; the A259 Hastings eastern bypass, £20.6 million; and the A259 Pevensey to Bexhill improvement at £9.6 million. The programme achieves a balance between promoting economic development in East Sussex and protecting the area's environment.

  Railtrack (Property Sales)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proceeds of property sales by Railtrack. [17782]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's annual report and accounts 1995–96 stated that profits on property disposals in 1995–96 amounted to £11 million.

  High-speed Rail Links
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into high-speed rail links in the United Kingdom. [17764]

  Mr. Watts
  The Great Western main line between London, Bristol, Cardiff and the east coast main line are existing high-speed lines. Two further high speed routes have been evaluated and implementation is programmed. They are the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line modernisation and upgrade. A development study for the Great Western line from Bristol to Penzance is under way.

  Bus Passenger Journeys
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the change in the number of bus passenger journeys outside London made since 1985–86. [17767]
  28
  Mr. Watts
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on 31 January,Official Report, column 391.

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department established its Internet site; what representations he has received and what data he has collated on the use and utility of the site; and what steps he is taking to increase the amount of information available via the site. [19148]

  Mr. Bowis
  The site started on 3 June 1996. It has received 163,000 visits. The response has been very favourable in the UK and abroad. Visitors may e-mail their comments, questions or proposals direct to dedicated inquiry points in my Department. The magazine "NetUser" recently gave the site a four star rating. The site is being redesigned to improve ease of use and to increase the information available.

  Dial-a-ride Services (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the operation of dial-a-ride services in London; and if he will make a statement. [19217]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of representations about London dial-a-ride.

  Rail Departure Information Boards
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make representations to Railtrack to prevent railway station departure boards being used as general advertising space. [19099]

  Mr. Watts: This is entirely a matter for the company.

  Train Leasing Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what redress is available to his Department in respect of external financial advice leading to under-pricing in the sale of train leasing companies; and if he will make a statement. [19034]

  Mr. Watts
  The rolling stock leasing companies were not under-priced. Prices in these very successful sales reflected the best bids received in open competition amongst a wide range of parties.

  Coastguard Officers (Scotland)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coastguard officers were employed in(a) the former Grampian region, (b) Highlands and Islands and (c) Scotland as a whole in each year between 1987 and 1997. [19071]

  Mr. John Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 10 March 1997:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of Coastguard Officers in (a) the former Grampian Region, (b) Highlands and Islands and (c) Scotland as a whole in each year between 1987 and 1997.
  29

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1990

  29

  48

  139

  1991

  31

  48

  140

  1992

  28

  50

  141

  1993

  27

  50

  140

  1994

  28

  50

  137

  1995

  29

  51

  134

  1996

  34

  61

  177

  1997

  35

  66

  180.5

  Staffing figures broken down in this way are not available prior to 1990.

  M25 Works
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led him to conclude that the proposed dual 4 widening of the M25 between junctions 10 to 12 is no longer required. [19582]

  Mr. Watts
  The M25 between junctions 10 and 12 is already dual 4 lane standard. Proposals to widen this section of the motorway to more than dual 4 lanes were withdrawn from the roads programme in the 1995 review because the environmental impact was not considered acceptable in relation to the benefits.

  Emergency Towing Vessels
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are being made for the provision of emergency towing vessels next winter. [19844]

  Mr. Bowis
  Emergency towing vessels have been stationed, on a trial basis, in the Minches and Dover strait for the last three winter periods and in the south-west approaches this winter, following recommendations by Lord Donaldson and the emergency towing study team.

  A report of the first two year's trials has been published. Further analysis of the trials is to be undertaken so that the benefits of the provision of such Government-funded vessels can be fully assessed. Meanwhile, the three vessels will be re-engaged to provide emergency cover the next winter in the same areas.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19347]

  Mr. Bowis
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the in-service date of the Jubilee Line extension. [19617]

  Mr. Bowis
  The opening of the various sections of the Jubilee line extension is a matter for London Underground Ltd. I await advice from it on this.
  30

  Driving Instruction
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column, 566–67, concerning research into the teaching of learner drivers, what previous research his Department has undertaken into the matters referred to in the answer. [19425]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to carry out a study of learner and novice drivers in 1988. This study considered methods used in learning to drive by 30,000 drivers who took their driving test on four selected dates. Learning methods were considered in relation to performance in the driving test and it was found that those drivers who had practised with a friend or relation while learning to drive had a higher pass rate in the driving test. This finding takes no account of variations in driving ability and confidence, and the university of Surrey research is following this up. Three research reports have been published and the final report will be published in the spring.

  In 1992, a study entitled "The Accident Liability of Novice Drivers" was commissioned. The study, carried out by St. George's hospital medical school, sought to identify factors associated with novice driver accidents which could help predict those drivers most likely to be accident involved after passing the driving test. Consideration of learning methods was only a small element of this study, but driving instructors were asked to rate a sample of their pupils. Instructors rated learner drivers who had relatively more practice with friends or relations as safer, more responsive to instruction, and more likely to pass the driving test. This research is now complete.

  National Air Traffic Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the current position in regard to the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service; [19000]

  (2) what discussions he has had regarding the privatisation of parts of the work of the Civil Aviation Authority. [19001]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: It remains the Government's intention to bring forward legislation to privatise the National Air Traffic Services early in the next Parliament. My officials are developing detailed proposals in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, Government Departments, representatives of NATS's staff and aviation organisations representing both commercial and private interests.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Onshore Petroleum Licences
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when oil and gas companies will have a further opportunity to apply for onshore petroleum licences. [19701]
  31
  Mr. Page
  I am pleased to announce that an eighth landward licensing round will open shortly for licences to explore onshore areas of the United Kingdom for oil and gas reserves. This round follows the award of licences in March last year under the seventh round. It is being launched now in response to demand from companies for new licences to meet a growing interest in using methane venting from disused coal mines, as well as to explore for conventional oil and natural gas resources.

  A formal notice inviting applications for petroleum exploration and development licences under the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 will appear in due course in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This will set the closing date for receipt of applications as 90 days after the notice is published. Licence awards will be announced as soon as possible after all applications have been thoroughly assessed.

  The notice will invite applications for all unlicensed acreage above the high water mark. Any exploration and development activity under a licence would need planning permission from the local planning authority in the usual way.

  Areas below the high water mark are not included in the eighth round invitation, but may be offered in future when those which include, or are close to, sites designated as European sites have been subject to environmental assessment in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats and etc) Regulations 1994.

  Roslin Institute
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what directions he has given in respect of(a) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and (b) the Roslin Institute since the inception of the Roslin Institute; and if he will place copies of these directions in the Library. [18882]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No specific directions have been given. A number of more general announcements have impinged upon the BBSRC and Roslin, including the annual announcements of the allocation of the science budget and the recent announcement of the outcome of the prior options reviews. These are all recorded in the Official Journal.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much public money has been provided to the Roslin Institute in each year since its inception. [18964]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Roslin Institute was established on 1 April 1993 as a result of the restructuring of the former Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research. It was constituted under the royal charter of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which subsequently became the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. On 1 April 1995, the Roslin Institute was reconstituted as a company limited by guarantee and was recognised as a Scottish charity.

  BBSRC Institutes
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were employed by each of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council-owned institutes in 1994–95. [18883]
  32
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Staff in post on 1 April 1995 at institutes sponsored by the BBSRC were:

  Institute of Animal Health: 527

  Babraham Institute: 368

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research: 395

  Institute of Arable Crops Research: 790

  John Innes Centre: 460

  Institute of Food Research: 475

  Roslin Institute: 264

  Silsoe Research Institute: 254.

  Mirror Group Newspapers Flotation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he appointed inspectors into the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers; how much has been spent by the inspectors in fees and expenses; what is the total cost to date of the inquiry carried out by the inspectors; and when he expects to receive their report. [18943]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The inspectors were appointed on 8 June 1992. The total cost of the inspection to date amounts to £7,011,947 including fees and expenses.

  It is not possible to forecast the timing of the completion of an inquiry of this kind.

  Accountants Joint Disciplinary Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the efficiency and effectiveness of the accountants joint disciplinary scheme; and what plans he has to introduce a statutory scheme for investigating complaints concerning firms of accountants. [18942]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The joint disciplinary scheme is operated jointly by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants to investigate cases of public concern involving their members. The bodies are currently reviewing how the scheme should operate in the future.

  The JDS has an important public interest role and I am taking a close interest in the current review. I have no plans to introduce a statutory scheme.

  EC Framework V Programme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the European Commission working paper on the framework V programme. [19227]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are pleased to see the Commission taking a radical look at the fundamentals of the fifth framework programme FP5 and we endorse its aim to deliver a more goal-directed and concentrated programme. The Government welcome the concept of key actions, which is close to the approach of targeting effort on defined goals set out in the UK position paper. The key action approach could yield a framework programme that is better focused and genuinely strategic. The Government remain concerned, however, that the Commission envisages a possible large part of the framework being devoted to general, generic and basic research activities beyond those driven by the defined key
  33
  actions. This would, in the Government's view, undermine, potentially significantly, the impact that can be achieved.

  The Government also have a number of concerns about the underlying principles and the proposed programme and structure described in the Commission working paper. In particular, the Government do not consider that three large programmes devoted to thematic research and development will allow coherent day to day management by the Commission, or effective oversight by member states. More needs also to be done by the Commission to give the users of research a stronger voice in defining and managing the programme at a strategic level.

  The Government will convey their views to the Commission at the earliest opportunity and continue to work closely with other member states in order to influence future proposals for the fifth framework programme.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of companies with research and development operations in each United Kingdom region. [19356]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The head offices of the 5,135 companies with research and development operation in the UK identified by the Office for National Statistics ONS in 1995 annual research and development business survey were distributed across the regions as follows:

  Region

  Number of companies

  North-East

  188

  North-West

  459

  Merseyside

  60

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  406

  East Midlands

  394

  West Midlands

  572

  South-West

  397

  Eastern

  554

  London

  451

  South East

  958

  Wales

  230

  Scotland

  286

  Northern Ireland

  180

  Total UK

  5,135

  For some firms, the research and development operation may be conducted in one or more regions other than that containing the headquarters. The ONS therefore asks companies to provide regional apportionments of research and development expenditure and employment, and the 1995 figures for these are given in table 17 of "Research and Development in UK Business: Business Monitor MA14 1995" (HMSO, 27 January 1997), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Intellectual Property Royalties
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of royalties accruing from intellectual property in each sector of the United Kingdom economy in each of the last 10 years. [19257]
  34
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The total amount of royalties accruing from intellectual property is not collected.

  The amount of royalties identified as accruing to the UK from overseas for 1986 to 1995 is set out in table 1.

  The amount of royalties accruing to each sector from overseas for 1994 and 1995 is set out in table 2. Sectoral data for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis.

  Table 1: UK's overseas earnings from royalties

  £ million

  1986

  845

  1987

  997

  1988

  1,132

  1989

  1,303

  1990

  1,420

  1991

  1,583

  1992

  2,148

  1993

  2,415

  1994

  2,952

  1995

  3,339

  Note:

  Excludes film/tv, financial, consultancy, transport and education sectors.

  Source:

  ONS.

  Table 2: UK's overseas earnings from royalties by sector

  Firms primarily engaged in:

  1994

  1995

  £ million

  £ million

  Metal manufacturing

  7

  6

  Chemical manufacturing

  1,074

  1,344

  Mechanical engineering

  84

  86

  Electrical engineering

  21

  9

  Transport equipment

  16

  4

  Food, drink and tobacco

  70

  78

  Miscellaneous manufacturing

  305

  319

  Printing, publishing, performers and other recreation

  516

  666

  Computing services

  355

  334

  Other industries

  505

  493

  Total

  2,952

  3,339

  Note:

  Totals may differ from the sum of components due to rounding.

  Source:

  ONS.

  Electrical Goods Industry (Inquiry)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will instigate an inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of information from within the Monopolies and Merger Commission in respect of the MMC inquiry into the electrical goods industry; [19569]

  (2) what representations he has received from those employed in the electrical goods supply industry concerning the proposed inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the electrical goods industry; and if he will make a statement. [19573]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Representations were received in connection with the making of the references by the Director General of Fair Trading in 1995. The Secretary of State did not exercise his powers under section 50(6) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to veto the references.
  35
  Representations have also been received concerning the conduct of the inquiry, and a possible leak of information about its progress: these are matters for the chairman of the MMC. I understand that the chairman is satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that any member of the commission or its staff is responsible for leaking information about this inquiry.

  Representations to the MMC about possible findings have in a few cases been copied to the DTI. It is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on matters under consideration by the MMC. Any representations should be made to the MMC, so that they may be considered before it reports to Ministers.

  Dreamtell Ltd.
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the activities of Dreamtell Ltd. of Forest gate, Corby. [18400]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter on 4 March. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Titan Business Club
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the Titan Business Club. [19070]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following inquiries by officials of my Department, petitions were presented to the High Court of Justice to wind up SHV Senator Hanseatische Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Titan Business Club and Titan Marketing Gesellschaft. All three entities were wound up by the court on 14 August 1996. Following further inquiries by officials of my Department, a petition was presented to the court to wind up Titan International LLC and on 9 August the official receiver was appointed provisional liquidator of the company. Titan International LLC lodged a notice of appeal, but has recently withdrawn it. A date for the hearing of the petition has not yet been fixed.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what analysis his Department has made of the employment consequences of a national minimum wage, on the basis of the 1995 new earnings survey; when such analysis was carried out; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [19427]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In December 1995, my officials calculated that a national minimum wage set at £4 an hour could result in the loss of 1 million jobs, assuming half restoration of pay differentials.

  The methodology used to calculate this effect was set out in the note placed in the Library of the House on 2 February 1990.

  Utilities (Pre-payment Meters)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of households with two pre-payment meters for basic utilities. [19615]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not available.
  36

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department established its Internet site; what representations he has received and what data he has collated on the use and utility of the site; and what steps he is taking to increase the amount of information available via the site. [19145]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department of Trade and Industry, which was one of the first Departments to go on the Internet, established its site on 14 June 1995 with approximately 100 pages. The site is growing fast and currently stands at over 2,000 pages. It includes a wide range of information about the Department and its activities.

  In the next few days, the Department will be enhancing its Internet presence with a new design and improved navigation around the site, following consultation, on the Internet, with its users.

  Records are kept about the number of accesses to the pages within the DTI site which currently stand at 180,000 hits per month, which equates to approximately 50,000 pages served.

  There are hypertext links to other web sites.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 723–24, on which dates he will be writing to potential lenders; and if he will list those to whom he is writing. [19308]

  Mr. Page
  Letters to potential lenders were sent out on 6 March, with a deadline of 11 April for applications.

  It is not appropriate to list potential lenders since interest in lending under the scheme is commercially confidential to the firms concerned.

WALES

  Rural Residents (Buses)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of rural residents who live more than half a mile from a bus route; and if he will make a statement. [18403]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Reliable information is not available separately for Wales. However, information from the national travel survey indicates that about 12 per cent. of rural residents in Great Britain live further than 13 minutes walking time from a bus stop, which equates to about half a mile in distance.

  Llanelli Town Centre (Redevelopment)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much financial assistance has been provided to date by(a) the Welsh Office and (b) the Welsh Development Agency towards the re-development of Llanelli town centre. [18509]
  37
  Mr. Hague
  Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1996, the Welsh Office's urban programme and its successor, the strategic development scheme, contributed around £2.3 million towards the redevelopment of Llanelli town centre.

  As part of the gradual delegation of responsibility to local authorities for administering SDS resources, £480,000 was allocated to Carmarthenshire county council in 1996–97 and £617,244 will be available in 1997–98 to approve new projects; it is for the council to determine whether its priorities for this assistance should include Llanelli town centre.

  Information on financial assistance provided by the WDA is an operational matter for the agency. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the right hon. Member with details. I shall arrange for a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's total estimated expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food in Wales in the current financial year; and how much of this expenditure was funded by payments made from the European Union. [18616]

  Mr. Hague
  Total estimated expenditure by my Department on agriculture, fisheries and food in Wales in 1996–97 is £268.550 million. This includes expenditure on beef marketing payments schemes and the BSE-related top-up payments to beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes made by my Department but excludes expenditure by the Intervention Board executive agency on other BSE schemes. The total receipts from the European Union relating to agriculture, fisheries and food are expected to be £228.324 million, of which £6.559 million relates to expenditure in the previous calendar year.

  Non-NHS Health Care Providers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by(a) district health authorities, (b) fundholders and (c) NHS trusts on purchasing health care from non-NHS providers in 1995–96 in Wales. [18802]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Staff in post as at 30 September 1996 (Whole time equivalent numbers)

  Organisation1

  Doctors2

  Nursing and midwifery staff3

  Administrative and clerical4

  Managers

  Bro Taf

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  74

  1,179

  353

  42

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  138

  707

  289

  29

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  142

  933

  379

  78

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust5

  —

  —

  59

  41

  North Glamorgan NHS Trust

  137

  1,069

  350

  45

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  44

  713

  193

  27

  S and E Wales Ambulance NHS Trust6

  —

  —

  62

  39

  UHW Healthcare NHS Trust

  505

  2,072

  936

  93

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  7

  52

  2

  38

  1995–96 £000

  District health authorities

  22,802

  GP fundholders1

  2,264

  NHS trusts

  4,110

  Note:

  1Information is not held centrally in respect of individual GP fundholding practices, but their expenditure is shown on an aggregated basis in the annual accounts of the family health services authorities which pay for healthcare purchases on their behalf.

  Source:

  Financial returns of district health authorities and NHS trusts, and the audited annual accounts from family health services authorities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the development of NHS trusts in Wales. [19910]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently 30 NHS trusts in Wales.

  My right hon. Friend and I have received a joint application from the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS trusts to dissolve and create a new single trusts from April 1997. Public consultation on this application ended on 17 February 1997.

  Taking full account of the many representations received, and of the individual merits of bringing the two trusts together, we have decided to approve the merger. The two existing trusts will both be dissolved on 1 April 1997 and immediately re-established as a single trust, Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS trust.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list (1) by health authority area and (2) health authority, trust or equivalent body the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers in (i) 1990, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1994, (iv) 1995 and (v) 1996. [18897]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 10 December 1996, columns 168–72, by my right hon. Friend. Information for 1996 is given in the following table. Information for nurses, midwives and health visitors is not available separately, and the total of nursing and midwifery staff is therefore shown.
  39

  Staff in post as at 30 September 1996 (Whole time equivalent numbers)

  Organisation1

  Doctors2

  Nursing and midwifery staff3

  Administrative and clerical4

  Managers

  Velindre NHS Trust

  14

  102

  111

  18

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  17

  7

  269

  92

  Total

  1,072

  6,789

  3,053

  506

  Dyfed Powys

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  110

  607

  242

  23

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  51

  389

  142

  29

  Derwen NHS Trust

  29

  458

  121

  13

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  71

  527

  146

  19

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  100

  701

  268

  17

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  42

  944

  208

  17

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  6

  —

  147

  57

  Total

  409

  3,626

  1,274

  175

  Gwent

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  304

  1,882

  651

  77

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  50

  1,183

  312

  64

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  108

  725

  210

  19

  Gwent Health Authority

  9

  4

  127

  35

  Total

  471

  3,794

  1,300

  195

  Morgannwg

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  161

  1,748

  407

  46

  Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust

  126

  1,430

  414

  36

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  192

  1,172

  359

  33

  Swansea NHS Trust

  138

  855

  276

  24

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust7

  —

  —

  102

  15

  Morgannwg Health Authority

  9

  5

  130

  32

  Total

  626

  5,210

  1,688

  186

  North Wales

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  51

  1,446

  340

  56

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  165

  932

  360

  34

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  42

  1,148

  278

  28

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  197

  854

  292

  8

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  —

  54

  12

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  153

  921

  298

  28

  North Wales Health Authority

  10

  10

  163

  68

  Total

  618

  5,311

  1,785

  234

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority8

  4

  76

  700

  113

  1 Organisations are listed under the name they had at 30 September 1996.

  2 Provisional. Working in the hospital, community or public health service but excluding general medical practitioners.

  3 Excluding pre-registration learners.

  4 Including managers.

  5 Covering the former Mid Glamorgan area.

  6 Covering the former areas of South Glamorgan, Gwent and Powys.

  7 Covering the former areas of West Glamorgan and East Dyfed.

  8 Includes staff employed in Health Promotion Wales.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS clerical, administrative and management staff there were in each year since 1989. [18900]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is given in the following table:

  Total directly employed NHS administrative and clerical staff1

  September 1989

  7,667

  September 1990

  8,185

  September 1991

  8,865

  September 1992

  9,498

  September 1993

  10,082

  40

  Total directly employed NHS administrative and clerical staff1

  September 1994

  9,905

  September 1995

  9,875

  September 1996

  9,799

  1 Whole-time equivalents. Includes managers. Excludes GP support staff.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospital and community health services nurses who are(a) qualified, (b) unqualified,

  41
  (c)midwives, (d)learner staff and (e)Project 2000 students, as whole-time equivalents, employed in each year since 1991. [18898]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table. Details for midwifery staff are included in the figures and are not available separately.

  Nursing and midwifery staff1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Qualified2

  17,633

  17,763

  17,650

  16,565

  16,647

  Unqualified

  7,019

  7,355

  7,222

  6,616

  6,636

  Education staff

  376

  333

  263

  238

  63

  Not known3

  22

  104

  288

  1,802

  1,382

  Learners4

  2,934

  1,970

  1,033

  144

  7

  Project 2000 students5

  100

  1,078

  1,871

  1,969

  1,951

  £000

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  General and senior managers

  1,781

  6,567

  9,543

  19,432

  20,919

  30,836

  Nurses and midwives1

  318,797

  338,151

  364,519

  402,501

  425,736

  421,737

  Administrative and clerical staff2

  61,337

  66,747

  77,430

  79,134

  96,059

  110,832

  Notes:

  1Information on salaries and wages cost for family health services authorities are not held centrally, and figures for nurses and midwives cannot be disaggregated from administrative and clerical costs.

  2These figures exclude the costs of GPs' administrative staff as the information was not separately collected.

  Sources:

  Financial returns and annual accounts of district health authorities, NHS trusts, family health services authorities, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Barry Community Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has had from the director of Welsh Health Estates concerning additional funding for major roof and boiler remedial works at the new Barry community hospital; [19331]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of (a) his Department, (b) the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, (c) Beard Dove as successor body to the authority's estate care branch, (d) Bro Taf health authority, (e) Llanlough Hospital Trust and (f) Sir Robert McAlpine for defects at Barry community hospital; [19332]

  (3) on what previous occasions his Department has subrogated the claim for remedial works on a hospital pending resolution of the claim for damages arising from defective design or workmanship in design and build hospital contracts in circumstances similar to those applying at Barry community hospital. [19333]

  Mr. Hague
  There are issues relating to contractual liability which have to be resolved and I cannot comment on the responsibilities of specific bodies for the defects. No request has been received for additional funding and there has not been a similar case since this was the first hospital commissioned through a design and build contract.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many answers to parliamentary questions by
  42
  1Whole-time equivalents as at 30 September. Staff on local pay scales for whom no details of grade are available centrally are included as grade not known—this may affect the comparability of figures for other groups over time. Figures for 1996 are not shown because of a substantial increase in the number of nurses for whom these details are not available centrally.

  2 Grades C and above.

  3Staff on local pay scales for whom no details of grade are available centrally.

  4Pre-registration learners. Excludes Project 2000 students.

  5Numbers at April. Figures supplied by Education Purchasing Unit, WHCSA.

  NHS Employees' Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the NHS salaries and wages costs for(a) general and senior managers, (b) nurses and midwives and (c) administrative and clerical staff in each financial year from 1988–89 to 1993–94. [18899]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19349]

  Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19349]

  Mr. Hague
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large numbers of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales where the Welsh TECs' surplus on working capital will be spent in the coming financial year; what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of TECs developing such a surplus; and if he will make a statement. [19025]

  Mr. Hague
  TECs may generate surplus on the services which they deliver on behalf of the Welsh Office. TECs are able to do so where they can achieve efficiency savings with service providers. Their ability to generate surplus, acts as an incentive to the pursuit of such savings.

  TECs need to generate surplus in order to help cover their overheads and to maintain reserves at levels which are at least sufficient to cover their fixed capital and working capital needs. Reserves are primarily a matter for the directors of TECs to determine, since they have a duty to ensure that prudent levels are maintained.
  43
  However, TECs are expected to reinvest any reserves which accumulate in excess of those essential needs on activities or projects which are of potential benefit to the communities which they serve. TECs are required to set out their plans for the expenditure of such reserves in their annual business plans, which are subject to approval by my Department. Additionally, planned expenditure on major projects—currently £150,000 or more—requires specific prior approval for each project and is subject to more detailed scrutiny. My Department monitors both the use of reserves and the in-year generation of surpluses as the year progresses, in order to ensure that planned expenditure proceeds and that any accumulation of reserves is matched by expenditure plans for the following year.

  TECs are currently preparing their final business plans for 1997–98. However, on the evidence of their earlier draft documents, their plans for the reinvestment of reserves next year are likely to cover a wide variety of schemes including child care facilities, initiatives aimed at young people who are not in training, education or employment, the "Bargaining for Skills Initiative"—partnership between Wales Trades Union Congress and Welsh TECs—adaptations for training disabled people, health and safety awareness for employers and employees,

  Net funding per pupil in LEA maintained secondary schools at cash prices1

  Financial Year

  1990–91£

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  1993–94£

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  1,923

  2,146

  2,287

  2,133

  2,206

  Dyfed

  1,891

  2,026

  2,191

  2,106

  2,274

  Gwent

  1,991

  2,194

  2,293

  2,320

  2,303

  Gwynedd

  1,989

  2,266

  2,429

  2,410

  2,398

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,903

  2,293

  2,355

  2,228

  2,249

  Powys

  1,813

  1,935

  2,158

  2,254

  2,291

  South Glamorgan

  1,887

  2,064

  2,162

  2,116

  2,123

  West Glamorgan

  2,168

  2,392

  2,515

  2,383

  2,340

  Wales

  1,951

  2,186

  2,304

  2,246

  2,264

  1 Figures from 1991–92 onwards include local management of schools balances. Expenditure on school meals and transport are excluded.

  44
  enhanced career guidance in schools, the "Meister Technician Initiative", support for modern communication technologies in schools, graduate employment opportunities, training support for inward investment.

  Incomes and Taxes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average income per family of four in(a) the county of Powys and (b) Wales for the last five years for which figures are available; what proportion of that income was spent on tax including VAT and national insurance payments; and if he will make a statement. [19026]

  Mr. Hague
  The information available centrally does not provide reliable estimates at this level of detail.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each Welsh county's expenditure per secondary school pupil for each of the last five years for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [19032]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on local authority net current expenditure on secondary education per pupil is given in the following table.
  45

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussion his Department has had with general practitioners within the Dyfed Powys health authority area on the role of community hospitals in the development of primary health care. [19235]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My officials have held no recent discussions on this matter with representatives of GPs in the Dyfed Powys health authority area.

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the effect of the financial deficit of the former Powys health authority on the current and future financial circumstances of the Dyfed Powys health authority. [19239]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The allocation of funds to the newly constituted Dyfed Powys health authority was based on the population of the new authority. Any over-commitments by the former authorities have to be managed within the resources allocated. This is the responsibility of the new authority.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed closure of eight community hospitals in the Dyfed Powys health authority area. [19233]

  Mr. Jones
  None. My right hon. Friend awaits the outcome of the authority's public consultation, which is due to end on 30 April.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financial position of each of the eight NHS trusts in the Dyfed Powys health authority area at the end of the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [19237]

  Mr. Jones
  There are six NHS trusts which provide hospital and community health care and whose main commissioner is Dyfed Powys health authority. In addition, services provided by the West Wales ambulance trust and South and East Wales ambulance trust are also used by the authority. The financial position for future years is dependent on contracting arrangements between the trusts and the health authority and therefore figures for 1997–98 or 1998–99 are unavailable. The forecast outturn position estimated by each NHS trust for 1996–97 is as follows:

  Trust

  Latest forecast £ million surplus (deficit)

  Carmarthen

  (0.270)

  Ceredigion

  (0.150)

  Derwen

  0.040

  Llanelli

  0.000

  Pembroke

  0.026

  Powys

  0.098

  West Wales ambulance trust

  0.172

  South-east Wales ambulance trust

  (0.326)

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings his Department has had with the Dyfed 46
  Powys health authority to discuss its current consultative strategy document. [19236]

  Mr. Jones
  My officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Dyfed Powys health authority, at some of which the authority's consultative strategy document was discussed.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Dyfed Powys health authority on its funding needs over the next five years. [19238]

  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have had no formal representations about the authority's funding needs for the next five years. Officials are in touch with the authority about the cash position in the current year and will continue to monitor the position.

  Health Authorities (Funding Formula)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals to change the funding formula for health authorities to take greater account of rurality. [19234]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As announced by my right hon. Friend on 6 March,Official Report, column 727, a review of the formula used to distribute resources among health authorities will commence this year. The review will consider the existing methodology and whether it would be appropriate to change the balance of existing factors or to build new factors into the formula.

  Pembrokeshire Islands
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what recent discussions have taken place with the European Commission about delays in reaching a decision on the designation of the Pembrokeshire islands special area of conservation; and if he will make a statement; [19524]

  (2) what factors he assesses may delay the decision on the proposed designation of the Pembrokeshire islands as a special area of conservation; [19520]

  (3) when he will make a decision on the proposed designation of the Pembrokeshire islands as a special area of conservation; [19522]

  (4) on what date the consultation process concluded in respect of the proposed designation of the Pembrokeshire islands as a special area of conservation under the habitats directive; [19521]

  (5) if he will list those areas designated special areas of conservation under the habitats directive indicating for each the dates on which (a) the consultation periods ended and (b) the areas were designated. [19523]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The consultation period for marine sites ended on 22 June 1996, although discussions are continuing in respect of a number of sites across the UK where outstanding issues remain. To date, 36 Welsh sites listed as follows have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate special areas of conservation, although none has yet been designated. Having received many representations, both for and against the proposed designation of the Pembrokeshire islands site, my right hon. Friend, in common with
  47
  practice elsewhere in the UK, is still considering the relevant issues raised. The Commission has been informed of the latest position.

  Berwyn

  Burry inlet: dunes

  Burry inlet: saltmarsh

  Cardigan Bay Coed Y Cerrig

  Coedydd a Cheunant Rheidol

  Coedydd Derw Meirion

  Coleg Clynllifon

  Cors Caron

  Cors Fochno

  Corsydd Mon

  Crymlyn bog

  Cwm Cadlan

  Drostre bank

  Elenydd

  Eryri

  Glannau Mon: Twyni

  Glannau Mon: Cors Heli

  Glannau Ynys Gybi

  Great Orme's

  Kenfig

  Limestone Sea Cliffs of S W Wales

  Llangorse lake

  Fenn's, Whixhall, Bettisfield, Wem and Cadney mosses

  Gower commons

  Pembrokeshire bat sites

  Penllyn a'r Sarnau

  Preseli

  Rhinog

  Rhos Goch

  Rhos Llawr Cwrt

  St. David's

  Tanat and Vyrynwy bat sites

  Wye Valley woodlands

  Wye Valley bat sites

  Usk Valley bat sites.

  Research Councils (Commissions)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many commissions his Department placed with the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council in each year from 1979 to the present; how many such commissions he expects to place in 1997; and what the value was of the commissions in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [19369]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of his answers to 48
  parliamentary questions in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19334]

  Mr. Streeter
  Where the cost of answering a parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large numbers of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Tackling Drugs Together
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to review the Government's strategy, "Tackling Drugs Together". [17792]

  Mr. Newton
  Progress in implementing "Tackling Drugs Together" is subject to regular review by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on the misuse of drugs, which I chair. Most of the tasks for 1997–98, the third and final year of the current strategy, are specific reviews of the effectiveness of key departmental actions and strategies. An independent evaluation of the work of the 105 drug action teams across England is also due to report shortly. The Government will assess the strategy's development beyond 1997–98 in the light of this work, and will consult widely in doing so.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Legislation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the procedures for consideration of EU legislation and expenditure. [17793]

  Mr. Newton
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation published a report in July 1996 on the scrutiny of European business, which is currently being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. The Government will look at recommendations for improving the scrutiny procedures in the light of the Procedure Committee's report.

  Back Benchers
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the amount of time available to Back Benchers to raise matters of concern to their constituents. [17794]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 10 February,Official Report, column 28.

  Easter Recess
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the average length of the Easter recess during the last 10 years. [17795]
  49
  Mr. Newton
  The average length of the Easter adjournment during the last 10 years is 12.7 days. There was no Easter adjournment in 1992 because the House dissolved for the general election of that year.

  Voting Procedures
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward measures to change voting procedures; and if he will make a statement. [17796]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans; but my hon. Friend may wish to draw any concerns or suggestions he may have to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rendering Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of any financial support given to the rendering industry in Government grant or European aid in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996, indicating the amounts given to each rendering company. [18494]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1996, 18 rendering companies received about £66 million of temporary financial assistance under the rendering industry support scheme 1996. Payment have been based on loss of income from meat and bonemeal and tallow by comparison with 1995–96, with adjustments to take broad account of renderers' actual levels of throughput and costs in 1996–97. This support

  Age

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  25

  43

  81

  64

  38

  18

  13

  12

  4

  3

  419

  805

  2,055

  4,150

  1,653

  1,016

  456

  479

  232

  4

  1,229

  2,681

  4,860

  10,062

  15,181

  5,887

  3,374

  1,765

  1,267

  5

  855

  2,539

  4,098

  6,358

  12,603

  15,167

  5,863

  3,342

  1,410

  6

  256

  1,043

  2,017

  2,691

  4,700

  7,876

  8,085

  3,083

  1,368

  7

  76

  240

  600

  985

  1,369

  2,078

  3,182

  3,035

  988

  8

  23

  72

  143

  264

  490

  636

  823

  1,068

  802

  9

  9

  20

  47

  96

  170

  252

  290

  335

  271

  10

  6

  10

  20

  35

  40

  102

  127

  124

  75

  11+

  2

  9

  14

  27

  43

  41

  70

  78

  65

  Unknown

  240

  312

  704

  1,129

  858

  697

  628

  489

  266

  Total

  3,140

  7,775

  14,609

  25,861

  37,146

  33,770

  22,911

  13,810

  6,748

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of bovine infective units of BSE needed to infect a mouse by intra-cerebral injection. [18201]

  Mrs. Browning
  Titres of infectivity are measures of the concentration of the infectious agent in a particular tissue based upon mortality rates in animals inoculated with different amounts of the tissue. The unit of expression of the concentration of infectivity in a given tissue is therefore relative to the animal species used for the assay. Titres of infectivity also vary from case to case, between tissues and with stage of incubation.
  50
  forms part of our package of measures designed to maintain essential links in the meat supply and disposal chain in the aftermath of the BSE crisis.

  Details of any other UK or EU funded grants or financial assistance which may have been paid to rendering companies are not held centrally.

  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 estimate of 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.

  BSE
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of cases of BSE of each year of age in each year from 1988 to 1996; and what is the number of cases in which the age is not available in each of these years. [18202]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the number of confirmed cases of BSE in Great Britain of each year of age from 1988 to 1996 by age and year of clinical onset as at 3 March 1997:

  An experiment to compare the relative infectivity of bovine brain to mice and cattle by intracerebral inoculation is in progress.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the use of the chemiluminescent tests for the identification of cattle with BSE; and if he will make a statement. [18034]

  Mrs. Browning
  The test referred to is an ELISA—enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay—test carried out on tissue collected post mortem. The test is reported to be able to distinguish between BSE affected and unaffected cattle which have been slaughtered as suspects, but many more samples will need to be tested comparability before
  51
  it can be shown to be as accurate as the histopathological test currently used to diagnose BSE. We have no plans to substitute this test for our current method of diagnosis.

  There is no information available to determine whether this test is capable of identifying cattle infected with BSE but not yet showing clinical signs of disease and as far as is known tissues from such cattle have not been examined.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has evaluated in respect of the involvement of environmental factors in the transmissive, infective or pathological processes of BSE. [18177]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no scientific evidence to suggest that environmental factors play a part in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of BSE. It is however recognised that periods of severe weather have given rise to an increase in the short-term report rate. This appears to be related to a general effect of stress bringing on the manifestation of the early symptoms of BSE in cattle.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned in respect of the infective agent from (i) scrapie and (ii) BSE remaining in hay mites. [18135]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following is a list of scrapie evaluated and non-evaluated research.

  Project code

  Project title

  Start date

  End date

  Evaluated scrapie projects

  OC9038

  Investigation of the role of the embryo in maternal transmission of scrapie in sheep

  01/07/92

  30/06/95

  SE1402

  Transmission of BSE and natural scrapie into sheep and goats by intracerebral and oral routes [became SE1418]

  01/04/90

  31/03/95

  SE1403

  Strain typing of BSE pathogens in mice, and comparison with strains from natural sheep scrapie [became SE1415]

  01/04/91

  31/03/95

  SE1404

  Susceptibility of BSE and scrapie isolates to laboratory facsimiles of rendering practices [became SE1421]

  01/04/90

  31/03/95

  SE1407

  Analysis of nucleic acid and differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  01/04/90

  31/03/94

  SE1410

  Sheep PrP Gene studies

  01/04/92

  31/03/93

  SE1701

  Studies of natural and experimental spongiform encephalopathies related to diagnosis

  01/04/92

  31/03/94

  SE1706

  Identification of BSE and scrapie infected animals by the detection of a urinary metabolite

  01/04/92

  31/03/95

  SE1709

  Sensitivity of scrapie-associated fibrils from different breeds of sheep to proteinase K digestion

  01/07/92

  31/03/94

  SE1710

  TSE fibril immunolabelling studies

  01/07/92

  31/03/94

  52

  Project code

  Project title

  Start date

  End date

  SE1712

  Production of sera suitable for the development of immunodiagnostic tests for transmissible spongiform

  01/04/92

  31/12/93

  SE1715

  Molecular characterisation of a single stranded (SS) DNA observed in scrapie infected hamster and mouse brain

  01/08/93

  31/07/94

  SE1716

  Studies of PrP gene of species naturally and experimentally infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

  01/04/92

  31/03/95

  SE1717

  Significance of PrP and putative anti-PrP genes on susceptibility to transmission of spongiform encephalopathies

  01/04/92

  31/03/94

  SE1722

  The molecular nature of the agents of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

  01/10/94

  30/09/95

  SE1808

  Transmissibility of BSE and natural scrapie to marmoset by stereotoxic intracerebral inoculation of brain homogenate

  01/04/92

  31/03/93

  SE1813

  Transmissibility of scrapie to pigs by oral exposure to brain homogenate [became SE1822]

  01/04/93

  31/03/95

  SE1908

  Ultrastructural morphological and immunocytochemical studies of transmissible degenerative encephalopathies

  01/04/93

  31/03/96

  SE1916

  Morphometric evaluation of Scrapied mice

  01/05/94

  31/08/95

  Non evaluated scrapie projects

  OC9425

  An investigation of scrapie infectivity and PrP genotype in clinically normal cast ewes from infected flocks

  01/04/95

  31/03/99

  SE0213

  An epidemiological study of sheep scrapie to determine means of natural transmission

  01/04/95

  31/03/98

  SE0217

  Cattle and sheep products audit trail

  24/06/96

  23/12/96

  SE0219

  The epidemiology of TSEs in ruminants and assessment of possible associated risk to human health

  01/01/97

  31/01/00

  SE1409

  Development of an antemortem test for BSE and natural scrapie infection through the detection of abnormal deposits of PrP

  01/04/94

  31/03/98

  SE1411

  Further analysis of nucleic acid differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  01/04/94

  31/03/98

  SE1412

  PrP gene variants and their potential as marker for natural and experimental scrapie susceptibility in sheep

  01/04/94

  31/03/98

  SE1413

  Strain-typing of scrapie agent in meat and bone meal

  01/01/97

  31/12/99

  SE1414

  Studies on the "species barrier" in scrapie and BSE

  01/04/95

  31/03/2000

  SE1415

  Strain typing of BSE pathogen in mice and comparison with strains from natural sheep scrapie [was SE1403]

  01/04/95

  31/03/99

  SE1417

  The effect of PrP genotype on the thermostability of scrapie agent

  01/04/95

  31/03/2000

  53

  Project code

  Project title

  Start date

  End date

  SE1421

  BSE and scrapie agent susceptibility to laboratory facsimiles of rendering practices [was SE1404]

  01/04/95

  31/03/98

  SE1422

  Practical aspects of inactivation of BSE and scrapie agents [was SE1405]

  01/04/95

  31/03/97

  SE1707

  Sensitivity studies of fibril detection techniques used in Electron Microscopy for the diagnosis of scrapie

  01/04/91

  30/09/97

  SE1713

  Gain information on use of resistant rams as method of controlling or eradicating scrapie

  01/04/92

  31/03/99

  SE1718

  Identification and characterisation of the scrapie agent from a low protein, high infectivity fraction of brain

  01/10/95

  30/09/99

  SE1725

  Studies of the enhancement of reproducibility of PrP Scrapie detection after cold storage of scrapie affected tissue

  01/04/95

  31/03/98

  SE1727

  Identification of putative NA components of the etiologic agent of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

  01/06/95

  31/05/96

  SE1729

  PrP gene codon 171 and species susceptibility to scrapie like diseases

  01/04/96

  31/03/99

  SE1734

  Approaches to the identification of nucleic acids associated with the transmissible encephalopathies

  01/01/97

  31/12/98

  SE1814

  To determine if scrapie can be transmitted by transfer of embryos from ewes infected with scrapie to uninfected ewes

  01/10/95

  30/09/98

  SE1820

  Evaluation of techniques to remove spinal cord from sheep carcasses as part of TSE control measures

  01/01/97

  31/03/97

  SE1822

  Transmissibility of scrapie to pigs by oral exposure to brain homogenate [was SE1813]

  01/04/95

  31/03/98

  SE1823

  Investigation of the role of the embryo in maternal transmission of scrapie in sheep

  01/07/95

  31/03/98

  SE1910

  The demonstration and immunostaining of small virus-like particles in experimental scrapie rodent brain

  01/04/96

  31/12/97

  SE1917

  Scrapie infection of sheep neural and extraneural cell lines

  01/01/94

  31/12/96

  SE1919

  Studies to identify possible homologies between TSEs

  01/04/95

  31/03/98

  SE1920

  Ultrastructural, morphological and immunoytochemical studies of TSE

  01/04/96

  31/03/99

  SE1922

  Studies of the sensitivity and specificity of methods of PrP scrapie detection in animal TSEs

  01/04/95

  30/11/97

  The Ministry of Agirculture, Fisheries and Food is currently appraising two projects which have been submitted for research funding on the subject of hay
  54
  mites. The project titles are as listed. These proposals outline work to determine whether hay or feed mites contain the prions—or potential infective agent—of scrapie or BSE.

  ZD0416: The exposure of British sheep and cattle to mites
  ZD0455: Replication of scrapie and BSE prions in mites

  The prioritisation of other research projects will determine whether funding for these proposals will be made available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated concerning the number of bovine infective units of BSE required per 100 gm of tissue for an inoculated mouse to be reliably expected to develop the disease. [18196]

  Mrs. Browning
  The principal research so far conducted to determined the concentration of infectivity—titre—in a BSE-affected tissue by assay in cattle is the study to compare the efficiency of cattle and mice for the bioassay of BSE-affected brain. This experiment is incomplete and there are no other studies proposed to assay quantitatively other tissues in cattle.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the amount of infectivity, in infective units which has been spread on the land by bovine faeces. [18198]

  Mrs. Browning
  No such estimate is available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many BSE-infected cattle he estimates were consumed in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU by 1 January 1995. [18199]

  Mrs. Browning
  The article published by Professor Anderson et al, "Transmission dynamics and epidemiology of BSE in British cattle", in Nature on 29 August 1996 estimated that 446,000 infected animals entered the food chain before the specified bovine offal ban at the end of 1989, with approximately 283,000 more before the end of 1995. No estimates of the likely numbers of infected animals consumed in the United Kingdom or EU are available.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 March 1997, c. 746]: Where animals are compulsorily slaughtered under the Animal Health Act 1981 as being affected with, or suspected of being affected with, BSE, the Animal By-Products Order 1992 (SI 1992/3303) requires the carcases of such animals to be rendered, incinerated or buried. There is no legal requirement for such carcases to be destroyed specifically by incineration.

  It has, however, been the Ministry's practice to use incineration whenever feasible. In the early years of the BSE epidemic, incineration capacity was insufficient to deal with all the cattle involved. At that time, some animals were disposed of by burial, a practice noted, without objection, by the Southwood committee. Since

  55
  1991, incineration capacity has been sufficient for other methods to be used only very rarely and in exceptional circumstances.

  Thus, up to the end of 1991, 50,735 carcases of cattle affected, or suspected of being affected with BSE were incinerated; 6,117 were disposed of—after the removal of heads, which were incinerated—in landfill sites. Since 1991, only four carcases of BSE cases have been buried, on farm—not landfill—where, because of the remoteness of the area, incineration was not deemed practicable. The last of these was in 1995.

  The three cases from 1996 described in my answer of 6 March as having been buried were referred to in error. These cases have now been identified as having been passed to the Cental Veterinary Laboratory for research purposes and their carcases were incinerated.

  The carcases of cattle slaughtered under the over-30 month scheme, which started in May 1996 and for which cattle suspected of BSE are ineligible, are required by EU Council Regulation 716/96 to be incinerated or rendered and destroyed. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advised, in June 1996, that it did not regard the incineration of meat and bonemeal and tallow from animals slaughtered under this scheme to be necessary on scientific grounds.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which public health experts were members of SEAC during the chairmanship of Dr. Tyrell; and what were his Department's sources of public health advice during that period. [18133]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Tyrrell on 3 April 1990. He remained chairman until 4 October 1995.

  The following members of SEAC, during the chairmanship of Dr. Tyrrell, were medical doctors.

  Dr. David Tyrrell FRCP., FRCPath., FRS.
  Professor I. Allen MD, Dsc., FRCPath., FRCPI., FRCPSG., FRCPE.
  Professor J. Pattison DM., BM., Bch., FRCPath.
  Dr. R. G. Will MA (Camb), MD., MB., Bch., MRCP (UK).

  The committee was set up to advise both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. The main sources of public health advice during Dr. Tyrrell's chairmanship were SEAC, the Department of Health and the Government's chief medical Officer and the national CJD surveillance unit, set up in May 1990.

  Dairy Farms (Rents)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the annual rental cost for one acre of land on an average dairy farm in the United Kingdom for each month from January 1995 to February 1997. [18193]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of the rent of agricultural land in England and Wales are collected annually. Until 1995, the rent inquiry collected information from land agents 56
  on the levels of rents for agricultural land let under full agricultural tenancies and did not collect information on the types of farm. This showed that the average rent in October 1995 for all farms in England was £111 per hectare-£45 per acre. In October 1996, the annual survey of tenanted land was introduced to collect information from tenants and covered all types of tenancy agreements. The results from this survey are currently being analysed and will be available very shortly.

  Cattle (Mortality Rates)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the standardised mortality ratios and confidence intervals for cattle born in each month from June 1988 to date. [18195]

  Mrs. Browning
  Standard mortality ratios have not been calculated; they are not appropriate as the date suspect cases are slaughtered does not have a constant relationship with the date of clinical onset. The results of the analysis of standardised morbidity ratios have been published in the document "Programme to Eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom" figure 18, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  There have been too few cases of BSE in 1992-born animals to make any difference to the published ratios.

  Central Veterinary Laboratory
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the overall research budget of the Central Veterinary Laboratory for each year from 1987 to 1996. [18197]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Central Veterinary Laboratory was merged with the veterinary investigation centres of the state veterinary service in October 1995, to form the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The overall research budget for CVL from 1989 to 1995 and then the VLA for 1995–96 were as follows:

  Year

  Research budget

  (£000)

  1989–90

  8,834

  1990–91

  9,231

  1991–92

  9,733

  1992–93

  9,673

  1993–94

  10,834

  1994–95

  10,031

  1995–96

  10,706

  Figures prior to 1989–90 are not available.

  Departmental Data
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which independent researchers outside his Department have been given access to computerised departmental data; and which researchers having requested it have not received such access. [18194]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is not possible to provide a full response to this question because of disproportionate cost. However, MAFF's policy on the dissemination of data is designed to deal with requests for access on an equitable
  57
  basis and we operate under the official statistics code of practice and the code of practice on access to government information.

  MAFF receives a considerable number of requests for access to computerised data for research purposes—covering a wide range of departmental responsibilities. As may be seen from the details contained in the document "Requests by Independent Researchers for Access to Computerised Data held by The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, MAFF endeavours to respond positively and has provided data in the majority of cases where legislation and confidentiality restrictions allow. However, the confidential nature of certain information means that some requests have not been approved and the above document also gives some details of these.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19351]

  Mr. Boswell
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for the Department to calculate systematically the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16188]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name of agency

  Number of employed

  Total cost £

  Average cost £

  Average length of contracts

  1993–94

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  Grafton Recruitment

  5

  28,491

  5,698

  16 months

  Premiere

  Employment

  1995–96

  Grafton Recruitment

  19

  132,975

  18,266

  111.08 months

  Apple Recruitment

  Agency

  Group 4 Securities

  Services Ltd.

  BNA

  Agency

  1Excludes the BNA Nursing Agency whose staff were not employed on a contractual basis.

  58

  Rev. David Templeton (Assault)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which paramilitary organisation was responsible for the assault on the Rev. David Templeton in Ballyduff; what was the nature of the injuries inflicted; and if he will make a statement. [17708]

  Sir John Wheeler
  David Templeton, a Presbyterian minister, was assaulted on 7 February 1997 by three masked men who entered his home and beat him with cudgels.

  His injuries are confirmed as a fractured jaw, fractures to both legs and multiple cuts and abrasions to his arms and legs.

  No group has claimed responsibility for this brutal and disgraceful attack, which has been widely condemned.

  Action for Community Employment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much has been spent on the ACE programme in each of the last 15 years; [18440]

  (2)how many ACE managers have been made redundant following the reduction in expenditure on the programme in 1996; [18438]

  (3)how much has been spent on training ACE managers in the 16 years of the ACE scheme. [18439]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 6 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) Programme.

  Parliamentary Question 408 (Ref: 18440)

  The following expenditure has been incurred on ACE since 1981:

  Expenditure

  Year

  (£ million)

  1981–82

  1.67

  1982–83

  5.24

  1983–84

  10.6

  1984–85

  13.61

  1985–86

  18.34

  1986–87

  29.14

  1987–88

  29.47

  1988–89

  40.39

  1989–90

  48.95

  1990–91

  50.42

  1991–92

  51.68

  1992–93

  52.96

  1993–94

  50.61

  1994–95

  50

  1995–96

  49.96

  1996–97

  139.83

  1Allocation.

  Parliamentary Question 409 (Ref 18438)

  In total 119 ACE Core posts will be shed by 31 March 1997 as a direct result of the 1996–97 budgetary reductions. Of these 48 are management posts including assistant and deputy managers.
  59
  Parliamentary Question 411 (Ref: 18439)
  Structured training was introduced progressively int the ACE programme from 1989. Since then, approximately £600,000 has been spent on training ACE core staff including managers.

  Rural Residents (Buses)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of rural residents who live more than half a mile from a bus route; and if he will make a statement. [18406]

  Mr. Moss
  No such estimate has been made.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what records of chemicals used or stored for industrial purposes are held by the Department of the Environment for use when investigating the cause of pollution incidents affecting watercourses. [18269]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 6 March 1997:

  As Chief Executive of Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), I am responsible for all operational aspects of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland's environmental policies.
  I am therefore responding to the Parliamentary Question which you put down in the House of Commons on 28 February 1997 "to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what records of chemicals used or stored for industrial purposes are held by DOE (NI) for use when investigating the cause of pollution incidents affecting watercourses."
  The Chief Executive of this Department's Water Service has also contributed to this reply.
  Within the United Kingdom the Government is committed to minimising any escape to water of those chemicals identified as especially hazardous, more commonly referred to as Red List substances. In Northern Ireland, my service is currently aware of 188 premises which use or store Red List substances and a detailed record is held for each sites. These records include Information on each substance, quantities stored, the purpose for which they are used and the measures in place to prevent pollution of waterways.
  EHS also hold records of all agrochemical retailers in Northern Ireland registered under the BASIS agrochemical scheme and regularly inspects their stores to ensure that they pose a minimal water pollution risk. BASIS, as a voluntary scheme managed by the agrochemical manufacturers, which sets stringent standards for pollution prevention and general safety.
  All industries which discharge either effluent to the public sewer or treated effluent to a watercourse must have the consent of this Department. In either case, strict limits are set on the type and maximum concentration of materials which can be discharged. The application form for Water Act consent requires that chemicals stored on premises are listed.
  The Water Service has confirmed that they maintain records of all chemicals used in the course of its functional work and stored on its premises. The only other information held by Water Service about chemicals used or stored in premises is in respect of those premises where a discharge to a public sewerage network is subject to the consent of the Department, through the system of trade effluent consents. Those making application for such a consent are required to provide details of whatever chemicals are being used for any industrial process being conducted on their premises.
  I trust you will find this reply helpful.
  60

  Policing (Harryville)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the costs of policing Harryville on Saturday nights, including the costs of police manpower and any associated overtime. [18391]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not yet possible to give figures for Saturday 22 February. However, it is estimated that typical costs for previous Saturdays have been in the region of £27,000, including the costs of police manpower and associated overtime costs.

  Housing (Disabled Tenants)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of new houses provided by(a) Northern Ireland Housing Executive and (b) voluntary housing associations have been constructed to meet the needs of disabled tenants in each of the last five years [18563]

  Mr. Moss
  The number and percentage of new houses constructed to meet the needs of disabled tenants in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Year

  Number new build

  To meet needs of disabled

  Percentage

  1996

  953

  319

  33

  1995

  812

  214

  26

  1994

  969

  349

  36

  1993

  1,328

  325

  25

  1992

  873

  303

  35

  Total

  4,935

  1,510

  30

  Registered Housing Associations

  Year

  Number new build

  To meet needs of disabled1

  Percentage

  1996

  1,389

  644

  46

  1995

  1,181

  636

  54

  1994

  1,001

  586

  58

  1993

  946

  625

  66

  1992

  1,229

  555

  45

  Total

  5,746

  3,046

  53

  1 In addition, unless it is inappropriate to do so, all new housing association bungalows, ground floor flats and flats served by lifts are designed to full mobility standard, i.e. to be convenient for ambulant disabled people to live in, including those who use wheelchairs but are not wheelchair bound or to facilitate disabled users. However, information on this stock is not held separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Executive Estates (Lorry Parking)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it the practice of the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland to inform recipients of haulage operators' licences that parking in bays or on grass areas within Housing Executive estates is prohibited and could lead to the withdrawal of the operator's licence. [18562]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department does not consider it necessary to advise and warn licensed haulage operators specifically about parking of their vehicles in Northern Ireland Housing Executive estates.
  61
  As a condition of their road freight operators licence, vehicles used under the licence must not be parked overnight on public roads, which would include parking bays provided within Housing Executive developments. Where the holder of a licence fails to comply with any condition of the licence, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000. The Department may also revoke or suspend an operator's licence where a condition of the licence has not been complied with.

  Parking on grass areas is prohibited by the NIHE.

  Countryside Enhancement Scheme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the official notice regarding the (i) opening for applications and (ii) closing of the countryside enhancement scheme appeared in the press in Northern Ireland; how many applications were received, from(a) each county and (b)each council district; to whom advance notice of the scheme was given and on what dates; when copies of the details of the scheme were made available to (1) farmers and (2) other bodies; and if he will place a copy of the details of the scheme in the Library. [18513]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: (i) A press release was issued on 27 January 1997 announcing the opening of the farm and countryside enhancement scheme and (ii) another press release was issued on 30 January 1997 announcing the closure.

  (a) The following applications were received from each county:

  Number

  Co. Antrim

  73

  Co. Down

  291

  Co. Londonderry

  535

  Co. Armagh

  674

  Co. Fermanagh

  866

  Co. Tyrone

  1,752

  (b) The following applications were received from each district council:

  Number

  Armagh

  295

  Craigavon

  58

  Limavady

  162

  Newry and Mourne

  535

  Omagh

  726

  Belfast

  3

  Dungannon

  418

  Lisburn

  74

  Newtonabbey

  34

  Strabane

  267

  Cookstown

  341

  Fermanagh

  855

  Londonderry

  106

  Magherafelt

  224

  Other District Councils

  31

  Sixty-two applications were received and are being checked to find out the council area to which they belong. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association
  62
  was informed on the afternoon of 27 January 1997 when the press release was being issued. Attempts were made to inform the Ulster Farmers Union, but it could not be contacted until the morning of 28 January 1997.

  Details of the scheme was made available to farmers and other bodies on 28 January 1997. A leaflet with details of the scheme will be placed in the Library.

  Road Accident Fatalities (Costs)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the average cost to public funds of a road accident fatality. [18742]

  Mr. Moss
  The average cost, based on Department of Transport estimates, is £812,010.

  Road Safety
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost of increasing the number of road safety officers from the present 12 to 17. [18741]

  Mr. Moss
  The annual cost of increasing the number of road safety education officers from the planned 11 to the recommended 18 would be £176,323.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the report commissioned by his Department on road safety education. [18739]

  Mr. Moss
  The cost of the research and report was £9,105.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road accident casualties resulted from(a) overloaded lorries and lorries with mechanical defects and (b) errors by drivers, riders and pedestrians and defiance of the laws on speeding, drink driving and seat belts. [18737]

  Mr. Moss
  Road casualty accident figures provided by the RUC are as follows:(a)Accident casualties resulting from overloaded lorries and lorries with mechanical defects.

  1993: 5

  1994: 20

  1995: 29

  (b)Accident casualties caused by drivers, riders and pedestrians and defiance of the laws on speeding, drink driving and seatbelts.

  1993: 21,691

  1994: 23,518

  1995: 22,499

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the number of road safety officers is to be reduced from 12 to 10. [18740]

  Mr. Moss
  I have decided, in the light of competing priorities for road safety funding, that the number of road safety education officers should be reduced from 13 to 11. Road safety remains a priority for the Government and the overall resources allocated to it, particularly for vehicle enforcement and accident remedial and traffic calming measures, continue to increase year on year.
  63
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to achieve the code of good practice recommendation of one road safety officer per 50,000 population before 2000; and what additional resources he plans to devote to this aim. [18738]

  Mr. Moss
  I have no such plans. Competing priorities for road safety funding combined with general pressure on all departmental spending, render such a recommended staffing level inappropriate.

  Sub-programme for Agricultural and Rural Development
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has as to how many SPARD schemes have not had a claim for payment submitted; and, of these, how many relate to buildings related to(a) beef production and (b) potato production. [18985]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]:: A total of 5,004 applications made under the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development capital grants and farm innovation schemes have not had a claim for payment submitted. Of these (a) 1,760 had buildings related to beef production included and; (b) 156 had buildings related to potato production included.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19340]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Research Councils (Commissions)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many commissions his Department placed with the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council in each year from 1979 to the present; how many such commissions he expects to place in 1997; and what the value was of the commissions in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [19368]

  Mr. Ancram
  Nil.

  Emergency Provisions Act
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the report from Mr. J. J. Rowe, QC on the operation in 1996 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996; and if he will make a statement on the provisions contained in the Act. [19525]
  64
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received Mr. Rowe's report. It is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library. I am most grateful to him for his work.

  With the resumption of violence in Northern Ireland, there is renewed use of the powers contained in the Act. Mr. Rowe believes the Act remains necessary. This is also the view of the Government. I am therefore laying before the House today a draft order which would continue for a further year those provisions in the Act which are currently in force.

DEFENCE

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research into the health effects of organophosphate-based insecticides and pesticides has been conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down for his Department since 1979. [19090]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has not conducted any research programmes on the health effects of pesticidal organophosphorous compounds.

  Netheravon Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about fire cover at Netheravon airfield on Salisbury plain. [19065]

  Mr. Soames
  Airfield camp, Netheravon is being retained in the defence estate to house flying and non-flying units and as a landing site and forward mounting base for helicopters using the Salisbury plain training area. Under current plans, fire service cover will be provided by a six-man team based at Middle Wallop.

  On-site Inspections
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the on-site inspections made in the United Kingdom under the Stockholm and Vienna documents in the last five years. [19225]

  Mr. Soames
  The Stockholm document was superseded by the Vienna document in 1990. There has been one inspection in the United Kingdom under the Vienna document since 1992:1–4 March 1994: Russia inspected 3 Commando Brigade on Exercise Royal Dawn in Scotland.

  Additionally, there have been seven evaluation visits under the Vienna document:

  22 April 1992: Russia to 24 Airmobile brigade, Catterick Garrison.

  15 December 1992: Sweden to 19 Mechanised brigade, Colchester.

  20 July 1993: Russia to 1 Mechanised brigade, Tidworth.

  17 May 1995: Russia to 2 (South East) brigade, Shorncliffe.

  7 June 1996: Sweden to HQ 2 division, York.

  22 June 1996: Sweden to HQ 2 division, York.

  27 February 1997: Ukraine to 145 (Home Counties) brigade, Aldershot.

  65

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of Trident missiles purchased from the United States of America to date. [19223]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  So far, the UK has purchased 44 Trident missiles from the United States. A contract for a further seven was placed by the US Department of Defence in November 1996 on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  NATO
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to revise NATO's strategic concept agreed in 1991. [19109]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 6 March 1997,Official Report, column 712, to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).

  Army Foundation College
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students are expected to enter the Army foundation college in the first five years; and what will be the cost per student. [19105]

  Mr. Soames
  During the first year of operation, commencing in September 1998, 600 students are expected to enter the college, with the annual intake rising to a planned total of some 1,300 students in the year from September 2000. As the college is the subject of a private finance initiative proposal, its running costs will depend on the outcome of the PFI process. In addition, each student will be paid a salary of between £105 to £168 per week, according to age.

  Guns
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many guns have been stolen or cannot otherwise be accounted for in each service, categorised by type of gun, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [19279]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 January 1996, Official Report, column 537.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of possible further compensation for British second world war prisoners of war is likely to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [19256]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 February 1997 to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),Official Report, column 120.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19350]
  66
  Mr. Soames
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large numbers of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Naval Movements (Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 639, what the naval manoeuvres were arranged; and if there was any liaison between his Department and officials of the Cabinet Office in arranging them. [19414]

  Mr. Soames
  The naval activity which took place off the Ayrshire coast on 31 January 1997 was planned some 12 months in advance. There was no requirement for liaison with officials of the Cabinet Office. This was part of routine naval operations involving UK and NATO forces in UK territorial waters.

  Corporal Simon Cullen
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter of 5 December 1996 from the hon. Member for East Lothian about events relating an injury to Corporal Simon Cullen, MBE. [19361]

  Mr. Soames
  The case in question is a complex one which involved a number of issues requiring careful examination. Our investigation are, however, almost complete and I will write to the hon. Member within the week. I apologise for my delay in so doing.

SCOTLAND

  Cycle Challenge Fund
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many projects have benefited from the cycle challenge fund; and if he will list them. [18381]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office cycle challenge was announced in December 1996. Its aim is to offer grant support in 1998–99 for innovative cycle projects designed to encourage an increase in cycle use. The closing date for applications is 15 June 1997. No applications have yet been received. It is hoped that decisions on successful projects will be announced by December 1997.

  Scientists
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many food and agriculture scientists were employed in Government-funded food and science establishments by his Department on(a) the most recent date available and (b) 31 March (i) 1995, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1985 and (iv) 1980. [18178]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: The Scottish Office currently employs 86 scientists at the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency and 159 scientists in the fisheries research services. They work in

  67
  a wide range of scientific areas, including food and agriculture. Information for the earlier years is no longer held centrally.

  Non-NHS Health Care Providers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS providers in 1995–96 by(a) district health boards, (b) fundholding general practitioners and (c) NHS trusts in Scotland. [18800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Purchase of health care from non-NHS providers

  Health board

  Fundholding GPs

  NHS trusts

  £

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  7,608,155

  12,586

  217,554

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,361,111

  4,809

  0

  Borders

  1,806,601

  61,326

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  635,719

  4,929

  44,347

  Fife

  834,835

  60,822

  1,041,826

  Forth Valley

  1,683,462

  124,937

  0

  Grampian

  955,627

  392,437

  991,358

  Greater Glasgow

  18,004,559

  102,803

  0

  Highland

  2,143,443

  81,924

  0

  Lanarkshire

  9,161,237

  38,328

  0

  Lothian

  7,434,878

  342,981

  0

  Orkney

  5,370

  0

  0

  Shetland

  7,920

  0

  0

  Tayside

  771,508

  108,942

  0

  Western Isles

  122,443

  0

  0

  Scottish totals

  54,536,868

  1,336,824

  2,295,085

  Over £31 million is spent on charities and voluntary bodies and is included in the figures in the table.

  NHS Employees' Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the NHS salaries and wages costs for(a) all administrative, clerical and management staff and (b)nurses and midwives in each financial year from 1988–89 and 1993–94. [18893]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £000

  Financial year

  Administrative, clerical and management staff

  Nurses and midwives

  1988–89

  113,844

  731,406

  1989–90

  130,055

  778,921

  1990–91

  152,546

  834,093

  1991–92

  175,717

  910,326

  1992–93

  200,639

  964,363

  1993–94

  236,252

  973,912

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospital and community health 68
  services nurses who are (a) qualified, (b) unqualified, (c) midwives, (d) learner staff and (e) Project 2000 students, as whole-time equivalents, employed in each year since 1991. [18895]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Nursing staff1 by qualification

  Whole-time equivalent: at 30 September

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Nursing staff1

  47,838.3

  47,981.7

  47,775.2

  47,726.3

  47,766.9

  Hospital1

  42,610.6

  42,842.7

  42,664.1

  42,545.2

  42,458.9

  Qualified

  27,060.0

  26,988.8

  26,780.0

  26,899.6

  26,916.6

  Unqualified

  15,550.6

  15,854.0

  15,884.0

  15,645.5

  15,542.4

  Community1

  5,227.8

  5,138.9

  5,111.2

  5,181.1

  5,308.0

  Qualified

  4,716.1

  4,643.4

  4,617.5

  4,646.7

  4,730.2

  Unqualified

  511.7

  495.5

  493.7

  534.3

  577.7

  Midwifery

  staff2

  4,345.2

  4,393.6

  4,389.4

  4,365.0

  4,279.3

  Midwives

  2,765.4

  2,783.2

  2,814.4

  2,804.6

  2,745.8

  Hospital

  2,488.8

  2,510.4

  2,532.3

  2,495.2

  2,462.4

  Community

  276.7

  272.7

  282.1

  309.4

  283.4

  Combined Duty Nurses3

  533

  516.6

  499.1

  480

  439.1

  Hospital maternity staff4

  1,046.8

  1,093.8

  1,075.9

  1,080.4

  1,094.4

  Qualified

  182.9

  215.4

  223.9

  253

  311.6

  Unqualified

  864

  878.5

  852

  827.4

  782.8

  Nurses in training

  Hospital5

  9,883.7

  7,924.9

  5,029.2

  2,147.7

  627.1

  Community5

  98

  48.5

  '35.2

  "206.0

  "245.0

  P2000

  students6

  —

  1,403

  3,617

  5,445

  6,191

  Programmes in midwifery

  —

  121

  283

  424

  456

  Other

  —

  1,282

  3,334

  5,021

  5,735

  Notes:

  1 Excludes midwives, maternity nursing staff, combined duty nurses working with an element of midwifery, nurse teachers, nurses in training and P2000 students in nursing and midwifery. Some nursing staff included in the 'hospital' category may in fact work in a community setting.

  2Excludes nurse teachers, nurses in training and P2000 students in nursing and midwifery. Some nursing staff included in the 'hospital' category may in fact work in a community setting.

  3Midwives with combined duties including health visiting and district nursing.

  4Consists of nursing staff working in the midwifery specially without a midwifery qualification.

  5Nurses in training include staff on post-basic training.

  6Figures have been supplied by the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland. Data are numbers at 31 October.

  7Under recorded. Some nurses in training have been unavoidably included with qualified grades.

  8Figures have been supplied by the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland. Data are numbers at 31 October and include nurses in training who are not sponsored by the NHS. Some nurses in training have been unavoidably included with qualified grades.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll (NAMS), National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland, ISD (Scotland).
  69

  Irvine Housing Association
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason Scottish Homes plans to pay its first monitoring visit to the Irvine housing association in July 1997; and if he will instruct Scottish Homes to bring forward its monitoring visit to the Irvine housing association. [19398]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I am advised by Scottish Homes that, in line with the established timetable for monitoring visits following registration of a new association, Irvine housing association received a post registration visit after a year of operating, and is scheduled for a full monitoring visit after a further two years, in July 1997.

  Scottish Homes is also currently addressing issues relating to certain aspects of the association's membership policy, which is being amended, and other matters. In advance of the outcome of this process, I am not persuaded that there is a need for Scottish Homes to bring forward its planned monitoring visit.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) by what date Scottish Homes expects the Irvine housing association to have in place its new membership policy for the association; [19399]

  (2) if he will list the principles which Scottish Homes require housing associations to operate in relation to their housing allocation systems and what assessment he has made of the Irvine housing association's compliance with these principles in respect of its policy towards applications for housing from new applicants. [19440]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested relates to operational matters which are the responsibility of Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Mr. John Ward, to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Selected staff groups employed in the Scottish Health Service1

  Whole time equivalent: as at 30 September

  Doctors2

  Whole time equivalent Nursing staff3

  Administrators4

  Doctors2

  Percentage of all staff Nursing staff3

  Administrators4

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Total

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  1986

  5,735.6

  50,867.4

  33,616.0

  17,251.4

  14,445.5

  5.1

  45.5

  30.1

  15.4

  12.9

  1987

  5,736.6

  51,716.0

  34,267.9

  17,448.1

  14,712.3

  5.1

  46.2

  30.6

  15.6

  13.1

  1988

  5,994.7

  52,053.1

  34,658.3

  17,394.8

  14,803.2

  5.4

  46.9

  31.2

  15.7

  13.3

  1989

  6,014.0

  52,650.8

  35,325.9

  17,324.9

  15,222.9

  5.5

  48.4

  32.4

  15.9

  14.0

  1990

  6,174.9

  52,283.1

  35,372.0

  16,911.1

  15,923.8

  5.8

  49.0

  33.2

  15.9

  14.9

  1991

  6,203.1

  52,647.6

  35,576.3

  17,071.3

  16,584.1

  5.8

  49.3

  33.3

  16.0

  15.5

  1992

  6,339.6

  52,828.9

  35,454.6

  17,374.3

  17,639.6

  5.9

  49.1

  33.0

  16.2

  16.4

  1993

  6,476.4

  52,634.7

  35,270.1

  17,364.6

  18,538.5

  6.0

  48.7

  32.6

  16.1

  17.2

  1994

  6,683.4

  52,521.2

  35,381.4

  17,139.8

  19,474.4

  6.2

  48.5

  32.7

  15.8

  18.0

  1995

  6,849.3

  52,416.3

  35,379.8

  17,036.5

  19,777.9

  6.3

  48.3

  32.6

  15.7

  18.2

  19965

  7,061.1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1Post 1990 figures include data for State Hospital, Carstairs.

  2Comprises hospital and community medical staff. Excludes general practitioners.

  3Excludes nurse teachers, nurses in training and P2000 students in nursing and midwifery.

  4Comprises general and senior managers, staff employed on A and C grades and ambulance and control officers. The increase in the number of administrative staff can be partially accounted for by the assimilation of nursing and other professional staff to senior manager grades.

  5 Provisional.

  n/a = unavailable.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll (NAMS), Medical and Dental Census, ISD Scotland
  70

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS clerical, administrative and management staff there were in each year since 1989. [18896]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is shown in the table.

  General and senior manager grades and administrative and clerical staff employed in the Scottish Health Services

  Whole time equivalent: at 30 September

  General and senior manager grades1

  Administrative and clerical2

  1989

  n/a

  15,222.9

  1990

  n/a

  15,923.8

  1991

  523.6

  16,060.5

  1992

  800.5

  16,839.0

  1993

  1,151.6

  17,386.9

  1994

  1,720.0

  17,754.4

  1995

  2,180.2

  17,597.9

  Notes:

  1The increase in numbers can be partially accounted for by the assimilation of nursing, professional and A&C staff to senior manager grades.

  2 For the years prior to September 1991, management grades are included in A&C grades 1–10.

  n/a=not applicable.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll (NAMS), ISD (Scotland).

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (i) doctors, (ii) nurses and (iii) administrators were employed by the NHS in Scotland in each year since 1986–87; and if he will indicate for each year the percentage of NHS staff each category represented. [19128]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is shown in the table.
  71

  NHS Administration (Costs)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs associated with administration in the NHS in Scotland (i) in real terms, (ii) in cash terms and (iii) as a percentage of total NHS expenditure in Scotland in each year since 1986–87. [19129]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Real terms £000

  Cash terms £000

  Percentage of total NHS expenditure

  1986–87

  184,639

  184,639

  8.9

  1987–88

  180,810

  190,437

  8.4

  1988–89

  184,568

  207,401

  8.2

  1989–90

  187,701

  225,654

  8.2

  1990–91

  192,975

  250,521

  8.4

  1991–92

  246,017

  339,839

  9.3

  1992–93

  245,905

  353,996

  9.1

  1993–94

  276,039

  400,344

  9.7

  1994–95

  310,168

  467,611

  10.8

  1995–96

  315,343

  486,964

  11.1

  The introduction of capital charging in 1991–92, to reflect the costs of using capital resources, is reflected in that and subsequent years' expenditure.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs to his Department of local government reorganisation in Scotland in each year since 1992. [19156]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office made additional financial provision available to councils in connection with local government reform as set out in the table.

  £ million

  Scottish Office provision

  1995–96

  Costs of shadow elections

  5

  Costs of shadow councils

  36

  Capital allocations

  15

  1996–97

  Transitional costs

  70

  1997–98

  Transitional costs

  20

  Total

  146

  In addition, a division within the Scottish Office dedicated to local government reform existed from 1992–95 at a total aggregate cost of £853,099. It is now up to councils to manage their business efficiently so that local government reform delivers the best possible long-term savings for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
  72

  Health Boards (Publicity Budgets)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual publicity budget of each health board in Scotland in each year since 1986–87. [19131]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Stone of Destiny
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the costs associated with returning the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. [19130]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 4 December 1996, column 695.

  Health Care International, Clydebank
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding has been made available by(a) his Department and (b) Government agencies to HCI, Clydebank in each year since its inception. [19132]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 21 May 1996, columns 152–54 which set out all support from public funds given to Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. There has been no additional support to HCI from public funds since then.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the current market conditions for farmed salmon produced in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [19516]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I am concerned about stability in the European market for farmed salmon and have taken various initiatives to try to improve the position. The outcome of the investigations of the Scottish industry's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy complaints are imminent. If convincing evidence comes to light from the Commission's investigation of those complaints, I have assured the industry of the Government's whole-hearted backing.

  Sleep Laboratory (Funding)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on the future funding of the sleep laboratory at Edinburgh royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement. [19362]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 28 February to the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), column 456–57. Some 229 letters have been received about the future funding of the national sleep laboratory.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Homes spent on(a) its public

  73
  relations and marketing activities and (b) informing its tenants of its stock transfer arrangements in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [19396]

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

  Expenditure on publicity and marketing

  Total

  On publicity relating to stock transfers

  £

  £

  1994–95

  990,000

  32,000

  1995–96

  865,000

  67,000

  1996–97

  650,000

  115,000

  Notes:

  1. 1996–97 figures are the planned expenditure for the year.

  2. Figures in the first column include expenditure on printing and publishing internal and external documents, annual reports, newsletters, policy and research documents and the funding of conference events, exhibitions and displays.

  3. Figures in the second column include expenditure on local advertising to attract competition from alternative landlords, the printing and publication of tenants' newsletters, leaflets and other documents explaining transfer procedures and giving up to date information.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Scottish Homes expects to proceed with the ballot of its remaining tenants within the Cunninghame, South constituency in order to find a new landlord. [19397]

  Mr. Robertson
  I am advised that Scottish Homes intends to seek outline proposals from alternative landlords interested in the transfer of Scottish Homes; stock in the Irvine and Kilwinning areas during the second half of 1997. On this basis, the ballot might take place in early 1999.

  Research Councils (Commissions)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many commissions his Department placed with the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council in each year since 1979; how many such commissions he expects to place in 1997; and what the value was of the commissions in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [19367]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The number and value of Scottish Office-funded research contracts placed with the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council institutes in each year since 1991–92 are set out in the following table. Contracts to be let in 1997 have yet to be advertised, and it is therefore not yet known which contractors will be successful. Data in respect of the financial years before 1991–92 are not held centrally.

  Total value of research contracts placed (£ thousand)

  Year

  Number of research contracts placed

  Cash

  Constant prices (1995–96)

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  1

  56

  58

  1994–95

  2

  236

  242

  1995–96

  0

  0

  0

  1996–97

  1

  142

  139

  74

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by Ayrshire and Arran health board in pursuit of legal action surrounding its planning application to North Ayrshire council and its predecessor Cunninghame district council in respect of the site of the former Ravenspark hospital; and what authorisation his Department has given to Ayrshire and Arran health board to pursue this legal action. [19400]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for Ayrshire and Arran health board. The health board does not require Scottish Office approval to pursue this kind of legal action.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Water (High Natural Dispersion Areas)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment which areas of the North and Irish seas have been designated high natural dispersion areas. [18779]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a table of those areas in England and Wales in the North and Irish seas jointly identified by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales as high natural dispersion areas for the purposes of the EC directive on urban waste water treatment. The areas are identified by their reference number and the names of associated discharges.

  A marine water body or area can be identified as a high natural dispersion area if the discharge of waste water does not adversely affect the environment as a result of morphology, hydrology or specific hydraulic conditions which exist in that area.

  High natural dispersion areas identified in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Gas and Electricity (Standards of Performance Scheme)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the savings to gas consumers in pounds sterling and (b) the reduction in carbon emissions since 1994, if a scheme equivalent to the standards of performance scheme for electricity consumers had been introduced for gas consumers. [18872]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  It is not possible to make meaningful estimates, since they would depend on hypothetical assumptions about a series of factors, including the types of project run by gas companies under a standards of performance scheme, the level of consumers' take-up of project schemes, the costs of individual projects, and other factors.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incidents of cryptosporidum in the water supply have been notified to him in the past 12 months; and in which water company areas. [18911]
  75
  Mr. Clappison
  Water companies in England and Wales are required to report all incidents in which drinking water quality might be affected. All incidents are investigated by the drinking water inspectorate. Most incidents are relatively minor happenings.

  The most significant risk to drinking water quality is the presence of cryptosporidium oocysts. On cryptosporidium, the notification to the inspectorate can relate either to the detection of cryptosporidium oocysts in treated water or to an increase of the illness cryptosporidiosis in the community or both. The transmission of the illness occurs in a number of ways and often through contact with animals. One recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was found to be associated with the failure of a milk pasteurisation plant.

  All incidents are investigated fully by the inspectorate. As cryptosporidiosis can be transmitted in many ways, the source of any outbreak has to be established through epidemiology. A case of South West Water Services Ltd. allegedly supplying water unfit for human consumption during 1995 because of cryptosporidium is currently before the courts.

  Notifications of events involving cryptosporidium since 1 March 1996 are listed below under three headings, with the status of the investigation. It should be noted that not all notifications become confirmed as incidents.

  Cryptosporidium oocysts detected in treated water but no reported increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  South West Water

  29 May 1996

  Littlehempston

  Concluded

  Cambridge Water

  30 May 1996

  Duxford/Linton

  Concluded

  South West Water

  27 June 1996

  Crown Hill WTW

  Concluded

  Mid Kent Water

  3 July 1996

  Burham WTW

  Concluded

  Southern Water

  Yorkshire Water

  17 October 1996

  Elvington WTW (raw water only)

  Under investigation

  Northumbrian Water

  22 October 1996

  Lumley WTW

  Under investigation

  Yorkshire Water

  21 February 1997

  Pately Bridge

  Under Investigation

  An increase in cryptosporidiosis in the community but oocysts not detected in treated water

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  Yorkshire Water

  21 March 1996

  Tophill Low

  Under investigation

  Anglian Water

  12 February 1997

  Bedford area

  Under investigation

  Three Valleys Water

  26 February 1997

  Luton/Dunstable

  Under investigation

  Both oocysts detected in treated water and an increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  North West Water

  29 April 1996

  The Wirral

  Under investigation

  Portsmouth Water

  18 November 1996

  Itchen WTW

  Under investigation

  Three Valleys Water

  2 March 1997

  Clay Lane WTW

  Under investigation

  76

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from English Nature concerning the proposed Salisbury bypass. [19097]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Highways Agency report on the scope for realigning the section of the route across the sensitive area of the River Avon floodpath south of Salisbury, which incorporates advice from English Nature and others, has recently been submitted to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. They will consider English Nature's views as part of their consideration of the Highways Agency's report.

  Council Leaseholders
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which London local authorities have adopted the exchange sales scheme for council leaseholders who have unmortgageable properties. [18431]

  Mr. Clappison
  Six London authorities have reported to us that they have adopted the exchange sales scheme: the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Sutton, and the City of Westminster.

  Willenhall Shopping Precinct Project
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the policy of English Partnerships in respect of negotiations with Coventry city council regarding the Willenhall shopping precinct project; [18889]

  (2) what are the reasons for the delays in the negotiations between English Partnerships and those partners involved in the Willenhall shopping precinct project; [18890]

  (3) if he will commission an urgent inquiry into the manner in which English Partnerships has handled negotiations with those partners involved in the Willenhall shopping precinct project. [18891]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships received an application from a private developer, Bellway Urban Renewal, in July 1996 for funding of £1.7 million towards a proposal it had developed with Coventry city council and the Coventry and East Mercia Co-operative Society for the development of Willenhall shopping precinct. The agency has been consistently supportive of the project and has submitted it to close and careful appraisal to ensure the best value for money, as it does for every other part of its programme. English Partnerships has now confirmed its offer to Bellway Urban Renewal, and a press conference and start on site, both involving the city council, are scheduled for Monday 10 March. English Partnerships has a strong working relationship with Coventry city council, spanning a wide range of projects of which this is a key component.

  The time scale is customary for a project of this size and complexity, which has required negotiation with a number of parties, including the local community.
  77

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the way English Partnerships conducts negotiations on the projects it is involved with. [18892]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is completely satisfied with the way in which English Partnerships operates its development programme. Before committing any resources, English Partnerships submits all potential projects to close appraisal in order to ensure that the agency follows the latest best practice and achieves the best possible value for public money at its disposal. The basis of this appraisal is described in the agency's published "Investment Guide" and "Community Investment Guide".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19345]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is my Department's general practice to make clear in replying that an answer could be given only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my Department to calculate systematically the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), of 20 February,Official Report, column 677, if he will (a) list and (b) make a statement on the regeneration schemes to be brought forward by the Teesside development corporation. [19232]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The increase in funding for the Teesside development corporation in 1996–97 was a result of bringing forward part of the grant in aid already allocated to the development corporation for 1997–98. There was no extra public funding involved. The corporation was offered the possibility of earlier availability of funding as part of a wider readjustment of the single regeneration budget, of which urban development corporations now form a part. Adjustments of this sort are part of the routine financial management of the SRB.

  TDC's corporation plan for the remainder of its life, until it is wound up in March 1998, includes the completion of its work at Teesdale and at Middlesbrough dock. The corporation will now be in a position to bring forward work on that programme.

  House Conditions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for each region from the 1991 English house condition survey the(a) construction date by tenure, (b) unfitness by tenure, (c) worst or best condition by tenure, (d) unfit vacants by tenure,
  78
  (e) unfitness by dwelling type and tenure, (f) reason for vacancy by tenure and (g) variation of general comprehensive and urgent repair costs by tenure. [19255]

  Mr. Clappison
  The sample of dwellings surveyed in the 1991 English house condition survey is too small to provide reliable results at this level of disaggregation.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the costs to date of running the residuary bodies established under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1992. [19526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Total net expenditure by the local government residuary body (England) in 1995–96 was £190,000. Forecast total net expenditure for 1996–97 is £400,000, some £268,000 of which represents payment to the East Riding of Yorkshire council for maintenance of archives of the former Humberside county council.

  Design Improvement Controlled Experiment
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the findings of the evaluation of the design improvement controlled experiment commissioned from Price Waterhouse will be available. [19545]

  Mr. Curry
  This is being published today. Copies of the report "The Design Improvement Controlled Experiment: an Evaluation of the Impact, Costs and Benefits of Estate Re-modelling" have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue the regulations and guidance required for implementation of part IV of the Environment Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [19365]

  Mr. Gummer
  The national air quality strategy will be published shortly. The regulations and guidance will follow.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government will implement the 1992 manifesto commitment to privatise the docklands light railway; and if he will make a statement. [19842]

  Mr. Gummer
  Following an open competition, the operation of the docklands light railway will be privatised today through a seven-year franchise to Docklands Railway Management Ltd.—a consortium of Serco Group plc and a team of DLR Ltd. managers. DRML will take over full responsibility for DLR operations in April.

  Safety on the DLR remains the first and overriding priority. Before DRML takes over DLR operations, its safety case must be approved by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate.

  The franchise will embrace the operation and maintenance of trains, track and other equipment on the DLR network as well as marketing and revenue collection. The franchisee will also operate train services on the new 4.2 km extension of the DLR to Lewisham,

  79
  which is being built under the Government's private finance initiative by City Greenwich Lewisham Rail plc, when it opens to passenger service in 1999–2000.

  I announced my intention to franchise the DLR in October 1994. I said that the Government's aim was further to improve the DLR's efficiency, reliability and quality of service and ensured that the railway continued to develop as a customer-oriented public transport service. I also said that I aimed to reduce the DLR's dependence on public subsidy. All of these objectives will be achieved through the contract DLR Ltd. will let to DRML today.

  The franchise insists upon service levels to be maintained to meet customer expectations and to underpin the Government's regeneration policies in Docklands and the Thames Gateway. DLR services must, as a minimum, be operated between 5.30 am and 12.30 am Mondays to Fridays, 6.00 am to 12.30 am on Saturdays and 7.30 am to 11.30 pm on Sundays. Frequent train services must be operated. Quality of service must continue to be provided in terms of train reliability, cleanliness, availability of escalators and lifts, and so on, safeguarded by DLR's existing passenger charter standards.

  The DLR will remain part of London's integrated ticketing arrangements and travelcards will continue to be valid for travel on the DLR.

  DRML will receive three main types of remuneration: a fixed fee payable by DLR Ltd., set in advance for each of the seven years of the franchise, indexed to the retail prices index, to meet the operating deficit DRML expects to incur on the existing DLR network; and to meet DRML's forecast costs in operating services on the Lewisham extension; the fare revenue from passengers on the existing DLR network; ancillary income from commercial activity on DLR stations, such as shops and merchandising.

  If the operating deficit is greater than DRML has forecast, the fixed fee will not be increased to compensate for the shortfall.

  Financial incentives will also play a part. The fixed fees payable by DLR Ltd. to DRML will be reduced if minimum service levels are not achieved or if quality standards are not met. No fee will be paid if DLR services are not run through the default of DRML. Balanced against that, DRML will receive incentive payments if it delivers a quality of service above the charter standards.

  Capital investment in the DLR will continue throughout the franchise period to ensure that the DLR's longer-term needs are not overlooked—£45 million is earmarked for this in total. Moreover, safeguards for DLR Ltd. in the form of performance bonds and a retention account, with termination rights in the contract, will ensure that the DLR is properly maintained for the period of the franchise and handed back to DLR Ltd. in good condition.

  Through these arrangements, significant operational and commercial risks will be transferred to DRML in relation to DLR's future costs and income, thereby giving DRML incentives to achieve cost efficiency, maximise income and deliver quality of service to customers. The taxpayer will benefit too. By bringing in private sector expertise on a risk-taking basis, DLR's dependence on public subsidy will also be reduced by 24 per cent. over
  80
  the franchise period. In the three years covered by the 1996 public expenditure survey, Government grant to DLR Ltd. will be reduced by around £8.5 million.

  DRML will be regulated by the residual DLR Ltd., which will regulate minimum service levels, quality standards, investment in maintenance and so on.

  The successful outcome of the DLR franchise competition is a further demonstration of the benefits that privatisation can deliver. I have thanked the chairman of DLR Ltd., Sir Anthony Gill, and his board, for achieving significant improvements in DLR reliability and cost efficiency over recent years, in line with my requirements, and for their success in letting this franchise to deliver continuing benefits in higher quality of service.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 154, if he will list the titles of the research project reports on organophosphates; and if he will place in the Library copies of each report produced since 1987. [19482]

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is given in the table. Copies of these reports will be placed in the House Library later this week.

  Other research into the environmental impact of pesticides and veterinary medicines, which covers impact on headwater streams, the transport of pesticides by colloids, indirect effects on farmland birds, and the impact of sea-lice treatments on sea loch ecology, is still in progress.

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Azinphos-methyl in Water" (DOE 2348-M/1, January 1991)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Fenitrothion in Water" (DOE 2197-M/2, January 1991)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Dichlorvos in Water" (DOE 2249-M/2, February 1991)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Malathion in Water" (DOE 2110-M/2, February 1991)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Dimethoate and Omethoate in Water" (DOE 3300-I, (February 1994)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Trinzophos in Water" (DOE 3620/1, December 1994)

  "Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for Demetons in Water" (DOE 3654 1, September 1995)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of his answers to parliamentary questions in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19336]

  The Attorney-General
  The information is not available and could be provided only by an exhaustive analysis of the time taken to prepare answers to previous parliamentary questions which would itself involve disproportionate cost.
  81

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for each year since its formation; how many were abandoned prior to(a) court stages and (b) trial; how many resulted in (i) conviction, (ii) acquittal and (iii) discharge; and if he will make a statement. [19027]

  The Attorney-General
  Table 1 shows the number of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service since its inception. The figures are inclusive of cases in which the service advised the police pre-charge, and of non-criminal proceedings.

  Table 2 shows the number of cases completed by the service and the way in which they were finalised: these figures are available in a consistent format only since April 1991. Cases in which the Crown Prosecution Service advised the police pre-charge and non-criminal proceedings are identified separately.

  The remainder of finalised cases are divided into those discontinued before the first court hearing; discontinuances at the first hearing and subsequent to the first hearing, but before trial; cases written off; those resulting in a bind over to keep the peace; committals to the Crown court; proceedings discharged at a committal hearing; and cases heard in magistrates' courts. Hearings are inclusive of guilty pleas as well as cases proceeding to a contested hearing after a plea of not guilty.

  Table 3 shows the number and proportion of hearings resulting in conviction and in dismissal.

  Table 2: Crown Prosecution Service completed cases in Magistrates' Courts

  Year ending March

  Finalised

  Advice

  Non criminal proceedings

  Discontinued before first hearing

  Discontinued before trial

  Write off

  Bind over

  Committed to Crown Court

  Discharged at committal

  Heard in Magistrates' Court

  1992

  1,568,853

  73,337

  22,752

  12,282

  162,167

  78,730

  28,673

  129,667

  2,872

  1,058.747

  1993

  1,532,512

  72,549

  26,105

  12,453

  181,321

  87,652

  27,834

  112,082

  2.153

  1,010,495

  1994

  1,454,239

  72,146

  27,097

  11,526

  157,181

  117,358

  23,555

  102,549

  1,774

  941,053

  1995

  1,477,617

  72,169

  28,616

  10,492

  150,937

  141,783

  23,166

  103,593

  1,601

  945,295

  1996

  1,352,330

  53,433

  22,705

  12,870

  139,859

  112,316

  18,822

  91,255

  1,511

  899,594

  19971

  987,702

  34,326

  9,805

  10,476

  103,897

  74,341

  15,158

  72,572

  1,415

  665,713

  1 April 1996 to December 1996 only.

  Table 3: Crown Prosecution Service case outcomes

  Year ending March

  Convicted

  Per cent.

  Dismissed

  Per cent.

  1992

  1,040,997

  97.4

  27,753

  2.6

  1993

  993,018

  97.6

  24,507

  2.4

  1994

  925,698

  97.7

  21,470

  2.3

  1995

  931,136

  97.8

  20,997

  2.2

  1996

  886,562

  97.9

  18,637

  2.1

  19971

  656,630

  98.1

  12,951

  1.9

  1 April 1996–December 1996 only.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers have been in receipt of income support of housing benefit for each
  82
  The number of cases abandoned is not determined solely, or even primarily, by the judgment of lawyers. The Crown Prosecution Service has no choice but to discontinue cases when witnesses fail to appear, refuse to give evidence, or change their story; when defendants produce driving documents proving their innocence; when evidence must be excluded because of irregularities in its collection; and when gaps in the prosecution case cannot be plugged by the police. About half of cases discontinued are estimated to fall into the above categories.

  Convictions have remained consistently high, at around 98 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing, supporting the view that the Crown Prosecution Service has succeeded in identifying cases in which the balance of evidence weighs in favour of prosecution, and has effectively pursued them in the courts.

  Table 1: Crown Prosecution Service receipts

  Year ending March

  Received in Magistrates' Courts

  1988

  1786,333

  1989

  1,574,116

  1990

  1,622,347

  1991

  1,625,057

  1992

  1,571,175

  1993

  1,530,586

  1994

  1,459,296

  1995

  1,443,743

  1996

  1,354,177

  1997

  21,006,070

  1 October 1987–March 1988 only.

  2 April 1996–December 1996 only.

  month since October 1995; and what was the cost of providing (a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit in each month. [15804]

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

  Asylum seekers receiving income support in Great Britain between November 1995 and May 1996

  Income support

  Number of recipients

  Estimated monthly expenditure (£ million)

  November 1995

  49,000

  12

  February 1996

  50,000

  12

  May 1996

  50,000

  13

  83

  Asylum seekers in receipt of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit

  Number of recipients May 1995

  Estimated monthly expenditure 1995–96 (£ million)

  Housing benefit

  31,000

  11

  Council tax benefit

  15,000

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. All numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Estimated expenditure is rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  3. Estimated monthly expenditure for income support has been calculated using numbers and average weekly payments in the enquiry week.

  4. Housing benefit/council tax benefit expenditure figures have been estimated using average amounts at May 1995, the latest information available.

  5. Recipient figures refer the benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  6. No information available for asylum seekers, not in receipt of income support and in receipt of housing/council tax benefits.

  Sources:

  1. "Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries" November 1995, February 1996 and May 1996.

  2. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiry or housing benefit/council tax benefit recipients also in receipt of income support for Great Britain taken at the end of May 1995.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which of the past 10 years (i) the single person's full basic retirement pension, (ii) the married couple's full basic state retirement pension and (iii) the married woman's pension rate has been(a) rounded up and (b) rounded down. [17861]

  Mr. Heald
  The category A basic retirement pension—the single person's retirement pension—was rounded up for the years: 1989, 1992, 1993, 1996 and 1997 and was rounded down for the years: 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 1995.

  The category B basic retirement pension—the married women's retirement pension—was rounded up for the years: 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1992 and was rounded down for the years: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.

  The married couples rates consists of the single rate plus the married woman's pension and is therefore not uprated independently.

  Note:
  In 1994 an amount was added to the standard rate of basic retirement pension in respect of an addition for VAT on fuel. The rounding calculation was carried out before this extra amount was added.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the forecast increase in work load at the Blackfriars Benefits Agency office following the proposed closure of the Kennington Benefits Agency office in September; what is the proposed increase in staffing to meet this increased work load; and what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the implications of benefits recipients who used the Kennington Benefits Agency office having to use the Blackfriars office. [18213]
  84
  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 6 March 1997.

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the forecast increase in workload at the Blackfriars Benefits Agency (BA) office following the proposed closure of the Kennington BA office in September; what is the proposed increase in staffing to meet this increased workload; and what studies he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the implications of benefits recipients who used the Kennington BA office having to use the Blackfriars office.
  The BA District of Bankside includes the offices at Kennington Park, Southwark and Thames South. The decision to close the Kennington Park Office has not been made. The proposed closure is part of the Area's Estate Strategy to reduce its accommodation costs by ten per cent during 1997/98 and a further twenty per cent progressively during the following five years.
  The consultation process started on 3 March and will take approximately six weeks. As an essential part of this process the District will be writing to all local Members of Parliament and interested third parties informing them of the reasons for the proposed closure and requesting their comments. The office will also undertake a customer survey of those customers who currently use the Kennington Park Office to establish their opinions on their business being carried out by alternative means.
  On average 140 customers visit the Kennington Park Office each day. It is not possible to estimate exactly how many customers would choose to visit Southwark. For general advice customers could go to either Brixton or Battersea BA offices, which are located within a two mile radius. Telephone calls and postal enquiries from customers in the Kennington Park area are dealt with by the Southwark office. It is anticipated that if Kennington Park closes the majority of staff would move with the workload to Southwark.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of absent fathers who have given up work to avoid payments to the Child Support Agency. [18272]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 6 March 1997:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about absent fathers giving up work to avoid paying maintenance to the Child Support Agency. I am afraid that as you imply, my answer cannot be a precise one.
  To begin with, we do not break down details of absent parents (or indeed parents with care) by gender so I cannot solely cover absent fathers as you asked. Moreover, as people move in and out of employment over the years for a wide range of reasons, it is not practicable to catalogue the reasons for every such development. Having said that, practical experience shows that very few absent parents deliberately give up their jobs to avoid paying legally due maintenance for their children. It is certainly the case that at some stage in the process, some absent parents threaten to take such a step, but the threat seems to be rarely carried out. Such an action would have a seriously detrimental effect on them and any second family they may have, not least because the maintenance assessment formula ensures that all absent parents, and their second families, are at least £30 a week better-off after payment of maintenance than they would be if unemployed and receiving Income Support. No one should now be assessed to pay more than 30% of their net income

  85
  in current maintenance, or more than 33% in an arrears case. In addition, leaving work voluntarily will have an adverse effect on the amount of Job Seekers Allowance that may be payable.
  Moreover when an absent parent resumes employment the Agency will reassess liability to ensure the correct amount of maintenance is paid and if necessary will enforce compliance by a detachment of earnings order. In practice we do not even have to take this action very often, so a rough estimate of how many absent parents give up a job and stay unemployed purely to avoid maintaining their children is "very few indeed"—especially viewed against the 1.5 million cases the Agency has now cleared. However there will of course always be some individuals who will go far beyond normal, rational behaviour and will indeed take the action that is the subject of your question.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money collected by the Child Support Agency has accrued to the Treasury in the last three years for which figures are available; [18469]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the annual saving to the Government in terms of reduced benefit entitlement as a result of the work of the Child Support Agency. [18475]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 6 March 1997:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning monies collected by the Child Support Agency and benefit savings.
  Benefit savings are recorded when payment of maintenance or other action by the Agency leads to either a reduction in or a cessation of certain social security benefits paid to parents with care.
  Figures for annual benefit savings since Agency inception are as follows:

  1993–94: £418 million

  1994–95: £479 million

  1995–96: £493 million

  1996–97 (to 31 January 1997): £395 million

  The Agency does not get direct credit for all the benefit savings generated. During 1995–96 the Agency worked closely with the Benefits Agency to progress initiatives to reduce the burden on the general taxpayer. This meant that some of the savings that would have been scored by the Child Support Agency were instead scored by the Benefits Agency and this effect has carried over to 1996–97.
  Child maintenance payments are retained by the Secretary of State for Social Security to offset benefit that has already been paid to the parent with care or to refund benefit that has already been paid.
  As requested, details for the last three years are as follows.

  1994–95: £54.94 million

  1995–96: £70.92 million

  1996–97 (to 31 January 1997): £79.69 million

  These amounts are included within the overall figures for benefit savings quoted above. They should be seen in the context of the total amount of child maintenance that has been paid by absent parents (total figures for collected/arranged are quoted below) under this Agency's administration.

  1994–95: £187.40 million

  1995–96: £301.50 million

  1996–97 (to 31 January 1997): £322.34 million

  (the target for 1996–97 is a band of £380 million to 400 million, we are on course to achieve this)
  I hope this is helpful.
  86
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent fathers in the case load of the Child Support Agency are unemployed; and of those how many were in employment when the agency first issued a demand to them. [18271]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 6 March 1997:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of absent fathers in the Child Support caseload who are unemployed and of those how many were in employment when the agency first issued a demand to them.
  The information is not available in the precise format requested: The Agency does not differentiate between the cases it deals with on a gender basis, and I am therefore unable to provide any estimate concerning absent fathers. Latest figures available show that 253,700 absent parents were in receipt of earned income and 209,100 were not. Absent parents without an earned income include categories such as Income Support as well as other benefits such as Incapacity Benefit. We are unable to provide the exact number that are unemployed. A person who is unemployed could be so for many reasons. We have no reason to differentiate between an absent parent who has become unemployed because they have left employment and an absent parent who is unemployed due to other circumstances. The fluctuation of the labour market, especially at certain times of the year, means that an absent parent can and will move over the years in and out of work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those aged over 65 years were totally dependent on income from state benefits in(a) 1979, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest date at which figures are available. [18464]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Percentage of pensioner units receiving all their income from state benefits

  1979

  23

  1990–91 and 1994–95

  15

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95.

  Note:

  A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 281, how many of the families on family credit gaining from free school meals would be (a) couples and (b) lone parents. [18945]
  87
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Number of families gaining from extending entitlement to free school meals to families receiving family credit

  1997–98

  Family type

  Numbers gaining (000s)

  All families

  540

  Couples

  300

  Lone parents

  240

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of employed adults receive(a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance. [18984]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The proportion of the employed workforce in December 1995 receiving family credit was 3 per cent. A negligible proportion received disability working allowance.

  Sources:

  1. Social security statistics 1996.

  2. "Labour Market Trends" December 1995.

  Note:

  Proportions have been rounded to the nearest I per cent.

  Benefits Agency (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual expenditure in refurbishment and capital works in each of the Benefits Agency's offices within area AD3 in each of the past five years. [18663]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 6 March 1997:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the annual expenditure in refurbishment and capital works in each of the Benefits Agency's offices within area AD3 in each of the past five years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. I should explain that Area Directorate 3 (AD3) London South was reorganised in April 1996 prior to that it had been known as AD3 South London and West Sussex. The attached Appendix gives details of the Benefits Agency Districts forming part of AD3. since and prior to the reorganisation.
  Information is only available from 1994/95 for capital projects costing more than £5,000 and is shown below. Information for individual offices, projects costing £5,000 or less and prior to 1994/95 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  AD3 London South and West Sussex

  1994/95: £3,924,565

  1995/96: £5,352,277

  AD3 London South

  1996/97: £3,721,385

  These figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  88

  Appendix: AD3 London South from April 1996

  Benefits Agency districts

  Bankside

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Channel

  East Sussex

  Hampshire North

  Hounslow and Kingston

  London Central

  Makerfield Benefit Centre

  North Kent

  North Surrey

  Palace

  Solent and Forest

  South Circular

  South Downs

  South East Hants and Wight

  South West Thames

  Surrey Downs

  Thameside

  West Kent

  West Sussex

  AD3 South London and West Sussex prior to April 1996

  Benefits Agency districts

  Bankside

  London Central

  Makerfield Benefit Centre

  North Surrey

  Palace

  South Downs

  South West Thames

  West Sussex

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken by his Department concerning the contractorisation of BAMS; and what were the results of this analysis. [19013]

  Mr. Burt
  A formal cost-benefit analysis was not undertaken. A collaborative study with private sector companies, together with the experience gained from similar exercises within the Department, confirmed the potential to deliver savings.

  Liable Relatives' Intervention
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was saved by liable relatives' intervention in each year since 1980. [19314]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Savings resulting from liable relatives intervention for the period 1989 to 1993 were:

  1989–90: £207 million;

  1990–91: £232 million;

  1991–92: £283.9 million;

  1992–93: £313 million.

  89
  Information for years prior to 1989–90 is available only in relation to savings arising in cases where the person remained on benefit. Such information as is available is as follows.

  1980: £94.69 million;

  1981: £121.68 million;

  1982: £131.72 million;

  1983: £129.69 million;

  1984: £128.75 million;

  1985: not available;

  1986: £143.83 million;

  1987: £138.74 million;

  1988: £138.53 million.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1980 to 1988 are based on recorded benefit savings in the week of the annual statistical enquiry, multiplied by 52 to reach an annual figure.

  2. Weekly figures were rounded to the nearest thousand pounds.

  3. Data are not available for 1985.

  Sources:

  Information for 1980–88, Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1980–88.

  Information for 1989–90 to 1992–93: Social Security Departmental Reports for the years in question.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women previously in receipt of invalidity benefit have failed the all-work incapacity benefits test; and how many of these are now receiving jobseeker's allowance. [19252]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The number of incapacity benefit recipients disallowed following the application of the all-work test for the period 13 April 1995 to 31 January 1997 is 159,0001. As at 17 January, 28,0002 incapacity benefit leavers were claiming jobseeker's allowance.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  1 The figure is taken from a 100 per cent. aggregate count of the computer system and excludes a small number of cases not held on the system.

  2 The figure is supplied by the Employment Service and includes incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance claimants.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people between the ages of (i) 50 and 54, (ii) 55 and 59 and (iii) 60 and 64 years were awarded(a) five points or less, (b) eight points or less, (c) 11 points or less and (d) 14 points or less in the test for eligibility for incapacity benefit. [19254]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women have been awarded incapacity benefit in each of the last two years. [19253]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  90

  Number of spells of incapacity benefit commencing

  Quarter ending

  Men

  Women

  31 May 1995

  44,000

  20,000

  31 August 1995

  87,000

  37,000

  30 November 1995

  92,000

  41,000

  29 February 1996

  94,000

  39,000

  31 May 1996

  88,000

  42,000

  31 August 1996

  81,000

  38,000

  1. Figures will include a small proportion of claimants with more than one spell of sickness.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures are taken from a 5 per cent, sample of the computer system, and exclude a small number of cases not held on the system.

  Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 503, if the April 1997 reprint of leaflet NI 246 will make it clear that an appellant who has not opted for an oral hearing within 10 days, or such other period as the clerk or chairman may have decided, will not be entitled to an oral hearing unless the chairman is satisfied that an oral hearing is necessary to enable the tribunal to reach a decision. [19353)

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The leaflet will make it clear that it will be for the chairman to decide whether to hold an oral hearing in any case where the appellant did not originally opt for one.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 23 January,Official Report, column 721, 30 January, Official Report, column 363 and 17 February, Official Report, column 423, if he will list the changes in his policy regarding the provision of information in reply to questions about appeals; and if he will ensure that information on appeals is published. [19033]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 March,Official Report, column 561.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of disability appeal tribunals carried out medical examinations for the purpose of the all-work test in the most recent month for which information is available. [19280]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is obtainable only by matching the independent tribunal service's records of medical members of disability appeal tribunals against current information held by the Benefits Agency medical services.

  The results of such an exercise indicate that, during November 1996, the latest month for which information is available, 66 medical members of disability appeal tribunals carried out medical examinations for the purpose of the all work test.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the degree of compliance with the requirement of section 40(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 relating to the composition of the tribunal where an appeal is dealt with by a social security appeal tribunal without an oral hearing. [19278]
  91
  Mr. Evans
  The composition of the panel of members for social security appeal tribunals is a matter for the president of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Bassingthwaighte.

  Decision Making and Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish his proposals for improving decision making and appeals; [19030]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of Dr. Roy Sainsbury's analysis of the responses to the consultation document on decision making and appeals. [19031]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The final analysis report by Dr. Sainsbury is being drafted and a copy will be placed in the Library when completed.

  An announcement of our final proposals will be made in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Scurity how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19338]

  Mr. Burt
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large numbers of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for the Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many couples where the claimant is (i) 50 to 54, (ii) 55 to 59 and (iii) 60 to 64 years received jobseeker's allowance of(a) £10, (b) £10.01–£20, (c) £ 20.01–£30, (d) £ 30.01 to £40, (e) £ 40.01–£50, (f) £ 50.01–£60 and (g) £ 60.01–£70 per week in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the range of jobseeker's allowance payments to each of these age groups; [19248]

  (2) how many couples where the claimant is (a) 50 to 54, (b)55 to 59 and (c)60 to 64 years have their income-related jobseeker's allowance reduced because of income from other sources, indicating what those other sources are; [19250]

  (3) how many couples where the claimant is (a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59 and (c) 60 to 64 years are in receipt of income related jobseeker's allowance. [19245]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on jobseeker's allowance is not yet available. Provisional summary findings from the November 1996 quarterly statistical enquiry will be published on 20 March 1997 and more detailed analyses will be published in the summer. The information will be placed in the Library and I will write to the hon. Member.
  92
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men aged(a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59 and (c) 60 to 64 years are in receipt of (i) contributory-based jobseeker's allowance, (ii) income-related jobseeker's allowance, (iii) incapacity benefits, (iv) housing benefit and (v) council tax benefit. [19251]

  Mr. Evans
  The information on jobseeker's allowance is not yet available. Provisional summary findings from the November 1996 quarterly statistical enquiry will be published on 20 March and more detailed analyses will be published in the summer. The information will be placed in the Library and I will write to the hon. Member. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Incapacity benefit recipients (May 1995 and August 1996)

  Thousands

  Incapacity benefit

  Severe disablement allowance

  31 May 1995

  Aged 50–54

  252

  36

  Aged 55–59

  354

  39

  Aged 60–64

  385

  24

  31 August 1996

  Aged 50–54

  258

  40

  Aged 55–59

  354

  43

  Aged 60–64

  378

  26

  Notes:

  1. Provisional jobseeker's allowance findings will include estimates of claimants by type of allowance in payment, age, sex and duration of current claim. The detailed analyses will include information on partners and dependants, amounts of Jobseeker's Allowance and other benefits and income.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent.

  4. Sample excludes a small number of cases not held on the system.

  Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System (Incapacity).

  Number of housing benefit/council tax benefit recipients by age and sex for Great Britain as at May 1995

  Thousands

  Aged 50 to 54

  Aged 55 to 59

  Aged 60 to 64

  Housing benefit

  Men also in receipt of income support

  87

  85

  103

  All recipients without income support

  70

  89

  97

  Council tax benefit

  Men also in receipt of income support

  101

  104

  138

  All recipients without income support

  91

  117

  140

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Age breakdown is based on the age of the claimant.

  4. It is not possible to identify all men in receipt of housing benefit or council tax benefit. For those also in receipt of income support men can be identified and figures for these recipients have been shown. For those not also in receipt of income support men cannot be separately identified and therefore figures for all recipients have been given.

  Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries for recipients with and without income support taken at the end of May 1995.
  93

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of average earnings the £175 weekly pension estimated to result from the plan he announced on 5 March will represent. [19556]

  Mr. Heald
  The figure of £175 a week in today's prices is projected to represent 26 per cent. of average earnings in 2040, assuming 1.5 per cent. real earnings growth up to that year.

  Capital limits

  Benefit

  Value at April 1997(£)

  Value when introduced(£)

  Date introduce(£)

  April 1997 rate if increase based on earnings(£)

  April 1997 rate if increase based on prices(£)

  Income support

  3,000

  3,000

  April 1988

  5,111.65

  4,421.40

  8,000

  6,000

  10,223.35

  8,842.75

  110,000

  3,000

  5,111.65

  4,421.40

  116,000

  6,000

  10,223.35

  8,842.75

  Jobseeker's allowance

  3,000

  3,000

  October 1996

  3,126.00

  3,078.00

  8,000

  8,000

  8,336.00

  8,208.00

  Family credit

  23,000

  3,000

  April 1988

  5,111.65

  4,421.40

  8,000

  6,000

  10,223.35

  8,842.75

  Housing benefit

  3,000

  3,000

  April 1988

  5,111.65

  4,421.40

  16,000

  6,000

  10,223.35

  8,842.75

  Council tax benefit

  3,000

  3,000

  April 1993

  3,452.40

  3,346.85

  16,000

  16,000

  18,412.60

  17,849.80

  Disability working allowance

  3,000

  3,000

  April 1992

  3,621.05

  3,464.00

  16,000

  16,000

  19,314.90

  18,474.50

  Social fund funeral payments

  500

  500

  April 1987

  918.40

  760.50

  1,000

  1,000

  April 1990

  1,426.30

  1,338.05

  Community care/budgeting loans

  500

  500

  April 1988

  851.90

  736.85

  1,000

  1,000

  April 1990

  1,426.30

  1,338.05

  Notes:

  1 The £10,000 and £16,000 capital limits for people living permanently in a residential care or nursing homes also apply in jobseeker's allowance and to certain people entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. The increase in the value of these limits, introduced in April 1996, have been valued for income support only.

  2 Earnings top-up, an in-work benefit being piloted in eight areas from October 1996 for three years, has not been included in the table. The capital limits for earnings top-up are set at the same levels as those for family credit.

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 p. at each uprating.

  Sources:

  1. The earnings calculations have been carried out using the average earnings (whole economy) index as supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. The prices calculations have been carried out using the retail prices index, all items, less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments all benefits.

  Earnings limits—income related benefits

  Benefit

  Value a April 1997 £

  Value when introduced £

  Date introduced

  April 1997 rate if increase based on earnings £

  April 1997 rate if increase based on prices £

  Income support (earnings disregard)

  5

  5

  April 1988

  8.50

  7.35

  110

  15

  8.50

  7.35

  15

  15

  25.60

  22.05

  Jobseeker's allowance (earnings disregard)

  5

  5

  October 1996

  5.20

  5.15

  10

  10

  10.40

  10.25

  15

  15

  15.65

  15.40

  Housing benefit (earnings disregard)

  5

  5

  April 1988

  8.50

  7.35

  10

  10

  17.10

  14.75

  15

  15

  25.60

  22.05

  25

  25

  25.60

  25.05

  Council tax benefit (earnings disregard)

  5

  5

  April 1993

  5.75

  5.60

  10

  10

  11.50

  11.20

  15

  15

  17.25

  16.80

  25

  25

  28.75

  27.85

  94

  Capital and Earnings Limits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each benefit the capital and earnings limits at(a) their April 1997 value, (b) the value at their introduction and (c) the value which would have resulted from an increase based on (i) earnings and (ii) prices. [17098]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: The information is set out in the tables:
  95

  Earnings limits—income related benefits

  Benefit

  Value a April 1997 £

  Value when introduced £

  Date introduced

  April 1997 rate if increase based on earnings £

  April 1997 rate if increase based on prices £

  Family credit2 (earnings threshold)

  77.15

  51.45

  April 1988

  87.70

  75.75

  Disability working allowance (earnings threshold)

  57.85

  39.95

  April 1992

  48.20

  46.10

  77.15

  66.60

  80.45

  76.95

  Notes:

  1 The £10 couples disregard was introduced in October 1996.

  2 Earnings top-up, an in-work benefit being piloted in eight areas from October 1996 for three years, has not been included in the table. The capital limits are for earnings top-up are set at the same levels as those for family credit.

  1. The table does not include the childcare disregard in family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5p. at each uprating.

  Sources:

  1. The earnings calculations have been carried out using the average earnings, whole economy, index as supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. The prices calculations have been carried out using the retail prices index, all items, less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments for all other benefits.

  Earnings limits—non income related benefits

  Benefit

  Value at April 1997

  Value when introduced

  Data introduced

  April 1997 rate if increase based on earnings

  April 1997 rate if increase based on prices

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Personal earnings limits

  Jobseeker's allowance (contributory based)

  See note1

  See note1

  October 1996

  See note1

  See note1

  Invalid care allowance

  50

  6

  April 1976

  35.80

  25.50

  Severe disablement allowance therapeutic earnings limit

  46.50

  23.50

  November 1984

  51.75

  40.80

  Incapacity benefit therapeutic earnings limit

  46.50

  44

  April 1995

  47.30

  46.55

  Earnings limits where adult dependency increases are payable

  Retirement pension

  49.15

  18.80

  November 1985

  38.10

  30.35

  37.35

  0.80

  July 1948

  See note2

  16.00

  Short-term incapacity benefit

  29.15

  27.50

  April 1995

  29.60

  29.15

  35.90

  33.85

  36.40

  35.90

  Long term incapacity benefit

  49.15

  46.45

  April 1995

  49.95

  49.25

  37.35

  35.25

  37.95

  37.35

  Unemployability supplement

  49.15

  18.80

  November 1985

  38.10

  30.35

  37.35

  linked to RP

  See note2

  See note3

  Severe disablement allowance

  49.15

  28.45

  November 1984

  62.60

  49.25

  37.35

  12.95

  28.45

  22.35

  Maternity allowance

  29.15

  1.075

  October 1953

  See note3

  16.50

  Invalid care allowance

  22.35

  4.90

  April 1976

  29.35

  20.90

  Earnings limits where child dependency increases are payable

  All benefits where child dependency increases are payable

  135

  80

  November 1984

  176.20

  138.45

  17

  10

  See note5

  22.05

  17.40

  Notes:

  1 The disregard in contribution-based jobseeker's allowance is calculated by adding the age-related benefit to the disregard and subtracting 1p. The value of the disregard is therefore linked to the rates of contribution jobseeker's allowance.

  2 There are no average earnings (whole economy) indices available before 1963. As these benefits were introduced before that date no calculation can be carried out.

  3 In November 1985, the earnings limits in unemployability supplement and retirement pension were brought in line with those in unemployment benefit. Prior to that date a tapered disregard existed in retirement pension.

  4 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5p. at each uprating.

  5 The rate of child dependency additions are payable in the following benefits: incapacity benefit, retirement pension, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and unemployability supplement. The earnings limits are £135 per week for the first child and £17 for each subsequent dependent child. The limits were aligned in November 1984 and have been revalued from a common date.

  Sources:

  1. The earnings calculations have been carried out using the average earnings (whole economy) index as supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. The prices calculations have been carried out using the retail prices index (all items).
  96 97

HEALTH

  Community Care
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the draft Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill and the policy statement to follow up the consultation document, "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". [19541]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am publishing both documents today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 70, if he will make it his policy to collect information centrally on the number of breast implants which leak. [18409]

  Mr. Horam
  The medical devices directive—Council directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices—already requires manufacturers of medical devices, including breast implants, to review systematically any reports of implant failures which might have caused death or serious injury. Under the directive, manufacturers are also required to notify the relevant competent authority—in the United Kingdom, the Medical Devices Agency—of such cases.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data he has collated concerning the increase in the number of posts of(a) matron and (b) director of nursing services in NHS hospitals; what supervising duties such posts carry; and what guidance his Department has given regarding numbers, duties, or good practice as regards such posts. [18461]

  Mr. Horam
  The responsibility for determining the most appropriate form of nurse management and advice lies with the individual national health service employer concerned. The National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990 state that the executive directors of an NHS trust shall include a registered nurse or registered midwife, except in the case of a trust which does not provide services directly to patients or a trust whose principal function is to provide ambulance or patient transport services. The NHS executive has published two documents that identify the existing roles of trust nurse executive directors: "One year on—The Nurse Executive Director Post" and "Sharpening the Focus: The roles and perceptions of nursing in NHS Trusts". Copies are available in the Library.

  Hospitals (Red Alert Status)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals were on red alert status for each month since April 1995. [18609]

  Mr. Horam
  Red alert status is not a term defined or used by the national health service on a national basis.

  Primary and Community Health Service Projects
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the(a) primary and (b) community health
  98
  service projects, established with the support of the London implementation group, will be financed by health authorities after March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18702]

  Mr. Malone
  On the basis of decisions on community health schemes made so far, some 300 schemes worth £64 million will be funded through London initiative zone funds in 1997–98; some 70 further schemes worth £10.5 million which are currently funded through London initiative zone funds will be funded directly by health authorities.

  In primary care, the Government have made £20 million available in 1997–98 within the London initiative zone to support the third year of educational initiatives and work force flexibilities for general practitioners.

  Patient Hotels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts which have opened patients hotels, showing(a) the location, (b) number of beds, (c) average bed occupancy rates, (d) the revenue cost of provision per occupied bed per day, (e) the opening date and (f) the capital cost and in each case the source of funding. [18707]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds for children were available in each health authority in each of the last five years; and what was their occupancy rate. [18709]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested.

  School Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school pupils by health authority were both inspected and reinspected by the school dental services in each year since 1990. [18732]

  Mr. Malone
  The available data for the number of contracts made by patients aged between five and 15, inclusive, with a member of the community dental service, by region, in the years ending March 1991 to March 1995, are shown in the table.

  Number of children1 aged 5 to 15 screened by the Community Dental Services by Regional Health Authority year ending 31 March

  England

  Number screened

  Regional Health Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  England

  2,664,444

  3,033,094

  2,953,258

  2,908,020

  Northern

  204,883

  233,184

  207,820

  195,474

  Yorkshire

  216,436

  245,724

  245,449

  232,797

  Trent

  323,329

  308,122

  324,244

  306,121

  East Anglian

  103,841

  130,949

  128,122

  95,500

  North-west Thames

  155,531

  161,789

  177,807

  169,365

  99

  Number of children1 aged 5 to 15 screened by the Community Dental Services by Regional Health Authority year ending 31 March

  England

  Number screened

  Regional Health Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  North-east Thames

  176,381

  213,956

  208,032

  205,935

  South-east

  225,879

  228,527

  192,584

  206,526

  South-west Thames

  77,823

  133,632

  138,645

  138,771

  Wessex

  153,802

  159,101

  155,165

  154,369

  Oxford

  111,294

  169,564

  159,206

  162,518

  South Western

  179,918

  178,358

  171,669

  146,690

  West Midlands

  336,035

  389,408

  366,920

  420,783

  Mersey

  141,133

  179,184

  186,575

  192,129

  North Western

  258,159

  301,596

  291,020

  281,042

  Number of children1 aged 5 to 15 screened by the Community Dental Services by DH Regional Office2 at year ending 31 March 1995

  England

  Region

  Number screened

  England

  2,891,211

  Northern and Yorkshire

  445,653

  Trent

  318,423

  Anglia and Oxford

  290,028

  North Thames

  363,792

  South Thames

  326,219

  South and West

  295,672

  West Midlands

  401,756

  North Western

  449,668

  1 The figures count each separate occasion a patient was in contact with a member of the community dental service. The number of individuals seen will be smaller.

  2 The 14 regional health authorities were restructured to form eight regional offices on 1 April 1994.

  Patient Readmissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients, by region, were readmitted to hospital within one month of their discharge in the last three years. [18729]

  Mr. Horam
  Since April 1996, the NHS executive has collected, routinely, information on patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge. Information collected for quarter three for 1996–97 is shown in the table. Information on those aged less than 75 is not available centrally.

  Number of patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge

  Region

  Q3 actual

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,380

  Trent

  12,990

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,510

  North Thames

  12,970

  South Thames

  3,190

  South and West

  3,290

  100

  Number of patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge

  Region

  Q3 actual

  West Midlands

  1,810

  North West

  3,200

  1 Includes estimate for missing data.

  1. Data were collected as part of the quarterly monitoring of NHS activity, quarter 3, 1996–97.

  2. Figures exclude admissions to psychiatry specialties and discharges from psychiatry specialties.

  3. Figures supplied are the sums for health authorities within the regional office area.

  Junior Doctors (Study Leave)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual amount of study leave given to junior doctors in each of the last three years. [18789]

  Mr. Malone
  Aggregated details of the national uptake of study leave are not available.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospitals are currently operating bone density scanners osteoporosis. [18793]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for the local health authorities to decide what priority to give to making bone density measurement available to those who need it, and how best to co-ordinate services to meet local needs.

  Community Care (Judicial Reviews)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many judicial reviews relating to community care policy there have been since 1 April 1994; [18875]

  (2) how many requests for judicial reviews relating to community care policy have been turned down since 1 April 1994; [18877]

  (3) what has been the cost of each judicial review relating to community care policy since 1 April 1994. [18876]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  NHS Hospitals (Waste)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total weight of the toxic waste produced annually by hospitals in each NHS region; [18879]

  (2) what is the total weight of the inert or inactive waste produced annually by hospitals in each NHS region. [18880]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Patient Involvement Measures
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums have been spent by each of the English district health authorities on measures to increase patient involvement in the last year for which figures are available. [18767]
  101
  Mr. Horam
  Improving patient involvement is a key priority for the NHS, as set out in the planning and priorities guidance for 1996–97 and 1997–98. The Department has allocated a central budget of £1,179,000 for the development of patient involvement over the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99. Information on spending by individual health authorities is not available centrally.

  Severance Payments
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total amount spent(a) overall and (b) in each NHS region by NHS trusts on severance payments in the current financial year. [18769]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Private Sector Nursing and Care Contracts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number, type and value of contracts issued by local authorities to the private sector for nursing and care home beds in the most recent year for which figures are available. [18784]

  Mr. Burns
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which this information is available, expenditure by local authority social services departments in England on placements in independent residential care homes was £811 million and in independent nursing homes £403 million. Both figures include all adult client groups. Information on numbers and types of individual contract are not held centrally.

  Casualty Units (Medical Vacancies)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are in medical posts in casualty units in the United Kingdom. [18786]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on vacant medical posts is available only by specialty. The term "casualty" is not used within the national health service to describe a specialty. The whole-time equivalent number of vacant medical posts in the accident and emergency specialty in the NHS in England at 30 September 1995 was 80. This figure is rounded to the nearest 10 and includes all consultant, staff grade, senior registrar, registrar and senior house officer vacancies. This is the latest available information.

  Data on vacant posts are difficult to interpret and do not necessarily imply a shortage. Some vacancies will be wholly or partly filled by locums. For others, NHS trusts may find alternative ways to provide the service rather than re-advertising. The numbers give no indication of how long the post has been empty. Some of these will be in the process of being filled.

  Source:

  The medical and dental work force census 30 September 1995.

  Non-NHS Health Care Providers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS providers in 1995–96 by(a) district health authorities, (b) fundholders and (c) NHS trusts in England. [18801]
  102
  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Expenditure on the purchase of health care from non-NHS providers in England for 1995–96

  Expenditure £000

  District health authorities

  510,906

  General practitioner fundholders

  66,250

  NHS trusts

  92,191

  Regional␣health␣authorities␣and␣special␣health authorities

  128,242

  Total

  797,589

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  2. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  3. The annual accounts of the Family Health Services Authorities.

  Notes:

  The figures are provisional.

  Gender Identity Dysphoria
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently being treated for gender identity dysphoria. [18791]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Employees' Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the amount spent on salaries and wages for nurses and midwives in each NHS region in each year from 1988–89 to 1995–96; [18765]

  (2) if he will list the amount spent on salaries and wages for general and senior managers in each NHS region in each year from 1988–89 to 1995–96; [18761]

  (3) if he will list the amount spent on salaries and wages for administrative and clerical staff in each NHS region in each year from 1988–89 to 1995–96. [18766]

  (4)Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS salaries and wages costs for(a) general and senior managers, (b) nurses and midwives and (c) administrative and clerical staff, for each financial year from 1988–89 to 1993–94. [18774]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Electricity Transmission Lines (Health Implications)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated and what data he has collated concerning the incidence of physical or other abnormalities in (i) children and (ii) adults exposed through work or domicile to permanent electro-magnetic forces arising from high-tension electricity transmission lines; and what plans he has for the mapping of such incidences. [18763]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department obtains advice on the health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the National Radiological Protection Board and other sources including its own funded research. The primary focus of concern has been on power lines and
  103
  childhood cancer where the results have not shown a proven link: the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation conducted an extensive review of the subject in 1992 and concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that might be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances or work in the electrical, electronic and telecommunication industries. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has endorsed the advisory group's report. A supplementary report in 1994 was published by the NRPB to take into account the results of epidemiological studies from Scandinavia, France and Canada. Copies of the advisory group's report and the supplementary documents are available in the Library.

  Several epidemiological studies are currently under way to investigate childhood cancer in relation to various possible causes including electromagnetic fields. The largest study of this type in this country is the United Kingdom childhood cancer study which is funded in part by the Department of Health with technical support provided by the NRPB. The Department is also funding

  Patients' money held by health authorities and trusts on 31 March

  Regional Health Authority

  1992£000

  1993£000

  1994£000

  NHS Executive Region

  1995£000

  1996£000

  Northern

  4,718

  5,282

  4,076

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5,526

  6,775

  Yorkshire

  5,024

  3,790

  3,276

  Trent

  5,041

  4,302

  3,844

  Trent

  3,950

  4,285

  East Anglian

  2,605

  2,429

  2,272

  Anglian and Oxford

  6,688

  6,824

  Oxford

  3,092

  3,027

  3,150

  North-west Thames

  7,241

  7,922

  7,484

  North Thames

  10,951

  10,205

  North-east Thames

  6,455

  6,288

  4,678

  South-east Thames

  3,426

  3,140

  2,613

  South Thames

  10,189

  9,823

  South-west Thames

  7,170

  7,241

  7,112

  Wessex

  2,885

  2,766

  2,819

  South and West

  5,131

  4,749

  South Western

  2,363

  2,338

  2,128

  West Midlands

  3,950

  3,505

  3,429

  West Midlands

  4,058

  3,729

  Mersey

  1,967

  1,372

  1,125

  North West

  5,891

  3,477

  North Western

  4,245

  3,797

  2,138

  Special HAs

  380

  614

  577

  Special HAs

  0

  0

  Total

  60,562

  57,813

  50,721

  Total

  52,384

  49,867

  Figures for 1996 are provisional.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS services which have been market-tested. [18781]

  Mr. Horam
  A list of services market tested by one or more national health service trusts is as shown. It is based on information supplied to the NHS executive's market testing database.

  Hotel and non-clinical support (60 per cent. in the last year): Accommodation, Car Parks, Catering, Courier, Creche, Domestic, Environmental Health Management, Facilities Management, Gardening, General Patient Services, Hotel Services, Laundry/Linen, Pest Control, Portering, Security, Supplies, Switchboard/Reception, Transport, Waste Disposal, Interpreter.
  Admin, information and financial (18 per cent. in the last year): Advertising and Recruitment, Agency Staffing, Audit, Banking, Clerical and Secretarial, Computer, Consultants, Financial, Human Resources, Insurance, Legal, Management Services, Micro-filming.
  104
  two pilot studies, one of adults and one of children, looking at cancer incidence near power lines. I am not aware of studies mapping the incidence of other types of abnormality in either adults or children.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of bills were paid by the National Blood Authority within 30 days of its receiving them in the past three years. [18790]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally in respect of 1993–94 or 1994–95. The National Blood Authority's published accounts for 1995–96 show that 80 per cent. of invoices were settled within 30 days.

  Hospital Accounts (Patients' Money)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was held in hospital accounts in respect of the balance of patients' money in each of the last five years in each NHS region. [18794]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is given in the table.

  Clinical and Clinical support (5 per cent. in the last year): Anaesthetics, Bio-Engineering, Chiropody, Clinical Coding, Continuing Care for the Elderly, Central Sterile Supply Department, Hospital sterilizing and Disinfecting Unit Dental, Clinical Genetics, Haematology, Infection Control, In-Vitro Fertilisation Services, Lithotripsy, Medical Physics, Mobility Provisions, Medical Photography, Nuclear Medicine, Ophthalmology, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Occupational Health, Orthotics, Occupational Therapy, Oxygen Therapy Units, Prosthetics, Pathology, Pharmacy, Physiotherapy, Patient Appliances, Radiology, Speech Therapy, Termination of Pregnancy, Perfusionists, Mobile Cardiac Catheterisation.
  Building and Engineering (4 per cent. in the last year): Building and Engineering, Design Electrical, Energy Management, Estates Management, Fire Systems, Flooring, Repairs and maintenance, Gas Supply, Glazing, Lighting, Painting, Water Services.
  Building and equipment/Systems Maintenance (16 per cent. in the last year): Building, Building and Engineering, Estates, Equipment/Systems.

  105
  Training (1 per cent. in the last year)—Education, Fire, Staff.

  Notes:

  1. There is no standard definition of services or list of services within the NHS and those listed above relate to units' interpretation.

  2. Service headings such as "Hotel Services" and "Facilities Management" include a wide and varying range of individual services e.g. catering, portering, security car parking. Again there is no set pattern of which services make up hotel services, and so on; the information relates to individual provider units' interpretation.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were cared for in each of the last three years in children's hospices in the United Kingdom. [18785]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Casualty Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are in nursing posts in casualty units in the United Kingdom. [18787]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected by the United Kingdom Health Departments.

  Measurement of vacancy rates is a matter for local employers. Information relating to nursing vacancies generally is recorded by the Office of Manpower and Economics and is available in the annual report of the Review Body for Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine. Copies of the review body's report are placed in the Library each year.

  Patients (Deaths)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been reported in each health authority in each of the last five years of patients dying after hospital admission but before being found a bed. [18878]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were referred to private health care by NHS doctors in 1995–96. [18792]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department established its Internet site; what representations he has received and what data he has collated on the use and utility of the site; and what steps he is taking to increase the amount of information available via the site. [19147]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health Internet site was established in June 1995. Statistics received from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the use of the site show that weekly page accesses to the 106
  Department's site have increased from just under 2,000 in June 1995 to over 10,000 in February 1997. The Department of Health's home page is consistently among the top 20 most used pages on the CCTA's open government site. Other pages, such as the hospital league tables, press releases and monthly publications update, are visited frequently. Users of the Department's web site are encouraged to provide feedback via a form on the site. All suggestions for improvement are considered and many have been implemented.

  The Department continues to increase the amount of information, and now provides the full text of key communications such as White and Green Papers, press releases and consultative documents, as well as listings of new departmental publications. Later this year, access to departmental circulars is planned and enhanced provision of statistical publications. The Department also encourages staff to consider electronic media, including the Internet, in deciding where to publish departmental communications.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS eye examinations took place in 1995–96. [19096]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1995–96, family health services authorities in England paid for 6,511,680 national health service sight tests.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 643, how many of the dentists struck off for breaches of professional conduct were found guilty of fraud. [19306]

  Mr. Malone
  These figures are not held centrally. This is a matter for the General Dental Council.

  Mortuaries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mortuaries(a) in NHS trusts and (b) elsewhere had insufficient accommodation to meet demand over the Christmas period. [18705]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  GP Practices (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices there are in the London borough of Wandsworth. [19491]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is that there were 131 general practitioner practices in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth family health services authority at 29 March 1996.

  Source:

  General Medical Service Census

  (practice-includes GP partnerships and practices)
  107

  Care (Capital Asset Rules)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities are applying the same capital asset rules to means testing for domiciliary care and for residential care. [19419]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor wheelchairs by health authorities in England in each of the last three years. [19374]

  Mr. Burns
  We do not collect separate figures for indoor-powered wheelchairs. However, the respective figure for all powered wheelchairs are:

  1993–94: 8,569

  1994–95: 9,441

  1995–96: 10,000

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs by health authorities in England in each of the last three years. [19375]

  Mr. Burns
  No separate information was collected before 1996–97 about the number of electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs issued by the national health service wheelchair services. From 1996–97, additional funding for the provision of electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs has been made available to health authorities as part of the wheelchair initiative announced by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), on 26 February 1996. By 6 February 1997, a total of 718 electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs had been ordered and were in the process of being issued.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been incurred by health authorities for the purchase of electrically powered(a) indoor and (b) indoor-outdoor wheelchairs in each of the last three years. [19376]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested about expenditure on electrically powered indoor wheelchairs is not collected centrally.

  Additional funding amount to £6.4 million has been paid to health authorities in England for the financial year 1996–97 for the provision of electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs as part of the wheelchair initiatives announced on 26 February 1996.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average cost to the NHS of the treatment of a person suffering from(a) lung cancer and (b) mesothelioma over the course of their illness. [19378]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  108

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out by his Department into methods of treatment for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; what information he has collated on research being carried out by other organisations in the United Kingdom on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [18253]

  Mr. Horam
  We need to improve our understanding of the nature of the agent which causes spongiform encephalopathies before we are able to investigate possible methods of treatment. This is a high priority in our centrally directed programme of research across departments and research councils.

  Preliminary studies suggest that a small number of compounds may have beneficial effects in producing deactivation and/or slowing the rate of disease and further work to expand these very preliminary early findings is about to be funded by the Medical Research Council. The MRC will be meeting with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries to explore other opportunities from past, present or future research.

  New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial provision has been made for the costs of caring for those affected by new variant CJD; over what period these costs are expected to be incurred; and if he will make a statement. [18254]

  Mr. Horam
  No specific financial provision has been made for the care of patients affected by new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Patients with nvCJD, which remains a very rare condition, should receive all clinically necessary health and social services as decided by those responsible for their care and the authorities locally. It is still too soon to make any prediction about future numbers of cases and consequent costs.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overall number of(a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff employed in each region in 1995 and 1996. [18772]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not available in precisely the format requested. The information available centrally for 1995—the latest available year—is shown in the table.
  109

  NHS hospital and community health service (HCHS) and General Medical Service (GMS) staff by selected staff groups by NHS Executive Regional Office areas:

  England 1995

  Managers1

  Clerical and administrative staff2

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff3

  Junior doctors4

  Other medical staff5

  (wte)

  (wte)

  (wte)

  (headcount)

  (headcount)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,710

  22,470

  48,380

  3,730

  7,550

  Trent

  2,770

  15,920

  34,090

  2,650

  5,080

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,980

  15,790

  33,810

  2,450

  5,760

  North Thames

  4,420

  23,870

  48,450

  5,210

  8,170

  South Thames

  3,850

  23,850

  43,680

  3,860

  7,730

  South and West

  3,230

  21,000

  44,360

  2,770

  7,120

  West Midlands

  2,930

  17,570

  36,180

  2,540

  5,550

  North West

  2,950

  23,450

  51,700

  3,860

  7,310

  Notes:

  1 Includes HCHS administrative managers and GMS practice managers and fund managers.

  2 Includes HCHS clerical and administrative staff, and GMS administrative staff including secretarial and reception staff and computer operators.

  3 Includes HCHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding learners and Project 2000 students of which there were 4,580 and 33,000 respectively in England in 1995) and GMS practice nurses.

  4 Includes senior registrars, senior house officers and house officers.

  5 Includes other hospital medical staff, public health medicine and community health service medical staff and general medical practitioners. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten, consequently, totals may not equal the sum of components.

  HCHS figures relate to 30 September 1995

  GMS figures relate to 1 October 1995

  Sources:

  Department of Health's annual medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses and bi-annual General Medical Service census.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of NHS clerical, administrative and management staff in each year since 1989. [18775]

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

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS) and General Medical Services (GMS) management and administrative staff

  England 1989 to 19951

  Whole-time equivalents

  1989

  148,030

  1990

  165,390

  1991

  179,830

  1992

  192,600

  1993

  194,910

  1994

  198,830

  19951

  200,500

  Notes:

  1HCHS figures for 1989 to 1994 are based on staff on general and senior manager payscales and staff on administrative and clerical payscales. A new classification of staff was introduced in 1995 which classifies staff by what they do rather than how they are paid. The figures for 1995 are, therefore, not directly comparable with figures for earlier years.

  GMS figures include: secretarial and reception staff in 1989; figures from 1990 also include clerical staff, practice managers and computer operators, and figures for 1995 include fund managers.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  All HCHS figures are at 30 September each year, and GMS figures as at 1 October of each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census and bi-annual General Medical Services census.

  University Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received about the provision of funding for university medical
  110
  imaging and electronic instrumentation research programmes; what assessment it has made of the future viability of such programmes; and if he will make a statement. [18776]

  Mr. Malone
  With respect to Department of Health funding under the medical device research programme, six out of the first 12 contracts have been awarded in medical imaging and electronic instrumentation, of which four involve universities. The estimated total cost of the six studies is £1.7 million.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many answers to parliamentary questions by Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement. [19343]

  Mr. Horam
  Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make it clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the large numbers of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for the Department systematically to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the register compiled by Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure of breast cancer patients permanently damaged by radiotherapy; and what action he plans to take in response. [19122]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is familiar with RAGE and its activities on behalf of patients who have suffered adverse effects following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer, but is not aware of such a register.
  111
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancer patients have been permanently damaged by radiotherapy in the last 15 years. [19121]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prodigy Prescribing Pilot System
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those illnesses and conditions for which the Prodigy prescribing pilot system is able to print information leaflets; [19125]

  (2) if he will list the patient groups which have been consulted while developing the patient information provided under the Prodigy prescribing pilot system. [19124]

  Mr. Malone
  Phase 2 of the Prodigy project will include patient information leaflets for the majority of conditions covered by the system. A full list of the conditions covered in phase 1 and copies of the phase 1 guidelines were placed in the Library in July 1996, following publication of the Prodigy interim report.

  Comments on the patient information leaflets for phase 2 were sought from various interested parties in November 1996, and are now being taken into account.

  The following organisations received a full set of patient information leaflets:

  Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance

  Patients' Association

  Consumers' Association

  Association of Health Councils for England and Wales

  The following organisations received a selection of leaflets relevant to the conditions they represent:

  Acne Support Group Age Concern

  Al-Anon Family Groups UK and Eire

  Alcohol Concern

  Alcoholics Anonymous

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  Arthritis and Rheumatism Council

  Arthritis Care

  Ash

  Association of Breastfeeding Mothers

  Association of Continence Advice

  British Deaf Association

  British Diabetic Association

  British Heart Foundation

  British Liver Trust

  British Lung Foundation

  British Migraine Association

  British Polio Fellowship

  Brook Advisory Centres

  CITA

  CRY-SIS Support Group

  Depression Alliance

  ERIC

  Family Heart Association

  Family Planning Association

  Fellowship of Depressives Anonymous

  112

  FORESIGHT

  Herpes Viruses Association

  Hypothyroidism Support Group

  Hysterectomy Support Network

  INCONTACT

  International Glaucoma Association

  ISSUE

  La Leche League

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  Migraine Trust

  MIND

  Mind Over Matter

  Miscarriage Association

  NAPS

  National Asthma Campaign

  National Back Pain Association

  National Deaf Children's Society

  National Eczema Society

  National Endometriosis Society

  National Osteoporosis Society

  Psoriasis Association

  Quitline

  Raynaud's and Scleroderma Association

  Save our Sons

  Stroke Association

  Women's Health

  Women's Health Concern.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of guidelines in phase I of the Prodigy prescribing pilot system; and how many, and which, of these have been updated for phase II. [19127]

  Mr. Malone
  Phase 1 of the Prodigy system incorporated advice and recommendations covering 244 main diagnoses and 566 sub-categories. These were placed in the Library in July 1996. In the light of comments received from users of the system and others, a proportion of the guidelines have been reviewed beginning with those most frequently used by general practitioners in the phase 1 trials. A team is currently working on reviewing further guidelines for use in phase 2, and will continue to seek comments on the use and content of the guidelines as the project progresses.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred to date on the Prodigy prescribing pilot system. [19126]

  Mr. Malone
  To date, approximately £2.3 million has been spent on Prodigy phases 1 and 2, incorporating software development, hardware and evaluation costs. As a full breakdown of costs would include commercially sensitive information relating to the suppliers involved, it would not be appropriate to publish such details.
  113

  Private Partnership Insurance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to his Department by the Government Actuary about(a) the likely uptake and (b) the cost to his budget of introducing private partnership insurance for long-term care; and if he will place the figures and papers received from the Government Actuary in the Library. [19310]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government have made no estimates of the likely take-up of the partnership scheme; it is for individuals to decide whether or not to take out partnership insurance.

  The possible public expenditure costs of the partnership scheme are considered in appendix 4 of the policy statement "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", which was published today. The estimates of costs were produced by the department. No figures or papers were received from the Government Actuary.

  Fluoridation (North West Water)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from health authorities about North West Water's decision not to implement additional fluoridation schemes. [19068]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on North West Water's decision not to implement additional fluoridation schemes. [19067]

  Mr. Malone
  Fluoridation of water supplies is a matter for local decision.

  Prescriptions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances patients are not entitled to NHS prescribing resulting from a private consultations; and what guidance is published by his Department to health authorities on the procedures they should follow for NHS prescribing in relation to patients who have previously had a private consultation. [19116]

  Mr. Malone
  Doctors may provide national health service prescriptions only when they are providing NHS services; for general practitioners, this is set out in their terms and conditions of service. No further guidance has been issued.

  Community Care (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to Wiltshire county council of a community care place in a residential home run by a(a) the county council and (b) the private sector. [19072]

  Mr. Burns
  The cost of placements to the local authority will vary according to the charges paid by individuals. Account should also be taken of the residential allowance which is paid by the Department of Social Security to local authority placements in independent sector homes. Wiltshire county council has advised that the current basic fee charged to individuals placed by it in its in-house residential care homes is £268 and to similar placements in the independent sector £214.
  114
  Information on a nationally comparable basis is published in the "Key indicators of local authority social services 1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Pameton
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date and under what marketing authorisation number Stirling Winthrop was granted a licence for Pameton. [19281]

  Mr. Malone
  Pameton was granted the marketing authorisation PL 00071/0216 on 1 November 1983.

  Contact Lenses
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility(a) the hospital eye service has for the supply of contact lenses to patients for whom they are clinically necessary and (b) the (i) general optical service and (ii) the DSS has in ensuring that such patients can get such contact lenses. [19496]

  Mr. Horam
  Contact lenses can be supplied for either clinical or cosmetic reasons by an ophthalmic medical practitioner or by an optician practising either in hospital or in the community. Children, people on low incomes, or patients with complex optical needs are entitled to national health service optical vouchers. Patients who are entitled to full help with meeting the costs of their optical appliances, and have a clinical need for contact lenses, will receive them free of charge.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by fundholding general practitioner practices in England on purchasing hospital and community health services from private sector providers as defined by sub-code 160 in form FAA 23 in the accounts filed by health authorities in each year since GP fundholding started. [19612]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows money spent by fundholding general practitioner practices in England on purchasing hospital and community health services from private sector providers as defined by sub-code 160 in Form FAA 23.

  Year

  £000

  Number of fundholding practices

  Non-NHS spend as percentage of total budget

  1991–92

  3,698

  306

  0.9

  1992–93

  13,127

  587

  1.6

  1993–94

  29,899

  1,249

  1.6

  1994–95

  52,557

  2,066

  1.9

  1995–96

  66,250

  2,613

  1.9

  Source:

  Annual accounts of FHSAs.

  Note:

  Figures for 1995–96 are provisional.

  Records (Access)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if local authority social services departments are under an
  115
  obligation to refuse a person access to his own records before 1989 and to claim public interest immunity without discretion to waive this. [19501]

  Mr. Burns
  While there is no statutory right of access to manual personal records held by a social services department before 1 April 1989, the Department encourages local authorities to make as much information available as possible, especially where this helps an individual to understand records made after this date.
  116

  Cancelled Operations (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled on the day of, or after, the patient had been admitted to hospitals under the aegis of Durham Hospitals NHS trust in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [19359]

  Mr. Horam
  Figures for cancelled operations by trust are not available centrally in the form requested. However, figures for April to December 1996 for cancelled operations by health authority are available in the Library.

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

Children: Illegal Employment
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions there are annually for the illegal employment of children in the United Kingdom and, if it is illegal to employ schoolgirls as catwalk models, whose duty it is to prosecute the employer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in 1995, 16 defendants were prosecuted for the illegal employment of children. It is not illegal to employ schoolgirls as catwalk models.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of children employed in this country is much greater than in many other European countries? Is she also aware that discussions are taking place about a European Union directive on the matter? I understand that our representatives are proposing that children shall be legally permitted to work five hours on a Sunday. Will the Minister intervene with a view to stopping our representatives putting forward any such proposal?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not aware that our children work more than children in other European countries. The noble Lord may well be right, but we would not want to see children exploited. On the other hand, the vast majority enjoy their paper rounds
2
and their Saturday morning jobs. It teaches them about rewards for hard work, value for money and the disciplines of getting up for work and being reliable. Furthermore, it gives them status in the eyes of their friends. Therefore, the issue must be kept in proportion.
There are strict regulations as to how often and how much children can work. I understand that consultation is taking place about an EC directive. However, we believe that our present law, with some very minor alterations, is a good safeguard for children at work.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we all agree with the Minister that it is right to keep issues such as paper rounds in proportion. However, is she concerned, as both I and my noble friend Lord Jenkins are concerned, about the difference between children doing casual work such as a paper round or a Saturday morning job in a shop and the types of employment which may well interfere with their schooling? Is she aware that there is considerable evidence of a growing demand for that kind of labour, which is more serious than the casual and often enjoyable part-time work?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, but local authorities, which make by-laws under the 1993 Act, can place further restrictions if they wish on the hours and conditions of work and on the nature of the employment that is permitted.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with one or two exceptions such as Birmingham and others, local authorities are not implementing the present laws? Will the Government take whatever action is necessary to persuade and encourage them to do so and to provide any further resources so that they can implement the present legislation? It is largely not implemented and it is estimated that some 2 million children are working every day in defiance of the present legislation.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that the figure of 2 million relates to employers who do not register with the local authority. However, under the

3
1993 Act, local authorities have such a duty and it is up to them to implement it and to find the necessary resources.

Workfare: Pilot Projects
2.40 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission research on what happens to those disentitled to benefit under the new pilot projects for workfare, and whether they will commit themselves not to introduce any further projects for workfare until after such research has been published.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have already commissioned research on the effects of Project Work. This will be available by December 1997. We are extending the pilots to 28 other new areas so that a more thorough analysis can be undertaken.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House whether that research will include what happens to the people disentitled to benefit? He knows well, for he reminded me last Thursday, that we simply do not agree on this subject. Is he prepared to take the risk of discovering which of us is right?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have every confidence that in due course I shall discover that I am right. Obviously, the research will look at all the effects of Project Work.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, whatever might be the result of the research, the Government can no longer pretend that the workfare programme is dealing with the problem of putting the long-term unemployed back to work. Despite the fact that about 4 million unemployed people are going through their restart interviews and 1 million through their compulsory motivation courses, the fact is that 95 per cent. of them return to the dole.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not know where the noble Lord obtained the figure of 4 million. It is not a figure that I nor I suspect anyone else in the House recognises. However, I assure your Lordships that the initial results from the pilot scheme—and they are just that—of Project Work show that more than half the participants have left the register in pilot areas, which is highly commendable, compared to one-third in the control areas. Furthermore, 23 per cent. of all those starting on the pilot have left for jobs compared with 19 per cent. in the control areas. The difference between those obtaining jobs and those coming off the register account for those who were claiming benefit
4
which they should not have been claiming. We do not believe it right that people should continue to claim benefits to which they are not entitled.

London Underground Privatisation: Publicity Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost of the publicity campaign in favour of the privatisation of London Underground involving the distribution of 150,000 leaflets to passengers, with a personal letter from the Secretary of State for Transport, and who was responsible for commissioning it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, no costs were incurred by the Government. As was clearly stated on both sides of the leaflet, it was published by the Conservative Party.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. I presume that that means that the privatisation proposal, as launched by the Secretary of State on that day, was the start of his election manifesto. Will the noble Viscount confirm that any leaflets distributed in Ealing, which is the Secretary of State's constituency, will be declared as part of his election expenses?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is a very silly question. I wonder whether the best attack which the noble Lord can muster in relation to London Underground privatisation is in relation to the distribution of leaflets, which were political documents paid for by a political party.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am addressing the Minister as a member of the Government and not as a member of the Conservative Party. Will the noble Viscount agree that regular users of the Underground, of which I happen to be one, would, in present circumstances, be much more interested in the current level of funding than what might or might not happen eventually with regard to privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will know that very substantial quantities of grant go to London Underground at the moment. But I believe that passengers will be looking to the future to see how the situation can be improved and the investment backlog dealt with. It is clear that over many decades that has not been achieved. We now need innovative proposals to attract massive quantities of investment into the London Underground. That is exactly what privatisation will do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as another regular user of the Underground system, I assure my noble friend that the

5
prospect of attracting very large amounts of new capital in order to make that the efficient service that we want is extremely welcome.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed; I can fully accept that. People have been complaining for many years about the level of investment in the Underground. It is clear that government resources are limited and we need the co-operation of the private sector through privatisation.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, did the Minister see a recent opinion poll which resulted in a finding that two-thirds of the people polled thought that privatising London Underground was a very bad idea? Rightly or wrongly, does he not think that there might have been an electoral misjudgment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I also saw opinion polls at the time of the last election which suggested that the Conservative Party would not win it, but that did not prove to be the case.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the leaflet indicate the number of jobs likely to be lost as the result of privatisation or is that felt not appropriate for the leaflet?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should be very happy to present a leaflet to the noble Baroness or she could come to Conservative Central Office to receive a more in-depth briefing. The leaflet sought to put the 10 guarantees which the Secretary of State gave to the House of Commons before a wider distribution so that passengers could read that. We know—and we have seen from the other privatised industries—that the only way forward for long-term success is to attract the investment and improve services. That is what guarantees jobs, not inefficiency.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how much is being invested by the public in the renovation of the Bakerloo Line, and how will that be reflected in the price which is asked on privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord recognises, a large amount of investment is being put into the existing core network. I am not able to give the noble Lord a line-by-line breakdown, but if those figures are available, I shall provide them to the noble Lord. However, it is clear that a great deal more money is required to overcome the investment backlog. That is the important matter which we must tackle.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend able to use his judgment to inform the House how long he thinks it will be before the Labour Party comes round to planning privatisation of the London Underground?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have seen historic privatisations, which were opposed tooth and nail, to which the Labour Party has now come round and is championing. Indeed, it is an advocate of some of those
6
privatisations. I cannot answer for the party opposite. It is still trying to work out what it will do about the heavy rail network and which parts of that are to be bought back. We should set the party opposite one challenge at a time.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister remember that in the year before British Telecom was privatised, the majority of telephone boxes in London were out of order and were not repaired, I believe, in order to give the impression that privatisation would bring great benefits? Is it not the case that the Government's deliberate policy of starving London Underground of capital, especially at the present time, is happening so that the Government can put forward a spurious case for the benefits of privatisation? Had there been enough capital provided to run a decent system, those arguments about privatisation would count for nothing.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. I believe that that is a slur on the management of London Underground, which has achieved a great deal with the resources available at its disposal. But it is interesting to look at the figures. Over the next few years, investment in LT's core network will be on average 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s and twice the level of the 1970s.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, was that answer not rather extraordinary? The Minister said in answer to my noble friend that his comments were a slur on the management of London Underground. Is he claiming that it is the management of London Underground which is responsible for the cuts in capital investment? Surely it is well known that management protested against the cuts imposed by government.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's question implied that scheming was taking place between the management of London Underground and the Government in order to do down London Underground and to follow the cynical policy of making privatisation look good. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the investment figure which I have given—twice the level of the investment figures of the 1970s—has put paid to that. By that reckoning, the Labour Party was campaigning for the privatisation of the Underground 20 years ago, which was not the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the Minister reads my noble friend's question in Hansard, he will realise that there was no suggestion in it of there having been scheming on the part of the management of London Underground. My noble friend was complaining, quite rightly, about the cuts imposed on the capital programme of London Underground.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I dare say that we could continue the argument for a further 18 minutes or so. However, the fact is that the amounts provided to London Underground are far higher than was the case in the 1970s; the level of the core investment is twice that of the 1970s. The Government have been providing

7
good and proper levels of investment. However, we all realise that more is required. Therefore, we have innovated proposals as to how to achieve that; but, from the party opposite, we have nothing.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister remind those who were responsible for the last three questions that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted the public expenditure plans of this Government and has said that he will maintain them for two years? Therefore, what on earth are they talking about?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most interesting and poignant observation; and leaves rather a large hole in the financial predictions of the party opposite.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to my Question for a moment. Can the Minister confirm that London Underground gave the Conservative Party permission to distribute the leaflets on the system? Further, will the noble Viscount encourage London Underground to give the same permission to the Labour Party, as that might actually help distribute our policy when the time comes?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when the party opposite develops a policy, no doubt they will produce a leaflet.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as the Minister referred to me on several occasions, perhaps I may put the following question to him. Is he aware that the comment I made earlier was intended to be in criticism of the Government's starving London Transport of capital and preventing an effective management of London Underground from doing the job that it wants to do? It is the Government who are at fault, not London Transport management.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course I entirely accept the intention behind the noble Lord's earlier question. However, when the noble Lord accuses the Government of restricting the finance available to London Underground, I can, for the third or fourth time, tell the House that it was twice that of the 1970s. That must count for something in the noble Lord's arguments as regards the level of funding available to London Underground.

Single-sex Accommodation for Patients
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have received to the Department of Health's request to health authorities to submit, by the end of February, timetabled plans for providing single-sex accommodation for patients in hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, most health authorities have now responded. The information is at
8
present being collated by regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, and Ministers expect to receive a report of the results shortly.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by its lack of precision. Is the Minister saying that the ambitious targets that the Secretary of State described in January as needing to be both challenging and achievable in a relatively short time are simply still being discussed? Will that give real hope to those millions of patients who are most concerned about the issue? Alternatively, is this simply an attempt to kick the whole problem into touch until after the general election?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. Health authorities were asked to submit their returns by 28th February. Those returns are now with the regional offices and, once they have collated and analysed them, they will be forwarded to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as we have time today, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. After all, there are now only eight regional offices of the National Health Service. Is it not possible for the Minister to give at least some indication of the results that have been given thus far? This is an issue of some considerable urgency and one of great importance to many patients.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I accept that we are discussing a matter of urgency and of great importance to many patients. The noble Baroness will know that we have a great many hospitals in this country; we have a great many wards; and we have a great many beds. Indeed, we admit approximately 9 million people every year to NHS hospitals. It is a complex problem and the last thing I am sure the noble Baroness would want would be duff information.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, with the exception of some of the day operations and other such matters, for many patients the idea of a joint sex ward creates considerable distress? Could the noble Baroness at least give an indication to hospitals and health trusts when they respond to her that she would hope that they would approach the issue sympathetically and with due urgency?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. It is because the Secretary of State, Ministers, the Government and, indeed, myself are concerned about the issue that further action has been taken. It has been in the Patient's Charter, but the Secretary of State was not convinced that enough attention was being given to this particular aspect of the charter. That is why firm action has been taken.

Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Knives Bill
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Policyholders Protection Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
Read a third time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wish to place on record my thanks to Mr. Gary Flather, Chairman of the Statutory Committee, the disciplinary committee, of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who, through his wife, my noble friend Lady Flather, raised important considerations about the Bill on Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1997
2.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC for his report on the operation of the legislation in 1996. He concluded, following wide consultation, and an entirely independent scrutiny of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1996, that the Act remains necessary and that it should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. The Government share his view and accept his recommendation.
It is now 23 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first enacted. The present Act was passed in 1989 and, like its predecessors, it was intended to be a temporary measure—one made in response to an exceptional threat. Very regrettably, the threat that we face from terrorism remains as great today. Within our midst, a callous, murderous minority remains determined to use violence to achieve its ends.
Last year, this House renewed the Act under the dark shadow of the bombing of South Quay. the deaths of two people caught in the blast, and the formal ending of the IRA's ceasefire. This year we must consider the need for its provisions against the background of a continuing campaign by the Provisional IRA in Great Britain and of a return to violence in Northern Ireland. The past 12 months reveal an all too familiar legacy of destruction: destruction of lives, of families, of homes, of livelihoods and of communities.
Following the South Quay bomb there were further attacks on the mainland and another death. These culminated in the bombing of Manchester city centre on Saturday 15th June. Over 200 people were injured in that outrage. It was a miracle that no one was killed, and a testament to the skills of all those who worked so quickly to move more than 80,000 people to safety.
In Northern Ireland, the IRA stepped up its targeting and readied its resources for a full return to violence in the Province. This came with tragic consequences, on 7th October. Two car bombs were detonated, one shortly after the other, and without warning inside Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn: 38 people were injured. As the House knows, Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. As your Lordships will remember, the second bomb had been placed outside the medical centre. It was deliberately timed to catch those trying to help those wounded in the first explosion. Such acts speak volumes about the kind of people with whom we have to contend.
That attack has been followed by numerous others, many of which have either been abandoned or have been successfully disrupted by the security forces. But only last month, on 12th February, Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook. Stephen's parents hope that their son's tragic death will inspire renewed efforts on all sides to find a peaceful solution. I urge the IRA to listen to them and abandon violence for good. I urge the Loyalists to listen to them lest they fall into the trap of retaliation set for them by the IRA.
I can assure the House today that the IRA's atrocities have not and will not hold up the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The talks process remains the only democratic alternative to the futility of further violence.
The IRA and its supporters think terrorism will achieve results which cannot be secured through negotiation and the ballot box. They are wrong. The multiparty talks began on 10th June without Sinn Fein. They were adjourned last Wednesday until after the general election and the local elections in Northern Ireland. The talks will resume on 3rd June. And they will continue in the next Parliament. Delegates

11
representing the vast majority of opinion in Northern Ireland are engaged in a real effort to achieve an acceptable political settlement and a lasting peace. The Government want to see Sinn Fein join the talks. But this is entirely in its hands. The IRA knows what it must do. It must deliver an unequivocal ceasefire; it must stop its paramilitary activities; it must abandon violence for ever.
The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the mainland since the appalling attack on Manchester is no thanks to the IRA. The credit for this must go in large part to the vigilance of the police and security service. They have had several significant successes in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the past year.
For example, the police and Security Service believe that in July last year, with the discovery and seizure of a large number of devices in London, they foiled a serious and imminent terrorist attack on the mainland. Anther joint operation led to the seizure in September of a substantial amount of explosives, weapons and other terrorist equipment in London. The haul included over six tonnes of home made explosive, enough in fact for several bombs the size of the one which exploded in Manchester. These achievements and many others in Northern Ireland did not come easily. They were hard won by the determination, skill and vigilance of police officers and of the Security Service. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
We must not forget another key factor in these successes: the powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. This Act gives police the powers they need to prevent whenever possible, and otherwise to investigate, terrorist attacks and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Government are convinced that the powers in the Act are still necessary. This is why I am asking the House to renew them today.
As Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to arrest and to extend detention under the Act are vital weapons in the fight against terrorism. In Great Britain in 1996 there were 84 detentions under the Act. Of the 23 suspects who were held for more than the initial 48 hour period, 13 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist related offences.
In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48 hour period. Of those 48, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorism related offences; 135 other detainees were charged with other offences.
In 1996, the powers of detention under the Act were used on two occasions in respect of suspected international terrorist activity, though neither detainee was subsequently charged. The Government are convinced that these powers are needed both in relation to international terrorism and to terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will recall that two people, both of whom were originally arrested under the Act in 1995, were convicted last December of the car bombing in London of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish charity in 1994. Each is now serving 20 years. An Algerian national, who was also
12
originally arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1995, remains in custody here, subject to an application by the French authorities to extradite him in connection with the bombing campaign in France in 1995.
I know that some people believe that extensions of detention should be granted by judges rather than by a Secretary of State. Mr. Rowe has re-examined this issue in his report. Drawing on his own experience of the way in which the English and Welsh courts deal with public interest immunity hearings, he concludes that while judicial involvement might be possible in principle in England and Wales it would not be possible in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland. He thinks that it would be inappropriate for there to be different systems for granting extensions of detention in different parts of the United Kingdom. He concludes that judicial involvement in the process should not be introduced anywhere in the United Kingdom at the present time.
The Government do not believe that it would be right to involve the judiciary in the extension of detention process. This is because decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours are often taken on the basis of sensitive information which cannot be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without compromising the source of the intelligence. To reveal such information might create a serious risk to persons assisting the police or lead to valuable intelligence being lost. Any new procedure which allowed a court to make what amounts to an executive decision, on information not presented to the detainee or his legal adviser, and without the giving of reasons or the possibility of an appeal, would represent a radical departure from the principles which govern judicial proceedings in an adversarial system. It would create a very real risk of undermining judicial independence as the judiciary would be perceived as part of the investigation and prosecution process.
Mr. Rowe is right to say in his report that the courts in England and Wales are more familiar now with public interest immunity hearings and that in such cases the courts consider sensitive material sometimes at an ex parte hearing without the defence team present or even being aware of the application.
However, PII is concerned with rules of evidence, not with executive acts which determine whether an individual should be detained for questioning in relation to an investigation. In PII applications, the judge knows what the issues are for both sides. He has the prosecution statements and depositions and it will be clear from them what the defence case is. If it is not, he can ask the defence. In addition, the court has a duty to continue to monitor the disclosure issue. If it becomes clear that material which has not been disclosed would assist the defence then the court must reverse its previous decision and order disclosure.
This is very different from involving the court in an executive act to detain a suspect in circumstances where the court would be required to act on the basis of material which would not be disclosed to either the suspect or his legal adviser. Moreover, involving the judiciary in the process of granting or approving

13
extensions of detention would create a real risk of undermining its independence as it would be seen as part of the investigation and prosecution process.
The Act contains other provisions which play a vital part in disrupting and combating terrorism. Again, as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to stop, examine, and search those coming into, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland form a vital part of our defences. Of great importance too are the powers of the police to investigate terrorist finances and to obtain production and explanation orders in relation to funds and other material found.
As the House well knows, the Government added to the powers available to the police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act last April. We gave the police additional powers to stop and search individuals for articles of use in carrying out terrorist acts; to seal off the streets to prevent, or investigate, a terrorist attack; and to search non-residential property and unaccompanied freight at port. These additional powers are already proving their worth as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear. The police have, I understand, made extensive use in recent investigations of the power to search, under warrant, non-residential premises, without having to specify in which particular one they believe the terrorist material for which they are looking may be found. The additional powers to stop and search have also had an impact; the police believe that they have a significant deterrent effect and have disrupted the ability of terrorists to move themselves and their equipment around at will.
Perhaps the most sensitive power in the Act—and one about which some noble Lords opposite are concerned—is that of exclusion. The Government are convinced of the need for these powers. Exclusion orders disrupt and deter those bent on carrying out terrorist attacks and deprive the terrorist organisations to which they belong of some of their most experienced operators. That is also Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion. If the power helps us combat the terrorist menace then we must keep it.
Some have suggested in the past that the process of making exclusion orders is arbitrary and unfair. Mr. Rowe's report makes it clear that it is not. He has looked at all files relating to the cases which were dealt with in 1996. And I am pleased to note that he finds that all those involved in making the orders carried out their task carefully and fairly.
The powers are used sparingly not least in recognition of their exceptional nature. There are currently 23 exclusion orders in force. This is the lowest number ever since the power was introduced. It is possible of course that further orders may be made. But each case will, as now, be considered very carefully on its merits.
There are those who suggest that since the number excluded is now relatively small it would make little difference if all the orders were revoked. The Government do not accept that. We believe that they are needed and that they are effective. The alternative—mounting surveillance operations on all those currently excluded—would have enormous resource implications. It is simply not realistic, particularly when the police and the Security Service are fully engaged on preventing further attacks and investigating those which have already taken place.
Having explained why the Government believe that we should renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a further 12 months, I would like to turn briefly to the future.
In December 1995 the Government asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. His report was published in October 1996.
Very regrettably, the conditions he was asked to anticipate do not exist at present. That is why the Government believe, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 20th February, that it is too early to reach any firm conclusions on the more fundamental legislative changes which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has proposed.
I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we hope that there will soon be an end to the violence. With a permanent cessation of violence we shall be able to look again at the possibility of providing a new legislative framework for combatting terrorism.
But the Government are determined that the police should have all the powers they need to combat the current threat from terrorism effectively. That is why we intend to bring forward proposals in due course to strengthen the existing controls on terrorist finances. These will build on the very helpful ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
I have explained why the Government believe that it is essential that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. We still face an exceptional threat from terrorism. The spate of recent attacks in Northern Ireland speak for themselves. No one should be under any illusion that the absence of an attack on the mainland since the Manchester bombing means that the threat here has disappeared.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act gives the police the powers they need to fight terrorism. We must ensure that the powers remain available to them—and for as long as they are needed. The Government are committed to keeping them. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know, her speech very closely followed that made by the Secretary of State in another place. One of its many virtues is that whereas the Secretary of State spoke for 38 minutes, the Minister spoke for only 17. But she made all the important points which the House needs to consider, bearing in mind that we have been considering such orders for 23 years. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich introduced the Bill to this House 23 years ago. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead initiated the policy which led to the Bill which led to the introduction by my noble friend Lord Harris at that time.

15
However, as on previous occasions, I wish to refer to the remarks made at that time by my noble friend Lord Wigoder. Although not speaking from the Government Benches, as did my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, my noble friend referred to the importance of safeguards. He asked, first, whether the proposed legislation matched the emergency, and reluctantly said that he believed that it did. He asked whether the encroachment on liberty which was inevitably involved was the very minimum necessary. Again, reluctantly, he concluded that it was. But in referring to the encroachment on liberty, he said that any such encroachment should be in no danger of drifting into becoming the permanent law of the land. When the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made those remarks 23 years ago, I do not believe that any Members of your Lordships' House really believed that that legislation, and its successor legislation of 1989, would be occupying us as it does today. It is a great sadness that that is the case.
Nevertheless, sharing all the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the sad circumstances again in Northern Ireland, we have to be careful that we do not start referring to our customary annual debate. This should not become part of a predictable spring ritual, almost a tradition of Parliament. It remains acutely important that both this House and another place examine the proposals that the Government of the day may bring forward and consider seriously whether they should be continued for yet another year.
I take the view that if these proposals are acceptable to Members of this House and to Members of another place then, however reluctantly, we should be prepared to support them. I do not take the view now, and have not previously believed, that there is any room effectively for abstentions. Either these are necessary measures, as from these Benches we reluctantly believe them to be, or they are unnecessary measures; and there is no halfway house in that respect.
The Minister referred to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. In speaking in the debate on 16th March 1995, I urged that the long-term review, about which there had been some discussion, should be set up without further delay. There was a delay until December 1995, but there is no point in complaining about that now. Again our sadness is that at the time the review was contemplated, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was given his terms of reference, we all believed, as the noble Baroness said, that he was dealing with a situation in which peace had been restored in Northern Ireland. We believed that he was reviewing the need for the legislation in the light of the success of the peace process and the cessation of terrorism. Certainly I hoped at that time that the spirit of sanity and hope would endure and that apart from looking at the new situation in Northern Ireland the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would be able to turn to what is referred to in Chapter 4 of Mr. Rowe's report: the threat of wide international terrorism. We have to recognise that even if we resolve the tragic problems of Northern Ireland, international terrorism is still with us.
16
I merely make a point which follows from our previous discussions and from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd; namely, that we should not assume that precisely the same legislation would be required if we were no longer dealing with the Northern Ireland situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred in passing to judicial participation, mentioned by Mr. Rowe in paragraph 79 of Chapter 10, on page 27 of his report. I examined the paragraph very carefully. On these Benches we have been anxious to see, if not judicial participation as widely drawn as that term, judicial authorisation in some other matters that have occupied this House. But having read the paragraphs in Mr. Rowe's report relating to the difficulty of reconciling what might be possible in England and Wales with what might be impossible in Northern Ireland, my present tentative conclusion, subject to further reflection before we are faced with a similar renewal, is that the case has been made by Mr. Rowe against moving to judicial participation of the kind that he discussed and we have examined before. We need to approach this matter again next year, when we shall be clearer about the overall situation with which we are dealing.
I regret that we are faced with this renewal today. I am sorry that the process of renewal has now gone on for 23 years. However, for the most part I find myself endorsing the remarks of the noble Baroness the Minister and wish to add nothing further to today's discussions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to this as being a "spring ritual" and regretted that fact. For one reason, I regret it as much as he does: it is that we still have terrorism in Northern Ireland. Those who have followed the events of the past year since the abandonment of the ceasefire in February 1996 can have no doubt that the IRA, although it has on many occasions been frustrated, intends to continue with the policy of the Armalite as well as the ballot box. For that reason we cannot resist the argument for the continuation of exceptional measures, even when they are described as temporary provisions.
From another point of view, however, I do not regret the fact that we debate this matter every year. It is true that temporary provisions ought not to carry on for 23 years. It is a commonplace in local government that nothing endures as long as "temporary" planning permission. However, it is desirable that we should be reminded of the conflict between the need to combat terrorism by all necessary means and the loss of civil liberty that is incurred thereby.
I yield to nobody in my recognition of the horror of terrorism. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, describes it in his report, a campaign against society, a campaign of people who are at war with society. But at the same time it is valuable that Parliament should be reminded of what we lose because of the activities of the terrorists of the IRA.
We must without qualification be grateful to the Army, the police and the Security Services for the relatively low loss of life in terrorist activities over the past year. That represents a very considerable success—

17
perhaps in relation to the provisions of the Act and the continuance order; certainly in relation to the professionalism of those who have taken part. Even, paradoxically, when they were not so successful—as when the IRA succeeded in gaining access to Thiepval barracks at Lisburn when nobody thought that they could do so, which must be thought of as a failure for the Army and Security Services—the very success on that one occasion of the IRA serves to reinforce our determination to see that they have no further successes.
Therefore we take the position that we have taken for the past two or three years. We do not, either on the substance of the matter or on procedural issues, intend to oppose the order.
However, there are two issues for debate. They were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and it is necessary that they continue to be debated. The first is the judicial element in determining extensions of detention. Before I proceed to the substance of the issue, I, too, observed how closely the noble Baroness's opening remarks followed the remarks of the Home Secretary last Wednesday. There was, however, one significant difference. I wonder whether she will be good enough to consider it and respond to this point. The Home Secretary said:
"In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48-hour period; of those, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist-related offences; and 135 other detainees were charged with other offences".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/97; col. 9201
It is not clear from the Home Secretary's remarks whether, when he said "of those", he meant "of the 569 people who were detained" or of the 48 who were detained for more than the 48-hour period. The Minister made it clear in her introduction. She said "Of those 48, 20 were subsequently charged". It would be interesting to know whether she was right and the ambiguity of the Home Secretary's statement was purely accidental.
I do not believe that either the Minister or the Home Secretary does justice to the conversion of Mr. Rowe in his report, and in particular in paragraphs 84 to 94. Mr. Rowe started with the position last year that the practice of judicial intervention would be,
"unusual and a straining of the judicial function";
and that is the conclusion that the Government reach today. But Mr. Rowe changed his view in the course of the year. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, agrees with Mr. Rowe's previous view. I wonder whether he will agree with what Mr. Rowe now says. He says that the role of the judges has increased, in particular in relation to public interest immunity hearings, which have become more and more common. He continues:
"It seems to me that the gate has been opened by them; judges are used to the one-sided procedure; they apply themselves to a judicial attitude of holding the balance for the absent defendant.
Thus my original objection has gone. Furthermore, while I repeat that there is no criticism of any participant in the present procedure, I myself would prefer a judicial participation in it. If possible, decisions about liberty should he made by judges and not by the executive".
As the Minister said, Mr. Rowe goes on to point out practical difficulties in Northern Ireland, although not in England and Wales, in relation to judicial intervention.
18
However, I was disappointed to find the Minister repeating the arguments which Mr. Rowe himself rejected and claiming, as Ministers did in the early debates on the Police Bill, that judicial intervention would be an involvement of the judges in the process and would take away from their independence.
This House persuaded the Government and the Home Secretary that that was not the case when it came to intrusive surveillance—bugging. The Home Secretary has now accepted that the intervention of particular judges—commissioners—in the authorisation process for intrusive surveillance is a proper intervention and does not compromise the judges. Why can the Minister not take the same view? Why cannot the Government take the same view now? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, takes the view not only that it is right for there to be judicial authorisation, a judicial element in determining extensions of detention, but also that it is workable. I am the first to acknowledge, of course, that he does so in the context of a report on what legislation would be necessary with a lasting peace. We do not have a lasting peace. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, states that in England and Wales, or at any rate in England, the chief metropolitan stipendiary could be nominated as the relevant judge. In Scotland, the sheriff principal of Lothian and the Borders could be the relevant judge. The noble and learned Lord goes on to say that that post is lacking in Northern Ireland but could be created.
Under those circumstances, is not judicial intervention in the extension of detentions not only desirable, as Mr. Rowe and the noble and learned Lord agreed, but practicable'? Is that not one of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, which could be implemented without waiting for the lasting peace which we all desire? In that respect, we believe that the Government are not responding adequately to civil liberties concerns. We shall see to it that judicial intervention is introduced as soon as possible.
The second issue which we have to debate again is the issue of exclusion. It has been pointed out that the number of exclusions is declining. We have been told again today that there are only 23 exclusion orders in force and none has been issued since 1994. But how, then, can the Home Secretary and the Minister be right in saying that there would be substantial resource implications? At col. 923 of the Official Report for 5th March, the Home Secretary said in another place that there would be substantial resource implications in the continuing surveillance which would be necessary if exclusion orders were no longer to exist. The surveillance of 23 individuals at the ports and borders between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom cannot be such an expense as to justify the continuation of something which has been defended on the grounds of necessity but which could now be abandoned, bearing in mind the facts and the desirability of not having exclusion orders.
Exclusion orders revive a power which has not existed in this country since the time of Henry VIII—the power of internal exile. I do not believe that they work. I believe that they are in conflict with basic civil liberties and are likely to be in conflict with international law. Since we are now in a position where they could be got rid of without

19
excessive expense, surely that should be a high priority for the Government, as it will be for a Labour government. There is no reason now why we should not say that no further exclusion orders will be issued and that those in force will, after proper examination, be revoked.
The debate may be a spring ritual, it may be of interest only to a limited number of people. But for those of us who are concerned about the twin issues of civil liberty and terrorism, it is essential that the debate should take place. Of course we accept that the fundamental breach of civil liberty takes place not because of the order and the law, but because of the activities of terrorists. That is the fundamental fact which leads us to support the order. But unless we bear those two points in mind, we shall not be doing justice to the seriousness of the issues before us this afternoon.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I wish to intervene to ask the question picked up by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Two pieces of legislation affect Northern Ireland: the Emergency Provisions Act, which is tailored for the needs of Northern Ireland, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which applies in the whole of the United Kingdom. The EPA is the one that concerns Northern Ireland. Why is there a need to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to such a degree in Northern Ireland, given that there is separate legislation which is the lineal descendant of the legislation put through the other place and this House by Mr. Gladstone, for example, in the last century? It has been in existence much longer than 23 years: it has been with us a long time. I am sufficiently gloomy about the whole affair to believe that, although my noble friend Lord McIntosh said "While we are awaiting peace in Northern Ireland", we shall wait a jolly long time for peace to come about. The problem has been going on for a long time. My question is: why use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to such a degree and on what issue in Northern Ireland, given the special legislation available for that country?
I have just come back from Dublin. The Republic has its own special legislation, which, in many respects, is more draconian than anything we use in Northern Ireland or here. It has been in existence for a long time, it will be there for a long time to come and it is as well to ask why we need the two pieces of legislation.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I understand precisely the context in which he gave his welcome to the renewal order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed concern about the exclusion order powers and the objections which can be made to it on civil liberties grounds. May I say at once that I fully understand those concerns, but as the noble Lord knows, the powers are exceptional. Sometimes circumstances are such that we have to accept measures which in normal circumstances we would not contemplate.
The hard realities are these. The IRA and other terrorist groups in Northern Ireland have the weapons and the explosives with which to carry out further attacks. They
20
have the personnel and, more significantly, the will to use them. The exclusion order powers are an important part of our defences against that threat. The Government believe that it would be irresponsible to abandon them while the need for them so clearly remains.
As regards extensions of detention under Section 14 of the Act, I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers each case very carefully on its merits. He examines the case put to him by the police and their reasons for seeking to detain the suspect. Those can include the need for further inquiries or searches to be made; for forensic tests to be carried out; or, particularly where international terrorism is suspected, for suspicious material to be translated. The Home Secretary takes account of any intelligence we might have about the person or persons concerned, and where an extension of detention is necessary for investigative purposes, it is granted for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the length of my speech, for which I am grateful. He will know that in this House we are more self-disciplined than in the other place. I am sorry that I did not recognise the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who was instrumental in putting the first measure to Parliament. I share with him the regret that here we are, 23 years later, still inviting Parliament to consider renewing what is, at the end of the day, a temporary measure.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that it is acutely important—I use his words—that any renewal should be very carefully considered against any matching circumstances and the need for those special measures. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I make no apologies for the fact that we have to consider this measure each year. I believe that it should be properly considered by Parliament each time that we invite consideration of an extension.
Mention was made of the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Again, I remind the House that the context was in the event of a lasting peace. Sadly, we do not have that. But we all look forward to considering longer term regulation against more peaceful times. We must, however, use the caveat mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that terrorism, even following a peace settlement in Northern Ireland, will continue to need to be a consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked if I would confirm what he detected as a difference of emphasis or even fact about the numbers in the two speeches. I can assure him, as I said in my opening remarks, that of the 48 held for more than the initial 48-hour period, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist offences.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was very concerned about judicial involvement. Again, we need to understand the context of renewing the temporary measures and that any need to address this involves matters for the longer term. When he carried out his work, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was talking about the advent of a lasting peace. The government amendments to the Police Bill at Committee stage in the other place, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made reference, do not give

21
commissioners the decision on whether to bug. They allow them, in certain sensitive cases, to approve authorisation given by chief officers applying the "reasonableness" test. It is therefore a supervisory role and does not give commissioners operational powers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not pursue the issue in relation to the Police Bill. I have not seen the Government's amendments on those points. If they are so limited as she says, it may be a cause for concern. Perhaps I may remind her that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in the last full review of these powers, came to the conclusion that he was against their renewal or replacement, even though he was not concerned only with the situation under a lasting peace. He was concerned with the situation now and he took a different view from that of the Government.
Baroness Blatch: That may be so, my Lords, but Parliament—Parliament is sovereign in these matters—has considered that point and considered on each occasion that these measures should be renewed as temporary measures. The Government have taken the view that these measures are needed and Parliament has supported it. So, while we take seriously any reservations that anybody may have, nevertheless, Parliament does properly consider this matter and we have considered the matter. Certainly, since the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made his reservations known, Parliament has determined the matters.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Mr. Rowe's proposals that could be implemented. As I explained, the Government do not believe that it is possible to involve the judiciary in the extension of the detention process. The proposals of neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, nor Mr. Rowe answer the difficulties that we have identified: for example, the lack of information which can go to the detainee; the lack of challenge possible to the intelligence picture; and the impossibility of appeal. We believe that those are very important matters to the defence which need to be given consideration.
Frankly, I simply disagree with the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is sometimes said that, instead of excluding people who are thought to present a terrorist threat, the police should keep them under surveillance. I believe that was the point made by the noble Lord. But to anyone—I repeat anyone—who knows about these matters, that is quite unrealistic. Surveillance is very resource intensive. The cost of keeping even one single person under effective surveillance is very high indeed. We believe that it would be a substantial resource issue to keep 23 or more people under surveillance anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry again to intervene but surely those are people who are thought of as very dangerous terrorists and they are being confined to Northern Ireland. Are they not under surveillance in Northern Ireland? What is the difference
22
between surveillance in Northern Ireland and surveillance in the rest of the United Kingdom, if they were to come here? I cannot see the difference in resource implications.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a matter of containing and managing the0surveillance of such people. We simply must agree to differ with the noble Lord. If he believes that these are not important measures and can be dispensed with, it must be for him to use the parliamentary process to make that view known. After very careful consideration, we have taken the view that the exclusion orders have played a useful part. We believe that there is a very strong case for keeping them in play.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke with enormous experience, and he has a great deal more experience than I have of these matters. He asked the straightforward question: why do we need these temporary measures? It has been the subject of consistent debate every time the measures have come forward for renewal. I understand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act contains different powers from the EPA; for example, extensions of detention and exclusion orders, which are not contained in the legislation referred to by the noble Lord.
I described the threat that we face. The Government believe that this legislation forms a vital part of defences. I believe that the vast majority of the people in this country support the measures contained in the Act. The public want to be protected. They do not want to have their lives blown apart, their families shattered or their businesses destroyed. They want the police and the security forces to have the powers and the resources that they need. They understand the road checks and searches which now form part of our lives; indeed, it is clear from Mr. Rowe's report that many welcome and feel reassured by them. I believe that we face a very real threat. This is a proper and measured addressing of that threat. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection from Harassment Bill
3.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Civil Remedy]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) Where—

(a) in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and

(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.

23
(2B) An application under subsection (2A) may be made—

(a) where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that court, and

(b) where the injunction was granted by a county court, to a judge or district judge of that or any other county court.

(2C) The judge or district judge to whom an application under subsection (2A) is made may only issue a warrant if—

(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and

(b) the judge or district judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I indicated when the Bill was in Committee, although many of its provisions are based on the very effective model provided in Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to reproduce all the detailed provisions from that legislation in the present context.
One very significant difference between the two remedies is that here a person who without reasonable excuse does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an injunction will have committed a criminal offence for which he can be arrested, as well as being in contempt of court. That is why there is no need for the court granting the injunction to be able to attach to it a power of arrest authorising the arrest without warrant of a person suspected to be in breach. Indeed, the creation of such a power in the civil court could lead to some confusion, since the police officer carrying out the arrest would have two quite separate powers authorising his actions. Although the conduct justifying the arrest would be exactly the same, the question would then be what his next step should be—to which court the person should be brought.
As the conduct complained of would, or might, amount to a criminal offence, it must follow that if prosecution is in the public interest, that is the course which should be followed. If that leads to a conviction, it would not be fair that the person should again be punishable for the same contempt of court which was the very basis of the conviction.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for pointing out that, in some circumstances, civil proceedings for contempt might be brought instead of prosecution. That could happen if there were a decision that the arrested person should not be charged, or, if he has already been charged, that criminal proceedings should be discontinued. The effect of that decision would be that there was no longer any power to hold him, or to bring him before another court. This amendment provides the machinery which would allow that to be done. The civil court would be able to issue a warrant for his arrest, which would be effective immediately the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings was taken, so that there would be no hiatus. It would not be appropriate for the warrant to be effective before then because, as I have said, it must be clear that pending criminal proceedings under Clause 3(3) may not be overtaken by contempt proceedings. Conversely, if it is decided that there ought to be a prosecution after contempt proceedings have been begun, those proceedings should not continue. These are matters properly to be
24
dealt with by rules of court. In practice, what is likely to happen is that the choice will be made very early on, so that these supplementary provisions will not be needed. But it is right that we should have them, to cater for the occasional exception.
Amendment No. 1 inserts three new subsections setting out the court's power to issue a warrant, in response to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Amendment No. 2 is a consequential drafting amendment, which I shall move formally. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Meston asked me to express his apologies for not being here today. He has been detained by a case in court. He asked me to express thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for meeting his point, which represents a significant improvement in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his constructive suggestion which resulted in these amendments.
Perhaps slightly less apropos I express thanks too to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for not tabling his amendments again. As the House will recall, they were extensive amendments and would have completely rewritten the Bill—in the view of some of us, not to very good effect. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, feels that his amendments were taken seriously and that proper debate was held on them. He said in Committee that he would bring them back at Report stage. I hope that, on reflection, his decision not to do so does not indicate that he will bring them back at Third Reading. I am not convinced that that would be helpful to the House.
These amendments are clearly in line with the spirit of the way in which the Bill addresses the extraordinarily difficult problem of stalking. The Lord Chancellor explained clearly not only why they may be necessary, but also why they may be necessary in only a limited number of cases. I am sure we all wish that to be the case. We would not want to see what is, in effect, contempt of court extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. I accept that the amendments fill a gap in the Bill; they make it more effective and I welcome them for that reason.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. In relation to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I echo the point that his proposals were taken extremely seriously. I spent some time examining them with him. The decision he took not to move them on Report results from his further consideration of the matter. For all I know, he may wish to say something about them later. However, I should have thought that, having regard to the nature of the amendments, it would probably not be appropriate to reconsider them fully at Third Reading when they have not been reconsidered on Report, but that must be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2. line 13, leave out from ("purpose") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("mentioned in subsection (2A)(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Harassment]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line 2.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In Committee on 17th February, I listened carefully to the argument put forward by him in favour of an amendment which would have allowed a Scottish civil court to extend the duration of a non-harassment order which it had earlier made. That would enable the court, where appropriate, to continue its original remedy and provide extended protection to a victim who remains apprehensive.
Having examined this issue, the Government are able to bring forward today an amendment to that effect. The Government consider that this amendment would provide flexibility to the court and protection to the victim, while keeping in mind the interests of the person against whom the order is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was slightly diffident in approaching this matter on the basis that it was the part of the Bill that concerned the law of Scotland while his expertise lies in the law of England. Nevertheless, I am glad that his intervention was fruitful and I am sure that it can happen sometimes in both directions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
3.55 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 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Driving disqualifications]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 21, line 9 leave out ("determinate period") and insert ("period not exceeding twelve months").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 110 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111.
These amendments seek to restrict to a maximum of 12 months the period of disqualification from driving which a court could impose for fine default under the new Section 248B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It would allow the upper limit to be varied but only
26
by order subject to affirmative resolutions. The amendments bring the Bill into line with the similar provision in the Crime (Sentences) Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the period specified in subsection (2) above; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 111 when moving Amendment No. 110. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I oppose that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. This is the clause with which Members of the Committee will be familiar from the Crime (Sentences) Bill. It gives the court the power to disqualify in respect of any type of offence at all.
The first point I wish to make is that the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill proceeds upon an assertion by the Government that the punishment should fit the crime. It is difficult to see what disqualification from driving has to do with the vast range of crimes for which it is to become a penalty under the provisions of this Bill.
A more general point applies to this clause, as to many others; that is, the absence of consultation beforehand. The Committee will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, address the Committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill and point out that a disqualification power of this kind made its first appearance at the tenth sitting of the committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill in another place. In Scotland it made its first appearance on 8th October when the Secretary of State made an announcement. He wrote in his letter to the Lord Justice General of Scotland,
"on 8 October I announced that we intended to allow the courts to disqualify persons from driving for offences which are not related to motoring offences".
That was an announcement of intention, not simply a proposal. On 6th November the Secretary of State wrote to the Lord Justice General saying,
"I am writing to seek views on a proposal I am minded to include, by way of Government amendment, in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. The proposal is to extend the use of discretionary disqualification from driving to offences not directly related to driving".
That was intimated to the Lord Justice General. He was asked on 6th November to respond as quickly as possible because proceedings in the Standing Committee in another place were to start five days later, on 11th November. That letter of 6th November also intimated that implementation would proceed initially by way of pilots in individual sheriff courts. This matter concerned us on a previous occasion. It is difficult to see how one can have pilots in relation to a penalty of this

27
kind. However, no doubt the Minister will be able to explain the thinking behind that. I am not averse to pilots in appropriate circumstances.
In relation to the matter of consultation, I should like to know from the Minister why this idea came up in October/November 1996. Whose idea was it? Was it simply borrowed from England? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, informed the Committee—and I think Members of the Committee would know—that the Magistrates' Association in England had severe reservations about this and the Justices' Clerks' Society was entirely opposed to it. I wonder who, if anyone, supported it.
I have briefly made the points that I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would be here to make, but he is not able to be in his place. This type of provision could pose a serious threat to the rehabilitation of offenders. Many offenders, if they are to obtain work—that is the best route to rehabilitation—will require to have their driving licence in order to obtain work. In addition, this provision poses a serious threat to other road users. Your Lordships, particularly those with experience of the law, will know that there are many uninsured drivers on the road. If a person is involved in a collision with or is knocked down by an uninsured driver he can have great difficulties in recovering appropriate compensation because the route via the Motor Insurers Bureau is by no means a satisfactory and easy one. There is a threat to other road users. Furthermore, a penalty of this kind is particularly hard in rural areas where people are much more heavily dependent upon motor cars.
Finally, one of the matters about which the public in Scotland are alleged to be concerned is inconsistency in sentencing in different courts—an arbitrariness in relation to such sentencing. If this power is given in the extraordinarily unqualified way in which it is given in this clause we are liable to see much more arbitrariness and much more inconsistency than we have now. For those reasons I would invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to produce a better justification for this type of penalty than we have yet seen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Reference was made to the fact that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is not here. The reason is, as was the case with my noble friend Lord Meston, that he is involved in a case in the courts which unfortunately has been delayed. The case is in Birmingham. Otherwise, my noble friend would be on his feet now supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I wonder whether the Government have really taken on board the full implications of this idea. Until now the whole business of having a licence to drive a motor car has been to do with the process of driving a motor car. One pays a licence fee, one passes a test and one is permitted to drive a motor car. The licence is a piece of paper which says that the driver has the ability to drive a motor car. A driving licence can be revoked or withdrawn if the individual has demonstrated his or her unfitness to drive a motor vehicle.
28
The fact that one has committed a criminal offence in some area of activity completely unrelated to driving does not come into that category. What is proposed is a departure from the normal considerations that we have grown up with over the past 100 years of motor vehicle driving in this country.
Is this the beginning of a whole range of punishments that are unrelated? Will the Government next bring in the ability to prevent someone having a dog but not because he mistreats the animal, which is the way the courts look at the issue at the moment? A person may be prohibited from owning a dog or even a horse because he has a history of maltreating animals. Will we see a situation where, because someone commits a crime in a completely unrelated area of human activity, he will be prevented from owning a pet?
Have the Government thought through the implications of what they are doing? I have mentioned before in the Chamber that there are two categories of offender. The first category is those who are basically law-abiding people who, after a fit of nervous attack, commit a crime, something of which they are mortally ashamed and would never think of repeating. If such people are deprived of their driving licence they will probably not drive a motor vehicle. They are innately honest, decent people. The other category is people who one might describe as of a naturally criminal bent, who think nothing of transgressing the law. If you take away their driving licence it will mean absolutely nothing to them. All they will do is carry on driving their car, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pointed out. They will be uninsured and therefore will be a hazard to other road users.
The Government should think this through, take on board the criticisms that have been made from a number of directions and withdraw this element of the Bill.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am not convinced that this proposal will prove to have a wide use in Scotland. I am in favour of the search for an ever increasingly wide variety of community sentences, but, like other noble Lords, I have reservations about these proposals. My reservations are in two areas. The first is the wide range of effects a driving ban will have on different convicted persons. The casual and leisure only driver is lightly punished, unless of course he or she is the sole driver in the family and lives at the head of a glen, which leads to problems with the children attending school and the family being able to get the shopping, often at great distance. For the at-work driver, such a sentence is a sentence to lose one's job. That is a direct equivalent of imprisonment. So long as these wide variations are taken account of during consideration of sentence the measure may possibly be okay, but only if the considerations are gone into in some depth and the sentence is not used casually.
My other consideration has to be about finding offenders who are drivers who will obey the driving ban. Like other Members of the Committee, I recognise that there is a risk of a new class of uninsured driver emerging and a new class of victim. As the noble and learned Lord,

29
Lord McCluskey, said, there will be people who are left to fight their way through the uninsured driver claim system, if something like that really exists.
If this clause is to be accepted, I need to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the matter will be piloted extensively in both extremely rural areas as well as urban areas. I feel reasonably confident that the scheme could work in an urban area, but I believe that it will be very difficult to operate in remote rural areas. There is the risk of it being counterproductive, as other Members of the Committee have mentioned, as regards the link between the ability to drive and to get a job. That is significant and needs to be safeguarded. I believe that that is widely understood.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I had not intended to enter the debate at this stage because I believe the wording of Clause 14 requires a lot of consideration. So far as I can see, what has not been looked at are the social consequences of the removal of a driving licence from a person who may very well have not been doing very much in the anti-social sense of the word. Once that happens, we have a ladder. What happens if a person has a driving licence and he is a long-distance lorry driver who happens to be doing a little bit of poaching? I am sure that Members of the Committee know that nobody poaches illegally in Scotland; but let us assume that someone does and uses a vehicle to get to the river at midnight and is nabbed by the police. That person may have three, four, five or six children who depend on his livelihood for their existence.
The reason that I did not speak on this clause earlier is because I wanted to look at it very carefully before Report stage. It seems to me that it will drive people into the public sector for support. As regards the wife and the children, with no husband to support them because his job has gone as a long-distance lorry driver, is it fair to deal with them in this manner? There are already plenty of provisions within the law for confiscating anything that is used in the commission of a crime. I do not understand why this clause has been brought into the Bill unless again it is the old, macho politics which we are dealing in in this Bill, which I hope will never see the light of day, but we have to keep talking about it.
With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I was a little perturbed to hear him suggesting that we should have another pilot scheme. There have been so many of them suggested in the past three weeks in this Chamber that they will be crashing into each other in the sky. Let us look at things realistically. Why do we need a pilot scheme? Either the law is right or the law is wrong. We should forget about pilot schemes. I will not go beyond that. I do not accept the idea as regards pilot schemes. Let us have a clear definition of the law and let the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate come before us and say what is the purpose of this particular provision in Clause 14(1) and what it is meant to achieve.
If, for example, a family is driven onto social benefits, are the Government going to support it and accept that the provisions of Clause 14(1) may very well have dramatic social implications? I do not say this in any sexist sense, but as we all know—and I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows—sometimes a wife, in
30
looking after the children at home, does not know what her husband is up to, poaching or otherwise, and he is using the car doing this or that. Is the family to be penalised for the activities of the husband or do we try to keep some sort of civilised balance and perhaps penalise the husband, but not take the licence away unless it is necessary and has been used in the commission of a crime rather than follow the draconian measures contained in this particular part of the Bill?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is not able to give this proposal the support which his English colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was prepared to give. He said that he had some reservations about it, but he recognised that the sentence proposed is on a trial basis and can be withdrawn at any time if it does not work and that he would be prepared to give it a fair wind, which I understand to be the approach taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, as well.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. Can I remind him that we are dealing with the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill? I am not particularly interested in what happens south of the Border. We are dealing with a particular piece of legislation which applies north of the Border and let us get on with it and stop messing about.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sure that Members of the Committee will have heard what the noble Lord has just said and no doubt they will bear that in mind in the event that this matter is pressed to a Division. I should like to be quite clear about this. This provision is designed to provide another alternative to the sentencing court the first time that the matter comes before the court for sentence, which is the purpose of the new Section 248A, and when one is dealing with fine defaulters. That is a common problem which besets the sentencing court. As I have already observed on this Bill on more than one occasion, the Government are always being encouraged to do what they can to keep people out of prison whether as regards the original sentence or instead of a fine. That is why this proposal has been put forward and is to be piloted to see whether it works and achieves the objective which the Government believe it will have, and certain Members of the Committee are prepared to give it a chance to prove itself.
A number of complaints are made about the lack of consultation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, it is correct that the matter first appeared as a proposal in October and November of last year. Since then it has gained a measure of support. It might be of assistance to Members of the Committee if I read what the Lord Justice General said in a letter of 7th November 1996 addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble and learned Lord,

31
Lord McCluskey, advised the Committee last week that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, has a weekly meeting of judges at which matters of current interest are discussed. This proposal having been put to him by the Secretary of State, he replied in the following terms:
"I was able to discuss the matter briefly with a good number of the other judges at our meeting this morning. I would not oppose the proposal since it adds to the range of non-custodial options open to a sentencing judge or sheriff and the penalty of disqualification may indeed be one which could be effective especially among young people who greatly prize their freedom to drive".
He went on to refer to the point which has been raised by more than one Member of the Committee: it could lead to an increase in the number of offences for driving while disqualified. That would add to the workload of the court. He pointed out that we might find that it gives an effective option only in sentencing the better-off; namely, those who have a licence and a car to drive. I trust therefore that noble Lords will accept that there is a measure of support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, and the other judges who have been consulted. The proposal has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) who have a fair knowledge of life in Scotland and of which penalties are effective in controlling those who offend against the law.
As I have said, the point about driving while disqualified is a valid concern which will require further consideration during the pilot schemes. However, as has been said, there is in existence the Motor Insurers Bureau, of which I have had a fair measure of experience over the years in acting for people who have been injured by an uninsured driver. The bureau was set up by the insurance companies to provide effective remedies where personal injury is suffered in such cases. Of course, such a risk always exists when periods of disqualification are imposed. Until now, I am not aware of anyone saying that there should not be such a penalty for driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, driving while under the influence of drink or for driving dangerously. It is a risk which is inherent in that penalty and which will clearly need to be examined as the pilot scheme proceeds.
The issue of rural areas is also a valid point to raise. The courts will have discretion over the period of disqualification that they can impose. That period has been limited under the amendments that I have just moved in relation to fine defaulters. Clearly, among the factors which a court will have to consider is where the offender lives, whether he is in employment—if he is, presumably he will be in a better position to pay a fine than someone who is unemployed and it may therefore be less likely that the penalty will be necessary in his case—and what arrangements require to be made to take children to school or older people to hospital. Those are all circumstances that will need to be laid before the sentencing court. One hopes that the courts will approach this in a sensible and all-encompassing manner. There is no reason to doubt that they will.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, questioned whether this might lead to increased arbitrariness in sentencing. No doubt it will take some
32
time for the sentencing judges to work out the best way to deploy the new sentencing procedure but, with guidance from the Appeal Court, there is no reason to doubt that it will work.
I venture to suggest that a pilot scheme is a singularly good way to examine the proposal and to see whether it will work as opposed to having endless consultations and discussions. This is a new proposal. The Government acknowledge that it is innovative, but it has a measure of support and for that reason I hope that the Committee will find it possible to support Clause 14.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked whether we had any proposals to ban the keeping of pets, especially dogs. I am happy to assure the Committee that we do not. The noble Lord also asked whether honest people would be more likely to abide by the disqualification than people with a natural criminal bent, as he described it. Clearly, first offenders who are punished in this way will in all probability abide by the disqualification, serve whatever short period of time is imposed and return to driving their car when their licence is returned to them. One suspects that some people in the other category may abide by the order while some may not. If they do not, as is frequently said in the courts, they will be defying not only the law of the land, but the order of the court and they are unlikely to attract leniency if they are brought back before the court.
The search must be on to find alternatives to imprisonment where appropriate. This has nothing to do with macho politics, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested. It is an attempt to develop a sentencing regime for reasons which we all support. In the light of the support which the proposals have received from the senior judiciary in Scotland, which has supported the views set out in the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, and from the police, I hope that noble Lords will be content that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I may have misheard him, but one of my difficulties with these provisions is in trying to tie them in with the Road Traffic Act. Did the noble and learned Lord say that a special reason for not applying this particular sanction would be that people in country areas might have to run their children to school? As far as I am aware and I am, as always, subject to correction—indeed, I usually am corrected—does that mean that a special reason for not applying the provision would be that the person concerned was running a taxi service in a rural area of Scotland? What guidelines on how to apply the legislation will be given to sheriffs because, as I understand it, the fact that the offender has to run his child to school in the morning is not a special reason for not applying the provisions of the Road Traffic Act?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: No question of special reason arises in connection with this clause. Special reasons are relevant where the court would be required to impose a period of disqualification but for the existence of special reasons. The powers to be given in new Sections 248A and 248B are that the court "may"

33
order disqualification. That is a discretion which the court will exercise in the light of all the circumstances, which would include the fact that the accused man lived with his wife and family at the end of a glen or in some remote village to which there was no transport, where the removal of the licence would have the effect which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, mentioned. It would still be open to the court to disqualify in such situations, but clearly it would take account of the consequences when considering all the circumstances.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Are we not moving into Cloud-cuckoo-land now in connection with the road traffic legislation? Does this mean that someone who has to run his child from the end of a glen to a school, as the noble and learned Lord has put it, will be exempted from the provisions of this Act whereas a long-distance lorry driver who has to go from Inverness to Portsmouth, and perhaps even to the Continent, will be penalised? I really do not understand what the clause is all about. As I have said, that may very well be my fault and I look forward to any explanation that the noble and learned Lord may give.
What we are looking for is consistency in the application of disqualification. This clause seems to go sorely against that consistency. I shall read with interest what the noble and learned Lord has said. I have no doubt that the sheriffs in the north of Scotland will note what he has said about the reasons for disqualifying or not disqualifying someone because I recall a recent case in Aberdeen where that very reason was given, but the sheriff was heavily castigated for the decision that she took.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Having heard the arguments, I think that my initial point that the sentence will probably be rarely used in Scotland still holds. Serious consideration must be given to the situation of the unemployed because in their case it will be more difficult to decide exactly what effect such a sentence would have. I hope that social work reports will be asked for before such a sentence is imposed.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord mentioned that there will be pilot projects. I welcome that, but can he say where they will be?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: No decisions on that have yet been taken, but I suspect that the pilot schemes will cover areas of differing character. They will not all take place in the same type of area.
I am not sure that I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, any further, on the structure of the clause, but I shall be happy to talk to him later on it rather than delay the Committee any further.
Lord Monkswell: The Committee and no doubt the people of Scotland will be pleased to learn that the Government have no intention of bringing in such draconian powers to prohibit the keeping of pets, but I wonder whether the Government can give assurances on another two matters. I refer first to television licences. I hope that the Government will be able to give the assurance that they are not planning to penalise
34
people by disqualifying them from having a television. Secondly, I believe that a licence is required by a person who wants to get married. Can the Government give an assurance that they do not intend to deprive people of their spouses as a means of punishment?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I doubt whether either question requires an answer. However, the answer is: no and no.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down—he has already done so—with respect to him, at this stage I am not interested in talking to him about this particular provision. It is the duty of the senior law officer of Scotland to bring before your Lordships' House legislation that can be considered by the whole House. With respect, I have no intention of talking to the noble Lord about it. If he seeks to justify the legislation your Lordships' House is the place in which to do it. I welcome the invitation but reject it.
Lord McCluskey: The problem with this kind of legislation, which sprang from nowhere on 8th October, is that there has been no in-depth consultation. In relation to the matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the Secretary of State wrote to the Lord Justice General on 6th November. On the following Thursday the Lord Justice General put that matter as one of a number of items on the agenda for the meeting of judges that began at 9.30 and finished at 9.55. In the space of 25 minutes those judges who were free to turn up and turned up were able to address their minds briefly to the question whether there should be a clause of this kind. On the basis of that, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate believes that he has the support of the senior judiciary. I was at that meeting. He had neither my support nor the support of the Lord Justice General at that meeting. This is not a form of consultation that enables the Committee to say with confidence that the legislation has been thought through. It has not been thought through. However, in view of the attitude of other noble Lords in the Committee I do not propose to pursue this matter.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Right of appeal]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 23, line 24, at beginning insert ("subject to subsections (3A) to (3D) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 112A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114A to 114E. There was an intention to move an Amendment 114F as well, but I regret that it has not reached the Marshalled List. That amendment would have amended page 24, line 6, of the Bill. That amendment will be tabled at Report stage.
Amendment No. 112A and the others that I have mentioned clarify the Government's intentions regarding a change of witness evidence as the basis for founding an appeal under the "reasonable explanation"

35
test introduced by Clause 16. This is an important matter. I hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the Government's thinking in a little detail.
The existing clause is designed to implement the recommendations of the Sutherland Committee which were accepted by the Government, in particular the introduction of the "reasonable explanation" test for new evidence introduced into Sections 106 and 175 of the 1995 Act. Your Lordships may recall that when the Sutherland Report was published the Government announced their rejection of the recommendations of the Sutherland Committee that a change of witness evidence should specifically be allowed as a ground of appeal. That recommendation was dealt with in paragraph 2.8 of the report. We did so because of our very real concerns—which we knew were shared by all parties and many involved in the criminal justice system—about the problem of intimidation of witnesses. That problem can manifest itself both before and after trial. At that time we felt that the precise terms of the Sutherland recommendation on this matter might, if accepted, increase unacceptably the risks that criminals convicted at trial would be tempted to intimidate victims or other witnesses to change the evidence that they had given at trial in an attempt to have convictions overturned.
In the intervening months we have kept this matter under review, particularly in the Crown Office, which has handled many trials and appeals over that period. Having given the matter further thought, we have concluded that it is possible to make specific statutory provisions, including adequate safeguards, to allow a change of witness story to found an appeal in a deserving case. We must be careful, however, to ensure that we do not create a situation in which someone can found an appeal simply by pressurising a witness to change his story. These amendments have been drafted with these policy aims in mind.
The amendments describe the limited circumstances in which a change of witness evidence can be the basis of an appeal. It requires that something more than just a change of story by the witness and a reasonable explanation coming from the witness alone will be sufficient. It thus reflects the principle set out in cases such as Mitchell and Brodie—both of which are referred to in the Sutherland Committee report—to the effect that a mere change of story by a witness will not be sufficient to support the contention that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
In an appeal in which it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the alleged miscarriage of justice arises because of the existence of evidence from a witness who gave evidence at the original trial—evidence that is different from or additional to the evidence which that witness gave at the trial, and for that reason was not heard at the trial—in such a situation the following safeguards will apply. The reasonable explanation as to why the trial court never heard the evidence that the appeal court is now being invited to take into account must be supported by evidence from an independent witness; that is, a witness separate from the witness who gave evidence at the trial. The evidence from that
36
independent witness will also be required to be additional to any evidence given at the trial. The appeal court will be required to decide whether it accepts the evidence of the independent witness as credible and reliable. That will be a duty incumbent upon the appeal court judges.
We believe that these safeguards will contain to an acceptable extent the risk of witnesses being induced by threats or otherwise to give evidence that is designed to fit in with evidence already given in public at the original trial. We consider that these safeguards will seek to rule out undeserving cases while allowing genuine miscarriages of justice to be dealt with. I ask the Committee to support this and the following amendments.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised to learn that I support these amendments. I have always supported flexibility in relation to this matter. I express only one regret, to which I should like the Government to give serious thought. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with the assistance of others, wrote a report on legislation some years ago he received evidence from the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Wheatley, and the then Lord President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, about the character of Scottish legislation. In essence their evidence was that instead of providing detailed statutory formulations of tests, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions the proper course was simply to trust the judges and give them a general power to except if the justice of the case appeared to them to require it. I should have thought that a formulation of that character could have been devised to replace the rather complicated provision that this clause has now become. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will bear that in mind. If there is time for this Bill to pass into law there may still be time to make that kind of amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Appeals have always been a very difficult area of the administration of justice. I appreciate that what is sought to be done by way of these amendments is to arrive at a formula that prevents a miscarriage of justice.
People often say that we do not have miscarriages of justice in Scotland. That is not quite true. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know, there is at least one solicitor in Glasgow who has two pardons on his wall. Of course, the cynical Scots say, "He cannot be all that bright a lawyer if he needs two pardons at the end of an appeals process", but that is another matter.
Perhaps I may declare an interest because I was involved in the Glasgow ice-cream war case, which is presently subject to appeal. I appeared for Mr. T. C. Campbell, so I shall not go into the details of the case. I no longer have any instructions on his behalf because, quite properly, he has gone to someone else.
The more we try to find a solution to miscarriages of justice the more convoluted the law becomes. While accepting that the amendments are well designed, with good social and legal reasons behind them, perhaps a

37
decent review of the legal system in Scotland might enable us to put forward a better solution rather than piecemeal legislation.
There is one issue which disturbs me more than somewhat. It is for that reason that I mentioned the T. C. Campbell case. I refer to page 3 of the Marshalled List of amendments. Subsection (5BC) of Amendment No. 114E states that,
"'independent evidence' means evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings; is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (5BB) above".
I am not sure what that means because in the trial to which I referred a prime witness changed his story. He gave his story to the jury; it was rejected. He has now given his account to the authorities and the defendant concerned has been released on bail pending appeal.
There is no definition of "a source independent". What happens if no one heard anything of what went on? How does one define "a source independent" whose evidence was not heard at the original proceedings? I do not understand what the subsection means. On a constructive, rather than on any other, basis, I suggest that the draftsmen should re-examine the subsection to see whether it makes any sense in the practicalities of life in court.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may believe that I am talking nonsense. I am not, because the matter is serious. If this provision is to be the core of an appeal it must be spelt out properly within the legislation. For example, would a person who is a relative of a witness be looked upon as "a source independent"? Would a work colleague be "a source independent" if during the tea break he heard someone saying, "I told a lot of rubbish at the High Court last week and I got Joe Bloggs done"? Would he be "a source independent" if he were then led as a potential witness before the Court of Appeal so that it could decide that the case should be reviewed?
As I pass out of the legal sphere, I am coming gradually to the view that matters are becoming far too complicated and that we should return to a simple system of law in which we can send a case back to a jury to decide what it is all about rather than leaving it to the judges. In saying that, I appreciate that I do not fall in line with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. However, my view is that the system is becoming far too convoluted. We should have a simple rather than a difficult system of appeal. If one is going to have justice one must have a simple system of justice which appeals not only to the lawyers but to the people themselves.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I too am a little anxious about the amendment. The crux of it appears to be that new evidence must be supported by some independent person or evidence. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a hypothetical question. Let us suppose that at the original trial neither prosecution nor defence counsel ask a witness a relevant question in order to bring out the evidence. Let us further suppose that the defendant is convicted, the case goes to appeal and the defendant says to the court, "This is my explanation of what happened. Nobody asked me before what
38
happened." That would effectively render not guilty the person who had been found guilty because it would put a completely different light on the case? Are the Government effectively saying in the amendment that unless there was some independent evidence the new evidence could not be heard by the Court of Appeal?
I wonder whether the phrase is likely to be so restricting as to perpetuate miscarriages of justice rather than the opposite, which is why it is tabled. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is right in saying that the judges should have some discretion as to whether evidence that they hear is satisfactory in itself without needing to be corroborated by some independent source.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to take on board the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to re-read the Renton Report. I can say from bitter experience that the clause went through a number of drafts before reaching its final form. It did so because we were anxious to implement, so far as we could, the recommendation of the Sutherland Committee that in addition to bringing new evidence before the Appeal Court which was in the nature of a change of testimony—either a change from what was said previously or an addition to that—the reasons for change should be supported by some additional credible and reliable evidence. We have added to the modification a provision that it must be evidence that was not given at the original trial. It has not proved easy, but I believe that we have achieved a satisfactory solution to the problem. However, I shall be happy to look at the detail again to see whether any recasting will make the issue clearer.
A number of questions were raised about what the independent source will be. The short answer is that it is a source independent of the witness who is changing his testimony. It could be a relative or a colleague, but it is important to bear in mind that the independent evidence relates not to the changed testimony but to the reason why the new evidence, whether it be different or additional, was not given at the earlier trial. It would not be proper for me to make any comment about the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, because it is currently before the appeal court in Scotland. However, I hope that that answers the question which he posed.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, if the explanation is that the witness was not asked any relevant questions at the time, there would be no problem whatever in proving that because the transcript of the trial would bear it out. If that was a reasonable explanation, finding independent support for it would not be difficult. However, it would be for the appeal court to determine whether that was a reasonable explanation. If defence counsel had deliberately not asked questions because of other information, that matter might fall to be debated when the case came before the appeal court. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in the particular example mentioned by the noble Lord confirming whether or not the witness was questioned.
I am glad that the new amendments have received support. I shall reflect again with the draftsman as to whether the drafting can be improved. But I assure the Committee that a great deal of effort went into setting out

39
the amendment in its present form. I am informed that contrary to what I said earlier, in some mysterious manner, Amendment No. 114F will find its way into the Bill, provided that the Committee is minded to support the other amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether it is intended that the amendment should deal with the problem created by amnesia. That may have a bearing on the wording which has been selected. The noble and learned Lord may recall a case which came before the criminal appeal court not many years ago when the issue was whether somebody who claimed not to remember the circumstances of a crime was entitled to give his version again of the crime. That met with a rejection in the appeal court. It would be satisfactory if this amendment dealt with that problem so that the kind of independent explanation covered would be one where there was some evidence, perhaps medical evidence, to suggest that the offence involved was of a nature which would create the amnesia and that would explain why the witness could not give the explanation at the trial.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am tempted to say that I have forgotten what my instructions are on that point. The noble and learned Lord is correct, provided that there were independent evidence—and I presume medical evidence—which in some way persuaded the appeal court that it was a genuine case of amnesia. However, the important point is that it is for the appeal court to be satisfied as to the reasonable explanation. If it were medical evidence, that would not be a problem but, having listened to the evidence, the court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation for the change of, or additional, evidence which is now proffered.
We believe that to be an important part of the amendment. It is not a question of leaving the matter to a jury on a retrial to work out whether or not the explanation is valid or to take the view that it sounds like a reasonable explanation and give it the benefit of the doubt. The court must be satisfied on the evidence before it that the independent evidence is credible and reliable and supports the explanation which is tendered. I should have thought that amnesia would be covered in any genuine case, rather than the type of case which we normally encounter in the criminal courts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 23, line 29, leave out ("only").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can be very brief on this amendment. I seek to know what the word "only" is doing in line 29. It is a slightly technical point. I am not sure what is its function. I cannot think that it is necessary. I draw attention to it because Members of the Committee may recall that in 1964, the House of Lords Judicial Committee discovered that the word "only" meant something which it had not been thought to mean for the previous half a century. I should hate to think that we have to wait another half a century to find out what the word
40
means in this context. I cannot think that it is necessary and I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain why it is there. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Amendment No. 114 amends Clause 16. The amendment seeks to provide a definition as to what constitutes a reasonable explanation of why evidence was not adduced at the original trial. I do not propose to go into the minutiae of the amendment, although information supplied to me suggests that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in his book on criminal appeals, may have made some reference to it in passing.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I must confess that I do not recall the case in 1964 to which the noble and learned Lord refers. But the purpose of having the word "only" is to make it clear that a reasonable explanation is required in every case and that it is not just an instance of situations where an appeal would be allowed.
If the noble and learned Lord wishes to explain the case to me later, I shall be happy to talk to him about it. The recommendation of the Sutherland Report was quite clear; namely, that it was only where there was a reasonable explanation as to why evidence was not heard that such a route to a successful appeal based on a miscarriage of justice should be allowed. That is why the provision exists. There must be a reasonable explanation why the court did not hear the evidence referred to in subsection (3)(a).
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate betrays his youth if he does not remember Rookes v. Barnard in 1964. It caused a considerable sensation in relation to the interpretation of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. When the noble and learned Lord reconsiders the drafting, that matter will arise because the word "only" can have an extremely restrictive—and unintended—effect. It is that matter to which I wish to draw attention. I do not wish to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 114A to 114E:
Page 23, line 31, after ("above") insert ("or, as the case may be, (3C) below").
Page 23, line 35. at end insert—
("(3C) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above is evidence—
(a) which is—

(i) from a person; or

(ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person.

(b) who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and
(b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given,
it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence.

41
(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3C) above, "independent evidence" means evidence which—

(a) was not heard at the original proceedings;

(b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (3C) above; and

(c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable.").

Page 23, line 41, after ("based") insert (", subject to subsections (5A) to (5BC) below,").
Page 24, line 1, after ("above") insert (" or, as the case may be, (5BC) below").
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("(5BB) Without prejudice to subsection (5A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above is evidence—
(a) which is—

(i) from a person; or

(ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person,

who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and
(b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given,
it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence.
(5BC) For the purposes of subsection (5BB) above, "independent evidence" means evidence which—

(a) was not heard at the original proceedings;

(b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (5BB) above; and

(c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
LEAVE TO APPEAL: EXCEPTIONS
(" . In section 106 of the 1995 Act (right of appeal on solemn proceedings), after subsection (9) insert the following new subsection—
"(10) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, leave to appeal will not be required—

(a) in any case where the appeal is against a conviction or sentence or both to which section 205A or 205B of this Act applies;

(b) in any case in which the convicted person has been sentenced to imprisonment or detention for a period of five years or more;

(c) in any case in which the convicted person has been sentenced in the Sheriff Court to imprisonment or detention for a period of more than two years.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 115 seeks to introduce a new clause relating to exceptions to the requirement to obtain leave to appeal. The present position is governed by Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Sections 106 and 107. The Lord Advocate does not require leave to appeal but the convicted person requires leave to appeal, whether against conviction, sentence or both. That system has been in operation since September 1995, having been introduced by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act of that year. Under Section 106, leave is
42
required for all appeals against conviction and/or sentence, including deferred sentence, absolute discharge, and so on. Section 107 provides for leave to be considered and either granted or refused by a single judge, with a right of appeal to two or three judges, depending on the character of the appeal. In terms of the Act, you cannot appeal against a life sentence imposed for murder under Section 205(1).
The proposed new clause intends to advance the proposition that leave to appeal should not be required in cases where, because of the new mandatory sentencing provisions of Sections 205A and 205B (which remove judicial discretion), the judge is required to impose a sentence of life in the question of Section 205A or a minimum of seven years in Section 205B of the 1995 Act, as it will be amended, unless there are "exceptional circumstances" justifying a lesser sentence.
I submit that because this is such an important and novel matter and also because the whole concept of "exceptional circumstances" is itself so fraught with difficulties—indeed, as we have seen during the course of our debates and as the present Lord Justice General acknowledged in a letter that I read out to Members of the Committee on a previous occasion—one really ought to have an automatic right of appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment.
I also have in mind the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. For a person to be sentenced to imprisonment for life and not to have an automatic right to a public hearing of his appeal, seems to me to be a very considerable departure from our system of open justice. That is the first part of the amendment: paragraph (a) relates to Sections 205A and 205B—that is, the automatic life sentence or the automatic minimum sentence of seven years.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to,
"any case in which the convicted person has been sentenced to imprisonment or detention for a period of five years or more".
To a substantial degree that overlaps with paragraph (a), but does not necessarily always do so. Judges of my seniority have been sitting and considering such matters since September 1995, usually on a weekly basis. Indeed, I have a large number of them to consider tomorrow.
I find the following very difficult; and, indeed, I have often discussed this matter with Lord Ross who was until recently Lord Justice-Clerk. We both experience great difficulty in refusing leave to appeal where a person has been given a substantial period of imprisonment. We find it difficult to say that a person who has been sent to prison for seven or eight years does not have arguable grounds for leave, however heinous the crime. I know that among some judges, though not universally, it almost became the practice to grant leave automatically where the sentence was of that order.
When I made my submissions to the Government in response to the Green Paper and the White Paper in 1996, I suggested that an appropriate cut-off point would be four years. Of course, that period was lifted from Section 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. However, that Act is

43
about to be repealed, if this Bill goes through, with the support of those who supported that enactment. When the Act is repealed, it may be appropriate to take not a four-year but a five-year period which would reflect the provision in the present Bill giving sheriffs power to impose a sentence of up to five years.
However, when one looks at paragraph (c) of the amendment, it will be seen that that refers to a further overlap; namely,
"any case in which the convicted person has been sentenced in the Sheriff Court to imprisonment or detention for a period of more than two years".
Without going into detail, I should like to remind Members of the Committee that, on a previous occasion, I drew attention to the fact that until 1987 the sheriff had an effective power to send a person to prison for some 16 months—that being the period that the person would serve. Thereafter, the period became slightly longer before the 1993 Act brought it back down again. The present Bill gives the sheriff an effective power to send a person to prison to serve at least four years and two months. In this type of case where the sheriff is imposing a sentence which he could not possibly have imposed until quite recently, I suggest that the right to appeal ought to be automatic.
In my view, that would not dramatically increase the burden of work upon the court—if, indeed, it increased it at all—but it would certainly lighten the burden of work upon the judges who have to grant or refuse leave to appeal. In respect of those three matters, I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Where a person has been subjected to a mandatory sentence, which may not be completely appropriate in the light of all the facts, it seems to me, as a legal layman, that such a person should have the automatic right of appeal. Surely that is a necessary safeguard. After all, the two concepts—mandatory sentences and the automatic right of appeal—are, to a degree, made for each other.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Perhaps I may make a few points. I should like, first, to support what my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey said about matters of practice. Like him, I had to administer the new provisions whereby leave to appeal had to be granted. I happen to take the view that long periods of imprisonment almost invariably justify leave to be given. Therefore, I do not believe that giving effect to the amendment will have a dramatic effect on the work of the Criminal Appeal Court. I say that because the cases covered will very likely be given leave in any event. However, it would at least avoid the risk of some cases falling through the net.
Secondly, although I have not discussed the proposal with my noble and learned friend, there is one omission which might be worth considering. I refer to the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment where a judge makes a recommendation. In Scotland, unlike in England, a recommendation made by the trial judge in a mandatory life case can be subject to appeal. The
44
relevant provision in the 1995 Act escapes me but, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would be sensible to include a specific reference to the provision which allows an accused person to appeal against the recommendation.
Thirdly, I hope and believe that paragraph (b) in the amendment covers the situation of the discretionary life prisoner; that is to say, the person who is sentenced to life imprisonment at the discretion of the trial judge. I should have thought that those cases would almost certainly be granted leave in any event. However, for the sake of completeness, it would be as well to be sure that the language covers them as well as those who are sentenced to fixed periods of imprisonment.
Lord McCluskey: In response to what my noble and learned friend has just said, I can only say, yes, I would be happy if the proposed new clause were extended to allow such matters to be covered. I have never pretended to be a draftsman, but I do my best to draw such points to the attention of the noble and learned Lord and his excellent staff. In a sense, it is a matter of administrative convenience; but it is also a matter of fundamental human rights in relation to such sentences.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I shall deal first with the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will recall that, when the provisions set out in Sections 106 and 107 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 were debated in this Chamber, the issue of their compatibility with the European convention was also considered. Noble Lords were informed that a number of cases had been presented to the court in Strasbourg which specifically approved of sifting procedures of this nature. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the current law conforms with the convention as would the law, as amended, under the terms of the Bill.
The Government's initial reaction to the amendment was that it was somewhat early to be considering amendment of the relevant legislation in the Act, in view of the fact that the sifting procedure has been operating only since September of 1995. This is, of course, a two-stage procedure. If an appeal is unsuccessful at the first sift, there is an appeal sift, as it were, before it is ultimately rejected, if it is not to go before a sitting of the Appeal Court.
In the light of the fact that the procedure has been running only for 18 months or so, the view was there was not a case to alter it. There is, of course, some concern about having different procedures for different types of appeal. That tends to be the background against which mistakes occur. However, in view of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the basis of his experience, supported—as I understand it—by a contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I am quite happy to reflect further upon this and discuss it with the court to see whether it would be possible to work out an amendment which was acceptable and which took account of any drafting points that have been raised this afternoon, or which may subsequently come to light. I cannot offer any guarantee on this matter but in the

45
light of the comments made by those who have had practical experience of sifting, rather than being the beneficiaries of sifting, I am happy to think about the matter further.
Lord McCluskey: I welcome the warm tone of the noble and learned Lord in this matter. I am sorry to add a slightly sour comment; namely, I was interested to hear him say it was somewhat early to consider amendment of a system that was introduced in September 1995. In fact, the whole 1993 Act, which was introduced on 1st October 1993, was denounced by the Government two years and 12 days after it came into effect. Is that not also somewhat early?
5.15 p m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, if he wishes to retain the warm tone which I displayed in responding to his previous amendment, it may not be wise to remind me of a point which he has put to the Committee on more than one occasion and to which I hope I have already replied adequately.
Lord McCluskey: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Automatic sentences: jurisdiction and appeals]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 24, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to the provision in Clause 17(2) of the Bill. Clause 17(2) provides that the Lord Advocate will have an appeal against a decision,
"not to impose automatic sentence in certain cases"
on the basis that,
"there were no exceptional circumstances justifying that decision".
The matter of exceptional circumstances is one which we have discussed and looked at from various perspectives. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate considers that he can say in relation to a particular case, "There are no exceptional circumstances here", it follows that he must at this stage have some idea as regards what exceptional circumstances are. Accordingly it would appear to be appropriate to invite him to tell us what kind of circumstances he would not regard as exceptional.
I find it difficult to see how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who takes no part in the matter of sentencing at the stage of sentencing, is able, on some basis as yet undisclosed, to tell us what is meant by exceptional circumstances or, in this case, no exceptional circumstances. I simply ask for further clarification in relation to that. I suspect the answer will be, "I cannot begin to define what exceptional circumstances are but I am sure I shall recognise them if I see them". That is not a satisfactory basis—the
46
elephantine basis—for legislation. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will defend that basis. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 117.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In defending the use of the term "exceptional circumstances" before the Committee I have made it clear that the approach the Government favour is to leave this matter to the courts to interpret. When that approach falls to be implemented by the courts they will do so in deciding particular cases having had the benefit of a submission from the accused or the appellant's counsel on behalf of the Crown—of that there can be no doubt at all. Even if one is only having appeals against sentence, if a question of law arises it is perfectly open to the Crown to make submissions on that matter—a matter which I had occasion to clarify only last week with the Lord Justice General in connection with a totally separate case.
The evolution of what exceptional circumstances will encompass will take place in cases in which both the accused's legal advisers, his counsel or solicitor-advocate and the Crown will take part in debate. Contrary to what the noble and learned Lord says, the Crown has a limited role to play at this stage of sentencing. The Appeal Court in Scotland has already made it clear on a number of occasions recently that if in addressing the court on sentence the defence counsel seeks to present a statement of the facts contrary to that which the Crown accepts, it is the duty of the Crown to dispute that at the time and seek to have the dispute resolved, if necessary in the appropriate case by the leading of evidence. Therefore the Crown has a role as regards the facts. No doubt, if submissions on the law were being made, to which the Crown objected, the trial judge would be perfectly content to hear the Crown on that matter too. It cannot be to the advantage of the court to proceed on an erroneous submission as to the law, if that was what the defence was putting forward.
If the Crown has the right to appeal at the moment on the basis that sentences are unduly lenient, it seems to me entirely appropriate that as the case law on exceptional circumstances builds up, it also ought to have the opportunity to intervene in particular cases where the trial judge has ignored the decisions of the Appeal Court or the guidance of the Appeal Court as to how that phrase is to be applied when implementing the sentencing proposals set out in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. I believe that on the first day of the Committee stage I gave the Committee the number of cases in which the Crown had exercised that power. It is not a large number. One suspects that this would not occur frequently. However, in my submission it is important that the provision should be there so that the Crown has the right to bring the appropriate cases before the Appeal Court in the same way that the defence will have the right to bring appropriate cases before the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court will not seek to construe exceptional circumstances in a vacuum; it will do that by examining individual cases. No doubt in the light of

47
the case law that is built up, parties on both sides of criminal cases will know when it is appropriate to appeal.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, are we not in danger of indulging in legal semantics here as regards exceptional circumstances? The important people involved in cases appearing before the courts are the victims, the victims' families, the accused, and in some serious cases even the accused's family because everyone suffers as a result of violence. Will the noble and learned Lord equate "exceptional circumstances" with the reasonable man? The law in Britain has caused enough trouble over the definition of "reasonable". In Scotland we are stuck with the definition of what the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus would think reasonable. No one has ever mentioned a bus from Glasgow Corporation or Edinburgh District Council. Perhaps that underlines that we should shy away from such phraseology in statute and let the courts get on with the matter on a fairly simple basis.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: With respect to the noble Lord, that is precisely what we seek to do. We are placing the term "exceptional circumstances" on the face of the Bill. It is true that we do not often hear about buses or trams in Scotland. However, I venture to suggest that in England courts are probably sick of hearing about cases of snails in ginger beer bottles, and fishwives who take shock when they espy a tramway in Colinton Road in Edinburgh, and so on. As I think my noble and learned kinsman mentioned earlier, there has been some merit in two-way traffic on legal matters over the Border. I am content that the approach followed is sensible. I look forward to the courts construing the matter in the years ahead.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There seems room at this point for the voice of the ordinary woman. If there is query as to whether there should be a sentence of life imprisonment because there are exceptional circumstances, and it seems to the Lord Advocate that the exceptional circumstances do not exist, there is surely a right of appeal. That is precisely what the accused should expect. That seems reasonable. If the provision were not in the Bill, there would be an imbalance.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Neither a person on a bus leaving Clackmannan and going in any direction nor Members of the Committee can find the issue about exceptional circumstances easy. We have to balance two conflicting remarks. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us that the courts will decide. The noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Hope, told us that when the judges determine the meaning of these words, they ask what was in the mind of Parliament. I believe that the Committee is still stuck in a quagmire on this.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the fact that to a limited extent the prosecutor has a role in sentencing. I remind him of
48
the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Clyde at Second Reading. I respectfully adopt his submission: that the old idea that the prosecutor was not concerned with sentencing was destroyed when the prosecution was given a right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences. That introduced an entirely new matter from simply informing the courts about the facts or assisting the courts to understand the facts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, also said that if this clause stands it should be qualified by a reference to the propriety of the prosecution making a submission to the court on sentence.
Those observations have a bearing in relation to exceptional circumstances. It would be unfair to the sentencing judge if, the Crown having made no submission to him as to whether or not the circumstances were exceptional, and he having decided that they were, he were faced with an appeal by the Lord Advocate on the basis that the circumstances were not exceptional. I submit that we have not had sufficient answer on this point.
Lord Sewel: In a brief and simple way perhaps I may seek clarification or guidance on the clause. We have spent a great deal of time in Committee talking about exceptional circumstances. Throughout that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has resolutely declined to give any definition of exceptional circumstances. Yet this clause gives the Lord Advocate the right to appeal on the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances. My thought processes lead me to this conclusion: that the Lord Advocate is in a position to appeal on the ground that no exceptional circumstances exist when he does not know what the phrase "exceptional circumstances" means. That may be a fault in my thought processes but it seems a reasonable conclusion.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may answer that perfectly understandable question in this way. When the clauses come into force the courts will interpret what "exceptional circumstances" amount to, declaring in a specific case that they do or do not exist. When such cases are decided by the Appeal Court the Lord Advocate of the day will have the benefit of the rulings of the Appeal Court as it sets out the law. He will be perfectly able to answer the question. If in a trial a judge declares that there are exceptional circumstances, and that decision is difficult or impossible to reconcile with what the Appeal Court decided the previous week, it would be open to the Lord Advocate to appeal if he thought it appropriate to do so. He is under no obligation to do so but it would be open for him to do so.
That is what occurs at present. When the Lord Advocate exercises this power, he has regard to what the Appeal Court has said in the past. Sometimes he forms a view which is not shared by the Appeal Court; sometimes it is. That is how I imagine that this power will be exercised in the fullness of time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not correct that each case depends on its own facts and circumstances? It seems a difficult exercise to apply the exceptional circumstances in one case to another case. There cannot be a league table

49
of exceptional circumstances. I hope that I do not misinterpret what my noble friend Lord Sewel said. His point was that it is an impossible phrase to interpret.
Lord McCluskey: In essence, the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is that the Lord Advocate does not know what "exceptional circumstances" are, and accordingly, logically, he cannot tell us what no exceptional circumstances are. Therefore he will wait until the Court of Criminal Appeal tells him what they are in a number of cases, and in the light of that he will exercise the power contained in this clause.
It seems extraordinary that the author of the Bill, the person who seeks to pilot it through the House, is unable to tell us the meaning of this phrase and yet is taking a power to exercise on the basis that there are or are not exceptional circumstances once the courts consider the matter in a series of cases. I find it an extraordinary way to legislate. I cannot believe that that is consistent with the notion always applied by judges in interpreting statute of asking what Parliament intended. Currently what Parliament intends is what the Minister intends. If the Minister cannot properly tell us, I do not know how the judges are supposed to interpret the statute. However, we have made the point before.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I believe it appropriate to correct the matter. I do not wish to go over matters that we debated some days ago.
It is not that the Minister has no idea what the phrase involves or is not capable of working out what it could involve. The approach that the Government believe is correct has been made consistently clear in the Bill, and in the English Bill. Until now I have not heard it suggested that any judge or Appeal Court would find it impossible to construe this term. That is the approach which the Government believe is correct.
The Government have made it clear that they can foresee the term covering the circumstances of the two offences and the circumstances of the offender; but they do not seek on the face of the Bill to define it or limit it in any way. I venture to suggest that that is not an entirely novel approach. I believe that the courts are perfectly capable of implementing it, and that, when they do so, both those who prosecute and those who defend the accused will be happy to abide by the courts' rulings.
Lord McCluskey: We shall plainly get no further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 24, line 19, at end insert ("and an appeal against that decision shall preclude any further appeal by the Lord Advocate on any other ground").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment to Clause 17, at line 19 on page 24 of the Bill. Its objective is to ensure that the Lord Advocate is
50
not allowed to appeal on the grounds of a sentence being unduly lenient when no undue circumstances have been found. We feel that the matter should be dealt with very seriously in the light of what was said in relation to the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As I understand the amendment, it is intended to prevent the Lord Advocate from appealing against the trial judge's decision not to impose an automatic sentence on the basis that he or she was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances; and at the same time, in the event that an appeal was successful, to prevent the Lord Advocate from appealing against the length of the determinate sentence imposed. If that is the effect of the amendment, it would be contrary to the public interest.
If the Lord Advocate is to have an appeal against the failure or the decision to impose an automatic life sentence, as would be allowed under the Bill as presently drafted, there could be no valid reason why, in the event of such an appeal being successful, he could not also appeal against the length of the determinate sentence on the basis that it was unduly lenient.
Were he not able to do so, a situation could arise whereby a very low determinate sentence was imposed which the appeal court and the general public considered to be unduly lenient, and yet it would be one with which the appeal court could not interfere and could not increase. I cannot see any conceivable justification for that. The situation is not likely to occur in many cases, but could happen in some. I hope, therefore, that on further reflection the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That just adds confusion upon confusion on the question of exceptional circumstances. We have been "round the houses" about 10 times in our debates on this matter. As I understand it, the Lord Advocate already has the power to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence. We are dealing with a particular issue here; namely, the definition of "exceptional circumstances". I do not accept the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I wish to seek the view of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The Question is, That Amendment No. 117 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Transfer of rights of appeal of deceased person]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 118:
Page 26, line 37, insert ("; or
(b) upon cause shown, at any time.").
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may indicate to the noble Lord that I have considerable sympathy with this amendment. I am happy to take it away with a clear commitment that we will come forward with an amendment which takes account of certain technical drafting concerns.
Lord Sewel: It is nice to hear that sweet reason rules yet again. On that basis I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Increased rights of appeal of prosecutor]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 28, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: The current position is that the Lord Advocate can appeal against a sentence pronounced in a solemn case—that is, a case of indictment before a jury—under Section 42 of the 1993 Act. As the Committee will be aware, that provision has been in force for just over three years. A right of summary appeal by the Lord Advocate was not then sought. I am anxious to know why it is sought now.
There are certain disadvantages. First, the cost of considering all these cases will be very high indeed. I do not want to labour the point, but my strong impression is that the Crown Office and the fiscal service are under enormous pressure in terms of resources to meet the burden of responsibility placed upon them by the law and by the crime rates in Scotland. This provision will add a huge burden of work. All fiscals will have to start considering whether or not to report particular cases to the Crown Office as cases in which the new right of appeal might be exercised. It also raises a point to which I referred earlier and which was mentioned in the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Clyde at Second Reading. Once again, one has to consider that aspect of the matter. Furthermore, all such cases come without leave. Since leave is not required, they go automatically to the High Court, by which such cases must be considered.
The logic here is the same as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde. If the Lord Advocate is to have a right of appeal to the High Court against every sentence and every disposal, then surely the Advocate Depute and the procurator fiscal in their respective courts ought to have the responsibility of informing the judge, sheriff or magistrate, as the case may be, that the Crown takes the view that the sentence imposed is unduly lenient or inappropriate. If the fiscal believes that, it ought to be intimated to the judge at the time. It would give the judge a chance to reconsider the matter in the light of any representation made to him.
I am not in favour of the notion of the prosecutor departing from this century-old tradition. However, it appears to be the inevitable consequence of taking a right of appeal of this kind. Having regard to the likely burden upon the service and the additional burden upon judges, including sheriffs, whose sentences will be appealed against, I ask the Government to produce some justification for this provision.
My final point is that, in a sense, if a judge is appealed against, he might feel that his amour propre has been somewhat wounded and might resent it. I do not think that High Court judges suffer very badly from that, although one might occasionally have a bad night or a bad weekend if one is appealed against and overturned. I make nothing of that. However, in the sheriff court, where the procurator fiscal appears day after day before the same sheriff, if he repeatedly takes appeals against that sheriff's sentencing it could destroy relationships within the court. That is an additional reason for not extending this power. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Perhaps I may add briefly to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. First, I would mention the position of the court in such cases. As the noble and learned Lord will know, I have had to preside in a number of appeals at the instance of the Lord Advocate in solemn cases. They take up a great deal of time because they raise worrying questions, particularly for the person who has been brought back before the court, possibly to have his sentence increased, having already been sentenced. There is concern about the effect on the work of the Appeal Court.
My other point is that there is constant difficulty, it occurred to me, in bringing the cases before the court quickly enough to intercept the release of the respondent, as he would be, from prison. One of the earliest instances where a solemn case came before the Appeal Court was where the sentence had already been served. Even if the court regards the sentence as unduly lenient, it still has a discretion as to whether to impose a different sentence. Particularly in the lower order summary cases, the risk of sentences having already been served before the Appeal Court can hear them will have been increased. That makes me wonder whether the provision tries to achieve too much of a good thing. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will have consulted with the court as to whether the court can accommodate the problem. But it is a matter of some concern as to whether it is wise to bring the shorter sentences before the court in view of the risk that the hands of the court would be tied anyway by the fact that the sentence had already been served. There is also the possibility of great unfairness to the respondent if he were to be sent back into custody, having already served his sentence.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: There may be a misapprehension or misunderstanding on the part of noble and learned Lords who have spoken. The fact is that the right to appeal already exists. It came into force on 1st November last year when the Summary Proceedings (Scotland) Order 1996 brought into force the provisions of Section 175(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
In the time from 1st November until today, there has only been one appeal marked. We calculate that some 50,000 summary cases have gone through the courts in that time. So the concern raised by noble and learned Lords about the volume has not been borne out by experience in, admittedly, the first few months of the

53
power. When the legislation was brought into force, the court was consulted. I do not recall the detail of what passed between the Minister of State and the Lord Justice General, but the provision was not sprung on the courts by any means. The appropriate order was laid before Parliament and the power already exists.
Clause 20 seeks to restructure the provisions which deal with the Lord Advocate's right of appeal in summary matters.
A number of other points were raised, including the role of the Crown in sentencing, a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, on Second Reading. The procurators fiscal had to be given guidance in the light of decisions by the Appeal Court as to when they should draw errors of fact to the attention of the sentencing sheriff. I should have thought that it was in the public interest that they should do so, irrespective of whether they have it in mind to appeal against any sentence that might be imposed.
I doubt whether the idea would find support in many quarters that as soon as the sheriff or the High Court judge has expressed his decision as to what a sentence should be, the Crown should there and then have a right—let alone an obligation—to say to the sentencing judge: "We disagree with that sentence, we want you to review it here and now". Similarly, I doubt whether, if the defence had the right to stand up and invite the trial judge there and then to review the sentence, it would find support in such quarters.
I accept that the provision increases the role of the Crown at that stage, but it is not a provision that cannot be fulfilled. The experience of the past few months has brought nothing like the deluge of cases anticipated in the contributions made.
There is some suggestion that it might create the risk of souring relationships between the procurator fiscal and the sheriff, giving them a succession of bad nights. I doubt that that is likely to occur, but if it does it is just as likely to happen when a defence solicitor appeals a string of sentences or convictions because he disagrees with the sheriff's decisions. I hope that all those involved would behave responsibly in such situations and not harbour grievances from one case to another.
Inevitably, in the sheriff court mistakes are made by sheriffs, whether on conviction or sentence. That is why the Appeal Court exists. Equally, in the High Court appeal provisions are there to give parties the right of appeal to a higher court with power to review. Those systems tend to work well in practice, even if on occasion the judge appealed against does not understand the decision of the Appeal Court. However, one lives with it and moves on to the next case.
I repeat, there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in bringing the matter forward. I can assure the Committee that the Crown has no intention of using the power on a daily basis, but if there are instances of cases which are clearly unduly lenient or if some error of law has been made in the process of sentencing, it seems right
54
that the provision in Clause 20(2) should be on the statute book. On that basis, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: In the light of the explanation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just given to the Committee, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I acknowledge that I missed the provision contained in Section 175(4). Plainly it cannot have been commented on in detail when the 1995 Bill went through the House. It was not noticed by me then and I am not conscious of any case having yet been before the court. In the light of the explanation, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The rubric to Clause 20 contains the words:
"Increased rights of appeal of prosecutor".
We must wonder whether the words should be "excessive rights of appeal of prosecutor". My position on the inclusion of the clause is in response to fears that we are moving towards a situation where the prosecutor tries to bid for the sentence, as occurs in some overseas jurisdictions. I do not need to tell the Committee that that is alien to the Scottish criminal justice system. Although the clause does not allow such activity, it seems to be heading in that direction.
I should like to be assured that that is not the case. I hope that the prosecutor will always be restricted to appealing against leniency of sentence after its imposition and that that should be a limited right in itself. Listening to the debate on the last two or three amendments, I feel that there is a danger of too much power being transferred to the Lord Advocate in that respect. He needs sufficient power, but not excessive power.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that I can respond to the point shortly. I can assure the Committee that there is no wish by the Crown to bid for sentence, nor is there any wish by the Government to give the Crown the power to bid for sentence. That is not what the clause is about. It concerns exercising rights of appeal after sentence has been imposed, subject to the point that I mentioned earlier that if, for whatever reason, the defence places a factual basis for the plea in mitigation before the court with which the Crown does not agree it is incumbent on the Crown to draw the point to the court's attention before it passes to sentence and to have the matter resolved. Were the Crown not to do so, when the matter comes before the Appeal Court that court would require to decide it on the basis that the defence's narration of the facts is correct, even if the Crown disputes it. That cannot be in the interests of justice either. When the sentencing court passes sentence, the relevant facts must be a matter of agreement if it is not a question after trial and the trial judge has heard all the facts himself.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Appeal by prosecutor against hospital orders etc.]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 120:
Page 29, line 7, at end insert—
("() Where a court determines under section 6(4)(d) above not to remit a patient to prison, the prosecutor may appeal against this determination—

(a) if it appears to him that the determination was inappropriate; or

(b) on a point of law,

and an appeal under this section shall be treated in the same manner as an appeal against sentence under section 108 of this Act."").
The noble Lord said: As this side of the Committee indicated earlier in the debate, we are not out to wreck the Bill. We are anxious to make progress. In the circumstances, I shall defer this amendment, if necessary, to Report stage and do not propose to move it today.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appeals against orders under section 49 of the 1995 Act]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 29, line 24, at end insert—
("() In any case where it is competent for a convicted person or a prosecutor to appeal against a decision under section 49 of the 1995 Act to remit a case to the Principal Reporter, the court shall consider whether a curator ad litem should be appointed to safeguard the interests of the child concerned and if so minded shall make such an appointment.").
The noble Lord said: This a very straightforward and simple amendment which I move on the basis that such a provision might be thought helpful at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This amendment raises an interesting suggestion for safeguarding the welfare of children in the court system. We have considered it carefully. We are sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment but are not persuaded that it would be the correct way forward.
Throughout criminal proceedings, the interests of any child ought to be governed and covered by the child receiving appropriate legal advice and support from his legal representatives who, in the discharge of their professional responsibilities, will require to be in touch with the child's parents or guardians. I have not been aware of any concern up to now that such appointments would be necessary. Obviously, any lawyer instructed to defend a child finds it a particularly anxious matter and will take guidance and advice from any quarter on the issue of taking proper instructions from the accused person. But the idea of interposing some curator ad litem into the criminal courts is novel and certainly not a proposal that I have heard suggested by anyone who practises in this field.
56
Clearly, I am prepared to talk further about the matter and listen to any further suggestions. But as at present advised, we do not believe that it would be a sensible proposal, albeit we entirely sympathise with the view that lies behind it.
Lord Sewel: On the basis of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said and some discussion with, it is to be hoped, some progress, I am happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
FINALITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND SECRETARY OF STATE'S REFERENCE
(" .—(1) Section 124 of the 1995 Act (finality of proceedings and Secretary of State's reference) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) the words "Subject to subsection (3) below" shall cease to have effect.
(3) Subsections (3), (4) and (5) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with a number of other amendments—Amendments Nos. 123 up to and including Amendment No. 127, as the Committee will see from the Marshalled List. They are all designed to achieve the same end.
Right from the beginning I acknowledge that there is a powerful technical objection to moving an amendment of this kind in this Chamber, because implementation of the amendment would appear to involve expenditure not authorised by another place. Accordingly that technical objection may be one which cannot possibly be overcome. On the other hand, of course, the Government would be free to take the course that I suggest should be taken as regards these amendments.
Following cases in England which are well known to the Committee—the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Cardiff Three, the Bridgwater case, possibly the Hanratty case, Rillington Place, the Craig and Bentley case; I have a list of about 26 such cases—the Government finally conceded that it was necessary to set up a body to be called the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That was conceded by the Government in relation to England and Wales. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 came into force and it is from the provisions of that Act that I have borrowed—with some modifications—the provisions contained in the proposed new clauses which appear in Amendment No. 123 onwards. Amendment No. 122 simply removes the possibility of the Secretary of State making a reference.
These recommendations, albeit no doubt imperfectly, seek to implement the recommendations of the Sutherland Committee. Before I turn to those recommendations, let me say to the Committee that it is sometimes said that Scotland has escaped the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four type of case. In terms of publicity and drama, that is certainly true. However, I am not persuaded that Scotland is totally free of such cases. We in Scotland sometimes claim that we would not have decisions such as the Birmingham

57
Six type of case because we have a law about corroboration. I have written and spoken to the effect that that is nonsense—I shall not weary the Committee with repeating it tonight—and that such cases could have occurred in Scotland. Perhaps I may mention two of the better known cases—the case of Meehan and the case of Preece—which resulted in convictions that were ultimately quashed many years after the event owing to the happy discovery of some new evidence which called the convictions into question.
Those are not the only cases, although we may perhaps be better able to deal with them. Another good example might be the case of Mitchell v. Her Majesty's Advocate, which was reported in 1989. That was a trial at which my noble and learned friend Lord Clyde presided and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, dealt with as one of his first cases in the Criminal Appeal Court. The background to that case is set out in a number of reports in Scotland. I need not go into them in any detail. That was a case in which the trial judge expressed his concern about certain aspects. I myself sat in another trial involved in the same case and felt very strong disquiet about the case which resulted in Mitchell's conviction. Ultimately, it was dealt with, for reasons which are explained in the Opinion of the court, although behind those reasons there was, I feel, a sense of unease among Her Majesty's judges about what had happened in that case.
Although some of those cases have eventually resulted in successful appeals, others have proved less easy to resolve on the basis of the ordinary appeal rules of procedure and evidence. Those familiar with the judgment in the recent Beattie case will appreciate how technical the matter may become.
Against that general background and in the light of the recommendations by the Runciman Committee in England, the Secretary of State and Lord Advocate at that time decided to set up a committee under Sir Stewart Sutherland. It was a most distinguished committee. Apart from Professor Sutherland himself and Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, there was the Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who is now on the Bench, Derek Emslie; sheriff Gordon himself, the leading authority on the written criminal law in Scotland; the Chief Constable of Strathclyde, Sir Leslie Sharp; and Andrew Normand, then the Regional Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow and Strathkelvin—now promoted to the office of Crown Agent.
That distinguished body was appointed in 1994. It set itself the task of reporting fully within a period of two years and in fact did so. The report was published in June 1996 by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Some of its recommendations in relation to appeals have been adopted in this Bill and I do not propose to dwell upon them. But Chapter 5 of the report looked into the question against the background of cases like the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, and the decision in England to set up an independent body.
Option 5 of the options that the committee considered was the option of setting up an independent body with power to defer cases to the appeal court. It was,
"to remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether and to establish a new body, completely independent of the executive, with powers to consider alleged miscarriage of justice cases and to refer deserving cases to the Appeal Court for determination".
The report concludes,
"This is our preferred option and the one that we recommend … This is, of course, the model recommended by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, legislated for in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995".
That is the reason I put this matter forward. In relation to specific points of detail, the Committee will see on page 5 of the Marshalled List that, in the first of the new clauses, the body has a name. The number of members being not fewer than five comes from the Sutherland Committee Report, and subsection (4) says,
"The members of the Commission shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Lord Justice General".
The Lord Justice General should have an input into these matters. Other matters in relation to numbers and so forth are adaptations of the English model in the 1995 Act. The clause introduced by Amendment No. 125 echoes a provision in the English Act allowing the commission to require the appointment of an investigating officer. The clause introduced by Amendment No. 126 envisages the commission investigating matters if the High Court gives a direction under this Act, as it will be. I should indicate that the final matter introduced by Amendment No. 127 is a new clause giving the court certain powers.
I am conscious of the fact that when one looks at the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, provisions there are rather more complicated. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not my intention to try to do the draftsman's job; I merely want to indicate what ought to be done and invite the Government to adopt the proposal. It is not my proposal, though I supported it. As can be seen from the report, I gave evidence both in writing and orally to that committee and it had the grace also to refer to my book, Criminal Appeals, in deciding the matter.
In relation to the matter of cost, the report reveals that the total cost may be of the order of £450,000 or, on an annual basis, £300,000. I remind the Committee that the cost of keeping a person in prison is around £30,000 a year—or close to that—and, accordingly, for the cost of keeping 15 people in prison for a year, we could set up that body. The cost therefore is quite modest and no doubt the Government will bear that in mind.
For reasons I have yet to understand, the Secretary of State—on the date that he announced the recommendations of the Sutherland Committee—announced that he was rejecting its principal recommendation; namely, this one. I do not understand why that is so. I do not accept the notion that Scotland is free from miscarriages of justice. I make the general point that the Secretary of State, in whatever jurisdiction, is much too political a person to be involved, by reason of his office, in this type of case.
One can think, south of the Border, of cases in which the public take an immense interest—for example, Myra Hindley and Jamie Bulger—and such cases arise on both sides of the Border. They should not be in the political arena at all and that is why I suggest the Government adopt the proposal recommended unanimously by the members of the Sutherland Committee. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: When the Government received the report prepared by Sir Stewart Sutherland and his colleagues, they announced to the Scottish Grand Committee of another place how they reacted to it. They made clear that the proposal for setting up a review commission was the major proposal they were not prepared to accept. At that stage, as I indicated earlier, the Government rejected one of the proposals in relation to the appeals criteria and we dealt with a change of position on that matter earlier this afternoon.
One of the reasons the Government took the view they did was that the view the committee recorded in paragraph 5.27 of its report was that criticisms of the present procedure for dealing with petitions to the Secretary of State by prisoners who wished to have their cases referred back to the court were not universally endorsed by all who gave evidence to the Sutherland Committee. The committee recorded that,
"there was a strong body of opinion that there was no need for change to the current arrangements in Scotland".
It set out a number of arguments which had been advanced in favour of the status quo, including the absence of high profile cases of the nature referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It referred to the position in relation to co-operation, the role of the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel and procurators fiscal in the public interest and the specific relationships between the procurator fiscal and the police as being significantly different in Scotland.
Another argument advanced in favour of the status quo is the reverse of one of the arguments mentioned by the noble and learned Lord; namely, that the involvement of Ministers in the process ensured full accountability through the parliamentary process. That clearly indicates that, while a number of people undoubtedly share the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that a Secretary of State should have no role to play in such proceedings, a significant body of other people take the entirely opposite point of view.
The committee also recorded that,
"There was no hard evidence that the present system was failing, indeed there was evidence that it worked well on the whole. The system should not be changed and possibly weakened simply because of a limited problem of public perception".
It went on to record arguments in favour of the status quo; that,
"The main source of dissatisfaction stemmed not from the machinery for considering alleged miscarriages of justice but from the restrictiveness nature of the appeals criteria".
60
The Government's reading of the report was much the same as that set out by the committee; that is, that,
"the arguments for and against change seemed fairly evenly balanced".
That is clear from paragraph 5.28 of the report. Therefore the Government took the view that the terms of the report did not demonstrate an overwhelming pressure or compelling case for fundamentally changing our machinery for dealing with that type of case at the present time. On the contrary, the Government took the view that the committee's main concerns were with the appeal criteria, and those have been dramatically altered by the provisions of the Bill, as we discussed earlier this afternoon.
The Government's view was shared, as I understand it, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, when the Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House. We take comfort from that that the way forward we suggest is the correct one. It is to amend the appeal criteria and see whether, in the light of that, there continues to be any concern at all about the system for handling appeals in Scotland. We believe that there will not be. We also believe very firmly that if there is, and if there are individual cases for which there is a case for referral back to the appeal court, that should be done by the Secretary of State, who has a separate division in the Scottish Office dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice, and that he should be politically accountable to Parliament if, for any reason, a case is not referred back.
Such cases in Scotland are not frequent but they occur from time to time. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned one of them this afternoon. There are, as I understand it, currently two before the appeal court waiting to be heard. In those circumstances, while accepting that there are arguments for a review body or commission of the nature covered by the amendments, the Government are not persuaded that the arguments are compelling and that we should change in the way the English have decided to change. With that explanation, which the noble and learned Lord will understand but possibly not entirely agree with, I hope he will accept that at this stage there is no case for pressing on with the amendments.
I should say in conclusion that I do not seek to oppose the amendments on the technical ground that he mentioned because if it were the will of the Committee or of your Lordships' House to change the law, the Government would not stand in the way. The cost was mentioned. It is clearly not a huge sum of money. I do not use the cost as a reason for objecting to a commission. The reasons are that we consider that amended, as the appeal criteria will be, that is the way forward at the moment.
Lord McCluskey: I hope that those Members of the Committee who are interested in the administration of justice will take the opportunity to read Chapter 5 of the Sutherland Committee's report. The Lord Advocate has quoted some of the arguments against the proposal but the arguments for the proposal are set out fully in the report. I would simply refer to two of them, although there are others.

61
One of them is in amplification of the point I have already made; namely, that it is constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State, a member of the executive, to play any part in the process, and in particular to exercise what amounts to a quasi-judicial role in such a process. The argument is summarised as follows:
"In particular concerns were raised about the Ability of a Government Minister to maintain a detached position in the face of what can be high profile and semi-political campaigns in particular cases".
That was one of the arguments. I do not understand why it should be that the judgment in England is that the Secretary of State should withdraw from the process and that an independent body should be set up but that the Secretary of State for Scotland should continue with the role. I have experience of the operation of this and can endorse one of the other points that was made. That was in the following terms:
"While there was little specific criticism of the current arrangements it was deemed inappropriate that those agencies which had secured the original conviction were also responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in relation to that conviction".
The most striking case of all is the case of Meehan. I know it extremely well because I was part of the prosecution team. I was very unhappy about aspects of that case. I have not made my unhappiness secret. I gave evidence about it both to the Hunter Committee on the Meehan case and also, I think I am correct in saying, before Sutherland. The case was not one of which the Crown Office can be proud—the prosecution of Meehan and the attempts that were made to block the advancement of his case. In due course, Meehan was released, but long before he was released the Secretary of State was approached and decided to investigate the matter. What did he do? He came to the Crown Office and asked the Crown Agent to investigate the matter. The Crown Agent, who had been heavily involved in the original prosecution, passed the matter to the Deputy Crown Agent, who was also heavily involved in the original prosecution. The investigation went on for quite a long time. In other words, the Secretary of State had no independent investigative powers at all. Of course the Crown Agent had very little in the way of independent investigative powers. So what did he do? He called in the police. The essence of the case of Meehan was that the police had fiddled the evidence, so the police then investigated themselves. Fortunately, owing to circumstances which are well known to those who are familiar with the Meehan case, eventually, someone having died, his solicitor was able to come forward and say, "Before he died, this man put me in possession of information which plainly shows that Meehan was not guilty." Accordingly, two fresh policemen were brought in, quickly discovered that that was so, and Meehan was able to be released.
The whole history of the Meehan case is one that indicates with great clarity the imperfections of the existing system. I agree that the Bill improves the appeal criteria, but it does not solve the underlying problem which is mentioned as one of the arguments; namely, that it is inappropriate that those agencies, whether the
62
Crown Office or the police, that had secured the original conviction are also responsible for investigating the alleged miscarriage of justice.
It is in that same context that the report noted the argument that the current consideration of cases by the department was not rigorous, transparent or thorough enough. Of course there are arguments both ways, and the committee fairly set them forth. But the committee, which was a most distinguished committee, with prosecutors, policemen, a judge—in fact two judges as it turns out now—and others involved, some of the most knowledgeable people in Scotland on the question of criminal justice, unanimously recommended that this should be done. It is accordingly extremely disappointing to discover that the Government are not prepared to accept it. I hope that in future the matter will be considered yet again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall not move Amendments Nos. 123 to 127.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCloskey Lord McCloskey moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS
(" .—(1) Section 65 (prevention of delay in trials) of the 1995 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words from "forthwith" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment can be dealt with very briefly. In 1996 a court of five judges, which is the High Court of justiciary sitting in its full capacity, considered whether or not certain decisions taken earlier by courts of three judges were correct and finally decided to overrule those decisions. The five judge case was called Gardner v. Lees. Putting the matter shortly, the Bench of five judges unanimously declared that accused persons had a right, which I myself described as being of a constitutional character, not to be prosecuted if, having been charged on petition with a certain type of offence, the prosecution was not brought to a conclusion within 12 months.
We in Scotland are very proud of the fact that we have certain time limits on prosecutions. The most famous one is the 110-day rule. One cannot be detained in prison awaiting trial for more than 110 days. One must be brought to trial within that period. There are possible exceptions but they are very rarely encountered in practice. We took a great step forward in 1980 when we introduced the 12-month rule. A person charged with a serious offence on petition had to be brought to trial within 12 months of the charge. That person would usually be at liberty. The case of Gardner v. Lees decided, broadly speaking, that if he was not brought to trial within that period of 12 months he could not be brought to trial before a summary court.
That was the position taken by the court in January or February 1996. On 25th April 1996 the Minister responsible wrote to the Lord Justice General saying that

63
he proposed to have the law amended in order to reverse the decision in the case of Gardner v. Lees. It was to be done not by means of Scottish legislation, but put into a new clause in the English Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill. It was called at the time the paper was sent to the Minister the Criminal Procedure and "Investments" Bill.
The then Lord Justice General wrote in response,
"I appreciate why you may feel it appropriate to introduce this change in the legislation. On the other hand I think that some people may regard this as a more substantial and more contentious point on which wider consultation would have been appropriate. For this reason I would prefer not to be thought to be offering any support for it, at least for the time being".
So there was no support offered by the then Lord Justice General and no other judge was informed or consulted about the matter.
I can inform the Committee that we did not know the legislation was proposed; we did not know that it had been enacted and I discovered it only from an article in a learned journal and brought it to the attention of Scottish judges at the weekly meeting. They thus discovered that effectively behind their backs the legislature had altered the constitutional right, as I called it, that had been recognised in Gardner v. Lees. That is not a proper way to legislate in relation to criminal justice in Scotland. I shall avoid using epithets that might give offence, but it was not a proper way to legislate. I suggest that the proper course is to repeal that legislation in the way that I now propose. If the Government wish to bring it forward on some other occasion, let us do it and then look at the constitutional and other implications. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to reverse the law from what came into effect after the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act became the law of the land. As he correctly indicates, the issue concerns the 12 months' period within which a trial must commence in solemn proceedings. As Members of the Committee know and as we have discussed on a number of occasions, in Scotland accused persons can be tried on a summary complaint before a sheriff who decides questions of guilt or innocence or before a district court that does likewise. Alternatively, a person can be tried before a jury either in the sheriff court or in the High Court.
If the accused sets out on a procedure which will take him to jury trial and is placed in petition, the law of the land is that the trial must commence within 12 months unless the period is extended. But on occasions accused persons set out on the petition route and have the cases reduced to summary trial which takes place in the sheriff's summary court. Prior to the case of Gardner v. Lees it had been understood for many years in Scotland that such summary trial need not begin before the expiry of the 12 months' limit in the same way as a man is put before the court on summary complaint and his trial need not begin within a 12 months' period.
But the Gardner v. Lees case decided in January 1996 reversed that understanding and held that if either the trial before a jury or the summary trial before a sheriff
64
did not begin within the 12 months' period then no further proceedings were possible unless that period had been extended. That was a significant change to the law as it had been understood by the Crown, the defence and the court for many years. As a result, certain prosecutions fell by the wayside.
It lies within the power of the Crown to arrange for the trial before a jury to begin within 12 months by indicting the accused for trial at a sitting either of the High Court or the sheriff and jury court within the 12 months' period. However, if the charge is reduced to summary complaint the accused is called to plead guilty or not guilty. If he pleads not guilty a diet of trial is set some days or weeks hence. If for any reason the trial cannot proceed on that day the case is adjourned to another date and so on and so forth. It is quite possible that trials cannot get going within the 12 months' period.
The view is also taken that if it is not possible to reduce cases from solemn to summary trial, as we describe it in the Crown Office, and place the matter before the sheriffs summary court in the knowledge that the trial cannot begin after the 12 months' period, that might in some way act as a disincentive to the Crown to reduce the prosecution to the summary level in appropriate cases. Therefore, the Government took the view that an amendment was appropriate.
There was nothing underhand about the way the matter was put before Parliament. The Minister of State wrote to the then Lord Justice General, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has indicated, and got the reply in the terms mentioned. He also wrote to the Opposition spokesman in another place on Scottish criminal matters, the honourable Member for Dunbarton, John McFall. He wrote to all other Members serving on the relevant standing committee on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill.
The fact of the matter was that there was no opposition to this amendment. The Bill incorporated the change and as a result the law in Scotland was restored to what it was understood to be for many years prior to the case of Gardner v. Lees. The noble and learned Lord's new clause would seek to reverse the position and take us back to the decision in Gardner v. Lees. I hope the Committee will be satisfied that the Government have dealt with this matter in a responsible manner and that it will also be satisfied that there is good reason why the law should remain as it is. On that understanding and with that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I do not propose to pursue this matter any further. I do not dispute the right of the Government to come forward with legislation of this kind, but it is the method of doing it that I deplore. The Government knew by April of this year that they intended to introduce in the autumn the Bill now before the House; namely, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. There was no reason whatever why that provision should not have been put into the present Bill. It was put into the English Bill, which escaped the notice of almost everyone. No consultation whatever preceded the Crown's decision to change that right. If notice was given to certain people it was not given, for

65
example, in this House where the matter was just moved without any explanation. I regret very much that the Government chose to legislate in that way, whatever the merits of the particular cause. However, in the circumstances and at this hour I do not propose to say more about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 128A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
APPEALS BY THE LORD ADVOCATE: SIFTING
(" . After section 108A of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Appeals by the Lord Advocate: sifting.
.—(1) The decision whether to grant leave to appeal for the purposes of section 108 and 108A of this Act shall be made by a Judge of the High Court who shall—

(a) if he considers that the documents mentioned in subsection (2) below disclose arguable grounds of appeal, grant leave to appeal and make such comments in writing as he considers appropriate; and

(b) in any other case, refuse leave to appeal and give reasons in writing for the refusal.

(2) The documents referred to in subsection (1) above are—
(a) the note of appeal lodged under section 110(1)(b) of this Act which shall—

(i) identify the proceedings;

(ii) contain a full statement of all grounds of appeals; and

(iii) be in the form prescribed in an Act of Adjournal;

(b) where the judge who presided at the trial furnishes a report under section 113 of this Act, that report; and
(c) where, by virtue of section 94(1) of this Act, a transcript of the charge to the jury of the judge who presided at the trial is delivered to the Clerk of Justiciary, that transcript.
(3) Where leave to appeal is refused under subsection (1) above the Lord Advocate may, within 14 days of intimation under subsection (6) below, apply to the High Court for leave to appeal.
(4) In deciding an application under subsection (3) above the High Court shall

(a) if, after considering the documents mentioned in subsection (2) above and the reasons for the refusal, the court is of the opinion that there are arguable grounds of appeal, grant leave to appeal and make such comments in writing as the court considers appropriate; and

(b) in any other case, refuse leave to appeal and give reasons in writing for the refusal.

(5) Consideration whether to grant leave to appeal under subsection (1) or (4) above shall take place in chambers without the parties being present.
(6) Comments in writing made under subsection (1)(a) or (4)(a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of those provisions, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the note of appeal) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
(7) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (6) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the Lord Advocate to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the note of appeal but not so specified.
66
(8) Any application by the Lord Advocate for the leave of the High Court under subsection (7) above—

(a) shall he made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and

(b) shall not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the Lord Advocate to the accused and his solicitor.

(9) The Clerk of Justiciary shall forthwith intimate—

(a) a decision under subsection (1) or (4) above; and

(b) in the case of a refusal of leave to appeal, the reasons for the decision,

to the Lord Advocate, the Crown Agent, the accused or his solicitor.".").
The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a rather long and wordy amendment, but I hope that I can be brief in speaking to it. Its effect is simple and straightforward. It seeks to introduce a sifting process into appeals by the Lord Advocate. As the Committee will be aware, under the provisions of Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, an appeal by a convicted person is subject to a sifting process by a High Court judge. Simply on the argument of balance, this amendment seeks to introduce an analogous procedure for appeals by the Crown. Essentially, the decision on whether to grant leave to appeal for the purposes of this Act would be made by a judge of the High Court. The process is detailed in the amendment. Where the judge decides to refuse leave to appeal, the Lord Advocate would have a further right of appeal within 14 days to the High Court.
One of the concerns behind the amendment is that—and I have to say this—appeals by the Lord Advocate on the ground of undue leniency have recently been criticised by the courts. In the case of Her Majesty's Advocate v. Ross 1996, Lord Justice Clerk Ross stated:
"It is to be hoped that the court is never again asked by the Lord Advocate to consider a note of appeal … which is so inaccurate and misleading".
In the case of Her Majesty's Advocate v. McKay 1996, the Lord Justice General, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, stated:
"The court is entitled to demand from the Lord Advocate and his advisers a high standard of care and accuracy … in the handling of these appeals … in the present case we are bound to say that that high standard … has not been achieved".
In all those circumstances, I think that there is a strong prima facie case that the judgment of the Lord Advocate in seeking to appeal should be subject to the same sort of sifting process as applies to the prosecution. There are legitimate grounds for concern in the recent history of appeals made by the Lord Advocate, but I think that the case can also be made on the grounds quite simply that what is good for the defence ought to be good for the Lord Advocate also. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I do not want to go over old ground with which the noble and learned Lord will be familiar, but I was careful in the case of McKay to say that I was not suggesting that the Lord Advocate should be subjected to the sifting process. I think I recall saying that one of the reasons for taking that view was the confidence which the court reposed in the decisions by the Lord Advocate over whether or not to appeal.

67
The criticism was more on matters of procedure than on whether it was right that the Lord Advocate's decisions should be subject to the sifting process.
As always, it is a question of balance. One point which the Committee may wish to take into account is that the sifting process occupies a certain amount of time. One has only to read through the proposed clause to see that various steps have to be carried out. It slows the process down. In particular, in cases where the Lord Advocate is seeking to have reviewed as unduly lenient a sentence which has been passed on an accused person, there is considerable urgency in bringing the matter before the court without undue delay, as I mentioned earlier, before the sentence has been served.
Therefore, I caution the Committee against accepting this amendment on the ground that it might slow things down to an unsatisfactory extent. I have no doubt that the Crown Office will have taken on board the criticisms which in the early days of the procedure were levelled at the Crown. For my part, I would rather leave the matter on the basis explained in McKay—that these decisions are not lightly taken by the Lord Advocate, that confidence can be left where it resides and that the matter should be brought before the court as quickly as possible in those cases where the Lord Advocate thinks that a view of the court is required.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for that contribution. I do not think that it would be productive for me to go into the two cases to which reference has been made, particularly the case of McKay, which was an appeal abandoned by the Lord Advocate some four months after it had been marked when the report of the trial judge came to hand. The Crown did not insist on the appeal and did not make any submissions on that occasion. It would be unfortunate to go into the detail of what was said then.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made clear, these matters are considered by Law Officers and, in particular, by the Lord Advocate. The procedure that is followed is that a report is obtained from the Advocate Depute who conducted the trial or presented the facts on behalf of the Crown if it is a plea of guilty, or from the procurator fiscal in a sheriff court case. They are considered within the Crown Office by, among others, the appropriate Advocate Depute and the Law Officers. They are not marked lightly. I gave the Committee the figures the other night of how many such cases there had been since the power came into effect. The total was 31, which has now increased to 32 in the light of the appeal which has now been marked.
One is not seeking to compare like with like. In the appeals marked by the Lord Advocate, it requires to appear to the Lord Advocate that the sentence is unduly lenient, as is set out in Section 108, or that some point of law arises. That will be the position of the Lord Advocate in the light of the report that he has been given by the trial depute. It is something
68
which could not conceivably be before the sifting judge. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Lord Advocate to lay before the sifting judge an opinion as to the merits of an appeal in the same way that the opinions of defence counsel come before the second stage of the sift. In the sift, the court has to be concerned with arguable grounds of appeal on an entirely different test from that which the Lord Advocate has to satisfy.
There may have been some difficulties in the early stages and it may be that some of the criticisms about the paperwork were merited. However, as I said earlier—I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will bear this out—these matters are discussed regularly between the Lord Advocate of the day and the Lord Justice General of the day. I do not think that it would be productive to discuss the detail on the Floor of this Committee. With that assurance that these matters are treated seriously and that we are not seeking to compare like with like, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: I have listened to what both noble and learned Lords have said, and particularly to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I take fully on board his point about the need to resolve the matter quickly, especially before the sentence has run out and is served. As has been said, this is a question of balance. One must weigh things in the balance in order to decide on which side one comes down. I should have thought that there was enough experience of how the matter of appeals against leniency has gone in the past to persist with the introduction of a sifting mechanism and therefore I seek the opinion of the Committee on this issue.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 128A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Haskel, L

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jay of Paddington. B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Calverley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carlisle, E.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Meston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.)

Molloy, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monkswell, L.

69

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Nicol, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sewel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Long, V.

Ailsa, M.

Lucas, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E

McConnell, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brentford, V.

Mersey, V.

Brookes, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock,L.

Mountevans, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham,L. [Teller.]

Munster,E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clyde, L.

Northesk,E.

Courtown,E.

O'Cathain,B.

Cox,B.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth,B.

Crickhowell, L.

Peason of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree,L.

Pender, L.

Denbigh, E.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Dilhorne,V.

Plumb,L.

Dundee, E.

Prentice, L.

Eden of Winton,L.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham,E.

Rennell,L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Renton,L.

Ferrers,E.

Seccombe,B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Greenway,L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harlech, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hogg, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Lindsay, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Clause 24 [Evidence concerning certain orders]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for not immediately having my notes to hand. I understood that my noble friend Lord Sewel would
70
move this amendment. I formally move Amendment No. 129 and wait for the Government's response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Although this matter has not been spoken to, I suggest that this amendment is very much within the spirit of a probation order. I justify that comment on the grounds that before a probation order is made the potential probationer has the likely provisions of such an order fully explained to him during the writing of the social work report. The individual goes to court, the probation order is made and he is formally told the conditions of that order. At the third stage while the social worker is serving the order he will ensure that the person concerned fully understands the conditions that have been imposed by the court. On that basis I support the amendment, which seeks to do much the same in the event of an offender breaching one of the conditions of his probation order.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My speaking note says that I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his explanation, but perhaps I should not dwell on that. Clearly, it is desirable for some notice to be made available to those who are to be brought before the court. I am sure that Members of the Committee do not require to be reminded that there are existing provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which allow that to be done.
I am not convinced that the amendment would be an advantage, in particular when one looks at the detail of Amendment No. 130. It is not entirely clear what "supporting papers" might mean, nor what time limits are to be used to determine whether the supporting papers are sufficient notice or otherwise to the person who has been suspected of being in breach. Clearly, there would be problems in having such general terms on the face of the Bill.
In my submission, the current procedure is satisfactory. It gives adequate notice to the offender that he is in breach of probation. If when he comes before the court there is any dispute about the matter, it will have to be clarified then. The sheriff or the judge could not proceed to deal with the offender unless he was satisfied that there had been a breach. Clearly, that would require some information to be placed before him in open court in order to be satisfied that the offender accepted the acts alleged against him.
The amendments are believed to be unnecessary and, as regards Amendment No. 130, unworkable. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not insist upon the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation, which I am sure will be read with interest by those who are directly involved with these matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 130A:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
(" . After section 255 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Proof of age
Proof of age.
255A. Where the age of any person is specified in an indictment or a complaint, it shall, unless challenged—
(a) in the case of proceedings on indictment by giving notice of a preliminary objection under paragraph (b) of section 72(1) of this Act or under that paragraph as applied by section 71(2) of this Act; or
(b) in summary proceedings—

(i) by preliminary objection before the plea of the accused is recorded; or

(ii) by objection at such later time as the court may in special circumstances allow,

be held as admitted.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: the purpose of this provision is to avoid the need for the prosecutor to lead evidence of the unchallenged age of any person whose age is specified in an indictment or complaint in criminal proceedings.
I consulted the Lord Justice General for Scotland before I tabled the clause and I am happy to confirm that he is content that the proof of the age of any person whose age is specified in a complaint or indictment should be held to be admitted unless challenged.
The age of victims and complainers and of an accused person may require to be specified in a complaint or indictment. That arises in particular in relation to sexual crimes involving people under the age of 16. Proof of the age is normally achieved by the lodging of the birth certificate coupled with evidence from the witness, his mother, father or other relative. This evidence is very rarely challenged as to substance.
If there is any challenge to be made then, as I have indicated, the new clause enables this to be addressed and the prosecutor would have to read evidence to meet it. This means that the interests of the accused person and the interests of justice are served without the need to lead unnecessary evidence. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: I welcome the clause. It is an example of the kind of enactment which could be used more freely in order to shorten trials. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and perhaps others will be aware that in this regard I have made a number of submissions, on one occasion with the support of the Scottish Law Commission, and we have discussed them on earlier occasions. However, it appears to me that many more facts are capable of being isolated and dealt with in this way so that we proceed to a trial which is about the real issue and not about matters which are not truly in dispute. I welcome this modest step in the right direction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Evidence from certain official documents]:
[Amendments Nos. 130B to 132A not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Evidence of vulnerable persons: special provisions]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 34, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—
("(b) any person of or over the age of 16 years—

(i) who is subject to an order made in consequence of a finding of a court in any part of the United Kingdom that he is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983, or Article 3(1) of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (application of enactment); or

(ii) who is subject to a transfer direction under section 71(1) of the 1984 Act, section 47 of the 1983 Act, or Article 53 of the 1986 Order (transfer directions); or

(iii) who otherwise appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment falls to be taken with Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 and raises the important issue of vulnerable witnesses. It was my understanding that we would deal with the amendment after the dinner hour. I am not complaining and I am happy to continue, but the amendment will take some time. I hope that all Members of the Committee are aware of that. I am primarily concerned to move Amendment No. 132B standing in my name on the Marshalled List, but for the convenience of the Committee I intend to speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134.
The latter two amendments, while somewhat similar in intention, are in origin and effect rather different. I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I endeavour to assist it in considering this important series of amendments to a clause which attracted considerable debate in another place.
In November 1996, "Frontline Scotland", a television programme produced by and shown on BBC Scotland, highlighted the issue of vulnerable witnesses. Following upon the showing of that television programme, I initiated a consultation exercise designed to seek views about the existing special procedures for taking the evidence of child witnesses to see whether they should be extended to witnesses suffering from various forms of mental impairment.
I did so in the knowledge that expectations would thereby be raised that the Government might be prepared to consider extension to all witnesses who could be shown to be or claim to be suffering from a mental illness. The clause and amendments tabled in my name represent the Government's response after giving very full consideration to all the issues.
I take the view that to go further, as do the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would amount to too great an intrusion into the procedures of our criminal trials in Scotland and to a step which should not be taken at this stage. The basic principle underlying our criminal procedure is, as Members of the

73
Committee will appreciate, that a witness in a criminal trial should give evidence in person in the courtroom, unless that witness's evidence is a matter of agreement.
The reasons are obvious, but perhaps I should restate them. Evidence given by a witness who is personally present in the courtroom visible to everyone, including the accused, is the best method by which that evidence can contribute to an inquiry into the facts. It is the best way in which that evidence can be tested as to its fullness, authenticity and credibility. It is one of the fundamental ways in which our system of justice seeks to ensure that justice is done by ensuring that witnesses who give evidence in a criminal trial, whether they be called for the Crown or for the defence, should be subject to examination-in-chief by the party who calls them, to subsequent cross-examination, if that is wished, and to any re-examination, if that is wished in the event of cross-examination taking place. We believe that any departure from that is justifiable only when it is absolutely clear that it is in the interests of justice to permit it and there are valid reasons for promoting it.
Another principle underlying our system in Scotland is the need for relative speed in dealing with cases, and mention of that was made earlier this evening. I comment on that in the context of these amendments because the effects of the amendments which other Members of the Committee have tabled will be to require the criminal court, before it commences a trial of the accused person, to embark upon an investigation of the mental health of a potential witness.
There may be an argument that that exercise would not necessarily be beneficial to the witness concerned. But it also raises the question of whether witnesses not subject to any form of mental health order should become the subject of almost informal proceedings under the Mental Health Acts in which a view is being taken by a court as to the status of the mental health of the witness and as to whether he might fit within one of the orders when he is in no sense party to the proceedings which are taking place.
Therefore, there are procedural complications in a situation where the witness concerned might not necessarily welcome or co-operate with what is going on. There may also be other complications. We believe that a balance must be struck and the balance is in favour of the approach set out in the amendment in my name, which effectively limits the extension of the vulnerable witness provisions to those as regards which there have been mental health orders of one sort or another.
I believe that the amendments which other Members of the Committee have tabled will extend the category of witness who is able to use the procedures currently available for child witnesses to such an extent that it will leave the system open to widespread increase in its use. As the honourable Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow pointed out on Report in another place, it also leaves the system open to potential abuse. We should not take such risks.
I have explained the position which will apply to the amendment in my name which refers to the provisions of various mental health statutes and as I say, I believe that it strikes an acceptable balance.
I appreciate that there may be some disappointment on the part of other Members of the Committee and those who have asked them to promote alternative amendments. But I hope that the Committee will be persuaded that my amendment goes far enough. On that basis, I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will assist me in one regard. Unfortunately, I have omitted to bring Section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 with me. No doubt the noble and learned Lord has a copy to hand. It reflects the English and Northern Ireland legislation.
My recollection is that that deals with fairly serious mental illness of a kind which includes or is very close to insanity. Does the kind of illness which falls within the meaning of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act include depressive illnesses which would not result in any form of certification, or nervous illness of that character?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not have that section readily to hand. I shall look at it during the dinner hour. My recollection is that it does not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this 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.

Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to report to the House that this uncontroversial Bill received generally widespread support in another place as to its principle and its specific provisions. The Government have listened to representations received and have amended and improved the Bill. I hope that today's debate will confirm that sound principles lie behind it.
It may be helpful if I touch briefly on the background to the Government's proposals. There were a number of flood events in Scotland in recent years. Scottish Office Ministers visited a number of the affected areas and discussed with those whose homes and businesses had been flooded the problems they were facing. It was clear that something had to be done to help prevent such people suffering in the way they had.
Existing legislation—the 1961 Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act—provides permissive powers to councils to undertake certain repair and maintenance work to

75
prevent or mitigate flooding of non-agricultural land. Councils are also able to promote flood prevention schemes.
But it was clear that not enough of these types of works were being carried out. The Government therefore decided that existing legislation and responsibilities for flood prevention measures would be reviewed.
The Scottish Office issued a consultation paper in February 1996 which evoked a wide range of responses from councils, other public bodies, businesses and individual members of the public. It was clear from these responses that the issues are complex and the solutions far from straightforward. But following very careful consideration of the options, the Government issued a draft Bill in September of last year for further consultation. None of the comments received on this draft impacted on the principle of the Bill now before the House; and that is also the case following the debate and scrutiny of it in another place.
I should like now to turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill. It would place limited duties on local authorities to undertake certain flood prevention activities. Those are: to assess watercourses in their area to find out if they are likely to cause flooding of non-agricultural land; to exercise their existing power to maintain watercourses which appear to be likely to cause flooding, and where exercising that power would substantially reduce the likelihood of such flooding; and to prepare and publish reports of the measures they have taken and the measures they think they should take to prevent or mitigate such flooding. Those reports should also specify all occurrences of such flooding.
We consider that those provisions, while relatively modest, would go a long way to help alleviate flooding events. By assessing the watercourses in their areas for the likelihood of flooding, and by taking prompt action to remove debris and to undertake general maintenance and repair work, councils would reduce flooding risk. This, in turn, would reduce the need to spend much larger sums in dealing with flood damage after the event.
I should also point out that this Bill should not be seen in isolation. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning process through the issue of National Planning Policy Guideline 7—NPPG7. This provides guidance to councils, developers and the public on a wide range of planning and other matters. The intention is that this will ensure that decisions on existing and future development take full account of flood risk.
NPPG7 quite correctly recognises that councils should take the lead role in co-ordinating measures and responses to flooding, because they are in the best position to address local concerns and priorities. Also, with local government reorganisation, the role of councils has been reinforced in that each unitary authority has combined responsibility for flood prevention, planning and building control. As a means of further strengthening councils' position as the focus
76
for dealing with flooding issues, NPPG 7 also encourages the identification of a wider forum in each council's area for the handling of these issues.
In that context, the formation of flood appraisal groups is suggested as a basis for tackling flooding problems. These groups would be formed by councils and would involve developers, insurers, relevant agencies and local people. They would inform and advise on the full range of flooding issues, including the need for flood prevention schemes and for catchment drainage management.
Before leaving the issue of flooding and moving on to another part of the Bill, I should like briefly to advise the House that we do not propose to change the existing power councils have to promote flood prevention schemes, nor the funding arrangements to build them.
Noble Lords will, however, be aware of the Government's "Challenge Fund" competition, the outcome of which was announced last week. This fund enables councils to compete for additional allocations to undertake large capital projects—projects which would normally be outwith the scope of their capital budgets. The fund had a very successful launch this year, especially with regard to flood prevention schemes, and I hope that councils will now be able to accept its worth. I also hope that the many sceptics who questioned the Government's commitment to flood prevention will now accept how important we consider the issue. That said, many of your Lordships will probably be glad to hear that I do not propose to spend any further time on the issue of local government finance tonight.
I should like now to turn briefly to another provision in the Bill: that is, the repeal of the Secretary of State for Scotland's statutory responsibility to maintain 13 agricultural drainage schemes created under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts 1930 and 1941. Repeal of these statutory responsibilities has been a long-standing policy objective of Scottish Office Ministers. The Secretary of State's responsibilities for these schemes include maintenance of floodbanks, channel width and depth and the removal of scrub and obstacles.
We calculate that less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of Scotland's agricultural land benefits from the schemes, and by no means all of the land that benefits from the work is still in agricultural production. River lengths treated under the 13 schemes total less than 200 kilometres compared with over 50,000 kilometres of surveyed rivers in Scotland; in other words, around four-tenths of 1 per cent. In total, we spend around £120,000 per annum on maintenance works, but because of legal constraints we are able to recover only around £2,000 per annum in total from the 300 or so beneficiaries.
The individual scheme specifications are set in statutes from the 1930s and 1940s. The Secretary of State is, therefore, saddled with archaic and inflexible maintenance responsibilities which cannot take account of modern agricultural or conservation priorities, or of upstream developments such as roads or forestry projects. Over the years, these factors have brought us into conflict with conservation and fishery bodies whose statutory responsibilities are to protect wildlife and fish

77
stocks. Conservation bodies have therefore welcomed our proposed repeal of the Secretary of State's obligation to maintain the 13 schemes, and this Bill provides us with an appropriate opportunity at last to remove those anomalous legal responsibilities. I should also say that the repeal of the Secretary Of State's responsibility for these schemes would do no more than place those whose land is covered by them on the same footing as their counterparts in the rest of Scotland.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, since it was published in draft in September of last year, the Government have made a number of amendments which clarify and strengthen the Bill. The main changes are: first, a new provision exempting councils from the duty to act when to do so would benefit only sole owners; secondly, a new clause which provides for increases in some of the fines for breaches of the provisions of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961; and, thirdly, to delay until April 1999 the commencement of Clause 6 of the Bill, which covers repeal of the Secretary of State's responsibility for statutory maintenance schemes under the 1930 and 1941 Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts.
The first of the amendments makes it clear that the Government do not intend all maintenance responsibilities to be transferred to councils. The second puts across the message that we take seriously any breaches of the provisions of the 1961 Act. The third amendment takes account of representations received on behalf of those landowners who will have to take over the maintenance of river channels and floodbanks on their land, which for over 50 years has been funded from the public purse.
In conclusion, I have outlined the Government's strategy to help prevent and mitigate the effects of flooding. The provisions in this Bill, alongside other measures we have already taken, offer a comprehensive and cohesive approach which tackles the problems that have been identified. We are, of course, discussing the principle of the Bill tonight. In the meantime, I hope that the House will agree with me that the principle that underpins the Bill is in no doubt. We have given a commitment to help those who suffered as a result of flooding: this Bill honours that commitment. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps the House will grant me the indulgence of allowing me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can give me some guidance about Clause 3 of the Bill. That clause inserts a new section after Section 6 of the 1961 Act to which my noble friend referred. If my noble friend cannot reply to me in full tonight as to whether or not I have got this wrong, perhaps he could write to me on the matter.
In subsection (1) of the new Section 6A, a period of six months is mentioned. In subsection (2) it says that every two years a local authority would, so to speak, be obliged to publish a report thereby keeping everyone up to date. I do not necessarily declare an interest in the
78
matter, except when I go home, and no doubt that is shared by my noble neighbour. Going across the M.90, one sees the Earn and the Tay, and indeed both those areas will be familiar to my noble friend.
However, can my noble friend the Minister clarify a query for me on the new section? I do not believe that it would impose a new duty upon local authorities—and I hope my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I am curious simply because it is to be inserted into the legislation. It clearly says that within "six months" local authorities should look at any possibility of flooding on non-agricultural land and that every "two years" they "shall" update the report. If during the course of the Bill's passage my noble friend the Minister could give me some indication as to whether I am right or wrong in that respect, I should be most grateful.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, on the whole, it is a good Bill with good objectives. However, I find it a little curious that it talks about preventing flooding on "non-agricultural land", and then proceeds to abolish some measures for agricultural land which have been operating for 50 years or so. It would therefore appear that the Government do not mind flooding on agricultural land. However, I am sure that that is not the case.
The Government are obviously placing a responsibility on local authorities to assess the likely damage which may be caused. Then they are putting a duty on them to correct any faults that they may find which might result in flooding and which has caused great distress to householders in the past. It is of course a good and necessary thing to do. As I understand it, the Minister said there would be no more money for councils undertaking such work but that, for certain jobs, they may apply to a "challenge fund", if that is the right expression, for a 50 per cent. grant and, if they are lucky, they might get it. No doubt that would be useful to them. However, when we consider the present state of many councils which are cutting back on the number of staff, and so on, it seems to me that they are unlikely to spend a great deal of money—indeed, if they have any—on assessing such dangers.
I have of course considered the Commons' discussion. One or two good points have been made, one of which was made by my honourable friend the Member for Argyll. Is there sufficient co-operation along the whole catchment area of a river? The River Clyde runs through five different authorities. I think it important that a committee with powers should be set up to do this work. A considerable amount of co-operation is needed between the five authorities and unless a statutory body is established it is extremely difficult to achieve that co-operation. This is important work. One must consider the whole length of a river. If a storm occurs at the top of a river, its effects are felt by the people at the bottom end of the river. That must be taken into account. The point about money is important. The figure of 50 per cent. that has been referred to will not serve as a great encouragement in this matter. As I have said, the river must be treated as a whole.

79
Sir Hector Monro referred to people in the agricultural sector who have been lucky enough to receive certain support. They need a three year delay to the repeal of the provision. I understand that the Government are willing to grant them a two year period to put them on the same footing as other landlords throughout Scotland, but is that enough? It takes a long time to establish a proper body to handle these matters. I think this is a good Bill but I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply to the points I have made. It is extremely important that we assess the situation and protect people from having their homes flooded.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having made such a clear statement of the impact and importance of the Bill. We all accept that flooding is a spasmodic phenomenon. However, it seems that the same areas get the worst of it year after year after year. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lye11 and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for the points they have raised.
The general feeling, both here and in the other place, is that this is a worthwhile Bill. The Minister should have made us aware of the fact that the Government will save £150,000 through this measure, unless I read the explanatory notes incorrectly. The money question worries me slightly. According to the explanations given in the Bill, local government will have new responsibilities and new burdens. That must cost more money. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, there will always be the problem—the Clyde is a good example—of area co-operation not being established unless a statutory body is set up. Will any extra money have to be made available to meet the provisions of the Bill? If local authorities have to pay for that, will the Government give them additional borrowing powers until they are reimbursed by the riparian owners, or whoever else is involved?
My next point concerns the nature of flooding. It is important. Will there be an emergency fund to deal with the effects of flash floods which can do enormous damage? Or is that quite a different matter? I am not sure. Flash floods disappear in a week or a fortnight whereas we are talking about long-term phenomena.
These are matters that seem to require some explanation. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide that explanation. If he cannot provide it now, perhaps matters can be tidied up at the Committee stage of the Bill. I welcome the effort the Government appear to be making to lessen the effects of flooding and to improve land drainage in Scotland.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from my noble friend Lord Lyell and from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am especially grateful that all welcome the general principles of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lyell asked about the new duty in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is a new duty placed on councils to prepare and publish reports of the measures
80
they have taken and the measures they think they should take to prevent or mitigate such flooding. As I explained earlier to the House, the duty requires them to report on all occurrences of such flooding. If that answers my noble friend's question I am happy, but if not I can write to him.
The noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Carmichael, inquired about finance. I remind noble Lords that the Government have made available to local authorities an extra £3 million for revenue expenditure to meet the new duties arising from the Bill. Considerable thought has been given, in consultation with CoSLA, to how the £3 million should be distributed across the mainland authorities in Scotland. In addition I mentioned the challenge fund which is a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements as successful bidders will be guaranteed a specific level of capital allocation even when projects take several years to complete. There is also the grant of 50 per cent. of the eligible costs for approved flood prevention schemes which has existed and will continue to exist.
This year the local government settlement in Scotland has been set at a record level. The aggregate external finance at some £5.3 billion is about 42 per cent. higher than the equivalent settlement in England and Wales. The resources are available to local authorities to fund the priorities that they set for their areas. Given the other measures which can be co-ordinated with the Bill, such as NPPG7, we hope that the ability of local authorities to deal better with flood prevention and the promotion of flood defence measures than in the past will mitigate or remove the suffering that has been inflicted on many of the residents of a few specific areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised the important issue of co-ordination and co-operation along the course of a river or around the catchment of a river system. As I set out in my opening speech, NPPG7 encourages councils, where appropriate, to notify the position of any measures they are taking to deal with flooding on one part of the river where that might have an impact on another part of the river which is the responsibility of another council. There is also specific scope for closer co-operation through NPPG7 which anticipates the formation of flood appraisal groups as a means of focusing on cross-boundary issues. We are keen to encourage co-ordinated planning and co-ordinated working between councils which share the same catchment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does that mean that in the Clyde, for instance, there will be a committee comprising the five councils involved who will discuss the whole matter, or once one council has carried out an assessment it will inform the others of that?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord if I have not given him the complete story but, as I understand it, we are encouraging such co-ordinated working rather than prescribing that there must of necessity be such a formal group. We have certainly signalled clearly that where benefits accrue from the joint working, joint working should be adopted.

81
I am grateful to those who have expressed support for the Bill. I hope that the points raised have been dealt with. I believe that it is the wish of the whole House that through this legislation the local authorities and others will more easily be able to prevent or mitigate the suffering that has been inflicted on many through the misery that flooding has caused in the past. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: 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.—(Baroness Anelay of St. Johns.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing outside Greater London]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("; and
(c) the last known owner of the place.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment raises a topic upon which I have touched previously in the course of the Bill's progress. I have not yet received a response, possibly because it deals with only a relatively minor point. In moving Amendment No. 9, I speak also to Amendment No. 20.
The amendment suggests that the last known owner of the premises concerned should also be served with the licensing authority's reasons for deciding to refuse to renew or transfer the licence under the provisions of the Bill. The landlord has rights and remedies of his own which may be valuable in supporting the principle underlying the Bill; namely, to ensure that those who are responsible for licensed premises operate properly and take proper measures to protect the people who may be tempted to come there. The landlord has interests of his own to protect and should be informed at an early stage if the licence is in jeopardy. The landlord may be in a position to exert pressure on the licence holder in addition to pressure brought by the police or the licensing authority.
I accept that to some extent the amendment is imprecise. It simply refers to
"the last known owner of the place".
It does not indicate to whom the knowledge should be ascribed. It does not distinguish between a freehold owner and a leasehold owner. I hope that the principle underlying the amendment, and the suggestion implicit in it, finds favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: This is a modest but useful pair of amendments. I hope that the amendments can be
82
accepted. As the noble Lord said, the owner has a wholly legitimate interest in what goes on in his property. He—it may be an individual or a corporate body—is better placed than most to lean upon the tenant, who is presumably the licensed holder, to persuade him to do everything in his power to eliminate drug dealing from the premises in question.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: This power is to be used in an emergency situation. If the owner has had the wisdom to be the joint licence holder, he will of course be told. But I am anxious that no provision is inserted into the Bill that will inhibit the local authority from acting speedily. The responsibility of telling the owner must lie with the licence holder. If they are joint licence holders, he will be told. I hope that the amendment will be considered again because I believe that there is a danger that it could delay the implementation of the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, explained, the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the owners of premises who are not necessarily the licence holders are kept informed of any action by the local authority. I appreciate the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, moved the amendments and the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Perhaps I may give an explanation as regards the consultation procedure of which noble Lords may not be aware. The need to inform third parties who have a significant economic interest in any enforcement action is covered by the enforcement procedures in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The application of those procedures to public entertainment licensing generally is currently the subject of consultation. That consultation is already well advanced. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will agree to withdraw the amendments.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government understand the concerns that those who have a significant interest in premises other than the licence holder should be kept informed of any enforcement action taken by local authorities under the Bill. As my noble friend said, public consultation is currently under way about the possible application to public entertainment licensing of the five enforcement powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. One of those powers relates specifically to keeping third parties with a significant economic interest in a business informed of enforcement action against the licence holder. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Meston: I am grateful for the information from the noble Baroness and the Minister. It is reassuring to know that something is being done under the umbrella of other legislation.
Perhaps I may deal with one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee. The provision would in no way inhibit swift action in an emergency. The provision deals with notifying a landlord after the decision has been made. It presupposes that the Bill is enacted in something like its present form. Therefore the

83
amendment provides simply that the landlord is told that the decision has already been made, not that it is being contemplated. I do not believe that it would hold up in any way the processes of the Bill as they may operate in seriously urgent cases.
However, having heard what I have heard, I am more than happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 10, after ("police") insert ("stating").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 13 when I referred to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert ("and giving reasons for his view that there is such a problem.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 17, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 37, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 24 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 25.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("where") to end of line 46 and insert ("a decision is made under paragraph 6A(5) or 11A(4) above means the date on which the person in question is notified of the decision.";").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38.
Again, these amendments respond to points raised by the club trade. Members of the trade are worried that in providing for the start of the period within which a
84
licence holder may bring an appeal against a local authority revocation or non-renewal, from the date on which those representations are considered, under the Bill as presently drafted there may then be a delay which could cut down the time allowed for the appeal.
This amendment therefore proposes that the time for the appeal should run from the date on which the person in question is notified of the decision rather than from the date on which representations are considered. I accept that that would indeed be a fairer approach. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought forward this amendment. It introduces a measure of clarity into the Bill that was lacking in the original draft.
The Earl of Courtown: As my noble friend said, these amendments respond to the suggestion that the licence holder could be disadvantaged by dating the appeal period from when representations are considered. This amendment would change that, to start the appeal period running from when the licence holder is notified of the decision taken by the local authority. The Government support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("() in sub-paragraph (3) (appeals against decision of magistrates' court), after "under this paragraph" insert "or under paragraph 12(5) above";").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 39.
It was brought to my attention that there was a difficulty with the Bill as it stands if, when a magistrates' court decided to revoke a licence after a conviction for breach of a licence condition, the person who lost his licence was not also the offender. An offender can already appeal against a sentence under Section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; but a licence holder who is not the offender would have to rely on the case stated procedure. This amendment establishes clearly the right of appeal of the licence holder in such circumstances from the decision by a magistrates' court to revoke a licence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown: The Government support this amendment. It establishes the right of appeal to the Crown Court against the decision to revoke a licence by a magistrates' court after a conviction for breach of a licence condition in circumstances where the licence holder is not also the offender.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 8, after ("licence") insert ("and any special hours certificate granted under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 29. These amendments concern the impact of the Bill as presently drafted upon the special hours certificate.
The position, as explained at Second Reading, appears to be that, even if a licence under the provisions of the Bill is reinstated either pending appeal or as a result of appeal, it does not automatically revive the special hours certificate, for which there are separate procedures. I believe that was an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. It is for that reason that these amendments were tabled. I notice that they are grouped with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which leads me to suspect that her amendments are probably better drafted than mine. Nevertheless, if we are all rowing in the same direction, I should be grateful to hear it. For the purposes of introducing the debate, I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: In responding to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in relation to his Amendments Nos. 27 and 29, I should also like to speak to my Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to which he referred.
The difficulty with the Bill as it stands and as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was raised by the club trade. The difficulty was also brought to my attention by the justices' clerk to my own Bench in Woking. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, will know, when he tells me something I believe him—more or less, and certainly on this occasion. I recognise that in the event of a successful appeal, a club ought not to be penalised by a delay in re-obtaining its special hours certificate, which would have lapsed automatically with revocation or non-renewal of a public entertainments licence.
The amendments in my name rectify the position by enabling any special hours certificate to be reinstated in the instance where a licence is reinstated by a local authority following representations by the licence holder, and also in the event of a successful appeal against revocation in the courts. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will accept that my amendments deal adequately with the issue and will agree to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Perhaps I may join the noble Baroness in deferring to the learned clerk of the North West Surrey Bench. I, too, therefore prefer the wording of Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to that of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The Earl of Courtown: My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have recognised that club owners whose appeals are successful will be disadvantaged if they then have to wait while their application for a special hours certificate is processed. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 rectify the position. They are supported by the Government.
Lord Meston: Sometimes it is very irritating that magistrates are so supine that they always do what their clerks tell them. However, on this occasion I am more than happy that at least two of the magistrates present
86
in the Committee this evening have accepted the good advice received. On the basis of the argument we have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
("(7B) An authority which refuses to renew or revokes a licence under paragraph 6A or 11A above may order that the licence shall remain in force (subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as may be imposed)—

(a) until the time for bringing an appeal against the refusal to renew or revocation has expired; and

(b) if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal,

and if such an order is made any special hours certificate granted under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964 shall also remain in force for the same period.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes up a point raised at Second Reading and draws attention to an apparent anomaly in the Bill. At Second Reading, the noble Earl confirmed that it was not possible that, where the local authority revokes a licence, the licence can be kept in being pending an appeal, albeit temporarily, but if the revocation is ordered by the magistrates' court, the court has power to order the licence to remain in force pending appeal. That does appear to be an anomaly. If the court may do it, why cannot a local authority do it, exercising a similar power with a similar right of appeal? It is common for there to be a provision for a stay pending appeal. That provision is discretionary; the stay is unlikely to be granted if the appeal appears to the authority or the court concerned to be absolutely hopeless. However, it deprives the licence holder of the opportunity to persuade the authority to keep the licence in being pending an appeal if the licence holder can give reassurances that he or she will do whatever is required of him or her to keep the business on the straight and narrow pending an appeal. The alternative may be that the fruits of his appeal are lost to him because, although he may win on his appeal, his business is gone. That must be a matter for discretion. I do not suggest that the discretion need be exercised generously, but it is an anomaly on the face of the Bill which I question seriously. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The thinking behind the amendment appears to be that there will be cases, perhaps on the margin, where, despite a local authority accepting that there is a serious problem relating to the supply and use of drugs at or near the premises and that the licence should be revoked, there may still be circumstances which would lead a local authority to let the club stay open pending the outcome of any appeal.
I cannot see why such a power could be useful or relevant in those circumstances. The Bill provides that if the authority decides to take action, it can either revoke the licence or impose terms, conditions or restrictions after satisfying itself that to do so will significantly assist in dealing with the problem. A local authority is convinced either that varying the terms and conditions and allowing the club to stay open is justified, or that the problem is so serious that the club should close forthwith.

87
We must accept one of those two. If accepted, the amendment would only produce further uncertainty and the opportunity for indecision. I am sure that local authorities are perfectly capable of considering all the evidence as it arises and making the correct decision at that stage. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Courtown: The provisions of the Bill give the authority clear options, as stated by my noble friend. After hearing all the evidence, it may decide to take no action and impose terms and conditions or revoke the licence after satisfying itself that to do so will assist in dealing with the problem. If the step to revoke the licence is taken, that should be the end of the matter. We should avoid introducing further complications by allowing the option of letting a club stay open while it goes through the appeals process. I join my noble friend in asking the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Earl agree that the court has power to allow that to happen? Why should the court have the power but not the authority?
The Earl of Courtown: The noble Lord raises an interesting point, but I do not have the answer. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also raised some interesting points and if the Committee will allow it, I shall write to both noble Lords.
Lord Meston: It is a point of consistency which was raised at Second Reading. For the life of me, I cannot see why a local authority should not have the same power, albeit a power exercised sparingly, as is undoubtedly given to the court in analogous situations. It is that point and that point alone which motivates the amendment.
The Minister said that the licensing authority makes its decision and that should be the end of the matter. However, the amendment recognises that it is not the end of the matter. The end may well be an appeal. The limited objective of the amendment is to allow people at least to apply to the licensing authority to be allowed to remain in business, subject to whatever terms, conditions and restrictions may be imposed, until the appeal is determined. That is not an unusual power which I seek to introduce into the machinery of the Bill.
It has already been recognised in our earlier discussions that the procedures which may operate under the Bill and under the guidance which will ultimately be perfected are not necessarily perfect procedures. It may well be that there are marginal cases in which something has gone seriously wrong and where an appeal is justified and may well succeed. But it will be too late from the point of view of the licence holder. For that reason—
The Earl of Courtown: With the leave of the Committee, I did not answer the question posed by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Monson. However, I undertake to write to both of them and to discuss the detail before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. It remains a curiosity which needs to be cleared up, in my submission. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Licensing in Greater London]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 26, after ("situated") insert ("stating").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 30 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and giving reasons for his view that there is such a problem.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 36:
Page 3, line 30, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
Page 4, line 5, after ("situated") insert ("stating").
Page 4, line 6. at end insert ("and giving reasons for his view that there is such a problem.").
Page 4, line 11, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
Page 4, line 32, after ("will") insert ("significantly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert ("and for "the next following sub-paragraph" substitute "sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor drafting amendment. It improves the drafting of paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963 which applies to Greater London and makes provision for appeals. The amendment simply substitutes for a reference to, "the next following sub-paragraph" a reference to "sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph" paragraph 19. The meaning, I am assured, is unaltered. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 46, leave out from ("where") to end of line 3 on page 5 and insert ("a decision is made under paragraph 2A(5) or 9A(4) of this Schedule means the date on which the person in question is notified of the decision.":").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
("() in sub-paragraph (2) (appeals against decision of magistrates' court), for "on an appeal under the foregoing sub-paragraph" substitute "under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph or under paragraph 10(4A) of this Schedule";").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION FOR SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES
(". In section 81 of the Licensing Act 1964 (revocation of special hours certificates), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Where a special hours certificate is revoked under subsection (1) above as a consequence of a licence being revoked under—

(a) paragraph 11A(2) or 12(5) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, or

(b) paragraph 9A(2) or 10(4A) of Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963,

the certificate shall be reinstated if the licence is reinstated under paragraph 11A(4) or 17 of Schedule 1 or paragraph 9A(4) or 19 of Schedule 12."").
The noble Baroness said: I referred to this amendment when Amendment No. 27 was discussed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("and 2") and insert ("to (Consequential provision for special hours certificates)").
The noble Baroness said: I also spoke to this amendment when we discussed Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.5 p.m.]

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 34, line 11, at end insert ("; and
(c) any person who has suffered from mental illness for which he has been treated by a doctor or in a hospital and who the court accepts is likely to suffer ill effects if required to give evidence in court.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My problem has been that there are genuine difficulties in defining people who are suffering from mental illness and who deserve the recognition that this clause gives to others. But the Committee will see from Amendment No. 134 that I speak of a person suffering from a mental illness:
"for which he has been treated by a doctor or in a hospital and who the court accepts is likely to suffer ill effects if required to give evidence in court".
In a sense that mirrors a provision already contained in the clause as it stands. Before we rose for the brief adjournment, I mentioned that I was concerned about people suffering from simple—or fairly severe—depression, which amounts to a great many people. One person in four in our society will suffer from some form of depression in his or her lifetime and others suffer from nervous illness.
The safeguards in respect of the matters to which the noble and learned Lord referred are, first, that there is a commissioner appointed; secondly, a video link may be used—it may be a live link in court; and, thirdly, other protections contained in the clause itself. In all those circumstances I should have thought it possible for the Government to recognise that a person suffering from a mental illness for which he has required treatment ought to be able to apply to the court—or the prosecutor or the defence ought to be able to apply on his or her behalf—to show that there may be ill effects if that person is required to give evidence. Accordingly, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Mackay of DrumadoonI have already indicated the Government's position in respect of this amendment when speaking earlier to Amendment No. 132B. I need not repeat anything that I said on that occasion.
In simple terms, our objection is that, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is correct that one in four members of our society suffers from some form or another of depression, potentially a very large number of people will qualify under this additional category of vulnerable witness. All that would be required would be for an individual to say that he had been a little depressed, had gone along to a general practitioner, recounted the depression to the GP and had received pills of some kind to calm down the depression. He would then be through the first gateway in the new subsection. The court would need to embark upon an examination of whether someone who had taken pills for nerves in the past was likely to suffer a bit more depression or nervous tension in giving evidence in court.

91
All those who have practised in the courts appreciate that giving evidence is a fairly stressful business. The concern is that the amendment would lead to a large number of applications from people who, for one reason or another, were unwilling to give evidence in open court. They would become aware of the existence of this power and seek to persuade the procurator fiscal or the defence to make an application relating to them. If the application was successful, it would lead to an increasing number of people giving evidence from behind screens or over the CCTV link. If it was unsuccessful, it would take time to resolve, and create difficulties in getting trials up and running.
This is obviously an anxious matter. As I explained earlier, we considered it fully and I hope, in those circumstances, that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McCluskey: The reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was dismissive of mental health problems. It is not simply a question of people wanting to take a few pills and going off to a doctor. Some people suffer from mental health problems and would find a court atmosphere extremely distressing. Most people do not want to avoid going to court; most are quite happy to do so.
I hope with this amendment I have sown a small seed and that on a future occasion the Government will consider consulting people in the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the King's Fund Institute and other such bodies, to see whether or not there is support for this type of proposal. In the meantime, as invited, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Routine evidence]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 34, line 12, leave out from beginning to second ("the") and insert ("Schedule 9 to the 1995 Act (routine evidence) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B) below.
(1A) In").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 135, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 and 158. These are technical amendments which seek to amend Schedule 9 to the 1995 Act. They insert a revised entry in that schedule in respect of the Video Recordings Act 1984 to insert a provision which was unfortunately overlooked at consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 34, line 19, at end insert—
("(1B) In the entry relating to the Video Recordings Act 1984, for the words in the second and third columns there shall be substituted the words in, respectively, the left and right hand columns below—

"A person authorised to do so by the secretary of State, being a person who has examined the record maintained in pursuance of arrangements made by the designated authority and in the case of a certificate in terms of—

That the record shows any of the following—

(a) sub-paragraph (a) in column been issued; 3, the video work mentioned in that sub-paragraph;

(a) in respect of a video work (or part of a video work) contained in a video recording identified by the certificate, that by a date specified no classification certificate had been issued;

(b) sub-paragraph (b) in that column, both video works mentioned in that sub-paragraph

(b) in respect of a video work which is the subject of a certificate under sub-paragraph (a) above, that the video work differs in a specified way from another video work contained in a video recording identified in the certificate under this sup-paragraph and that, on a date specified, a classification certificate was issued in respect of that other video work;

(c) that, by a date specified, no classification certificate had been issued in respect of a video work having a particular title;

(d) that, on a date specified, a classification certificate was issued in respect of a video work having a particular title and that a document which is identified in the certificate under this sub-paragraph is a copy of the classification certificate so issued; expressions used in column 2, or in this column, of this entry being construed in accordance with that Act; and in each of sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) above "specified" means specified in the certificate under that sub-paragraph.".

(1C) Section 5 of the Video Recordings Act 1993 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 136A:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
CONTINUITY OF SENTENCING
(" .—(1) This section has effect for the purpose of securing that, where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of an offence—

(a) to which this section applies; and

93

(b) which is committed after the commencement of this Part, he serves approximately the same time in prison as he would have served if the offence had been committed immediately before that commencement.

(2) The court by which a person is so sentenced at any time shall impose a term which is equal to two-thirds of the term which, at that time, it would have considered to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed.
(3) This section applies to any offence other than one—

(a) which did not subsist, or was not punishable with imprisonment, immediately before the commencement of this Part: or

(b) for which the maximum sentence of imprisonment that may he imposed has been varied after that commencement.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 136A raises an important question of principle. It proposes introducing a clause which those Members of the Committee who attended the proceedings of the Crimes (Sentences) Bill will recognise as being a clause lifted from that Bill. As amended in Committee, that clause is now Clause 23—"Continuity of sentencing".
The importance of the matter is this. When it was announced in October 1995 at the Conservative Party conference that certain measures were to be taken, the general impression sought to be given was that people would serve in prison the time imposed by the court. Many people applauded that because many thought it was a charade by the judge to impose a certain number of years and for the prisoner to serve one-half or two-thirds of that time. The notion was given the name "honesty in sentencing" or, alternatively, "truth in sentencing".
The idea of truth in sentencing originated not in these islands, but abroad. I have referred before to the fact that in the Commonwealth, in New South Wales, the sentencing Act 1989 introduced this idea. On that occasion the Parliament in New South Wales was told that Ministers had no intention of making sentences longer. It was also said that there would be no extra pressure on New South Wales prisons, which were already overcrowded.
In Scotland, as in England, the prisons are already overcrowded. Those who care to check that against Answers given in the autumn of 1995 to Questions asked by myself will find that the Government concede that the prisons are substantially overcrowded, both north and south of the Border.
The concept of truth in sentencing was invented by the Commonwealth of Australia Law Commission. It proposed that persons who were convicted should serve in prison 70 per cent. of the time imposed by the judge; they should have 10 per cent. off automatically and 20 per cent. should be an earned release possibility. That means one could earn one-fifth; one-tenth came off automatically; and the rest one had to serve. Judges had to prescribe a minimum and remission was abolished altogether.
That Act came into force in New South Wales on 1st January 1990 when the prison population was 4,891. Four years later the prison population, contrary to the assurances given by Ministers, was 6,440—an increase of 1,549; a 32 per cent. increase. Members of the Committee will be aware that the population of New
94
South Wales is roughly comparable to that of Scotland. Therefore, despite the assurances of Ministers, there was a 32 per cent. increase in the population of the prisons on the basis of so-called "truth in sentencing". Five new prisons had to be built in New South Wales in that period, one of them a private one. The Australian Institute of Criminology studied the relationship between the prison population and the crime rate and could find no correlation whatever between them.
I drew attention to the experience of the United States and Australia, particularly New South Wales, in the SACRO lecture which I gave in 1995 before these proposals were announced; I mentioned it also in my response to the Government's paper—Making the Punishment Fit the Crime—early in 1996; and I mentioned it again in response to the Crime and Punishment paper in June 1996. I now draw attention to Clause 23 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which is mirrored in my amendment. That is a proposal in the English Bill that judges should deduct one-third from the term they impose from the period they would consider appropriate had they sentenced before the Bill came into effect.
When the matter was put up for consultation in Scotland, the then Lord Justice General—I am afraid he is no longer in his place—made it plain in his response to the Government's proposals:
"It is unlikely that sentencing judges will reduce the length of the determinate sentences which they impose to reflect the change in policy".
The then Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, said in his response:
"Possible remission is not a factor which has any relevant bearing to the length of sentence imposed by the judge".
For good measure, I responded in the same terms.
What has been done in the English Bill is that a clause has been put in to ensure that there is continuity of sentencing; in other words, to ensure that the prison population does not go through the roof. At the moment, it appears that in Scotland the prison population will increase by some 40 per cent. That would be shocking north of the Border when it is not happening south of the Border. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: I rise to support the amendment and in so doing I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on bringing this to the attention of the Committee. The importance of the clause is that it brings together honesty in sentencing which will be explicit and also the need to set a regime within which the prisons of Scotland can be properly managed. If there is no change in sentencing policy, we shall be faced with an explosion in the prison population. We already have overcrowded prisons in Scotland. The resources that the Government have indicated will be applied to the building of new prisons are inadequate set against the potential of the early release arrangements. The amendment at least has the great merit of bringing a degree of honesty, openness and transparency into the whole process. I support it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In opposing the amendment perhaps I may remind the Committee of

95
what I said last week. None of the provisions of the Bill would be brought into effect until the Government were satisfied that there were sufficient prison resources to cope with any increased prison population that might result. Therefore, with respect to those who have spoken, I am not sure that that factor is of importance.
The critical matter is whether this Committee wishes to accept an amendment which would depart from the practice that has been followed by Scottish judges of leaving these matters out of account—the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is quite right in explaining that they have left them out of account—or whether it wishes the Scottish courts to take them into account in the way that happens south of the Border.
There is and has been a divergence of approach, which is why the Crime (Sentences) Bill contains a Clause 23 and our Bill does not. South of the Border the sentences currently being imposed reflect the provisions on early release which were introduced into the law of England by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. When that Act came into force in 1992, after he had consulted with the Lords Justice who presided in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), the then Lord Chief Justice made a practice direction setting out a new approach to sentencing—one which took account of the new provisions for release included in the 1991 Act. The direction advised the sentencing judges to have regard to the actual period likely to be served and to the risk of offenders serving longer under the 1991 Act's system than under the previous regime. It referred in particular to the reduction in the possibilities of parole which would result under the provisions of the 1991 Act.
Moreover, when courts in England and Wales specify the "relevant part" of a life sentence, which, as Members of the Committee will know, is the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence, they are obliged by Section 34(2) of the 1991 Act to take into account the provisions applicable to lifers as compared with those for determinate sentence prisoners, which include the possibility of parole at one-half of sentence and the virtual certainty of release after two-thirds of the sentence has been spent in custody. There is no similar provision applicable in Scotland. That is part of the background against which the Lord Chief Justice of the day felt it appropriate to issue the practice direction. It follows therefore that judges in England and Wales currently take account of the law on early release, and that is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided to include the provision in the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
No equivalent action was taken by the Scottish judiciary when the 1993 Act came into force. No act of adjournal, practice direction or any sentencing guidelines came into being which directed sentencing judges in Scotland to follow a similar approach to that which is followed in England. As the noble and learned Lord has made clear, in response to the consultation paper and indeed to the White Paper, the former Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, indicated that such a consideration would not be taken into account.
96
That was the position when the Government came to decide upon the provisions to be included in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. Contrary to any impression which I may have given at Second Reading, I do not wish to suggest that the Government consulted as to whether or not the clause set out in the amendment should be included in the Bill. On the contrary, they took the view that, in the light of the clear information provided to the Government by the Scottish judges as to the irrelevance of early release provisions, it would be inappropriate to propose such a proposal.
The position in Scotland is therefore that the judiciary advised us that it is its practice not to take account of early release when sentencing. It has not been suggested, prior to today's amendment, that the practice should be changed. We do not think it is appropriate to do so. It is suggested that this provision has something to do with honesty in sentencing. I am not sure I fully understand what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, had to say on that matter. What the Government have in mind with regard to honesty in sentencing is ending what Lord Ross called the "charade" of current sentencing procedure in terms of which one sentence is imposed and a lower sentence—in some cases as low as 50 per cent.—is served. We have no particular view on what the appropriate size of the prison population might be. What we have is a commitment not to bring these provisions into force until we are satisfied that the prison places are there. If the judges wish to adjust their general level of sentencing after the provisions of the Bill come into force, that is entirely a matter for them.
There are a number of ways in which that might be achieved, but it would be for the courts to decide what was the correct way forward. It is a matter which the Lord Advocate of the day would have to consider with the Lord Justice General. A variety of ideas come to mind, some of which I have mentioned already. The first is that the court should pass an act of adjournal setting out in the form of secondary legislation the extent to which sentencing judges should have regard. If that were to be the case they would require to look at the law as it is at the moment under the 1993 Act; the circumstances in which release can be considered at 50 per cent. subject to consideration by the Parole Board; the extent to which release is automatic at two-thirds subject to any extension for bad behaviour or misconduct in prison which has led to additional days being imposed on the sentence; and they would have to consider the provisions under the 1993 Act that entitle the court when dealing with a further offence after release, to order that the balance of the original sentence be served. Those are matters which an act of adjournal can deal with if the court thought that was the way to proceed. Another alternative would be for the Lord Justice General, either on his own or more likely when sitting in the appeal court, to issue sentencing guidelines which direct the court how to proceed. Again, that would involve going over the provisions of the 1993 Act, including the various chapters that I have mentioned as regards the right to seek parole at 50 per cent. of the sentence; the right to be released

97
automatically after two-thirds; and the provisions for the sentence to be served, if it is outstanding, in the event of further offending.
These are all matters which the appeal court judges would have to consider if that was the way they chose to go forward. We believe that it would be a serious mistake for this House or the Government to set out on the face of the Bill how Scottish judges should change their approach to these matters in view of the advice we have received. It may assist the Committee if I go into a little detail as to what that is. Some reference was made earlier to the views of Lord Ross. He said,
"Under the arrangements for the release of prisoners which presently exist, I regard myself when imposing sentence as taking part in something of the nature of a charade".
I may be wrong, but I believe that at an earlier stage in the Committee's deliberations, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, agreed that "charade" was not an inappropriate word to describe what was going on at the present time.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: Will the noble and learned Lord please stop quoting selectively from the Lord Justice Clerk? He said,
"I consider the correct balance would be struck if the maximum remission were fixed at one-third of sentence".
So he adopted the word "charade" in very specialised circumstances. I have before me his representation to the Government. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord should quote it selectively in the way that he is doing.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I apologise for quoting selectively. I have the whole document here and I am happy to go back to its full terms and to be quite clear on the full detail of what the then Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, said. He did not deal with all the proposals set out in the White Paper, but under a sub-heading "Sentencing" in reference to paragraph 17.61 of the White Paper, he discussed the provisions for automatic life sentences. I do not know that it is necessary to go through that. In the next couple of pages of the document he deals with that in some detail. I assume that it is not intended that I should read all that.
He then turns to the sub-heading under paragraph 17.62, which deals with the matter we discussed at the last sitting of the Committee; namely, the question of increasing sentencing powers in the sheriff's summary and sheriff's solemn courts. I am just looking through that to see if there is anything that I should draw to the attention of the Committee. I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me because I am having some difficulty in finding the relevant paragraphs. I have only a quotation in my notes and perhaps I can come back to the matter in a moment. Perhaps it can be found for me.
I assure Members of the Committee that I have no intention of being selective. I am quite happy to discuss the full detail of what was in the response of Lord Ross, as I am to discuss the full detail of what is in the response of other senators of the College of Justice who responded in the consultation to this particular measure.
98
As I hope I have sought to make clear, the Government took the view that when judges of the seniority of Lord Ross have that view as to what they are doing when passing sentence and the public are therefore alarmed by the fact that the judges are saying such things, there is a clear danger that confidence in the criminal justice system may be undermined. I have now had the passage pointed out to me and perhaps I may read out the whole of it so I avoid any criticism of being selective in my quotations. Lord Ross said,
"As a judge who has been engaged in sentencing in the High Court of Justiciary for a period in excess of 19 years, I share some of the concerns expressed in the consultation paper".
These are concerns set out on behalf of the Government in the consultation paper for the benefit of consultees to respond to.
"While I recognise the benefit of parole in the case of long-term prisoners and that prisoners must have some incentive to behave during their sentence, I have for some time felt concerned that prisoners are released long before their sentences have expired".
If I may say so, that is a very telling observation indeed. Here one has a man who at that stage was the second most senior judge in Scotland advising the Government that judges who sentence in Scotland, as a matter of practice, have to ignore the provisions for early release set out in the relevant legislation in imposing sentence and yet having all the time a concern that prisoners are released long before their sentences have expired. I would have thought that that would strike a chord in the ears of many listeners and certainly, I hope, in the ears of Members of the Committee.
Lord Ross continues,
"Under the arrangements for early release of prisoners which presently exist, I regard myself when imposing sentence as taking part in something in the nature of a charade".
That was the passage that I quoted earlier. Lord Ross goes on to say,
"I say this because if I impose a sentence of three years imprisonment upon a prisoner, I know and he knows that unless he commits a breach of prison discipline he will be released when he has served half only of the sentence which I have imposed so that to all intents and purposes three years means 18 months. Likewise, if for a serious crime I impose a sentence of 12 years imprisonment, the prisoner knows and I know that he will be eligible for parole after he has served six years of his sentence and that even if parole is not granted he will be automatically released on licence after he has served eight years of the 12 years sentence. It has always appeared to me that the result of these arrangements is that the public are really being misled as to the sentences which are imposed upon offenders".
Again, I pause to observe that it is the view of the second senior judge in Scotland that the public are being misled. I venture to suggest that that is not a very happy state of affairs. Lord Ross goes on to say,
"When a heavy sentence is imposed in the case of some very serious crime, that is widely reported in the press, but the public are not told that the person who has received this lengthy sentence will be eligible for parole when he has served half his sentence and will be entitled to automatic release after serving two thirds of his sentence. I therefore support the view that to ensure credibility in sentencing all those sentenced to imprisonment should be required to serve greater periods than are prescribed under the present arrangements".

99
Lord Ross went on to say—this touches on a matter with which we shall deal later, but it may be convenient if I refer to it now—
"However, I am not persuaded that it would be practicable to require all prisoners to serve their full sentence in custody. If good order and discipline are to be maintained in prisons, it is necessary that prisoners should be given some incentive to behave. The only practical incentive is an offer of remission. The Government proposal is that a maximum of possibly one-sixth of a sentence might be available by way of remission. Given the history of remission in this country, I doubt whether remission of one-sixth would be adequate".
Lord Ross then described the situation since parole was introduced in 1967, touched on the Kincraig Committee report, to which reference has already been made, and referred to the provisions of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. That is the 1993 Act to which I have been referring.
Lord Ross added:
"In my judgment, it is necessary to strike the right balance between requiring prisoners to serve a substantial part of the sentence imposed by the court and the need to offer them some incentive to behave while in prison. I do not believe that the proper balance is achieved at present. I consider that the correct balance would be struck if the maximum remission were fixed at one-third of the sentence, that being the situation prior to the introduction of parole in 1967. I do not consider that the present arrangement, whereby remission is for all intents and purposes fixed at one-half, is appropriate. On the other hand, I also believe that the Government's suggestion that remission should be a maximum of one-sixth is insufficient. In my opinion, the public would be likely to have more confidence in the criminal justice system if it knew that every prisoner would require to serve at least two-thirds of his sentence. I appreciate that they might have greater confidence in the criminal justice system if remission was restricted to one-sixth of the sentence, but I would anticipate that with remission at that level there might be problems in maintaining good order and discipline within prisons. If remission was fixed at one-third, as it was prior to 1967, sentencing would in my judgment become less misleading than it presently is".
So there one has it. Lord Ross acknowledged that the parole and early release provisions are left out of the account, but equally he informed the Government, in response to the consultation exercise, that what happens now contributes to a loss of confidence in the system. Clearly, there is a difference of view with regard to the maximum amount of remission between him on the one hand and the Government on the other, Lord Ross wanting remission of one-third and the Bill specifying remission of one-sixth. In my submission, however, that provides a fair measure of support for the provisions.
It was having heard what Lord Ross had to say—a view which was clearly not limited to himself—that the Government decided that it was necessary to act. We have been accused of playing politics in the matter. I reject that criticism but even if there was validity in it, so be it because if the Government are informed that a charade is taking place, the time must have come to do something about it—and that is what the Bill seeks to achieve.
If the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, were accepted, it would rewrite the history of sentencing and would do so without, as I understand it, having the universal support of the noble and learned Lord's colleagues in the judiciary. If
100
that step were to be taken, that would be another way in which the public's confidence in sentencing might be undermined. We take the view that that would be a retrograde step.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have indicated that it is not being suggested that this part of sentencing procedure should be interfered with. If judges are unlikely to reduce sentences to reflect the changes in our procedures, so be it, but it would be wrong to interfere without bringing forward reasons to justify specific proposals. We have been criticised on more than one occasion during proceedings on this Bill for interfering unnecessarily with the discretion of the courts. I do not want to retrace that ground because we have already had extensive debates on the matter but in the present situation, where the courts are saying what their practice is, where nobody is complaining to the Government that that practice should change and where the Government for their part do not consider that the practice should change, we believe that it would be a serious error for us to promote such a proposal. Indeed, we believe that it would be a serious error for us to accept this proposal, which comes so late in the Bill—
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is your Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggests that it is our Bill. This Bill has been debated over a long period of time in another place. I am sure that the noble Lord will have read the report of the deliberations on the Bill in another place: what was said at Second Reading and on Report but, most particularly, what was said during the seven or eight days of Committee stage there—
Lord Sewel: Are we going to hear all that now?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I have no intention of unnecessarily repeating all that was said then, but I resist the criticism implied by the offstage comment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that this is our Bill. There has been ample opportunity for the Opposition to table amendments of this nature if they deemed that appropriate. They did not do so in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading in another place. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I believe that this amendment stands in the name of only the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, so it is not only rather late in the day that—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sorry. Perhaps I am wrong and if so I stand corrected. Indeed, I see that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is also to the amendment. Although there may be some significance in the order in which the names appear, I fully accept that the amendment stands also in the noble Lord's name.
To return to what I was saying, this amendment comes very late in the day. It is not one upon which the Government until now have thought it appropriate to consult. It was obvious from the issues raised at Second

101
Reading that there had been no consultation on the matter. The amendment is tabled. I am unaware of any support from other members of the judiciary that this significant change in practice should take place. As I recall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in moving the amendment, based the case upon experience in New South Wales in particular where inadequate prison places had been provided before the legislation was brought into force. That is contrary to the position as we will have it. He also relied on experience in America. Having discussed that earlier, that too is contrary to what the Bill is about. The lateness of the amendment should hardly persuade the Committee that it is appropriate to incorporate this major change.
I have so many notes before me.
Lord Hope of Craighead: While the noble and learned Lord is sorting out his notes, perhaps I may try to assist the Committee. I apologise for not being present when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, moved his amendment. While I do not support the amendment, perhaps I may make one or two points to put the matter in perspective. The amendment reveals a very important point about the difference in function between the judge on the one hand and government on the other. As far as concerns judges, continuity in sentencing patterns is of great importance. The judiciary is frequently criticised for failing to be consistent in the imposition of sentences. Nothing is more conducive to confusion in the public mind than a sudden reduction or increase in the nominal sentence that is imposed for a particular crime. That was what underlay the view of Lord Ross, which I entirely shared, and formed the basis of my advice to government, when asked, that it was not right for judges to alter their view about the length of sentence that was appropriate for a particular crime.
On the other hand, there is the responsibility of government to consider what should be done with the prisoner after the sentence has been imposed. If it is a custodial sentence part of the function is to keep the prisoner in custody in suitable conditions for as long as may be appropriate. But the very important philosophy that has underlay the policy until now is to try to rehabilitate the prisoner and, by that means, prevent reoffending. It was for that reason that the Kincraig Committee thought it appropriate to improve and redesign the measures for the early release of long-term prisoners but coupled with conditions to ensure that any such release was on licence.
I believe that the use of phrases such as "honesty in sentencing" and, with the greatest of respect to Lord Ross, the description of the function of a judge as a "charade", tend to overlook the fact that the nominal sentence remains with the accused until it has been exhausted. It is true that in many cases half-way through the sentence parole is given and the prisoner is released. If the prisoner reoffends or a licence condition is broken the prisoner can be brought back. One sees increasing use being made of Section 16 of the Prisoners and
102
Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 to require prisoners who reoffend during a period after release to serve additional periods in custody.
I believe that nowhere more dramatic can this difference in function be seen than in the imposition of life sentences. What strikes one as a most extraordinary paradox is the flag that the Government appear to wave in this part of the Bill in favour of honesty in sentencing—that is to say, making sure that the prisoner remains in custody for as long as possible—while at the same insisting in Clause 1 that a life sentence should be imposed in a situation where everyone knows that no one will be required to serve a sentence of life imprisonment. It is a complete misnomer of the sentence that is imposed under Clause 1 and it demonstrates, without being unduly critical of the Government, that in this field the idea of searching for honesty in matching the time spent in custody with the length of sentence imposed by the judge is not something that is capable of being achieved if the broad aims of custodial sentences are to be maintained.
That is part of the background. That was the reason why I took the view—perhaps my successor will take the same view—that it was undesirable that judges should be told by Act of Parliament to reduce or increase the length of sentences to match what the Government believed to be appropriate for the early release, or for reducing the earliness of release, of prisoners who had been sentenced to custodial sentences.
I believe it was suggested by the noble and learned Lord that this matter could be dealt with in other ways. He suggested that it might be done by means of an act of adjournal, a practice direction or by the court. It is important to reflect on these matters because they place the amendment of my noble and learned friend in context. As far as concerns an act of adjournal, I considered that question in connection with another matter, which I need not describe to the Committee. I took the view that it was not right for the court in its administrative capacity—which is what an act of adjournal is all about—to direct judges what to do in their judicial functions. Sentencing is pre-eminently a judicial matter and an act of adjournal deals with rules of procedure. That is a quite different chapter as regards the way in which the court runs its affairs.
As far as concerns a practice direction, the objection was even stronger. A practice direction is made by the senior judge—which I was—in his administrative capacity. I took the view that it would be quite wrong for me by means of a practice direction to direct the judges, who were all independent, about what they should do in matters of sentencing. Indeed, I fully expected that any direction I gave on that matter would be disregarded, very properly, by those judges to whom it was directed. The only solution would be for the court by means of its decisions, taking full account of the structure of legislation for the time being and all its implications, to give guidance so that judges and sheriffs would know what the court regarded as the appropriate length of sentence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to confirm that machinery is now in place for the court to issue decisions which will have

103
the effect of giving practice guidance to judges about the length of sentences. It may be that in the course of appeal hearings the court will by that means be able to give directions to judges as to what to do. But I warn the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and others who may be interested that I believe the court would be very cautious about giving a direction of that kind because of the unpredictability of Government policy. In the few years that the Act has been in operation we have seen the sharpest change that I can recall in the treatment of the early release of prisoners. It would be highly embarrassing if the court reacted to the provisions enacted in the 1993 Act with a view to ensuring that longer sentences were pronounced and then found itself trapped by a change of government policy which could not be corrected until the court issued a fresh decision.
The purpose of these remarks is to say that, with great respect, my noble and learned friend has raised a very important issue, but it is not a matter for the judges. The judges would be well advised to maintain continuity in their sentencing and, in that way, ride out the sudden changes in policy, whatever they may be. If honesty is looked for it must come from government. It may be that the Government have fallen down by failing to explain to the public what policy they now want to abandon. I stress that the most dramatic example of a breach of the principle of honesty is to be found in Clause 1 which is the Government's flagship measure. It is extraordinary to find that principle being used as the reason for the whole chapter of measures that the Committee is about to consider.
9 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I hope that he listened to the final sentences spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. They put the position most clearly and certainly helped me. However, in my view, if ordinary people in Scotland take the point that the Government, with due consideration to what the public want and what can be done, are changing policy about sentencing and changing the framework within which judges must operate, they allow or have inflicted upon them an amendment which says, "Yes, but don't do it. Make it as though it hadn't happened and then all will be well.". That is not the way Scots think at all. I do not understand why the English think like that, but we certainly do not.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his contribution and I pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I venture to suggest that involving Clause 1 in the argument may not be entirely helpful. As I understand it—the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will correct me if I am wrong—the new clause is not concerned with Clause 1.
As regards Clause 1, clearly one could have arguments till the cows come home as to whether calling a sentence which does not require the offender to remain in prison for the rest of his life a "life sentence" is not
104
a sensible way to proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has made that comment on more than one occasion. However, we have had mandatory life sentences and discretionary life sentences for some time. The use of that term in automatic life sentences was to fit in with the existing regime, adding, as I have indicated on more than one occasion, an additional safeguard when the necessary criteria are met to lead to the imposition of an automatic life sentence.
The situation we are dealing with here is somewhat different. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, correctly said, the net effect of the new clause would be a sudden reduction in the sentences of the court as soon as the section came into effect which would be entirely contrary to the approach that the Scottish courts have followed previously. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was present throughout the discussions on the English Bill, but certainly I was, as were other noble Lords. More than one English judge, whether currently serving or retired, indicated that, notwithstanding the existence of a similar provision in the English Bill, there was concern that judges would not implement it because to do so would attract adverse press publicity which they would wish to avoid. That bears out the point that in the across-the-hoard manner which the amendment would involve, which would affect every determinate sentence imposed, such a sudden reduction, far from bolstering confidence in the sentencing which the Bill is designed to achieve, would have a contrary effect. I return to what was said by Lord Ross about the lack of confidence in the judiciary which the 1993 Act had as an unfortunate consequence of its provisions.
When one reads again the Kincraig Report, it is obvious that it was a very full discussion of the issues which arise. But it is equally obvious that, as with other matters we were discussing earlier today—namely, the review body for miscarriages of justice—there were strong views either way. Chapter 3 of the report sets out the views of those who, while criticising the current parole, favour its retention. Paragraph 3.11 records that a sizeable minority of witnesses were of the view that the parole system is fundamentally unsound and should be abolished, and it set out at some length the reasons for that. So there were different views which were considered carefully by the review committee. It came forward with certain proposals which the Government implemented. However, it has become obvious and clear from what Lord Ross said that it has unfortunately and inadvertently resulted in this charade with the much more concerning loss of confidence.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, commented that there was some concern about abandoning rehabilitation. I do not want to pre-empt in detail any discussion that we may have later tonight, but if one looks at the provisions set out in Clause 31(3), which indicate the extent to which the procedures by which early release days will be achieved, under paragraph (a) some of those are achieved for attaining the prescribed minimum standard and others will be achieved by having regard to the extent to which the prisoner's behaviour during the period has exceeded that standard.

105
As we discussed earlier in relation to an amendment dealing with courses for sex offenders, one way of measuring whether the additional days under Clause 31(3)(b) have been earned will be the extent to which prisoners have co-operated with the programmes that are available. Obviously, if for whatever reason, they are not available for a particular prisoner, he will not be penalised for that. But if they are available and prisoners do not take part in them, that will tell against individual prisoners. If they are available and they attend and do not play a proper part, that too will tell against individual prisoners.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. I speak as a layman who is not familiar with the procedures of the court. I feel that when the court imposes a sentence of, for example, eight years and the convicted person serves four years and is then allowed out of prison, even if his strict prison sentence comes to an end after four years—or half his sentence—that person should then be made to perform, for example, a period of community service. Some provision should be made whereby he is brought back into the community.
Somebody is put in prison for, for example, six years and is held there for six years. He then comes out of prison with no real trade. I believe—and I know that many of my friends in Scotland believe—that there needs to be greater emphasis on rehabilitation than on parole. When a person has served half his sentence, would it then be possible for him to spend another quarter of it being trained in the community under supervision, so that at least he has an opportunity to earn a living and move back into society?
A great many persons who have served a sentence of imprisonment end up committing another offence and going back to prison, which is tragic. Will my noble and learned friend consider the actual length of the sentence, rehabilitation and parole and bringing back that person into civilisation?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, it may be helpful to the Committee if he speaks to the amendment instead of making a speech which is digressing all over the place.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is unfortunate that the noble Lord does not wish me to respond in my own way to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who did offer, as I understood it, some support for my position but equally raised certain issues which it would be right that I should address. I did not table the amendment which has kept us engaged for 58 minutes; it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I do not criticise him in any way because it is a very important matter indeed. Since it has been raised by him, it is right that it should be addressed. If Members of the Committee from any side intervene to raise issues, it is incumbent upon me to respond to them.
In fact, once or twice during the Committee stage of the Bill, I have been criticised for not responding at greater length than I did. I shall not mention any names, but it is mildly curious that I should then be accused of being long-winded when not some two hours ago I was
106
accused of being the reverse. If that accusation had not been made, I might have been able to put my words more succinctly.
I deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour which ties in very cleverly with the point with which I was dealing; namely, the question of rehabilitation. My noble friend suggests that at a certain point in the sentence, prisoners should be released from custody and serve some form of community service order, as I understand it, based in the community. Prisoners would reside in the community but would be subject to supervision and, more important, subject to training.
One of the merits of the Bill is that it will extend supervision of released prisoners long beyond the expiry of the determinate part. During the five-sixths of the sentence for which they are in custody, they will have to earn early release dates in the manner I have outlined. Obviously, long-term prisoners in Scottish prisons receive training in various forms. If for any reason they do not fit in with the work regime available to them, they would run the risk of not earning the early release days which they might otherwise have.
It is as much in the interests of those who run prisons as those who occupy them that work should be made available to keep them occupied and keep them working with their fellow prisoners with as reasonable an amount of camaraderie as is possible. That process will continue. Upon their release, those prisoners will be subject to supervision release orders which can extend long beyond the expiry of the five or ten-year sentence. We hope and believe that that offers a very good way of seeking to reintegrate the individual back into the community.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his explanation as to why it would be inappropriate for the court to proceed by way of act of adjournal or, indeed, by way of practice direction. The noble and learned Lord's views carry great weight and seek to support the view that I expressed earlier; namely, that the correct way forward is to leave it to the court to decide and not to seek to impose it upon the court by way of legislation.
I take the point that changes in early release regimes could undoubtedly, if they come too frequently, create a difficulty for the Appeal Court. However, I hope that the court will appreciate that, if senior judges are talking about this "charade" leading to a loss of confidence, the Government cannot stand back and allow that charade to continue for another five years before doing something about it. The media do not operate on that basis; the public understanding of the courts does not stand still; indeed, the public view of the courts moves on.
It is a practical problem which required to be addressed and that is why we seek to do it in Scotland in a way which has regard to the approach taken by the courts in ignoring the statutory provisions for early release which is contrary to the way that it has been done in Scotland. With what I have managed to say in response to the amendment—and I hope that I shall be forgiven for relying on the support of the noble and

107
learned Lord, Lord Hope—I trust that Members of the Committee will appreciate that, while this was an important issue for the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to raise, it would not be the right way to proceed for this Bill.
Lord McCluskey: In the light of the length of time taken over this matter, I do not propose to add anything further at this stage. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 136A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 67.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennet, L.

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McCluskey, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Calverley, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chandos, V.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol,B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Paul, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale,B.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Freyberg, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

SymonsofVernham Dean, B.

Hollick, L.

Taverne, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Gresford,L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hughes, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thurso, V.

Jeger, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

108

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wigoder, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Winston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Inglewood, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas, L.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Brentford, V.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McConnell, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock,L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northesk, E.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rennell, L.

Denbigh, E.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dudley, E.

Sharpies, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hogg, B.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Home, E.

Wise, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.25 p.m.
Clause 30 [Application of provisions with respect to early release]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 35, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
(""prescribed minimum standard" means an absence of proven misconduct reports").
The noble Earl said: I promise not to filibuster. The last amendment was a fine example of how to do so. Amendment No. 137 launches the Committee into the proposals for change in the system for liberation from prison. The prisoner's lib date is very important to him, his family, and the entire prison system. The amendment establishes that the first six days early release within a two month period are to be earned by objective criteria. Good behaviour is defined as abiding by the recently re-enacted prison rules for Scotland. Conforming to the prison rules is a concept easily understood by everyone inside and probably outside, prison, as is failing to do SO.
During debate on a similar amendment to the English Bill, it was established by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the prescribed minimum standard would be slightly higher than not appearing before the governor on a report and the charge being proved.
In England, we seem to be heading for subjective criteria with all the unhappiness and appeals to which that will lead. If we have to have this new liberation scheme in Scotland and in Scottish prisons, it is important that it is seen to he fair and workable. That means that there must be objective criteria obviously recognisable to all. Despite their offences against others, offenders, and prisoners especially, have an acute sense of injustice to themselves especially as a group. Great care has to be taken to keep a prison on an even keel. Unless we adopt these objective criteria, this measure is likely to achieve the opposite. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I give general support to the observations that the noble Earl made. I do not wish to repeat what he said. We have had an example this evening of going over the same ground three or four times. I do not wish to repeat the exercise.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to take the implied compliment from the noble Lord that it is not necessary to go over the same ground in relation to this matter. The amendment seeks to define the prescribed minimum standard as,
"an absence of proven misconduct reports".
We do not believe that it would be desirable to adopt such a narrow definition. Following on from what I referred to recently, we firmly believe that the earning of early release should be a positive matter. It should not be just a question of adhering to prison discipline but of demonstrating positive good behaviour and making constructive use of time in prison, whether that is by way of work programmes or programmes designed to address offending behaviour—on drug addiction, anger management, and so on. We believe that these programmes offer great advantage to prisoners. They should be encouraged to attend them and play a meaningful part in them when they have the opportunity to do so.
As I made clear, we fully accept that such programmes are not yet as widely available as they might be. However, that is no reason not to take a very positive measure to ensure the prisoners' co-operation with programmes where they do exist. Where the appropriate programmes are not available to prisoners, there can be no doubt that they will not be penalised in any way in terms of early release.
The approach that we take is intended to set out a much wider definition of the prescribed minimum standard, one which will provide an incentive to prisoners not only to obey the law of the prison but to make a positive effort to co-operate with the prison regime, the prison officers working there and those who come in from the social work department and other agencies to help to educate prisoners and to address any medical or other problems that they have. I hope, therefore, having explained in greater detail what lies
110
behind the provisions in subsection (3) of Clause 31, the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in addressing this amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate relies upon rules. The problem about rules is that, so far as his explanation goes, it would be impossible to set standard rules that will apply to all prison establishments.
If what the noble and learned Lord has in mind is that a prisoner will attend various programmes—he referred to drug addiction, anger management and matters of that sort—how can there be rules which apply to premises or prisons which do not have such programmes available? There is an important point of principle here. These programmes, which are not as yet in place, will not provide a common standard to all those serving a sentence of imprisonment.
On the other hand, the proposal in my noble friend's amendment is that misconduct reports should be a test if they are proved; that is to say, if through the disciplinary procedures of the prison a prisoner is shown to have misbehaved in some way, then he will not have come up to the standard of behaviour referred to in Clause 31(2).
There is at the present time a well-known and fair system of procedure whereby disciplinary offences are brought before a governor or a person standing in for the governor and those offences will be properly established, on evidence; the nature of the charge will be placed before the prisoner concerned and he will be given the opportunity to respond. That is a fair and just system which can apply across the board. Relying on some vague system of programmes which are not as yet in place and which, in any event, will vary from place to place is not fair. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for not having seen that he wished to contribute to the debate; otherwise I would have waited to hear his remarks.
Perhaps I should make it clear that in the next group of amendments I intend to set out in some detail the procedure that will be followed in dealing with the provisions for gaining early release days. It might be wrong to anticipate our discussions on that matter lest I be criticised again for repeating myself.
It might be of assistance if I gave some instances of the prescribed minimum standards of behaviour which will be set out in prison rules. They obviously involve the precise detail of the rules which are made by the Secretary of State dealing with matters such as the use of violent or threatening behaviour towards fellow inmates or staff, intimidation and the like, co-operation with staff, showing the respect for the property of other prisoners that it deserves and abstaining from drugs and alcohol. The noble Earl will be aware that mandatory drug testing is now in place in some prisons in Scotland. That provides a fair mechanism for establishing whether

111
such abstinence takes place. Therefore, it is possible to set out in rules where the minimum standard has not been attained.
Exceeding the minimum standards will need to be looked at in the light of a particular prisoner and the prison in which he is housed. In my submission, there is absolutely no reason why procedures for assessing various types of behaviour cannot be evolved and administered in a fair manner. There is the need for prisoners to participate constructively in the planning of how they serve their sentences. The noble Earl will be aware that prisoners are regularly involved in such discussions. Their effort and productivity in workshops to which they are allocated to work and their participation in courses are necessary.
It is easy to be despondent or critical when new ideas are promoted. I like to take a slightly more optimistic view and believe that senior officers and governors who will be involved in administering the system are more than capable of acting fairly. I like to think that prisoners will respond positively, conforming with the prescribed rules and exceeding the minimum prescribed standards in the manner to which I referred.
I fully accept that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, puts the amendment forward in a constructive mood, but we believe that restricting the provision to an absence of two misconduct reports would be a serious mistake. Far from encouraging good behaviour in prisons, it would send a message to prisoners that provided they abided by the strict letter of the law that would be all that was expected of them. We do not think that approach is sensible.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Having listened to the Minister, I do not believe he fully understood what I intended in my amendment. "Prescribed minimum standards" are only the standards to be achieved in the first six days of the 12 which a prisoner would be allowed to earn in a two-month period. I expect that the second six days would have to be earned for above-average behaviour. I do not see that as too much of a problem.
The reason I brought the amendment forward is that in order to explain the rules to prisoners—and I am considering how I would set about doing that as a member of the visiting committee at Glenochil young offenders institution—as a VC member I, as well as the prison officers, would have to try to explain a criterion which does not exist. It is more than not being on report, but unless matters are completely written down, the system will be difficult to operate.
I shall not press the amendment. I suspect that the debate will continue at Report stage. I should be interested in hearing what more the noble and learned Lord has to say about the operation of the scheme. Therefore, at this point, with reluctance but with enthusiasm for the future, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 35, line 31, after first (" "prescribed" ") insert ("independent person" ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that the person who is to grant early release days to a prisoner should be independent. I believe that the case for that is clear when one starts to reflect upon the dynamics of prison life. Clearly, the early release provisions must be set in a framework of independent adjudication in order to ensure that prison discipline will not be adversely affected.
I believe that it is inappropriate for prisoners to have their early release days determined by individuals who are not independent of the prison system itself. Why is that? There are two reasons. One is that when there is closeness between personnel—the prisoner and those within the prison system who are making a very important decision for the individual prisoner—there is a very real risk of opening up two possibly highly dangerous avenues of behaviour.
First there is the possibility quite simply of threat. A prisoner with the possibility of early release may have unsavoury friends on the outside who can put pressure on those within the Prison Service responsible for making the recommendation to ensure that the prisoner receives early release days, perhaps in some cases when the prisoner's behaviour does not justify it. That exposes the individual prison officer to an extremely dangerous risk. I do not wish to overstate it but the risk is certainly there. A glance at where our prisons tend to be situated shows how easily that could happen.
Secondly, it works the other way. The prison officer can be exposed to the charge of favouritism if he makes a recommendation which results in one person obtaining early release days and another person does not. There is a risk of favouritism. How could that reasonably be resolved in such an intense and introverted "total" institution as a prison?
The amendment ensures that one can steer clear of that kind of high risk—the relationship of threat and the relationship of favouritism—developing. One can step back and have an independent person involved in the assessment of whether or not the early release days should be granted. The amendment is of significant importance in terms of the proper, good and orderly management of the prison system. In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My amendments, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 have been grouped with this amendment. There is not very much to add. I simply say that the idea that there should be an independent element was massively supported by those who were consulted or who chose to make representations to the Government.
My amendments are concerned with providing an independent element. I am not sure that Amendment No. 146, which refers to a sheriff or sheriff principal, does not go too far. But I seek to emphasise the point that one needs a kind of judicial involvement in making

113
what is essentially a judicial decision. It is an important decision in the sense that if it goes the wrong way for the prisoner, it results in his spending a much longer time in prison.
I deplore the notion that prison warders should become the judges of matters affecting people on their own landings or even within their own prison. That cannot be right. I hope that the Government will think carefully before proceeding with the scheme proposed in the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Amendment No. 142 is grouped with Amendment No. 138. By comparison with the 1993 liberation scheme, the proposed early release scheme will be complicated to operate. The complication begins with the Bill when it fails to define who the "prescribed" person will be. The assumptions are that it will be devolved to a gallery officer or, in the case of a young offenders' institution, a residential officer.
Why do we have to proceed on assumptions? Other amendments propose that the prescribed person be independent of the Scottish Prison Service. Amendment No. 142 proposes that the Parole Board for Scotland extend its duties to adjudicate on the early release scheme. The Parole Board for Scotland has complete experience of the issues surrounding the liberation practice. The board could easily be expanded to take on this new function. It will be advantageous for prison staff not to have to act as judge and jury, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. After all, part of a prison officer's job is to help a prisoner cope with his sentence and punishment. An angry prisoner is difficult enough to calm down, without the prison officer or his immediate colleagues being the cause of that anger.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support these amendments. What I find offensive—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could address this point in his response—is that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, rightly described as a "judicial decision" taken either by the warder on the landing or on his advice, may be taken by the employee of a private firm who has a contractual relationship with the Government. To hand over to employees of a private company the judicial power to determine how long a person stays in prison is completely new and, to me, offensive. Is that what is being suggested? Will Group 4 employees be able to determine how long a person stays in prison?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I listened with some care to the proceedings in relation to this aspect of the English Bill. Various matters make me anxious. However, perhaps I can listen to the response of my noble and learned friend as to how the process will work and then ask a question.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In replying to Amendment No. 138, with the leave of the Committee
114
I shall reply also to Amendments Nos. 142 to 146, all of which have been spoken to by one or other Members of the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 138, 143 and 144 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Macaulay, seek to make the award of days of early release the function of an independent prescribed person, leaving it to prison rules to specify who that prescribed person will be. On the contrary, Amendment No. 142 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, would have the effect of making the Parole Board responsible for such awards during the first 12 months of the sentence, though I assume—perhaps it can be confirmed in due course—that the intention is that the Parole Board would handle all such awards.
Amendment No. 145, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would prevent the prison rules prescribing the person who would make the assessment and provides that either a sheriff or a sheriff principal should consider and make recommendations on appeals regarding assessments. It is obvious, therefore, that among the amendments before the Committee there is a range of views as to how this matter might be approached. Against that background it may be helpful if I explain in a little detail why the Government have chosen the system set out in the Bill. Before I do so, I remind the Committee that rules made under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989, which is referred to in subsection (5) of Clause 30, would require to be laid before the House and would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Bill reduces the opportunity for early release in the manner I described earlier and will require that it is earned by good behaviour in prison. Since that is the basis for early release, it appears clear to the Government that those based in the prisons are best placed to make the individual assessments that are necessary. I need not explain to the Committee the structure and management within prisons, but there are a number of governors under the senior governor and below them prison officers of different ranks. Prison staff work with prisoners on a day-to-day basis and are trained to have the necessary expertise to assess the behaviour of prisoners and to gauge the progress individual prisoners are making. The more senior the rank and the greater training and experience the prison officer or governor has had, so the ability to carry out that exercise will increase.
Even if the function which would require to be discharged to fulfil the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 31 were to be handed to an outside body—whether a sheriff, the parole board or whoever—such a body or individual would be reliant on reports coming from prison staff. The Bill calls for a process of continuous assessment, with up to 12 days being capable of being awarded to each prisoner for every two months of the prison sentence. On current prison populations, that implies somewhere in the region of 30,000 decisions to be made each year. It may assist the Committee to know that the Parole Board of Scotland currently sits some 24 times a year to consider between 500 and 700 cases where determinate sentences have been imposed. The number varies from year to year as

115
the prison population comes towards the period for eligibility for early release. It is clear that the Parole Board could not be expected to take on a case load of the nature predicted under the Bill.
Nor do we believe there is any need for a body of the nature of the Parole Board to do so, the assessments involving, as they do, whether a prisoner's behaviour in custody over a two-month period would merit 12 days' early release. If the idea of someone independent from the parole board was to be selected, one would require him to create a cadre of independent persons with a back-up staff quite enormous in number; so also if sheriffs or sheriffs principal were to be involved.
We propose that the assessment procedure be laid down in prison rules, subject, as I have already indicated, to parliamentary scrutiny. We envisage that the governor or another senior manager in the prison will convene an assessment board to consider reports from relevant staff on each prisoner according to a range of criteria set out in the prison rules which are to be made. Decisions on the award of early release will be made following the meeting of this internal assessment board. If a particular prisoner is dissatisfied with the decision we envisage that a three-stage appeal process, based on the existing complaints procedure in Scottish prisons, will apply. As part of that appeal process the rules will empower the Secretary of State to appoint a person to consider the appeal and report to him. In all normal circumstances he will ask the prison complaints commissioner for such a report. The commissioner will provide an independent element to the process if that proves to be necessary. He will not have power to overturn the governor's decision by his own hand but will expect the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to take account of any factors which he may identify before any final decision is made.
We believe that to ask sheriffs or sheriffs principal to consider appeals regarding early release would be to mix the different roles of those involved in the criminal justice system in an inappropriate way. Unlike the prison complaints commissioner, they are not used to dealing with complaints about decisions regarding behaviour in prison. Moreover, the need for urgent decisions on such appeal cases would represent an unwelcome burden for sheriffs at a time when court resources in most parts of the country are reasonably stretched.
Our position is that no one outwith the Scottish Prison Service will be in a position to make the necessary assessment of the prisoner's behaviour on which the initial award of days of early release depend. We accept that there is a case for independent scrutiny, but we believe that that will come from the involvement of the Scottish prison complaints commissioner who has been operating recently and whose work commands respect.
I now deal with a number of points raised by Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated that he considered it offensive that an individual employed by a company which had a contractual arrangement with the Government should have any role to play in these matters. As Members of
116
the Committee will know, there are as yet no private prisons in Scotland. But the comment made about offence may be—I do not do so—turned round the other way. People running private prisons in England are trained: they are performing a very important function. I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that the fact that they are working for a commercial company rather than the prison department causes them to operate in a different way than they might otherwise do.
I am not sure what lay behind the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I do not know whether he is suggesting that an individual employee might be more inclined to refuse early release days so that the prisoner stayed in prison longer and his employer earned more money, or whether he is suggesting the contrary. I suggest that because private prisons are subject to supervision, it would be quite inappropriate to suggest that those employed at governor or senior management grade in those prisons are any less capable of doing this work in a responsible manner than their colleagues who are currently employed by the prison department.
Dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I hope that he will accept that because the assessment board will be detached from immediate contact with the prisoner—in other words, it will not be the prison officers working on individual wings who will be carrying out the assessments that will require to be made under Clause 31(3)—the risk of graft or favouritism will be minimised, if not completely eliminated. Whoever is to do the assessment will clearly require reports from the wings. I suggest that governor grades would be in a far better position to be alive to the risk of graft or favouritism than would an independent body or sheriff at some distance from the prison who could not begin to have the same knowledge of staff as the prison governor. Therefore, although I understand why the noble Lord raised these matters, I believe that the danger of any improper pressure or favouritism is fairly minimal. I believe that that was part of the concern which lay behind the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, tabling his amendments.
Clearly, this is a new procedure which will have to be carefully worked out with those who run the prisons. The procedure will require incorporation in the prison rules which will be brought to Parliament and laid before the House. However, in my submission, if that is done there is no need to accept any alteration in the procedure that we propose. Therefore, I hope that all noble Lords will withdraw the amendments which stand in their names.
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. He said that those who are based in a prison will make the decision. That implies that if a prison is run by a private company—I use Group 4 simply as an example—decisions are made by employees of the company. If there is a procedural unfairness in what those employees do, would the noble and learned Lord consider that to be a matter of public law and therefore subject to judicial review? I ask for enlightenment.

117
Would the noble and learned Lord consider that that was a matter which would breach the European Convention on Human Rights? These are decisions about the liberty of the subject. Does he think it right that such important decisions should be taken by private persons, who are not employed by the state, who are not public servants? Does he believe that people who are simply under a contractual duty to their employer can take decisions to the extent that a prisoner can be held in prison for days, weeks or even months without any proper recourse? Is that a matter of public law? Is it subject to judicial review? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could help me.
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble and learned Lord replies to that, perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the White Paper and the summary of resource implications, which at paragraph 16.5 reads:
"It is envisaged that any new prisons required would be privately financed through the Private Finance Initiative … In broad terms the cost of each new 500 place prison built under the PFI might add 10–15 per cent. to the running costs of the Scottish Prison Service"—
that is, it will add between £15 million and £20 million per annum. Are the Government saying that for the 2,200 people who are expected to be added to the prison population, four or five new PFI prisons will have to be built? Are the Government saying that within those prisons the regime will not be conducted by privately employed contractors and their employees?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing attention to paragraph 16.5, which reads:
"It is envisaged that any new prisons required would be privately financed through the Private Finance Initiative".
That initiative has been used in a number of ways throughout the United Kingdom, in particular in the health service, without the need to privatise all the staff who work there. In broad terms the cost of each new prison will be as the noble and learned Lord has read out. It will add 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. to the running costs of the Scottish Prison Service, which is the agency under the Director of the Scottish Prison Service that administers the prisons at the present time. Those costs in the current year are approximately £152 million. That is an increase in the current budget of the Scottish Prison Service.
As I understand it—if I am wrong, I shall certainly inform the Committee as soon as possible—the fact that a prison is financed by a private finance initiative does not necessarily mean that it requires to be run by a private company such as Group 4 or anybody else. Therefore, the answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is that that will require to be worked out in the fullness of time against the background that these new provisions will not be brought into force unless there are prison spaces available. However, the effect of the amendment that has been passed is that prisoners will now serve a shorter term than they would otherwise have served. Consequently, the need for paragraph 16.5 may be lessened assuming that the Bill remains in its present form.
118
I resist as strongly as I can the suggestion that we have any reason to believe that the standards followed in a privately run prison are different from those to be found currently in Scotland under the director of the Scottish Prison Service. To explain that further, perhaps I may provide details of the appeal procedure before I turn to the issues of judicial review and the European Convention on Human Rights. After the initial appearance before the assessment board, the first avenue of appeal will be the prison internal complaints committee. It is proposed that each prison should have such a committee which will be chaired by a senior manager and will have a minimum of three members. The proposal is that the members involved will have had no prior involvement with the particular prisoner who has brought the matter before that committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may put one question to the noble and learned Lord. Precisely who are the three members? I understand the position of the chairman, to whom the noble and learned Lord has referred, but who will be the three members? Will they be employees of the Prison Service or some other category of person?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My understanding is that they will be employees of the Prison Service and that that will be made clear in the prison rules to be laid before Parliament before the procedure comes into force.
If I go through the various appeal procedures I hope that that will become clearer. If following consideration of his or her case by the complaints committee a particular prisoner remains dissatisfied, he or she can make a further appeal to the governor in charge who will reconsider the case. It should be noted that at the present time half of all general complaints under the existing complaints procedure when put to an internal complaints committee are resolved at that stage and do not require to go to the governor. If having had his or her case reconsidered by the governor the prisoner is unhappy, the prisoner can appeal to the Secretary of State. At the present time, that is handled on his behalf by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service who acts with the authority of the Secretary of State. It is at this stage that the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commissioner becomes involved in the manner I described earlier.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may be absolutely clear. Will there will be a requirement at every level of the appeal process for a written record to be maintained by those who are adjudicating the appeal? Will that be made available to any lawyer who is engaged by the prisoner who may want to make an application for judicial review?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, anticipates precisely what I was going to say. I was about to turn to the issue of judicial review. All of these are exercises of statutory function and therefore all are susceptible to judicial review. Because the courts could not begin to address the merits or otherwise of a

119
judicial review without proper documentation, clearly all this will be required to be documented. Indeed, if one goes back to the initial assessment panel, it must have documents in front of it before it makes its decision. If its decision is to be appealed to the internal complaints committee, the internal complaints committee will need to know the information upon which the assessment panel proceeded, what decision it reached and so forth.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord is dealing with interruptions with enormous patience and I apologise to him. The figure which was given in relation to the English provisions was that in the average prison there would be something like 40 decisions a week. That is the figure which sticks in my mind. There would be 40 decisions a week, each one recorded in case there is an appeal. If there is an appeal each one is recorded for the next stage and for the next stage. What additional allocation of funds and resources for building storehouses in which to store all these records are to be made?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that the prisons will embrace information technology in a way in which many branches of government have done with the encouragement of the Government. There may be certain practical problems in setting up the procedure, but increasingly courts seem to manage all the paperwork with the benefit of information technology. I have no reason to doubt that the prison authorities can do likewise.
I turn to deal with the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government have obviously considered the matter carefully. The position is quite clear that no infringement would arise because any days lost by a particular prisoner, having failed to gain the days for whatever reason, would still fall within the envelope of his original sentence. Clearly, that is something which happens at the moment as regards misconduct and therefore no European convention concerns arise. However, they will be looked at again, as is normal with all government legislation, before the prison rules are laid before Parliament.
I indicated that if I was wrong about the PFI initiative I would inform the Committee as soon as I could. I understand that if PFI prisons come into operation in Scotland they will be operated by the private sector under contract but subject to prison rules—
Baroness Trumpington: Order!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I very much regret the sotto voces that I am hearing. I was asked a question and I indicated my understanding of the answer, but I indicated in the same breath that if I were wrong I would inform the Committee as soon as I could. The fact that I am now doing so does not seem to me to merit the kind of sotto voces that I regret to say I am hearing.
Perhaps I may continue. We envisage that the assessment of early release will be made by the controller, who will in fact not be in the employ of
120
the company concerned but will be a Crown servant appointed by the Secretary of State to deal with disciplinary matters in the prison which is run by the private sector. Therefore, the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned earlier, about certain matters which were causing him a degree of offence will, as I understand it, not come to pass.
Obviously, this will have to be set out in the rules because those prisons will be subject to prison rules which are laid before Parliament and subject to the negative resolution procedure in accordance with the procedure set out in the 1989 Act.
I regret that it has proved necessary to go into the matter in a little detail, but I repeat what I said earlier. I believe that the procedures which we propose are a sensible way forward and none of the amendments would achieve a better and more practical result.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, unless I misheard him, he affirmed that the process of judicial review will apply to the procedure in any case arising under the legislation which the Government now propose. If so, how many cases of judicial review have been taken in England to date? It is not a very popular procedure in Scotland. Can the noble and learned Lord give some figures relating to judicial review arising out of prisons and the matters which we are discussing?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I cannot give figures for judicial review arising out of the matters that we have been discussing because, as I understand it, there will have been no such judicial reviews in England dealing with similar provisions. However, judicial review arising out of prison matters is not uncommon north or south of the Border. If the noble Lord wishes statistics for the past five years of how many judicial reviews individual prison departments have been required to deal with, I shall be happy to arrange for officials to prepare that information and to send it to him. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
Lord McCluskey: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will acknowledge that, when he was critical of those who interrupted or spoke from a sedentary position, that did not include me.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate acknowledged, and rightly so, at the earliest possible opportunity that the position as regards the private finance initiative is that when the prisons are built through the PFI they are likely to be staffed by privately employed people. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is a valid one.
I return to the White Paper, which envisages that the effect on the prison population in the first year will be an increase of 1,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, reminded us earlier, the current population is about 6,000. Therefore, there will be an increase of one-sixth—1,000 in the first year.
At present, the prison population is about 11 or 12 per cent. over capacity. Accordingly, it follows that not fewer than two new 500-place prisons will be

121
required. As I understand the Government's public announcements on the matter—and I can quote them if required—only one 500-place prison is contemplated to be built before the end of the century. That raises the important question as to where all the extra prisoners are to go.
The statement at paragraph 16.4 of the White Paper is that the numbers will rise to 2,200 by the end of the fifth year, so by the end of the century we shall have something in the order of 2,000 extra prisoners. My own view is that that is an underestimate, for reasons into which I need not go at this late hour of the night. Accordingly it follows that a vast number of private finance initiative prisons will have to be built. That must be so because the Government have made it abundantly clear—and again, if required, I can give chapter and verse—that there will be no increase in public expenditure in order to finance the building of extra prisons. They are to be built through the PFI. Therefore, private prisons are to be built.
That brings me back to the end of my intervention and to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is not only a question of standards. No one doubts that privately employed people can be as honest and uncorrupt as those who are employed in the public service. It is a question of philosophy and culture. It is a question as to whether servants of the state are charged with the responsibility of looking after prisoners or the staff of B&Q or Woolworths.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should point out that I did not intend to refer to him earlier. Although he is sitting too far away from me for me to hear anything that he may say, I do not for a minute believe that he would intervene in the nature of some of the comments which, unfortunately, my left ear was being bombarded with at the time that I made the comment.
It is instructive to look at paragraph 16.4 of the White Paper because, in the second to last line, it indicates that if there were a larger reduction, say, by around one third, the increase over five years would only be 700. Of course, the net effect of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord and accepted by the Committee would have approximately that effect. Therefore, one has to wonder why we have spent the last 40 minutes dealing with this allegedly huge increase in the prison population.
However, against the possibility that the Bill might return to its original form, perhaps I may say again what I ought to have made clear earlier when responding to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. In a prison which is privately run, the proposal is that assessments on early release will be made by an individual who is a Crown servant and who is appointed for the specific purpose of dealing with that and disciplinary matters. Therefore, the constitutional objection advanced by the noble and learned Lord and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, earlier is one which will not arise in actual fact. It is important for all of us to remember that the precise details of the procedure will need to be
122
set out in prison rules. I hope, therefore, at this late hour of night, that the position will be clear to all Members of the Committee.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have heard no mention of the particular point which concerned me while listening to the debate on the English Bill; namely, where, if anywhere, is there the possibility of an assessment of risk to the public in the case of the longer-term prisoners who are being considered for release? As I understand it, it is done at present by the Parole Board. But where does that happen? Prison officers are trained to assess behaviour; and indeed, they already do so. If the programmes exist for prisoners to prove that they are intending to mend their ways they can do so. But where is the assessment of risk? Does that feature anywhere in the clause, or is it completely excluded? If that is the case, is there not some danger to the public that did not exist before?
My noble friend Lady Blatch has said that she will look into the matter as regards England and Wales to see whether the Parole Board might have a locus in the matter. I know that the Scottish Parole Board is a rather different animal and we have heard that it meets much less often. However, is that relevant to this clause? I should have thought that it was, but it has not been mentioned. It seems to me to be important.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My noble friend has raised a concern about which I know she feels most strongly. The whole nature of the procedure set out in Clause 31 will do away with the possibility of prisoners being released at 50 per cent. of their sentence, and between that and two-thirds of their sentence, when a risk assessment is carried out by the Parole Board. On the contrary, the proposal is that they will go beyond the two-thirds to five-sixths and will be released at that stage, subject to supervision requirements which, as I said earlier, can go beyond the expiry of a determinate sentence.
It is not intended that a similar exercise should be carried out in the assessment procedure as is carried out by the Parole Board. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in speaking to his amendment thought it would be appropriate that in each and every case the Parole Board should carry out an assessment of entitlement to early release days—I refer to Clause 31(3)—and that a risk assessment is carried out every time it has to be assessed whether six or 12 days are to be awarded.
We believe that if a longer period of a sentence is spent in custody, and if there is a longer period of supervision running from the five-sixths point, that affords perfectly adequate protection to the public which is equal to, if not better than, the procedure which applies at the moment where many prisoners are being released after they have served between half or two-thirds of their sentence, and all of them are being released at two-thirds of their sentence without there being any need for a risk assessment and without the necessary supervision continuing beyond the expiry of

123
a determinate sentence. Therefore the regime we are discussing will be different in that respect from that which currently applies.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I hope I may intervene to make a point which I believe is relevant to what the noble Baroness said. As I understand the English provisions, at Clause 31 of the English Bill, there was a provision that every long-term prisoner would be subject on release to a period of supervision. The noble and learned Lord used the word "supervision" in his reply to the noble Baroness which suggests that supervision will be available to everyone. As I understand the Scottish Bill, supervision after release is only to be provided if the court decides that it should be provided. The court has to make that decision at the outset when it is imposing sentence. At Second Reading I raised this point with the noble and learned Lord and asked him to consider whether the English position was to be adopted for Scotland. I notice that no such amendment has been tabled. Following the real concern expressed by the noble Baroness, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could say whether it is intended that supervision after release should be available for every prisoner serving a long-term sentence, or whether it is to be a matter for decision by sheriffs and judges.
Lord Sewel: Is it not the case that this matter is dealt with in Amendment No. 147?
Lord McCluskey: The answer to the noble Baroness is fairly clear. The provision about which we are now talking is concerned with release for good behaviour in prison; it is not concerned with supervision after release at all. That is abundantly plain. What I think ought to concern the noble Baroness is the point that was brought out in the Crime (Sentences) Bill and which is within my experience as a trial judge and counsel who has taken part in a number of prison riot cases; namely, the persons who behave best in prison are sex offenders. The ordinary ruffians who commit assaults, breaches of the peace and mayhem tend to behave rather badly in prison. However, sex offenders behave well in prison. Therefore the result of these provisions is that one earns one's release by the way one behaves in prison, and therefore the ones who get out are the sex offenders and the ones who stay in are the violent offenders. That is a matter of greater concern than the mistaken confusion of this part of the Bill with another part of the Bill which lies behind the intervention of the noble Baroness.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I confirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has just said, speaking as a former chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales. The most dangerous prisoners and the people who represent the greatest risk to the general public on their release behave impeccably in prison. Their position will be greatly improved as a result of this Bill. If the only test is good behaviour in prison—and that is what it is—there is an increased risk to the
124
safety of the public as a result of the Bill which we are now discussing. I return to a point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: If I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope I may discuss this point as I am about to refer to the noble and learned Lord. I shall then gladly give way. The noble and learned Lord has said, in terms of providing reassurance as regards the position of the privately-contracted prison—if I may so describe it—that a Crown servant would make the decision as to whether someone should or should not be released, or whether his appeal should or should not be accepted. Who would sit with the Crown servant? Would he sit on his own or with others?
It is a fundamental question because we are moving away from a system where, by and large, the inmate population accepts the fairness of the present system. We are moving into uncharted waters where there are constant risks. A new procedure has been created as a result of which it could be represented that what was previously fair has become grossly unfair. That raises the risk of disturbances in prisons. We have seen in England and Wales just such difficulties, some of which were touched on in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
Secondly, what is the position of this Crown servant who will decide the matter? Does he decide it on his own, and if with others, who are they?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not know the full answer to that question. I understand from information I have that it is intended to remove from those employed by the private company the carrying out of the statutory duties set out in Clause 31(3). There is an elaborate appeal procedure, as I indicated earlier. Rather than elaborating without the precise details, it would be better if I undertake to write to the noble Lord. I understand that it is intended to involve Crown servants who will be directly responsible to the Secretary of State and through him to Parliament, and of course subject to judicial review in the courts.
However, perhaps I may pick up the point raised by the noble Lord about the fact that the Bill would result in those who were the greatest risk to the public having most to gain and being in an improved position. I suggest that that ignores the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill. The noble Lord referred to sex offenders. If they were sent to prison on a second occasion, no matter how good their behaviour, and it was decided at the expiry of the determinate part that they remained a risk to the public, the Parole Board would have to be satisfied that that risk no longer existed before they were released. Serious sex offenders admittedly tend to behave well when in prison, in part because they are kept away from "the ruffians", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, refers to them, and kept with people who have offended in a similar manner. However, contrary to the comment of the noble Lord, I believe that when the provisions of Clause 1 come into effect, such good behaviour will not necessarily

125
result in their release. Upon proper assessment—this is where the issue of risk assessment arises, to refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—they will not necessarily be returned to the community just because the five or ten years have expired.
Lord Sewel: We are potentially on the threshold of introducing a thoroughly ill-conceived practice into the prison system. Essentially that is the conflation of a judicial function in determining early release dates with responsibility for prison management and the maintenance of good order and discipline within a prison. That conflation will potentially have extremely adverse consequences for the future proper management of the Prison Service.
It is late, and it is not my intention to divide the Committee. However, I hope that even at this stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recognise that on this issue the concerns expressed on this side of the Committee are genuine and sincerely held. Our concern is essentially for the proper functioning and ordering of the prisons and to avoid the risk of prisons, which we know are difficult institutions to manage, being put in an even more difficult position. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will at least reflect a little on what has been said this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 35, line 36, at end insert ("the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, section 74(6) of the 1984 Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
These are technical amendments to ensure that changes set out in other legislation are brought into being in consequence of changes made in Part III of Chapter I. The Committee will see from the first and third of the amendments that they refer to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. They are technical in the extreme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
Page 35, line 39, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").
Page 35, line 41, at end insert—
("(to the amendments made to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 by paragraph 5(2)(b) and (3) of Schedule 1 to this Act;").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 139. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: I do not oppose the Question. However, I wonder whether I have misunderstood the
126
Bill. In relation to early release and the one-sixth remission, I do not understand that that applies to Section 205A, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his answer.
I believe it follows that if a person is sent to prison for life under Section 205A—for example, a second rapist—then he does not enjoy the benefit of the one-sixth early release provisions. Those sex offenders who enjoy the benefit of the one-sixth early release provisions are persons who, however many sex offences they may have committed, have not been twice convicted in the High Court and therefore fallen under Section 205A. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is able to confirm that I am right about that.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am, and I hope that I did not mislead the Committee. I had not intended to refer to Section 205A other than to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord McCluskey: I am happy that the noble and learned Lord is able to make that clear. I have no opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Early release]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 36, line 15, leave Out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) The court shall inform the prisoner at the time he is sentenced how many early release days (being twelve for each assessment period) to which, subject to subsection (3), he is entitled, calculated in accordance with the length of his term of imprisonment.
(3) Where a prisoner is found guilty of a disciplinary offence, the number of early release days to which he is entitled—

(a) may be reduced, up to a prescribed maximum; and

(b) if so reduced, may be reduced by more than the number of days notionally relating to the number of assessment periods which he has already served.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment continues the theme of honesty in sentencing with which both the Government Benches and the Benches on this side of the Committee are in full accord. The amendment basically seeks to make clear the time to which a prisoner is being sentenced and what in fact the early release terms will be. In other words, we are bringing up front in the process of sentencing the precise situation that will obtain. We are making sentencing more explicit and more transparent. It is all part of our combined endeavour to achieve honesty in sentencing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, it will not be possible for me to call Amendments Nos. 142 to 144.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I compliment the noble Lord on the originality with which he thinks up amendments to which he can link the words "honesty in sentencing".
As I have already explained in discussing Amendment No. 137, it is an essential principle of the Bill's scheme that early release should be earned by

127
good behaviour, which goes beyond the simple avoidance of misconduct reports. Equally it should go beyond the simple avoidance of disciplinary offences which represent the same concept. Under the amendment, such prisoners would continue to be released early with all their problems intact.
The main problem with this group of amendments, which includes Amendments Nos. 144A and 144B, is the calculation of how many early release days a prisoner may be entitled to during his sentence. It can be a complex task and I am quite sure that members of the Scottish Court Service would not welcome taking it on. I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for them to do so. Equally, I do not believe that the sheriffs would wish to sit down, having decided on the appropriate sentence, and embark on the exercise of calculating right through to the end of the sentence. That would involve working out precisely when the period of five-sixths was reached.
Questions of early release have always been for prison staff to calculate, with the assistance on many occasions, I suspect, of prisoners themselves. The prison staff not only have the necessary experience but they also have available to them knowledge of any other warrants for imprisonment which may relate to the prisoner concerned.
The effect of Amendment No. 144A would be to leave the door open for a future Secretary of State to use a statutory instrument to reduce the level of early release below 12 days every two months. We believe that this level of early release represents the minimum necessary to ensure good order and discipline in our prisons. We do not believe that such a minimum should be reduced by way of subordinate legislation. We would expect any future government who wished to alter the Bill in that regard to come before Parliament, as we have done. For all those reasons, I invite the Committee not to accept Amendment No. 141A.
Lord Sewel: Having heard the Minister on this occasion and not being entirely convinced with his arguments, I think it may still be appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 144B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to take this opportunity to give an assessment of what I believe will happen in prisons if the early release scheme is implemented: first, a state of insecurity across the prison community. Prisoners will only know the last possible day of their imprisonment, not the first possible day of their release. The staff will be for ever having to help prisoners sort out when they might be released. That means asking the general office to work it out and entails many telephone calls and administrative work. At present prisoners know when they will be released, unless they get themselves on report. Those members of
128
staff concerned with post-release supervision and arrangements for, say, accommodation, will have difficulty in assessing likely dates of liberation.
Secondly, the extra six days for above average behaviour and participation in programmes is bound to be based on subjective criteria. There may be consistency in every prison, but that consistency will be impossible to achieve across the 22 prison establishments and one possible private prison. The Scottish Prison Service-wide inconsistency will relate not only to the subjective criteria but also to the availability of programmes in which to participate. Is not that a complicated can of worms, liable to upset prison morale and reasonable behaviour?
Thirdly and finally, will not prison governors faced with overcrowding put out a quiet word that everyone is to have the full allowance unless they have been on report and the charge proved?
All that will be in replacement for a system that works well in practice.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: I had intended to deal with this matter when the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke in relation to Clause 38. But I understand from him that he does not intend to oppose Clause 38 and, accordingly, this is the appropriate time to raise the matter.
We are now deeply into the early release provisions of the Bill. The Committee indicated earlier that it supported Amendment No. 136A, which I am bound to say makes a dramatic difference to all the calculations, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pointed out to those of us who were prepared to do their arithmetic. So far as I can see, the amendment results in a saving in public expenditure of about £45 million in the first year or two.
But I am not concerned with the public expenditure consequences. It is slightly artificial to continue discussing the early release provisions unless the Government are prepared to give us some indication of what they intend to do following the Committee's decision to carry Amendment No. 136A. I am sure I should be enlightened if the noble and learned Lord would tell us.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has still not addressed to my satisfaction the risk assessment point. It seems to me that the early release days are to be awarded regardless of any risk assessment. A person who earns the early release will obtain it and come out whatever the state of belief of those who are in control of him about his suitability to be released into the community.
The problem that I find so difficult about early release is that there is a total lack of procedural fairness about it. It comes down to what the man on the landing thinks; whether he personally takes the decision or whether he simply reports to a Crown servant or whoever as to the view that he has. When we discussed the English proposals we were told that it would not be simply the warder on the landing but the person in charge of the

129
workshop, the person in charge of the programme, the person in charge of kitchens or whatever—this, that or the other aspect of prison life. They would all be reporting to some central body about a particular individual. He, so far as I can tell, has no right to see those reports. He is just told what his assessment is at the end of two months. He has no right to challenge and he cannot know what to address. Presumably, he will not have any knowledge of what is said about him unless he goes on appeal. The temptation for those 40 inmates a week to go on appeal in order to see why the decision is taken in relation to those early release days, will be considerable.
It is the total lack of fairness about the provisions that I find objectionable. I fully support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in his opposition to this entire clause.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I can deal first with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who referred to the fact that this would lead to a saving in public expenditure of £45 million. I am tempted to suggest that that may offer some insight as to why the amendment received support from some quarters of the Chamber, though I hasten to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I do not regard that as being one of his motives in bringing forward the amendment. I suspect others may have supported it for that reason and no doubt we will find out in the fullness of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that I had not yet addressed the issue of risk assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, indicated not long ago, this is a matter which arises fairly and squarely in Amendment No. 147 and I believe it would be more sensible to deal with it at that time.
In relation to the issue of procedural fairness, I do not claim a huge expertise in judicial review. But if there is one thing that judicial review is designed to look at, it is the issue of procedural fairness. All steps of the procedure will be subject to judicial review in the courts. If there is a lack of procedural fairness, the courts will not be slow to tell the Government that that is so.
The precise detail of how prisoners are given copies of relevant documents; how they make submissions on the relevant documents before decisions are taken; and how the various stages of the appeal procedure are conducted are matters which will be set out in the rules. If, for any reason, the basic principles of procedural fairness are not adhered to, there can be little doubt that judicial review will take place on some basis or another.
I suggest therefore that while it may be difficult prior to seeing the prison rules to be satisfied that these concerns will be addressed, Members of the Committee should accept that the Government will have no alternative but to address them. The Government have every wish to address them because they appreciate as well as anybody that if the procedure for dealing with the assessments is not conducted according to the requirements of procedural fairness, that would lead to unrest and consequences in the court may arise.
130
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, seeks to oppose the clause in its entirety. Members of the Committee will appreciate that it is a clause which is central to the Bill's scheme of early release. Earlier, I had occasion to go through the detail of the matter at a length which caused irritation to some Members of the Committee. I will therefore not trespass again in that regard.
I do not accept that the criteria will be subjective. I do not accept that staff cannot operate the procedure in a fair manner. I repeat that whoever is taking decisions in relation to the early release of prisoners has, to some extent, to rely on those who see them on a daily basis. However, I stress that the decisions will be taken much higher up the management ladder. I understand the anxieties of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I hope, however, that he will not persist in his opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am still puzzled about the question of judicial review. One can look at the procedures under judicial review if the body is subject to judicial review. I am not being in any way critical of the Government, because we are all puzzled by judicial review, but is the Lord Advocate saying that these procedures will automatically fall under the umbrella of judicial review and that the procedures can then be looked at in a quasi-judicial context; or will it be left to the courts to decide whether each individual case falls within the ambit of judicial review?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I apologise for not making the matter clearer earlier. The Government's position is that the statutory procedure set out in the Bill for the assessment of days will in its entirety be subject to judicial review in the courts. The case which establishes that as the law, in so far as it establishes that the prison authorities are subject to judicial review, is West v. The Secretary of State for Scotland. I may be wrong about that but I am absolutely certain that I am right about the fact that judicial review will apply. I have not heard any contradictor to that assertion, albeit that I may not have explained earlier the full extent to which that procedure will cover the various stages of the assessment, both the initial assessment and the appeal procedure.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Amendments to 1989 Act]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 145:
Page 38, leave out lines 9 to 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 go together. They have already been spoken to. I have nothing to add. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I have to depart now because I have to return to Edinburgh tonight, having judicial business to attend to tomorrow morning. I hope that someone may look carefully at Clause 41 and seek from the Government some explanation as to why the clause

131
has been introduced. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be present to deal with the other matters.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Mentally disordered offenders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part. I misunderstood the clause.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
RELEASE LICENCES
(" .—(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling 4 years or longer and who are not released on—

(a) life licence;

(b) supervised release order; or

(c) compassionate grounds.

(2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.
(3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it shall—

(a) be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and

(b) comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.

(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Board.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment in that with it we return to the matter that was briefly mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, some time ago. There is a danger of being too brief at this time of night when we face important clauses. The amendment seeks to improve public safety by ensuring that anyone sentenced to imprisonment for four years or more is subject to a period of supervision on licence from the date of his release until his sentence expiry date.
There are three reasons for the amendment. The 1993 Act, which has been referred to on many occasions during our debates on the Bill, introduced non-parole licences, which means that any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole is currently released on licence until his sentence expiry date. That is the current situation. At present, people sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and not receiving parole, when released are subject to supervision. These arrangements are important because they not only enhance public safety, which must be a primary concern, but they also add to the rehabilitation of the individual through supervision.
The current proposals in the Bill alter these arrangements as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court, will now be under any direct supervision. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but they will be liable to recall following a further offence. There is no requirement and nothing mandatory that prisoners released without parole on long sentences will be subject to a supervision order.
If the amendment is agreed to public safety will be increased because long-term prisoners will be supervised until their sentence expires. There is that important link of supervision until the sentence expires. We have to recognise that those falling into that category constitute a population from which those who commit future serious offences are likely to be drawn. The idea of mandatory supervision throughout this period is a very powerful one. In particular, this amendment will ensure that those sentenced for offences of dishonesty, theft by housebreaking, especially repeat, serious offenders and the professional criminal and thief, are brought into mandatory supervision on release. That is surely right not only in terms of trying to rehabilitate the prisoner who is making the transition from prison to the outside in a more structured and more supportive way, which is more likely to lead to successful rehabilitation, but more importantly—I say this quite plainly—these provisions are important for a public safety purpose to make sure that those who have been convicted of serious offences and who have served a significant time in prison, are supervised in that important period of time when they are first released into the community.
As I say, the argument for this amendment is two-fold. It concerns not only rehabilitation but, much more than that, public safety.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord mentioned the question of public safety. I would like to believe that the Committee were satisfied that the protection of the public is at the very heart of Government policy and at the heart of this Bill. That is demonstrated by two sets of provisions, those relating to amending the procedures for early release and those dealing with post-release supervision.
The new clause in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, addresses the position of offenders who are sentenced to a period of

133
imprisonment of five years or more and who are released, other than on compassionate grounds, without being subject to a supervised release order or a life licence. Yet the practical effect of the amendment for such offenders would be to retain the existing provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the 1993 Act because the release of such prisoners would be on licence. That would endure for the unexpired period of the sentence. It would require the offender to comply with such conditions as the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Parole Board, may from time to time specify and would require the offender to be under the supervision of a local authority social worker.
On the face of it, that proposal might appear attractive, but I believe that in practice it could well weaken the arrangements for post-release supervision. It is important to bear in mind the provisions in the Bill dealing with supervision which are set out in Clause 3 on page 5. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, drew attention to the fact that there is a difference between the English and Scottish Bills on this matter, but it can be seen from subsection (2) of the new clause that in certain instances the supervision order will be mandatory while in others it will be discretionary.
It is important to understand that supervised release orders are potentially much stronger tools for post-release supervision than are parole licences. One reason is that they can last considerably longer, if necessary. If post-release supervision is required, it is, we believe, preferable that it should be done by way of a supervised release order rather than a period of licence between the five-sixths point and the end of the sentence to which it would apply. We believe that it is important to avoid obscuring the fact that the courts have a responsibility to consider, when imposing sentence in these serious cases, whether a supervised release order is appropriate if it is not a case in which it is mandatory.
We are concerned that the new clause would seek to deflect the courts from applying their minds to the very important issue of whether to impose a supervised release order in discretionary cases. If they did so, that could have the effect of reducing the number imposed which, far from enhancing public safety, would serve to diminish it. That is because the maximum length of the licence could be only to the end of the determinate sentence, whereas Clause 3(5) makes it clear that the periods for which a supervised release order could be imposed can be far in excess of the expiry of the determinate part
Lord Sewel: Will the noble and learned Lord accept that the amendment refers specifically to the fact that the provisions would not apply to those released on a supervised release order?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept that, but it simply bears out the point that I am seeking to make. If at the point of sentence the court knows that some other body—namely, the Parole Board—some years down the line can address its mind to the issue of licence subject to conditions which in certain respects would be similar to supervision, that could distract the court from the importance of considering whether it—the court—should impose the supervised release order. If the court knew that
134
if it did so these provisions for licence would not apply, I suggest that that might be a very cogent reason why some judges would be dissuaded from making use of the power, despite the fact that it has the benefit of extending long after the expiry of the determinate part, which is not something that can apply to licence conditions for reasons of complying with the European Convention on Human Rights.
We also believe that the new clause would have a further undesirable consequence because of its requirement for post-release supervision on a blanket basis irrespective of whether the risk required it. In every case where the prisoner was released, the licence would apply. It would inevitably mean that some effort on the part of those responsible for supervising prisoners would be expended on cases where there was no real need for it and no real benefit to either the prisoner or the community. We believe that the resources of social workers and others who are involved in supervision should instead be concentrated on cases where there is a real need for this to continue, in some instances many years beyond the expiry of the determinate part.
For these reasons, we do not believe that this new clause should be added to the Bill. While we sympathise with the motive that lies behind it, we believe that on closer examination it will create difficulty. I hope, therefore, that it will not be insisted upon.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am extremely grateful for the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the distinction between supervised release orders and the early release procedures. I now understand it better. It is confusing because it is so different from the position under the English Bill. One tries to fit the two together but they do not do so, and indeed should not do so, because the systems are different.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that noble Lords should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, I believe that his reply was the most unpersuasive I have heard during the course of the debates on either this Bill or the English Bill. What is his argument? As I understand it, the real danger of this amendment is that it will distract the court from determining whether or not there should be a supervised release order. I have rather more confidence in Her Majesty's judges in Scotland than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appears to have. It seems to me that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is overwhelming. The Committee has not heard a serious reply from the noble and learned Lord as to why this amendment should not be accepted.
Public safety is a matter which the Secretary of State for Scotland spends a great deal of time discussing with anyone who is prepared to listen to him, but public safety is guaranteed by this amendment. I am astonished to hear the noble and learned Lord say that one of the grave dangers inherent in the amendment is that we will return to the provisions of the 1993 Act. Who introduced the 1993 Act? The present Government. We are therefore asked to disbelieve everything said by his predecessor, now a distinguished judge in Scotland. All of that is to be swept aside. Under no circumstances must we pay any

135
attention to what his predecessor said when occupying his present office, but we must accept uncritically everything that he says this evening. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is overwhelmingly right and that my noble friends will vote for it.
Lord Sewel: I am equally disappointed by the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, primarily because I believe that much of it is basically irrelevant. The noble and learned Lord put up a straw man and proposed the supervised release order against what we propose in this amendment. The fact is that the amendment specifically excludes its application to those released through a supervised release order. There is no weakening of the supervised release order route. It is there. It is designed for those potentially dangerous releasees who, having served four years or more, come back into the community and are not subject to life licence or supervised release orders, or who are released on compassionate grounds.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot deny that as the Bill stands now there is every likelihood that a significant group of prisoners, having committed crimes worthy of a sentence of four years or longer, will be released back into the community without any supervision at all. Surely, that is wrong if one is to protect and look after the safety of the public. I beg to move.
11.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 31.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Fitt, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Sewel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.20 p.m.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Police grant]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("each") and insert ("the financial year 1997–98 and for each subsequent").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 147B to 147GA and Amendment No. 150C. These amendments to Clauses 42, 43 and 62 will ease the implementation of the provisions of the Bill dealing with police grant and common police services. They have no policy implications. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 147B to 147G:
Page 46, line 29, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("and any determination under this subsection for any financial year may be varied or revoked by a subsequent such determination for that year.").
Page 47. line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 11, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 13, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3) above").
Page 47, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) A determination made under section 32(3) (police grant) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (as inserted into that Act by subsection (1) above) for the financial year 1997–98 may, notwithstanding that this section comes into force after the beginning of that financial year, relate to the whole of that year; and the first such determination shall take effect in place of any determination made for that year under section 32(1) of that Act as it had effect prior to the coming into force of this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Common police services]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147GA:
Page 48, line 37, at end insert—
("(3) Section 36, and the definition of "central services" in section 38(5), of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as substituted respectively by subsections (1) and (2) above, shall come into force or, if this section comes into force after that date, be deemed to have come into force, on 1st April 1997.
(4) The first determination made by the Secretary of State under section 36(3) of that Act, as so substituted, for the recovery of any expenditure incurred by him under that section—

(a) may be applied by him in relation to any expenditure so incurred during the period beginning on 1st April 1997 and ending on the date on which the determination is made; and

(b) subject to subsection (5) below, shall take effect in place of any provision for such recovery made in an Order under the said section 36 as it had effect prior to the coming into force of this section.

137
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall entitle the Secretary of State to recover a higher proportion of his expenditure in relation to the period mentioned in that subsection than he would have been entitled to recover in relation to that period under any such Order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 147A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Samples etc. from persons convicted of sexual and violent offences]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 147GB:
Page 50, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 51 and insert ("This section applies where a person—

(a) is convicted on or after the relevant date of a relevant offence and is sentenced to imprisonment;

(b) was convicted before the relevant date of a relevant offence, was sentenced to imprisonment and is serving that sentence on or after the relevant date;

(c) was convicted before the relevant date of a specified relevant offence, was sentenced to imprisonment, is not serving that sentence on that date or at any time after that date but was serving it at any time during the period of five years ending with the day before that date.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 147GC to 147GJ. This is an important group of amendments which are intended to give the police wider powers to obtain DNA samples for DNA purposes in order to assist them in their investigation of the most serious crimes of a sexual or violent nature and, thereby, give the public greater protection. The Bill already gives the police powers to take such samples and other physical data from sexual and violent offenders who are in custody. What we are now proposing is that they should be given additional powers to take samples from certain of the most serious offenders who have completed their prison sentences and have been released before the commencement date.
We recognise that it is unusual to make a provision which will affect offenders who have completed their sentences. We appreciate that there are issues relating to civil liberties here. But we believe that the crimes committed by such offenders are sufficiently heinous that all steps should be taken to ensure that the public is properly protected from them. It appears that there is a high propensity on the part of sexual and violent offenders to repeat their reprehensible behaviour, and we therefore consider that it would be very useful for the police to be able to take samples from recently released offenders to assist them in their investigations. Of course, the rights of past offenders have to be weighed against the right of the public to be protected from those criminals who have committed crimes of this serious nature. The amendments that we have brought forward attempt to strike a balance. We intend to allow the police to take samples from offenders who have been released from prison, but we intend that that right should be limited by certain safeguards to prevent any undue
138
encroachment on the lives of persons who have been released from custody. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 147GC to 147GJ:
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
Page 51, line 4, leave out ("at any time while the person is in legal custody").
Page 51, line 21, at end insert—
("(3A) Where this section applies by virtue of—

(a) paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above, the powers conferred by subsection (2) above may be exercised at any time when the person is serving his sentence; and

(b) paragraph (c) of the said subsection (1), those powers may only be exercised within a period of three months beginning on the relevant date.

(3B) Where a person in respect of whom the power conferred by subsection (2) above may be exercised—

(a) is no longer serving his sentence of imprisonment, subsections (3)(a), (5) and (6);

(b) is serving his sentence of imprisonment, subsection (3)(b),

of section 19 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as they apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section.").
Page 51, line 29, at end insert—
(""relevant date" means the date on which section 45 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 is commenced;").
Page 52, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—

("(viii) section 5(1) or (2) of that Act (unlawful intercourse with girl under 13 years);

(viiia) section 5(3) of that Act (unlawful intercourse with girl aged between 13 and 16 years);").

Page 53, line 29, at end insert—
("and any reference to a person serving his sentence shall be construed as a reference to the person being detained in a prison, hospital or other place in pursuance of a sentence of imprisonment; and
"specified relevant offence" means—

(a) any relevant sexual offence mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (f) and (i)(viii) of the definition of that expression and any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (h) of that definition where the person against whom the offence was committed did not consent; and

(b) any relevant violent offence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (g) of the definition of that expression and any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (e) of that definition where the assault is to the victim's severe injury,

but, notwithstanding subsection (5) below, does not include—

(i) conspiracy or incitement to commit; and

(ii) aiding and abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of,

any of those offences.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 45, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish briefly to clarify one point; namely, does the offender have any choice in the matter of giving a sample to the police or, alternatively, does he have to submit to the requirement placed upon him by the police constable in accordance with the schedule of offences? Is it practical to take such a sample from an unconsenting offender?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Bill gives the police certain powers to take samples from offenders. When the provisions come into force, we hope that they will be respected by those to whom they will apply. New Clause 19B of the 1995 Act (which is set out at the foot of page 53 of the Bill) indicates that the constable,
"may use reasonable force in",
taking such samples. However, we hope that that will not prove necessary, but if it should the power is there. I hope that that answers the noble Earl's question.
On Question, Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Criminal legal assistance]:
11.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, moves his amendment, I hope I may say, with the permission of the Committee, that it is now half-past eleven at night. I think we have been here since quarter past three, subject to a one hour break. I am not pleading sympathy but in any other factory that would be a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
We are now about to discuss an important matter; namely, the question of legal aid, the code of conduct, the relationship between the code of conduct and solicitors and the Faculty of Advocates. These amendments may look simple because they are short but I make a request to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, subject to any views that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, may have, that perhaps the Government can take the rest of the amendments away and consider them because they have been tabled only recently and perhaps contact those of us who have an interest in this matter and even have a meeting with us to discuss what the outcome might be. That would certainly save much discussion this evening; otherwise, we may be here for some considerable time.
I have not consulted in detail with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, but I thought my suggestion would be in the best interests of justice, which is what this Bill is supposed to be all about. I hope the Government can take these amendments away, think about them and have discussions between now and Report stage. If the Government consider there are amendments that they can support, we can return to them on Report. It is regrettable that a few people are facing one another across the Chamber discussing important matters in
140
relation to the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might give the matter some thought.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I also feel it is disappointing that a revising Chamber should be so empty when we are discussing matters of such importance to the Scottish constitution. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may make my position clear, as I have sought to do earlier in the Committee stage. Any noble Lord should feel perfectly free to talk to me about any amendment or any clause for whatever purpose. It is regrettable that we should discuss these amendments at this hour but the reasons for that are obvious to those of us who have participated in the Committee stage since it began last Tuesday.
I can indicate now that because the next group of amendments were tabled so late in the day the Government have no alternative but to resist them. As soon as I saw them I sought to obtain from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates a response on them, but while he has provided me with a fairly lengthy letter, he is perfectly understandably not yet in a position to reach a final view on these matters on behalf of the faculty. That might satisfy the Committee that there is no point in pressing ahead with them. I have discussed matters recently with various members of the solicitors' branch of the profession and I am well aware what lies behind amendments that they have invited the Committee to move. However, I am open to discussion on those matters, too. So far as I recollect, I do not intend to accept any of the amendments which we have still to discuss. On the clear understanding that I shall discuss them, it is a matter for the Committee whether or not it presses the amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 147H:
Page 54, line 10, at end insert—
("() advocates;").
The noble Earl said: It is disappointing that we have had two and a half days to discuss a Bill which took four days to discuss when it related to England. However, having said that, I beg to move Amendment No. 147H.
This group of numerous amendments has been suggested to me by the Society of Solicitor-Advocates. This relatively new group of legal professionals, established by legislation in 1990, is keen to establish its position in the legal system. Indeed, at the Strathclyde tram inquiry the petitioners were represented by a solicitor-advocate.
This huge group of amendments relates to the need for a level playing field for advocates and solicitor-advocates. This will be particularly relevant in the High Court. It is conceivable that both advocates and solicitor-advocates may appear in trials involving multiple accused persons. It seems inappropriate that the Scottish Legal Aid Board should regulate representation

141
by solicitor-advocates under the code of practice, as proposed in Clause 46, and be unable to regulate representation by advocates.
There is also an issue about stewardship of the legal aid fund. It is essential that the public receive the same standard of service from solicitors and advocates.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: There is a common theme running through the amendments. It is to put advocates and solicitors on a level playing field. In the administration of justice there cannot be a level playing field. I declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. It has been in existence since, I think, 1532. I am subject to correction as I speak off the top of my head. In so far as I have any thoughts at this time of night, I think that the Faculty of Advocates may go back to 1452 and the reign of James III.
Perhaps it should be made clear to the Committee that the Faculty of Advocates has had its own code of conduct for a considerable number of years. Those of us who are involved know that successive deans of faculty have not dealt lightly with misdemeanours by members of the Faculty of Advocates. Indeed, I am sure that the records of the faculty will indicate occasions when members of the faculty who did not comply with the code of conduct were suspended from practice, with various other admonitions against them.
The faculty has already established its own ombudsman—a disciplinary committee formerly chaired by Lord Kincraig who was the author, to some extent, of the 1993 Bill which the Government have now thrown out of the window. Fortunately, Lord Kincraig did not go out with the Bill. He was succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. So we have a built in system of discipline within the faculty. It is important to remember that solicitors are not members of the Faculty of Advocates. They are solicitors with extended rights of audience in the High Court of Scotland. They are not within the discipline of the faculty; and there is no reason why they should be. I understand that they are still subject to the governing body, namely the Law Society of Scotland.
Therefore we have two bodies working together. I appreciate, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, that one may have five people in a trial, three represented by counsel, and two by solicitor-advocates. But that does not alter the fact that if any of the five persons representing the people step out of line their own disciplinary body will take charge of any complaints made by the public, a juror, an accused or anyone else.
I do not intend to dwell on these amendments at any length since the Government have made it clear that they will not accept any of them. At this stage it would not be profitable to go into the minutiae. However, I wish to put on record the general principle that the Faculty of Advocates has its own code of conduct, headed by a very highly respected Member of this place with two laymen. The Law Society has its own disciplinary procedure. I assure the Committee that appearing before it is not a pleasant experience for either
142
the solicitor who has stepped out of line or the counsel or solicitor who may be representing that person. The society is very rigorous in its application of standards.
It would be folly to mix up the two systems. Solicitor-advocates should remain what they are—solicitors, with extended rights of audience. Members of the Faculty of Advocates should remain what they are; namely, members of the College of Justice in Scotland. We should leave matters as they stand, unless there is some very compelling reason as to why they should be linked together.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might take these issues on hoard, and that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, might consider these factors in relation to the rest of the amendments before the Committee. Tonight, we are not debating these matters; we are merely making observations. No doubt if these amendments are tabled again on Report, we shall hold a proper debate on them.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The amendments tabled by the noble Earl, coming as they do at this stage in the Bill, raise some very important and interesting issues. However, they have been tabled at a time which makes it impossible for either the Government or, more importantly, those who might be affected by them to give these matters the full consideration that they merit.
I appreciate that solicitor-advocates may have concerns about the proposals in Part V of the Bill. However, I wish to assure them that, although they will be obliged to observe the code of practice if they wish to register for criminal legal assistance in their capacities as solicitors, so far as their role as solicitor-advocate is concerned different considerations apply.
I have already referred to the fact that I received only today a very full letter from the Dean of Faculty. It deals with a number of important issues which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned. The faculty's procedures for discipline is one of those matters; it is set out very fully and cogently. It may be that the Dean of Faculty will think it of assistance to disclose the contents of that letter to others who are interested in this amendment apart from the Society of Solicitor-Advocates, which promoted it. I know that these amendments have the support of the Law Society.
I am happy to listen to anybody who wishes to talk to me about the amendments or send me any further epistles about them. However, I wish to make it clear that it would be quite inappropriate to indicate acceptance of them tonight or indeed any indication that they might prove acceptable during the currency of this Bill. They raise major matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned.
On the assurance that I am willing to listen to anyone who wishes to speak to me, I hope that the noble Earl will not insist on this and the successive amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should merely like to establish that solicitors have a code of conduct at present; they have an independent disciplinary tribunal, and there is a government ombudsman to deal with their problems.

143
The noble and learned Lord said that there is not enough time to give adequate thought to this matter. That I can see. Will the noble and learned Lord say how much pre-legislative consultation there was? That seems to be the flaw in all this. If the Dean of Faculty is only now being asked for an opinion, one wonders why this matter did not arise in pre-legislative consultation. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether he has met the Law Society representatives to discuss the matter.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My understanding is that of all the bodies in Scotland which meet regularly with Scottish Office officials and Ministers, the Law Society is pretty much at the head of the queue. These consultations take place formally and informally, there is a wide exchange of views on matters relating to legal aid. The Law Society must be complimented on bringing forward its ideas on how the scheme might be altered. It has proved to be of use in discussing the Government's ideas, so there has been wide-ranging consultation. The faculty has been involved to some extent as well. But until now no one has suggested that it would be appropriate to have the provisions apply to people who appear in court, in the High Court, who are detached from the client in the way that a member of a faculty is, who must be instructed by a solicitor or in the way that a solicitor-advocate is. He has to be one step removed from the accused.
So there are fundamental issues here which I am happy to discuss further, but the fact that they arise late is not a consequence of a lack of consultation among the profession in Scotland. It arises for reasons which I understand; the society of solicitor-advocates is of the view that it might provide a level playing field. I might hear a strong argument from some quarters that the level playing field already exists.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am fairly grateful for that answer. The solicitor-advocates are obviously anxious about the matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to hold consultations before the Report stage, but I undertake to bring the subject back at Report because it clearly needs a full and final answer. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I beg to move, That the House be now resumed. I think the Government should give some indication of how late we shall sit tonight. Unless the Minister gives an astonishingly provocative reply, I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue, but he will remember, as we all do, the decisions of the Procedure Committee following the report of Lord Rippon and his colleagues.
It is wholly unreasonable that a revising Chamber should discuss matters as important as this at a quarter to 12 at night. There are about 16 of us discussing major issues involving the criminal law of Scotland. On
144
Monday of last week, the House sat until three o'clock in the morning. The next night we sat until nearly midnight. Some restraint must be shown by Ministers, even when they have got into an appalling mess with their legislative programme.
It is obvious that the Committee is becoming rather tired and ill-tempered—though not on this side of the Committee. I saw a gesture from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, which I clearly misunderstood and I must tell the Minister that it worried me considerably. It did not seem to be consistent with the Prime Minister's views on the way in which people should conduct themselves in public life. The noble Baroness is a popular Member of the House and I would not hold it against her. Nevertheless, it shows the extremities to which people are driven when we sit as late as this.
Seriously, there are important questions involved if the House is to be seen as a proper revising Chamber. Every day we hear indications from Ministers about the unique service performed by the House in scrutinising legislation. That is right. But how can it be suggested that we are seriously examining legislation—16 of us—knowing full well that if there are not 30 in the Government Lobby, or 30 voting in the House, the House will be counted out. That is the reality.
This Chamber accepted the report of the Procedure Committee recommending that we should aim—it was only an aim—to adjourn not later than 10 o'clock at night. We are now approaching midnight and this is the third time within a period of eight days that such a situation has obtained. No doubt we shall have plenty more occasions of the same character in the next week or two.
I hope that the Government will now indicate what they expect to happen and whether they still believe that it is right to discuss issues of such fundamental importance involving the criminal law of Scotland at this time of the evening.
Moved, That the House be now resumed(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Elton: Having heard a great deal of the proceedings on this Bill, I should like to make just two observations. The first is that the Procedure Committee's decision as to time is, of course, the opinion of the House delegated to it. But I have to say that I recall many nights on which we have debated long beyond midnight matters more complicated than this and done so very effectively.
My second observation is that the earlier stages of the proceedings on this Bill today were conducted in a very leisurely manner. The noble Lord may make what gestures he likes but it seemed to me that there was a leisureliness all round the Chamber for which we are now paying and which I regret.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect to the noble Lord, I take objection to that remark. We take Scottish legislation very seriously. We may have different characteristics from people south of the Border and maybe sometimes we appear to be a little laid back about what is going on on both sides of the Chamber.

145
That does not mean that we do not treat matters seriously and try to expedite the business of the Chamber. I am sure that in due course, if maybe the noble Lord comes up to Scotland for a holiday, he will familiarise himself with the Scottish character more than he seems to have done up to date.
We have tried to expedite the Bill. The reason that we got lost, if I may so put it—I do not criticise anyone for it—is that one amendment took 58 minutes to debate. That is where the Bill went astray. As I understand the matter, what the Government wanted and what was agreed was that the Bill should pass its Committee stage tonight. If the Government (the noble and learned Lord has been very positive about it) are prepared to take the later provisions of the Bill away, think about them and receive representations from the Faculty of Advocates, the Society of Solicitor-Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland, then the Government will have what they want; namely, that the Committee stage would pass tonight, at this stage, without any further debate as I understand it; and they would be wrong.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: So far as concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I hope that I had made it clear that I am happy to listen to representations on any amendment. But I also made it clear that I intended to resist the amendments and that it was a matter for noble Lords whether or not they moved them.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, he will be well aware that these matters are for discussion by the usual channels. It has been agreed by the usual channels that we should continue. One amendment may have taken longer than many people anticipated; but that is a fact of parliamentary life, for which I do not accept or accord any blame. We are where we are because of what happened earlier.
Having made it clear that if anyone wishes to discuss matters further, I hope that the Committee may find it possible so to conduct the rest of the business that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will get to his bed earlier than he might otherwise do.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am perfectly prepared to remain with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate so long as he wishes. The question is whether 30 members of his own party will remain with us to ensure that the business of the Government has its quorum.
The noble and learned Lord made two comments. He referred to what happened earlier. We all remember what happened earlier. The noble and learned Lord was involved in a filibuster. He was asked by the Government Chief Whip to continue speaking long enough to ensure that enough Conservative Peers arrived to defeat the amendment. We all know that, notwithstanding his admirable 30-minute speech—
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It was 40 minutes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I apologise, I am not paying sufficient tribute to the Lord Advocate; it was a
146
40-minute speech. That is one of the reasons we are sitting at nearly midnight tonight. So what happened earlier, to repeat the direct language of the Lord Advocate, was that we had a 40-minute speech from the noble and learned Lord to try to frustrate the Opposition Benches who wished to ensure that the amendment was carried.
That is the first point. We then come to the interesting intervention—as they always are—of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He told us that the Chamber often sat beyond midnight. That is true. The reason Lord Rippon was invited to look into the question of the sitting hours of the Chamber was for just that reason; namely, people on both sides of the House regarded it as objectionable that a revising Chamber should discuss serious questions about the law of this country when only 12 or so people were in the Chamber.
We are now being invited by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I hope I summarised his argument fairly—to ignore what the House decided on the recommendation of Lord Rippon. The Government are in a desperate state with their parliamentary timetable. But we ignore Lord Rippon. The Lord Advocate tells us that, whatever is said, he will oppose every amendment, notwithstanding what the arguments may be in their favour. That is an extraordinary approach.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I will gladly give way. I am always delighted to give the floor to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, it was an astonishing statement. I have never heard a Minister, during the course of a Committee stage of a Bill, say, "Notwithstanding what may be said on any amendment later in our proceedings, I propose to ask the Chamber to reject it". I have not heard a statement like that from any Minister in any government.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord did not hear the words that the Minister said as a preface to that; namely, that the amendments were tabled so late it was impossible to give them just discussion or reach a fair decision without discussion between stages.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There are a substantial number of amendments which follow on the Marshalled List which were tabled a significant length of time ago. That is therefore not an argument.
I indicated earlier that I would not invite the Committee to make a decision, but if we continue like this, the temptation to do so, and to do so repeatedly, will become very attractive to some of us.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the Motion that the House be resumed. It is extraordinary that we have the West Lothian question reversed this evening. If I look around the Chamber at the 12 or so people here, the Scots are in a complete minority; there may be three or four of them present. Yet here we are about to embark upon a discussion of the representation of Scottish

147
people in Scottish courts by Scottish advocates and solicitors in a system that even I, with some experience of Scottish law, do not fully understand.
It does a disservice to this Chamber that we should be pretending to legislate for a nation and a country which does not have a legislature in this manner, and to be doing it at midnight. I support the Motion.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: For clarification perhaps I can ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether, by implication or direct invitation, he said that he would consider these later amendments and that he was open to representations from any body involved in their formulation. In other words, a convenient way of dealing with this would be if he would convene a meeting with all parties represented who have tabled amendments, and have a discussion to see whether some consensus on these matters can be reached before Report stage. I would be perfectly happy to attend such a meeting.
I may have been rather churlish when the noble and learned Lord invited me to come and talk earlier in the debate and I said that he should bring legislation here and it should be discussed here. But if he wants to convene a meeting with the Royal Society, the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Solicitor-Advocates, when we can talk round the table for the benefit of the people of Scotland, I would be happy to accept that invitation. In the meantime, I support what has been said by other Members of the Committee; it is time we went home; we should not discuss the constitution of Scotland at precisely midnight, as the clock now shows.
Midnight
Lord Sewel: I have no criticism of the Lord Advocate on this score. The amendments were put down relatively late. They clearly refer to and affect significant interests in Scotland. It would be wrong for a view to be reached on the amendments prior to those interests, and the interests affected by the amendments one way or another, being consulted. It is quite appropriate that they should be taken away and thought about. The Lord Advocate should be in a position to carry out such consultations as he thinks appropriate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: After what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, said, I wonder whether the Lord Advocate proposes to respond. I very much hope he does. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has made a sensible suggestion. We wait with interest to find out what the Lord Advocate is going to say about it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Lord Advocate is going to repeat what he hoped he had made clear before. As presently advised, the Government do not find any of the amendments acceptable as some of them were put down very late in the day and others were put down a few days ago. The Government have had ample time to reflect on their consideration of these matters and such consultation as has been taking place over the past few months. It is therefore a matter for Members of the Committee whether they intend to insist on them.
148
What I will say is that if anyone wishes to meet me or send me representations I shall be happy to entertain them. I do not think convening a meeting of all interested parties is the way forward in dealing with these matters and I would offer no promise to follow that approach. It would quite probably do more harm than good. However, if individuals, whether Members of your Lordships' Committee or anyone else, wish to make representations, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a particular amendment on this occasion, and there is a case which they wish to explain in writing or orally, I am more than happy to do that and will arrange for appropriate officials to be in attendance if that were thought to be of assistance. However, the fact of the matter is that the usual channels decided that this should be sorted out and that the Committee stage should last for three days. Unless Members of the Committee feel it appropriate to withdraw their amendments, I regret to say that we shall have to go through them one by one. Having explained our view, I think we should move on.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he assure us that adequate time will be given at Report to discuss these difficult issues?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sure the noble Earl knows the answer to that question. It is a matter for discussion between the usual channels. It is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box or for opposition spokesmen at the Dispatch Box to indicate how long we should take at later stages of a Bill which have yet to be reached. That is one of the good reasons why the usual channels are there. It would be wrong for me to offer any comment other than to say that I hear what the noble Earl says.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I indicated earlier that I did not at this stage intend to suggest that we should vote on the Motion but I must tell the Government quite bluntly that the idea that we should go on night after night behaving in this way and being treated by the Government in this fashion is simply unacceptable. It is no use talking about the usual channels as though we are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States. We are not the Supreme Court of the United States and we are merely told what the Government have decided.
The Government have decided, because they have got their legislative programme in a mess, to give a totally inadequate amount of time to the Bill. That is why we are talking about it at five minutes past midnight. It is not wholly the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, having made a 40 minute speech earlier this evening. I can see an expression of horror on the face of the Government Chief Whip that his noble and learned friend spoke for 40 minutes but I fear I must tell him that he did speak for 40 minutes—50 minutes I am now told. It is getting longer and longer as I speak. So I fear that the Lord Advocate will have a very unattractive meeting with the Government Chief Whip at the end of the debate as to why he behaved as he did. I will do the best I can to protect him. As I have indicated, I do not

149
propose to continue this debate. It is necessary, and possibly will be necessary in the future, to raise matters of this sort if we are going to be treated by the Government in the way that we are at the moment on a Bill of major significance so far as concerns Scotland. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147L to 147ZR not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Employment of solicitors in relation to criminal legal assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 147ZS to 147ZU not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Fixed payments]:
[Amendments Nos. 147ZUA to 147ZW not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Contracts for the provision of criminal legal assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 147ZV and 147ZW not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power of investigation of Scottish Legal Aid Board]:
[Amendments Nos. 147ZX to 147JZ not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Regulations in relation to criminal legal assistance]:
[Amendment No. 147KZ not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 148:
Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
VERDICT OF JURY: 10 MEMBERS TO AGREE
(" . After section 100 of the 1995 Act (verdict of jury) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Verdict of jury: 10 members to agree.
100A.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence unless 10 members of the jury vote in favour of a guilty verdict.
(2) The verdict of the jury shall be publicly recorded and the number of jurors voting in any verdict shall be publicly announced.".").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry, but I am moving this amendment! Amendment No. 148 may not be the solution, but it is offered in the spirit of a possible solution to the problem of the misrecording of verdicts. The details are in the amendment, but perhaps I may briefly give the Committee the background. There have been at least two recent cases which have caused a degree of concern where the misrecording of a verdict has given rise to public disquiet. On one occasion in 1995 at a sitting of the High Court in Glasgow two youths were allowed to leave the court when the jury foreman stated that the case was not proven when in fact the jury had decided that the accused were guilty. That was the result of the jury foreman wrongly stating a verdict which was in fact completely at variance with the jury's actual decision. There was a second case in November 1996 when Mr. Keith Chisholm was leaving the dock at Glasgow sheriff court after being found not
150
guilty by a jury of causing the death of a 14 year-old boy. The jury indicated that an alternative verdict of dangerous driving had not been recorded. Those were two occasions when the verdict of the jury was at variance with what had been said and what was recorded.
This is clearly a matter of significant concern. Those cases were bad enough; but one can think of even worse cases where if the same thing happened—perhaps as a result of accident or ignorance—it would rightly cause great disquiet. We now have an opportunity in this Bill to rectify the position. As I have said, this amendment is offered as a possible solution. I am quite prepared to accept that it may not be the solution, but we need a solution. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully appreciate what lies behind the tabling of this new clause, and I share the concern which has arisen occasionally but with unfortunate regularity in recent years. Following the most recent such case, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Lord Justice General to seek his views on what might be done to prevent such occurrences in the future. The Lord Justice General indicated that he too shared that concern and that he had already acted to refer the matter to the Criminal Courts Rules Council for its consideration. Noble Lords will recall that under Section 304 of the 1995 Act such a council is now in existence and is constituted of the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Clerk of Justiciary, a further Lord Commissioner of Justiciary and various other persons including sheriffs and two members of the Faculty of Advocates, two solicitors and others with an interest and qualifications in these matters. They are to consider the matter and report back to the court.
Our understanding is that the Lord Justice General has it in mind to deal with the matter in the light of the advice that he has received. He could act by way of Act of Adjournal, a procedure which was discussed earlier, or by way of practice note; but our understanding is that he is as determined as we are that there should be some procedure set down by which these unfortunate occurrences could be eliminated.
We believe that the best way for this to be addressed is for the council to consider the matter at its next meeting. It is composed of those who have vast practical experience. There is no suggestion from the Lord Justice General that he thinks that he does not have the necessary statutory powers to act. On the basis that the matter is being looked at urgently, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed. However, I fully understand why the matter is raised.
Lord Sewel: On the basis of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 148A:
Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
INCREASED PROBATION FOR SEX OFFENDERS
(" . After section 228 of the 1995 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Increased probation for sex offenders.
228A.—(1) A probation order made under section 228 above shall in the case of an offender convicted of an offence listed in subsection (2) below be of such duration exceeding six months but not exceeding five years as the court may determine.
(2) The offences to which this section applies shall include—

(a) rape or attempted rape;

(b) sodomy or attempted sodomy where in either case one party does not consent;

(c) lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour; and

(d) any offence committed by contravention of section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen years).".").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 148A is a fairly simple amendment with a public input. The side note indicates that the amendment involves increased probation for sex offenders. It is suggested that for certain sex offences set out on page 23 of the Marshalled List a probation order should be imposed of a duration exceeding six months but not exceeding five years, as the court may determine.
The amendment is moved in an effort to keep under review, if not control, sex offenders who have caused so much public disquiet. A probation order can do only what it is said to do, namely, to lay down a set of conditions. If the person who is the subject of the order breaks it he comes back to the court. But in light of recent press reports and public animosity towards paedophiles these people are changing their names. Instead of knowing whether they are back in the community, no one will know whether a sex offender is living next door to a family with young children and so on. To that extent, the probation order will make sure that the identity of the person to whom the order applies is always known to the authorities, whatever he calls himself anywhere else within the community. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This amendment reminds me of the classic disagreement among criminal justice social workers as to whether probation is about routine supervision or the solution of a behavioural modification task. I believe, recognising that most criminal justice social workers view probation as behaviour modification, that five years will be a difficult period to sustain.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution which bears out the Government's understanding of the current position. Our view is that it would be premature, if not completely unnecessary, to increase the power in the manner proposed, in view of the fact that currently only 4 per cent. of probation orders are for a period of over
152
two years. In 1994, which is the last year for which I have statistics, only 62 probation orders were made in the High Court. That represented approximately 1 per cent. of the total number of such orders in Scotland. Some of the offences referred to in the amendment are ones where only the High Court has jurisdiction.
The fact is that no representations have been made to the Scottish Office to suggest that the maximum period should be increased. There is a consultation group in existence which deals with national standards for social work services in the criminal justice system. That group consists of representatives of the judiciary, police, the Association of Directors of Social Work, the British Association of Social Work, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others. The group last met on 3rd March this year. It has it in mind to revise the national standards for probation. I undertake to feed this suggestion into the group for discussion at its next meeting. However, the Government are not persuaded that it is necessary and the noble Earl tends to agree with that view. For those reasons, 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. The phraseology does not say that the provision must extend to five years, but it gives the court the power to extend it to five years.
Those of us who read not only the so-called respectable press but the tabloid press are well aware that they have now become—I cannot think of another phrase—bloodhounds. They chase sex offenders all over the place. We know what happened, as no doubt does the noble and learned Lord, in Stirling when the social services department tried to rehabilitate a sex offender. The local people held a demonstration and threatened to break into the house. He had to be removed and goodness knows where he is now.
I hope that the Crown Office will keep an eye on the way the press are following this up because, irrespective of the offence that has been committed, it does not seem fair that people should be pursued for the rest of their lives, in the way some people are now being pursued by the press. With that observation, for what it is worth, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Precognitions]:
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Grants for forensic medical services]:
[Amendments Nos. 150A and 150B not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Confiscation of alcohol from persons under 18]:
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I note that Clause 58 constitutes a separate Bill for England and Wales,

153
so we must be careful what is tacked onto the back of this substantial Scottish Bill. I wish to put one question to the Minister. Subsection (1) provides that a police constable who has reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person in a public place is, first, under 18 and, secondly, has alcohol in his possession may require that person to surrender the alcohol to him. Then it quaintly states:
"and may dispose of it in such manner as he considers appropriate; and he may also require that person to supply him with his name and address".
In the event of the person complying, has he committed an offence? I know that subsections (3) and (4) provide that a person who does not comply certainly has committed an offence, but it is not clear whether the under-age drinker in public has committed an offence if he complies with the police request.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: He certainly has not committed an offence under this legislation. The offence created by subsection (3) is for a failure to comply with the requirement made out under subsections (1) or (2). Therefore, if one complies with the requirement there is no offence. Off the top of my head, I cannot be sure whether any other offence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act may have been committed too. I rather suspect that it may have been, depending upon where the public place may be. However, as regards this Bill, it is quite clear that if you comply with the requirement made by the police no offence has been committed.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 150C:
Page 71, line 25, leave out ("this section") and insert ("sections 42 and 43").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 147A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 72, line 37, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.62)
. In section 3D(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (interpretation of sections 3A to 3C), for the words "section 3 of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(6) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act I995".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153, 155 and 159. These are technical amendments ghich have no policy implications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 82, line 27, at end insert—
("() In section 15 (rights of persons arrested or detained), in subsection (6)(b), for the words "actual custody" there shall he substituted the word "care".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 152. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 84, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
("(14) In section 118 (disposal of appeals)—

(a) in subsection (4)(b), the word "additional" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) The High Court may give its reasons for the disposal of any appeal in writing without giving those reasons orally.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is intended to improve the procedures of the appeal court by providing the court with the option of delivering its opinions in writing without having to read out its reasons in open court.
The current requirement to read out opinions can lead to the time of the senior judiciary being, quite frankly, wasted to a considerable extent. In a recent case where the opinions of five judges had to be read, the exercise took some two and a half hours, time which the Lord Justice General believed could be put to more constructive use.
The amendment comes as a suggestion from him; it has our full support; and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 84, line 23, at end insert—
("() In section 179(2) (stated case: adjustment and signature) the word "additional" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 152. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 85, line 19, at end insert—
("() In section 280 (routine evidence), in subsection (6)(b), for the words "the accused" there shall be substituted the word "he".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment with no policy implications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 159:
Page 90, line 9, at end insert—("1993 c. 24.The Video Recordings Act 1993. Section 5.")
Page 90, line 51, column 3, at end insert— ("In section 179(2), the word "additional".")
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before one o'clock.

  CDC: External Finance Limit
  CDC: External Finance Limit
  Russia: Penal Amnesty Proposal
  Russia: Penal Amnesty Proposal
  Russia: Human Rights
  Russia: Human Rights
  Liozidou V. Tirkey
  Liozidou V. Tirkey
  Jerusalem: Housing Stock
  Jerusalem: Housing Stock
  EU and ACP Countries Relations
  EU and ACP Countries Relations
  Albania and Bulgaria: EU Assistance
  Albania and Bulgaria: EU Assistance
  ICPD: Action Plans
  ICPD: Action Plans
  NATO Expansion
  NATO Expansion
  NATO and Russia
  NATO and Russia
  Gulf War: Causes of Animal Deaths
  Gulf War: Causes of Animal Deaths
  MoD Litigation: Costs
  MoD Litigation: Costs
  "Information Warfare" Disruption
  "Information Warfare" Disruption
  Proceedings of the House: Media Coverage Monitoring
  Proceedings of the House: Media Coverage Monitoring
  Parliamentary Estate: Hairdressing Services
  Parliamentary Estate: Hairdressing Services
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network: Performance
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network: Performance
  ADAS
  ADAS
  EU Tobacco Regime
  EU Tobacco Regime
  BSE: Disciplinary Action
  BSE: Disciplinary Action
  Emergency Towing Vessels: Winter Arrangements
  Emergency Towing Vessels: Winter Arrangements
  Water Abstraction: Licences
  Water Abstraction: Licences
  Basking Shark: Protection
  Basking Shark: Protection
  Endocrine Disrupters: Monitoring
  Endocrine Disrupters: Monitoring
  Armagh: Employment
  Armagh: Employment
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Crime (Sentences) Bill: Prison Population
  Crime (Sentences) Bill: Prison Population
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Records
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Records
  Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
  Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
  Care in Old Age
  Care in Old Age