Sitting of 18 March 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
  To be considered on Tuesday 25 March.

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Primary Care Provision
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the use of the private sector in primary care provision in the NHS. [19161]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): None.
    Mr. Rooney: Were not the Government's true intentions on primary care, as with so much of the national health service, shown in the original drafting of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill—that is, the wholesale privatisation of the service and the extensive involvement of the private sector, to the detriment of patients?
    Mr. Malone: No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I thought that he might have been rising to record the 6.9 per cent. increase in the number of general practitioners since 1978–79 in his local health authority, or perhaps to congratulate it on 60 per cent., of the local population being covered by fundholding, but no, he raises yet again another argument that we killed off both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the coming general election campaign, three points will be made: first, the precise amount of savings made in the NHS by the use of the private sector; secondly, that every penny of those savings went towards patient care; thirdly, that there would be no chance of such money coming if ever the Labour party was to have a chance to govern?
    Mr. Malone: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's points. Of course it is true that the Labour party still has
    708
    an ideological point of view about any private sector involvement, no matter how new it may try to appear to the public. That would mean fewer services for patients.
    Ms Jowell: Is the Minister aware that, in the past four years, the amount spent by fundholding doctors on getting patients treated in private hospitals has increased from £4 million to £66 million and that, at the same time, 144 trusts have gone into debt? Is that not further evidence of the Government's undermining of the NHS in favour of private health care, and that the Government's failure to safeguard the NHS shows why the people of Britain deserve better?
    Mr. Malone: Perhaps it is about time the hon. Lady started to think about patients when she talks about health care and the quality of services that are being provided. Put into context, the figure she mentions is about 1.9 per cent. of fundholding budgets. It provides better care for patients and services that patients want. The whole nation will know that the Labour party would deny them those services if it were ever to be returned to office.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend know that Staffordshire social services department is deliberately preventing people from going into residential and nursing care in the private sector, contrary to the principles enunciated in my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health's excellent White Paper, and that the High Court has recently issued an injunction against that department because of the disgraceful way in which it is handling that function and responsibility?
    Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He gets to the heart of who—Conservatives or Labour— will provide better services for patients. I have no doubt that he will be campaigning vigorously on that point and on the White Paper that my right hon. Friend has recently published on the matter, so that the electorate will have a clear choice. That choice will be in favour of this Government's policies.

    Dental Charges
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of NHS dental charges. [19162]
    Mr. Malone: All Governments since 1951 have accepted that patients who can afford to should make some contribution towards the cost of their dental care. National health service dental treatment is free to those aged under 18 and extensive exemption and remission arrangements protect vulnerable groups.
    Mr. Banks: Why does not the Minister tell us that real dental charges have gone up by 245 per cent. since 1979? Those are not just arid statistics, but are based on my experience. I have just paid £350 for a crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That may be funny for Conservative Members. If any of them want some free dental service outside the Chamber afterwards I should be more than happy to give it to them. I am now facing £600 of periodontal work that has to be done privately because it cannot be provided on the national health service. I can afford it because I have a job and I shall have a job after

    709
    1 May, which is more than can be said for some Conservative Members, but what about people on low earnings who cannot afford that? We have a toothless Government who are obviously determined to render the nation toothless as well.
    Mr. Malone: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in his constituency between 1991–92 and 1995–96. Perhaps he is not interested in that, but is interested only in what is happening to him. The proportion of adult courses of treatment provided free in his health authority has risen from 48.5 per cent. in 1991–92 to 59.5 per cent. We shall take no lessons from Labour on charging until the shadow Chancellor releases the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) from the shackles that have bound him on health service expenditure, meaning that Labour cannot match the Prime Minister's pledge for real increases in funding year on year on year on year on year during the next Parliament.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House and the former guardian of the Greater London council silver who introduced dental charges, and how many general hospitals would have to be closed if dental charges were abolished?
    Mr. Malone: Dental charges have been supported by Governments since the early 1950s. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many hospitals would have to be closed, but £381 million would have to be recovered. Labour has recently reneged on what it had said about free eyesight tests. The public know what Labour would do about dental charges if it were ever elected to office.
    Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister be straight with the House and accept that not just in Wales, but throughout the country, there are constituencies with hardly any NHS dental service? The issue has been raised for the past four years. Is it not about time that he came forward with a plan to ensure that British people, on benefit or not, have access to an NHS dentist?
    Mr. Malone: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living. He has certainly not been following the affairs of this House recently. In the context of a growing dental service with more dentists and more treatments than ever, we have just given a Third Reading to a primary health care Bill that will address the problems of locating treatment in certain parts of the country. Access schemes have also been set in place, for which I hope health authorities in his constituency have been bidding. We have taken initiatives that have been endorsed by the House. I am glad to be able to point them out to the hon. Gentleman at this late stage.

    Chief Nursing Officers
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals' chief nursing officers currently bear the title matron; and if he will make a statement. [19163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): The information requested
    710
    is not available centrally. Job titles may have changed, but the principles of professional leadership remain and trusts can use the title matron if they wish.
    Mr. Greenway: I invite my hon. Friend to consult those who have matrons in their hospitals and others who have known hospitals with matrons. Is he aware that they are very glamorous people? Matron is a better and more meaningful title than any other for a chief nursing officer. Will he bring back the glamorous matron? We want her.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The first glamorous matron who comes to mind is Hattie Jacques; glamour comes in all shapes and forms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is crucial that we have a management system which provides the most effective health care for patients being treated under the national health service.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require all general practitioners to become fundholders. [19164]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The general practitioner fundholding scheme is, and will remain, voluntary. With effect from 1 April this year, 58 per cent. of patients will be registered with a fundholding GP.
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend says that the scheme will remain voluntary. Does he agree, however, that fundholders are able to offer increased opportunities for treatment at their surgeries rather than at a hospital? I have visited the Barton-Upon-Humber surgery, which is a fundholding practice in my constituency. It is able to deliver patient care, ensuring that patients do not have to go 20 miles down the road to a hospital at Grimsby or Scunthorpe. The practice is able to offer what used to be regarded as cottage hospital treatment. Many treatments are now available from fundholders. Will my right hon. Friend think again about making the scheme available to all patients?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the benefits for patients of the fundholding scheme. He quoted a typical example; there are many others throughout the health service. Over the next few weeks, the question for the Labour party is why it supports the abolition of a scheme that has brought about the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is quite specific. A Labour Government would abolish fundholding. That would neuter Britain's GPs and be a major step backwards in the provision of health care. The burden is on the hon. Gentleman to explain why he wants the health service to take that gigantic step backwards.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the Government's version of fundholding introduce elements of competition which undermine the principle of universality? Is not that principle founded on an injunction of 2,000 years ago, to bear each other's burdens? When will the Government put that into practice in the health service in the next millennium?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is extraordinary that, when we introduce a scheme that improves care for the patients of

    711
    fundholding doctors and which the majority of Britain's GPs adopt because they believe that it is in the interests of their patients, Labour's reaction is to want to abolish the scheme that has made those improvements possible. I simply fail to understand how the Labour party can say that the right way forward for the health service is to abolish a scheme that has brought about the improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred.
    Mr. Mans: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in Lancaster, all doctors have fundholding practices. Does he agree that, if the system were abolished, patient care in north-west Lancashire would be severely affected—and would be a lot worse?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In his constituency, in Lancashire, and around the country, fundholding is delivering improved patient care not only to the patients of fundholding GPs, but to every patient of the health service, because it has changed the relationship between primary and secondary care, to the advantage of primary care.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seems to disagree. He should look at a press release from the British Medical Association published this morning in which the BMA and the representatives of general practice in Britain came together and made it crystal clear that they support the continued existence of a range of options for Britain's GPs. That is the position of the BMA and of the representatives of Britain's GPs. The Labour party must explain why it believes it knows better than the majority of Britain's GPs what is in the interests of their patients.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As the system created as a result of the Government's reforms unfairly allocates money to GPs depending on whether they are fundholders and has produced a two-tier service for patients depending on whether their doctors are fundholders, will the Government modify it, which fundholders would willingly accept, so that, no matter which GP people go to, they have equal access to the health service, or will the Secretary of State go into the election defending a two-tier health service which is a national health lottery for Britain's patients?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am going into the general election campaign defending a system of totally fair funding across all parts of the NHS—whether GP fundholders or not. I take it as significant that, on this question about fundholding, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and all his hon. Friends have remained firmly seated. They are not prepared to engage in the argument about fundholding in Britain, because they know that they are on a loser.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is tremendous public support for GP fundholding in my constituency? Will he confirm that the Labour party's policies are contrary to the health needs of my constituents, and will work against them in the long term?
    Mr. Dorrell: Once again, my hon. Friend is right. He highlights the fact that the Labour party adopts only policies that would impose a single bureaucracy across
    712
    the entire country. The idea that there may be advantage in different approaches in different localities, reflecting the different choices of GPs and their patients, is utterly foreign to the Labour party. It will never win the argument, and is no longer even prepared to engage in it.

    Clinical Services
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for use of the private sector in clinical services in the NHS. [19165]
    Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of the private finance initiative in respect of clinical services in the NHS. [19173]
    Mr. Dorrell: The private finance initiative in the national health service is concerned with the provision of modern and efficient facilities for the delivery of NHS health care. It is not concerned with the transfer of NHS clinical services to the private sector.
    Ms Eagle: How can the people of Britain believe the Secretary of State when they look at the PFI contract for the Royal Hallamshire extension in Sheffield, which includes the privatisation of radiology and pathology services? Do not they, like Opposition Members, know that the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS? All Tories want is to get as much of it into the private sector as possible.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will no doubt keep repeating the mantra, but she will cut no ice. People know that, over the past 18 years, we have delivered a broader range of high-quality care to all patients who need it. That is the commitment that the Conservative party has delivered, about which the Labour party is content only to talk.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does not the Minister understand that, despite the secrecy about clinical services, the creeping privatisation is well known to people in the country? Once again, no reassurance has been given today that a future Conservative Government—heaven forbid—would not take the opportunity to privatise. Does he not understand that people know that, over the past 18 years, the Government have looted the wealth of those who created it and intend, through the internal market, to loot the health of public services by introducing private services? Will he try at least to give a positive answer instead of the same old corny comments on clinical services that he has given up to now?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's slightly convoluted question might be clearer if he sought to explain the Labour party's policy on the hospital building programme to his constituents and people throughout the country. What the Government have set out is crystal clear. We have launched the PFI, which holds the prospect of long-needed hospital building programmes in Norwich, Dartford, Bishop Auckland, north Durham, Worcester, Calderdale, Bromley, Hereford and Carlisle. Labour's Front Benchers must explain to the people why they would put all those projects on hold.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the more socialist countries in the

    713
    European Union allow and encourage independent health care organisations to supplement the statutory authorities' expenditure on health? Statistics on the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health show that we spend the same as other countries in the public sector; the extra that enables them to boast that they spend more than us is made up by independent care organisations, which are rejected by the Opposition.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right about the arithmetic. It is also worth reflecting on the point that British citizens have exactly the same opportunity to obtain private health care insurance as citizens of other countries, but a smaller proportion of the British find it necessary to do so because the national health service commands a confidence that comparable organisations elsewhere do not. The reality is that the British national health service is the world's most efficient health care system. An endorsement of that principle from the Opposition occasionally would make a welcome change.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison is wholly opposed to the private finance initiative in the NHS? Given the pecuniary relationship between that union and the offices of Labour Front Benchers, what credence does he give to the claim by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that he wants to speed up the PFI in health care?
    Mr. Dorrell: The Opposition cannot work out their attitude to the PFI in health care. They say they want to speed it up; they also describe it as the privatisation initiative. We have heard this afternoon the Opposition's visceral suspicion of any suggestion that private capital and management can reinforce the delivery of NHS objectives. They oppose it before they hear the arguments. That is why the Government and the Conservative party, re-elected in the next Parliament, will deliver improvements in the national health service that the Labour party could never dream of.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Why does the Secretary of State not have the honesty to admit that the Tory agenda is a piece-by-piece privatisation of the national health service? Will he now confirm what he failed to say a few minutes ago—that, at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, radiology and pathology will be put out to the private sector? He and his colleagues have consistently refused to give a guarantee that they will not privatise clinical services. Will he give such a guarantee now? If he will not, and if the Tories are elected again, we will not have a national health service in five years' time.
    Mr. Dorrell: That beggars belief. I gave the hon. Gentleman due warning, and he still comes to the Dispatch Box and calls the PFI privatisation. The last time he mentioned the subject, he said that Labour promised to speed up PFI deals. Now he calls it privatisation. The hon. Gentleman must sort out his ideas—and he does not have long in which to do so.
    Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that two of the first three questions tabled by Opposition Members relate to complaints about the private sector? Does he agree that that says something
    714
    about their priorities? The right priorities for the national health service are patient care, standards, and more money, which we will deliver.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on every count. We have the commitment to deliver a growing health service, which the Labour party will not match. We have the commitment to deliver a properly managed health service, which the Labour party will not match. We also have the commitment to deliver quality of care to patients, which the Labour party regards as a boring detail.

    Mental Health Patients
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on provision for mental health patients. [19166]
    Mr. Burns: A range of policy initiatives have been taken that should enable health authorities, in conjunction with other agencies, to provide a comprehensive service for patients with mental health problems.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response, but does he not accept that there is still work to be done centrally, to gain a better understanding of the needs of the nation and to plan strategy accordingly, and that part of that strategy must include a recognition of the need for more improvement in mental health care for children and adolescents?
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. Yes, of course the Government and all in the national health service are determined to enhance and further to improve mental health provision for adults and children. As he will be aware, several initiatives designed further to enhance that care have been taken over the past few years. We are not complacent; we shall continue with that work. As for the treatment of adults with severe mental health problems, last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a Green Paper, to explore the options for moving forward to further improvement in the service.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: About a month ago I went to a mental health seminar in Preston, where I was impressed by an initiative that has been taken up by one of the trusts to the west of my constituency, which I hope will be taken up in my constituency, too—a mental health helpline. As my hon. Friend will know, people who need help with mental health problems often need it at unsocial hours, not just between nine and five. Will he congratulate the people who volunteer to give guidance via the helpline, and encourage other trusts to take up such initiatives?
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House what sounds like an excellent idea—providing support and making available through the helpline counselling, advice and help for those in crisis and their families. I strongly recommend other health authorities and trusts to consider that example, and to see what lessons can be learned so as further to enhance support for the families of those suffering from mental illness.

    Hospital Waiting Lists (Manchester)
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Manchester area have been waiting longer than 12 months for hospital admission. [19167]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Provisional figures show that, on 31 December 1996, 384 people resident in the Manchester health authority area had been waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital.
    Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I was asking about current figures rather than those for last December. May I tell him that, for the North Manchester hospital alone, 180 people have been waiting longer than 12 months for admission? Further compounding the problem, the equivalent of almost two wards in that hospital are bed-blocked because social services cannot accommodate the patients outside the hospital. As a result, 913 consultant episodes concerning patients who need attention have not taken place.
    Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about bed-blocking, he should take his complaint to the Manchester local authority, which is in the firing line when it comes to doing something effective about it. Over the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has helped with measures specifically designed to reduce bed blocking, so I am surprised that Manchester has not done a better job.
    Equally, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not singing the praises of his native Manchester, which has a good record on waiting times. Over the past few years, there have been periods in which, in Manchester as a whole, nobody waited more than 12 months. As the House should be aware, the national picture shows that we have maintained the progress with waiting times, despite the attention now being turned to emergency care and mental illness. The hon. Gentleman really has nothing to complain about.
    Mr. Atkins: Will not waiting lists in Manchester, at hospitals such as the Christie, be considerably helped by the building of the £5.8 million cancer unit at the Royal Preston, which will do a great deal to provide facilities for people in Preston? That will avoid their having to go to the Christie in Manchester, thereby improving the situation of patients both in Manchester and in Preston.
    Mr. Horam: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend made that point. We are hearing a great deal about Lancashire today, and with good reason. Not only is a Caiman cancer unit being developed at Preston and Chorley; there are others at Blackburn and Burnley, Blackpool, Lancaster, and Kendal and Barrow. All represent new initiatives and are part of a clear programme to deal with cancer problems. I am delighted that Lancashire is taking the lead.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister confirm that the Manchester figures are not unique, and that more than 1 million people are on hospital waiting lists nationally? That figure is increasing and it is the highest we have ever had. The health authority in Manchester has a current
    716
    deficit of £1.2 million. We assume that that has be found from next year's budget, which will mean even longer waiting lists in Manchester. Is that not further evidence of the mess and turmoil that the Government have created in the national health service, and one of the many reasons why they should not be elected for a fifth term?
    Mr. Horam: On the contrary, it is an extremely good reason why we should remain in power. Waiting times have improved: the average wait is down from nine months to four months. When Labour was last in power in 1979, one in four people had to wait more than 12 months. That figure is now down to one in 50 people. In 1979, 25 per cent. waited for more than 12 months, whereas, under the Government, the figure is now only 2 per cent.

    Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, Stanmore, to discuss the future major development plans. [19168]
    Mr. Horam: I shall be having a meeting shortly with the chairman and chief executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital trust, which is working up a business case for the redevelopment of the hospital.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he has responded to the many submissions on the hospital's future that have been made in recent months and, indeed, years. I shall also be present at that meeting on Tuesday at 4 o'clock. The overwhelming opinion—local and wider opinion—is in favour of the hospital remaining on the same site. To allow the necessary funding to be made available in the future and to ensure that the excess of old buildings is reduced and that the modern footprint and curtilage is properly paid for, will he ensure that the regional health authority speeds up its authorisation decisions to get that money under way?
    Mr. Horam: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, and I look forward to that meeting. The business case is at a fairly early stage. I am conscious of the orthopaedic hospital's extraordinary record over many years. About 30 or 40 per cent. of all the orthopaedic surgeons in the country have been trained at the Stanmore hospital at one time or another. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who strongly supports the hospital, is very proud of that record.

    Rehabilitation Services (Elderly People)
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rehabilitation services provided for the elderly. [19169]
    Mr. Burns: New arrangements for national health service responsibilities for continuing health care, which includes rehabilitation and recovery services, were introduced in April 1996. Since that date, all health authorities have been required to have in place local policies and eligibility criteria for continuing health care.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government have failed elderly patients by closing

    717
    thousands of NHS beds for the elderly and by not, in spite of what he says, providing the convalescent and recuperative care beds required to allow people to stay in hospital until they are strong enough to return to their own homes? Does he also agree that the Government have turned the care of the elderly into a competitive marketplace, and have put price and profit before decency and dignity in old age?
    Mr. Burns: No, I do not agree with a word of what the hon. Lady has said, because it is totally divorced from the truth. She seems to forget that the continuing care challenge fund has provided £16 million in the current year, and will next year provide £20 million, plus £40 million of matching funds from local and health authorities, including £11 million for rehabilitation and recovery services. The gimmick that the Labour party has announced in the past month on recuperation is ridiculous. It proposes a pilot scheme costing £500,000, which is the amount that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving, through the continuing care fund, to the constituency and health authority area of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That excludes the rest of the country, which will receive the other money.
    Mr. Congdon: Would not more resources be available for rehabilitation services and care in the community if local councils, especially those controlled by the Labour party, were prepared to make more use of private residential homes, rather than boost bed usage in their own homes? That costs the taxpayer a lot of money, which could be better used to provide care for more elderly people in the community.
    Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. It has been shown that, on average, a place per person per week in a local authority-owned home in England costs £40 more than a place in the private sector. It seems odd that the Labour party is so antagonistic towards getting better value for money while providing the highest quality of care for the elderly, so that more money can be saved and ploughed back into care for the elderly.
    Ms Coffey: Does the Minister accept that 9,000 NHS beds for elderly people have been lost since 1990—beds for nursing care, rehabilitation and convalescence? Are not old people in need of care simply seen as bed blockers by hospitals driven to maximise their business income? How can this Government, who have abandoned health care for old people to the market, be trusted with the NHS for a fifth term of office?
    Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady seems to be divorced from reality. The Government's policy is being implemented day in, day out—despite the smiles of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who should realise that this is not a funny subject. Care for the elderly is at the highest level possible and record amounts of money are being spent. It is time local authorities—which are mostly Labour-controlled—started to work with health authorities in using the continuity care challenge fund money to undo the problems of bed blocking and finding proper care for the elderly, who deserve it.

    Patient Care
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to improve patient care in the NHS. [19171]
    Mr. Dorrell: Over the next five years, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pledged that we shall increase the real resources available to the national health service year on year on year on year on year. We challenge Labour to match that pledge.
    Mr. Winterton: The House must warmly welcome the commitment given by the present Conservative Government to increase spending for every year of the next Parliament if they are re-elected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the amount of money spent on health care that is important—we spend a great deal— but the level of service provided? That service has made the United Kingdom national health service the very best in the world. The Opposition have failed to match our pledge on resources, and they would fail to deliver the best service in the world as well.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. It is not simply a pledge year on year on year on year on year through the next Parliament. It is the 18 years since 1979—I will not say it 18 times—in which the Government have increased the resources available to the NHS year on year. We have delivered a growing NHS, and a wider range of care is available to patients. More patients are being treated and better-quality care is being provided. That is the Government's record on the NHS and we are pledged to project it through the five years of the next Parliament. The problem that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has with Mr. Charlie Whelan is that the hon. Gentleman is unable to match the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given for the next five years.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Secretary of State aware that plans for patient care at the North Staffordshire hospital trust have been brought into question by the resignation of the chief executive, Mr. Stuart Gray? The reasons for that resignation are clouded in secrecy. Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an urgent investigation into that departure in the public interest, so that the real reasons can be established?
    Mr. Dorrell: Changes in trust management are matters handled in the first instance by the trust's board. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the citizens of north Staffordshire—as all Labour Members must explain to their constituents—is how Labour can even begin to talk about support for the NHS when it is not prepared to match its words with real commitments. The Conservative party has shown real commitment in action. The last Government to cut the resources available to the national health service was the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Health resources in 1979 were lower than in 1976. The Labour party must explain its record and explain how it turns its words into action.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of improving patient care is by increasing the number of general practices that are

    719
    fundholding? What does he make of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on one day that he would abolish fundholders and on the next, to a different newspaper, that he would not? Which Mr. Smith should we believe—or do they both have Sun-stroke?
    Mr. Dorrell: Unfortunately for Britain's patients, but fortunately for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has since made it clear which of those policies he supports: a Labour Government would abolish fundholding. Because Labour is committed to the abolition of a scheme that has delivered real improvements to patients, the question about how to deliver real improvements to the patients of the national health service can have only one answer: re-elect a Conservative Government.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19191]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister yesterday made the uniquely personal decision not only to have a general election on 1 May and to dissolve Parliament on 8 April but that Parliament should be prorogued and sent away this Friday. [Interruption.] Is it not obvious that one of the reasons for that decision and for the unprecedented gap between prorogation and dissolution is that— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.
    Mr. Hughes rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point in waiting for silence: the hon. Gentleman will not get silence. Produce your voice, Mr. Hughes.
    Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons for that decision is that the Prime Minister knows that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on cash for questions will be ready on Monday or Tuesday. That report will therefore not be seen by hon. Members in this Parliament and will be hidden until after the general election.
    The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for making the announcement on Monday and arranging for Parliament to be prorogued on Friday was to give the hon. Gentleman time to finish his question. As for Sir Gordon's report, I have no knowledge when it will be presented.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Following his successful visit this morning to the headquarters of the McLaren formula
    720
    1 team in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that what counts is not who is ahead at the first corner, but who has the skill, expertise, stamina and nerve to see the race right through to the winning post?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The purpose of going to see the McLaren team was rather wider than that. I wanted to draw attention to a tremendous British success story, of which there are many. McLaren and the British motor industry have been a huge success. Of the 20-odd cars that lined up at Melbourne for the grand prix won by David Coulthard, 20 would have been built in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that a situation where two thirds of health authorities and one third of hospital trusts are in deficit to the tune of £300 million is grave, and potentially disastrous for many parts of the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I find it odd for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about funding in the health service, since he has declined to increase funding, whereas we have given a commitment to do so. In any event, the figures that he uses are blown out of all proportion. The forecast deficit is a relatively small fraction of the national health service budget and, of course, in less than two weeks' time, funding for the national health service will rise by £1.6 billion, a multiple of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities have deficits this year that will not be met by real-terms growth next year? To give one example, in north Essex, the deficit is £10 million and the real-terms growth that he is promising is only £9 million. He is not keeping the promise that he says he is making. He may believe that this is a matter of no account whatever, but is he aware that non-emergency surgery is being cancelled up and down the country, that accident and emergency departments are closing, that waiting lists are up and that there are bed and staff shortages in many parts of the national health service? Is that not a real tragedy, and disgraceful handling of the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: Some time ago, the answer to the question whether the NHS was working was set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary as whether more people were treated, and treated well. Since then, an extra 1 million people are being treated, and treated well, in the NHS. The number of consultants in accident and emergency departments has risen by 40 per cent. over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman does not mention that. He does not mention the fact that we have committed increased resources over and above inflation to the national health service every year since 1979, and will do so throughout the period of the next Parliament. That is a record that would not have been met by any previous Government, and cannot be met by any other Government, because they would not have delivered the growth in the economy that we have achieved.
    Mr. Blair: The contrast is between the Prime Minister's complacency and what people know is happening in the national health service the length and

    721
    breadth of this country. Is it not the case that in, the past six years, there has been an increase in administration costs of more than £1.5 billion a year, with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses? Is not the truth that the real challenge of the national health service is how to get money out of invoices, contractors, managers, company cars and pen-pushers and into front-line patient care so that we can rebuild the national health service that the Labour party created?
    The Prime Minister: There are elements of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with which I would agree. That is why we support compulsory competitive tendering, which he does not support; that is why we cut a whole tier of management that he voted to keep; that is why we have cut management costs by 10 per cent., £340 million, in the past two years. He cannot do that.
    No one is being complacent about the need to improve the health service: that is why we are providing more resources; that is why I mentioned the extra doctors in accident and emergency; that is why 1.5 million more patients are being treated, with more than 10 million more in-patients every year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year. Health service hospitals are now dealing with 75,000 patients every day of the year—£730 for every man, woman and child in the country, very nearly double the amount when his party left office. The Labour party may have set up the health service, but we have built it up.
    Mr. Sykes: When my right hon. Friend comes to choose his new Cabinet on 2 May—[Interruption.] Listen to the page three boys shriek, Madam Speaker. I remember when they were shrieking in Sheffield the week before the last general election. I should like to hear them shriek after this election, every single one of them. What would my right hon. Friend say if all that he had to choose from after the election was a group of failed teachers, a bunch of ex-trade union officials, one television director and a bar steward? That is all that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has to choose from.
    The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a kindness to protect the right hon. Gentleman from ever having to make such a choice. Who is meant by the bar steward, I cannot imagine.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19192]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: How did the Prime Minister have the audacity at the weekend to tell Tory central council that his type of Conservatism aimed to help the struggling classes—the have-nots? In 18 years of Tory rule, what did his Tory party ever do for the homeless, the sick and the disabled? The Prime Minister is not only past his sell-by date, he is well beyond his use-by date. It is time he went.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is unusually animated on this occasion, for reasons that I do not understand. I suggest that he asks the millions of council tenants who would never have become home owners but for
    722
    the activities of the Conservative Government or the millions of people who now have savings, shares and pensions that are owned by them rather than held by a Labour Government, as they were in the past, on their behalf. We believe that, in the late 1990s, people should have the right to personal ownership for themselves and their families, and that is what we are building. We apply that to everyone, not just middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports at the weekend that 40,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest against the rising tide of European unemployment? Can he explain to the House why the same thing has not happened here and what will be the quickest way of making it happen here?
    The Prime Minister: I saw that, and I have also seen the trend in unemployment in many countries across Europe. The Labour party is keen that we should sign up to a 48-hour week, the minimum wage and the social chapter. Perhaps Labour Members should hear what the United States Chamber of Commerce had to say about the 48-hour week. It has just told the Irish Government:
    "It is no exaggeration to say"
    that it would be
    "the single most negative change in the last 20 years."
    We intend to continue to put people back to work, as we have done in spectacular fashion in the past 18 months. Policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the 48-hour week—however glib they may sound—are a recipe for putting people out of work if they are in work and, if they are out of work, making sure that they stay out of work for a long time ahead. That is the poison pill of the Opposition's policy.

    Casualty Units (London)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to a London NHS hospital to discuss the operation of casualty units. [19193]
    The Prime Minister: We have made an extensive investment in recent years in London's accident and emergency services as part of a £400 million capital investment to provide the highest-quality and up-to-date facilities. I hope to have the opportunity to see some of them before too long.
    Mr. Corbyn: When the Prime Minister finally gets around to visiting a casualty unit in a London hospital, what answer will he give to staff who have seen one in seven of all the acute beds in London lost, 12 of the 46 casualty units closed, huge waiting lists, people waiting on trolleys, loss of morale among staff and the recent resignation of the consultant in charge of the casualty unit at Queen Mary's University hospital, Roehampton, who left because he could no longer run it within the budget provided and did not feel that he was giving people a decent service? Is that not the reason why nobody trusts him and his Government on the future of the national health service and will accordingly vote him out?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the first advice that I would give them is not to vote Labour, because they are getting more money from this Government than they would from any putative Labour Government. I would tell them that the number of consultants in A and E departments has risen dramatically by 40 per cent. I would tell them that the number of nurses appointed had risen by 21 per cent. I would tell them that more patients are being treated. I would tell them that the hon. Gentleman is living proof that old Labour lives, because, while the Labour Front Benchers are saying that they will not raise taxes, he is saying:
    "What … many"—
    including the hon. Gentleman—
    724
    "have been talking about is the need to raise taxation for the above average income people in order to pay for the rest. I see a moral justification for that and I think it is the right thing to do."
    That may be what he tells the consultants, but it is not what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tells the consultants.

  BILL PRESENTED
    ROAD TRAFFIC SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION
    Mr. Chris Davies presented a Bill to amend section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so as to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in built-up areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 141].

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come here this afternoon to make an urgent statement about the allegation that Great Eastern Railways administration ordered 20 train drivers to drive over the body of a young woman on the railway track. I hope that the report of that barbarism is not correct, but it should be discussed by the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: I had not heard of that incident, but I am not aware of a Minister coming to make a statement on such an issue today.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that on 27 February I requested under Standing Order No. 20 an early debate on the future of the Building Research Establishment. On 27 February, 6 March and again on 13 March—on three successive occasions at business questions—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) repeated that request. You will be aware that, despite the Leader of the House agreeing to draw the matter to the attention of relevant Ministers, no such debate has taken place and no effort has been made by Ministers to give this House the opportunity to discuss the many crucial issues that arise from the proposed privatisation.
Yesterday, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, in answer to a written question from the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), announced that his Department had entered into a contract to sell the Building Research Establishment. Is that not a flagrant abuse of ministerial power? Does it not demonstrate a deplorable failure to allow the House a proper opportunity to consider the matter before contracts are entered into? Would it not be right to require the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy
726
Efficiency to come to the House, make a statement and account for his actions in a matter that the House has had no opportunity to consider and debate?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I have no authority to require a Minister to come here to make a statement at any time. Those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the build-up to his point of order. No doubt they will take note of them.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that there is a digital terrestrial broadcasting application before the Independent Television Commission. One of the applicants is Mr. Murdoch. I ask for your ruling, Madam Speaker. We know of a private fund that was used to fund the Leader of the Opposition's office, although we have yet to discover who was providing that money. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition went to Australia to see Mr. Murdoch. I wonder whether that type of thing is proper, as we now know that The Sun newspaper—which is owned by Mr. Murdoch—has for some reason best known to itself decided to back the Leader of the Opposition. Do we know whether a deal has been done?
Madam Speaker: That was rather ingenious, but it was a long way from a point of order.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Transport Select Committee was due to meet tomorrow to interrogate South West Trains—the failed southern franchise. That meeting has now been aborted, without a decision by the Committee. Although we have not had a full business statement, I think that we should be entitled to the protection of the Chair and the House in ensuring that a hearing which is very important to people in 100 southern constituencies is not aborted for political reasons—to minimise the Tory party's acute embarrassment on rail privatization.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a matter for the Speaker; it is entirely at the discretion of the Chairman of the Select Committee.

House Numbering and Home Delivery
3.35 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes.
Not so long ago, I found myself in a street in Merseyside. The road name-plate had been removed by some helpful person, and eight out of the 10 houses in that road had no number visible on any part of the property. The two numbers that were on display— numbers one and eight—were in a cul-de-sac, and the numbers could therefore have been displayed either consecutively or as odds and evens. In the coming weeks, thousands of people delivering millions of items will be able to savour the frustrations that postmen suffer daily. They will learn about the amazing ability of Englishmen in their castles, Scots in their keeps and Welshmen in their valleys to conceal from the outside world exactly where they live.
Personally, I love the individuality and eccentricity of the British character and the humour of calling the canal-side cottage "Riversley house" or the upstairs maisonette "Homlea", "Dunrovin" or even "Dun Inn". I like the ancient names of Rookery Nook, Falcons Crest, Hatters End and Mon Repos. In my constituency, there are names such as Corail de Neige, Shiehallion, Ryedale and Far End cottage. I live next to a house called Stingamires, and, in a street in Stockton-on-Tees, I have seen "Hers n Mine". However, I think that the best name is one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), in Burneston road, called "This'll Do".
Some houses have a name as well as a number, but some have only names. Most of my constituency is urban. Moreover, most of the urban growth in Stockton-on-Tees is in my constituency. In many cases, houses have names and numbers, although the name but not the number is prominently on display. Although none of us wants to be treated as a number, if the proper address is a number, it would be better for the convenience of others if it were on display. Many people go looking for individuals at their addresses to ask them questions or to see them for many good reasons, only to find that the house is unmarked. I understand that Michael Levy, who funds the Leader of the Opposition's blind trust, lives in a house that has no name and no number. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions from that.
There is a fantastic variety of letter boxes in the United Kingdom, and—as we shall discovering in the next few weeks—they come in all shapes and sizes. There is the tiny vertical letter box, in which only very small cards will fit. There is also the famous horizontal flap, which comes in many sizes and varieties, such as the spring-loaded type. Others include those located at the door base, the rear-flap variety, the one with the front sub-flap and—perhaps the one that we all hate the most—the type with the brushes and the dog behind it, ready to take our fingers off when we try to push some mail through the brushes.
Worst of all, I suppose, are the houses with no bells, no knockers and sometimes even no doors. As we all become increasingly aware of energy efficiency, and as more people succumb to the amazing offers of double glazing
728
salesmen, the situation seems to go from bad to worse. Every day we find some new type of devilment apparently designed to catch fingers, crunch letters and generally offer cruel and unusual punishment to the deliverer.
Given the amount of junk mail that some people receive, I can readily understand the desire to maim or frustrate the sender, but all too often it is the messenger or postman, not the sender, who pays the price.
Let us find a practical new way of designing doors and property fronts so that deliveries can be made easily and conveniently. I notice that, in France, since the time of Napoleon every separate dwelling has had to have a number clearly on display. In the United States, every house has to have a number and a registered size of post box. Let us therefore mark each house so that not just the Member of Parliament but the emergency services, the doctor, the gas or water company and others can find it in a hurry—and so that everyone gets his own junk mail, not someone else's.
This Bill will not become law, but it will serve to highlight a problem that we vow to solve at every general election. It would provide that every separate dwelling be clearly marked with a name or number at the principal entrance, and that an adequate or separate delivery opening be provided as well. It would be phased in over five years, so that by the year 2002 the postman's lot will be a happy one.
Before long the European Union will turn its attention to this amazing diversity and, as with so many other things, it will seek to end that diversity by regulation. The time to act has therefore come. Our legislators are about to spend the next six weeks hunting for numbers and door bells—sometimes even for doors—and certainly for letter boxes. Let us all consider during this time the size and shape of the letter box to take us into the new millennium. Even though in 50 years' time all our important mail may be electronic, there will still be a market for tangible leaflets, magazines, and papers that can be picked up, pored over, carried about and shown to others. How they will be delivered to a nation in which an ever increasing number of people have double glazing I do not know.
Let us leap in before Europe does and design a great British letter box as distinct as the K3 telephone box, the Brigade of Guards and the policeman's helmet. The time to act is now, and I place this Bill before the House in a spirit of good will before the general election begins.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mr. Devlin: I will, Madam Speaker, this not being a Bill that most Conservatives would wish to sign up to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Devlin.

HOUSE NUMBERING AND HOME DELIVER
Mr. Tim Devlin accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 142].
Orders of the Day
  Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

  New clause 1
  BURDENS ON CROFTING PROPERTY TO BE DISPOSED OF
  '.—Before any disposal under section 1(1) above, the Secretary of State shall publish in respect of each such crofting property a list of those burdens that shall remain with the Secretary of State after such disposal.'.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.43 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  It is gratifying to see that the same applies to the Government's 10-minute rule Bills as applies to their manifesto: not many Members of Parliament want to sign up to it.
  The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State would publish, in respect of each crofting property to be transferred, a list of burdens that would remain with the Secretary of State after disposal.
  We have had a good debate, both in Scotland and in Committee, on various issues associated with the Bill. At this stage, little differentiates us from the Government in terms of the principle of the Bill, but there remains a difference in approach, especially with regard to properties transferred to crofters. Crofters feel that they could be burdened by responsibilities that may not be evident at the time of the transfer. With that in mind, we wish to push the Minister on crofting property burdens.
  We are also aware that publicly owned crofts cost the public purse some £205,000 a year to maintain. A cynical view is that the Government are disposing of those crofts to save the Treasury money, so individuals may find themselves in a vulnerable position at a later date. Personally, I do not take that view, but it is important to place such issues on the face of the Bill so that crofters feel that they can take the Government at their word and can undertake the transfer of responsibilities with a clear conscience, without feeling that they may be burdened financially.
  I have mentioned to the Minister in the past the type of burdens for which crofters would feel responsible—for example, a flood or landslip. Although a crofting trust has been established in all good will on the basis of viability at that time, it could find itself faced with an intolerable burden that would drive it out of viability. No one wants that to happen. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want the crofters to take responsibility, and personal choice is extremely important in that respect.
  It would be helpful if the matter could be debated a little more and if the Minister could give further reassurance about the Secretary of State's responsibility now and in the future.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise briefly to support the new clause. Considerable concern has been expressed, principally by the Scottish
  730
  Crofters Union, about the burdens that are currently discharged in respect of the infrastructural underpinning of crofting estates owned by the Secretary of State, which may, both inadvertently and in some cases even deliberately, adhere to the trust if it acquires the property.
  Any transaction should be transparent, and the crofting community should be fully aware of it before embarking on such a development. The new clause seems to achieve that purpose admirably.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): It is a sign of the times that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) cannot even speak on a Bill that has all-party support without an hon. Member from his leader's office sitting by his side reminding him what to say.
  The new clause is unnecessary. Both I and my noble Friend in another place have made it clear that the Secretary of State would transfer those maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with the normal management of a crofting property transferred to a crofting trust. As I said in Committee, there would be no question of transferring responsibility for what have been termed "community assets". We explained that the best way to identify those assets that provide a broader community benefit is in individual discussion between crofting trusts and the Secretary of State. Once agreement was reached, we would be happy to make known publicly those burdens for which responsibility would remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We see no benefit in publishing such a list before agreement had been reached with the crofting trust, as that might give the trust the impression that my noble Friend's Department had already made its final decision on what it would and would not transfer.
  The purpose of discussions would be to ensure that both parties were content. If a trust was not content with the burdens that the Department proposed to transfer, there would be no obligation on it to agree to the transfer of property
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the Minister for missing his opening remarks. Will he confirm that, in the event of a trust proposal being considered, the crofting trust advisory service would call in consultants to provide an independent assessment of the pros and cons? Presumably, therefore, there could be a degree of reassurance that potential burdens would be part of the analysis that the consultants would carry out.
  Mr. Robertson: That assurance was given to the Committee, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of it. I reiterate the other reassurances that the Government have given: there is no intention to transfer the responsibility for community assets to crofting trusts, nor is there any intention to burden trusts in such a way as to jeopardise their financial viability. I have made it clear that the Secretary of State would be content to publish details of the burdens that will remain the responsibility of the Scottish Office after agreement had been reached with the relevant trust.

  731
  In the light of that undertaking and the assurances that my noble Friend and I have given elsewhere, I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  DISPOSAL OF CROFTING PROPERTY
  Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 27, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  Amendment No. 1 ensures that all the mineral, sporting and other rights will be transferred with the property. As mentioned previously, the Scottish Office runs the crofts at a net annual loss of more than £200,000. It is considered that those rights offer many crofts the only potential route to profitability. Without the transfer of those rights, the transfer of many crofts would not be viable.
  I am aware that the Government want flexibility in that regard, but reassurance is required by the crofters, and we want it to be given in the Bill. The amendment goes some way towards assisting that process.
  The Bill is still less than clear on the approach that the Secretary of State would take on the financial basis of transfer. There still exists a lack of clarity with respect to the land itself and, more importantly, with respect to the sporting, mineral and other rights. There is an apparent lack of balance with regard to the rights that the Secretary of State may transfer, and the burdens that would automatically transfer with the land. We seek to reassure those who would take part in the scheme that their crofts and trusts will be viable.
  Mr. Maclennan: One of the least satisfactory aspects of crofting tenure in the highlands is the separation of sporting rights, mineral rights and certain other normal rights of ownership from the landholding enjoyed by crofters, which for many years has deprived them of the greatest potential of the land for earning a living.
  The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of an authoritative register showing where such rights lie in respect of all crofting territory. That is particularly surprising in respect of crofts owned by the Secretary of State. The position seems to vary considerably. In respect of some, there are pre-emptive rights which might re-arise in the event of the Secretary of State deciding to dispose of property.
  Most crofters, I believe, would regard it as desirable for the trust to have the full rights of ownership, including those valuable rights. That was certainly the consideration in the minds of the Assynt crofters when they acquired the North Assynt estate. The sporting rights are a considerable part of that asset, offering perhaps the greatest prospect of development in that estate, which has a considerable number of trout lochs.
  It is slightly odd that the Secretary of State did not make it clearer when drafting the Bill that it was his intention to dispose of those rights to such crofting trusts. If he says that he cannot give that assurance because the rights may belong elsewhere, I would have to accept that,
  732
  but, in respect of interests that the Secretary of State holds, there is no good reason why he should retain sporting, mineral or any other rights if he proposes to dispose of a crofting estate. I hope that the Secretary of State's representative in the House this afternoon may say that it is the firm intention of the present Secretary of State to dispose of mineral, sporting and other rights where they are in the Secretary of State's ownership, but it would be of interest also to know how the Secretary of State would propose to deal with those cases where such rights may be held elsewhere.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I will make a brief contribution.
  This is an essential amendment in relation to the viability of crofting estates that will be transferred under the Bill. Frankly, I am much less interested in the Bill than in the precedent that it sets for future legislation, which will allow the same right of purchase on a communal basis of privately owned crofting estates. However, the whole history of crofting and estates and the weakness of crofting legislation is that it permits the divorce of crofting communities from the assets that should sustain those communities and make them viable.
  In many parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, we have an absurdity and the reinforcement of a historic wrong, where crofting communities were driven to the edges of the land, living on small areas of land, but were cut off from the vast acreages that lay behind and by that land. Although they have grazing rights on that land, they do not hold sporting or mineral rights and they do not have the ownership of the rivers that flow through that land.
  That is nonsense. It has always meant that the communities, which were given security of tenure under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, were never given the potential wealth that went with that tenure, so people have been allowed to remain on the land on a marginal basis, but have never had the opportunity to develop the full economic potential of their communities.
  All that will happen here is that, unless the main assets of these communities are transferred with the estates, that marginality will be perpetuated. It would be absurd and no one would take it seriously in any other context if the Government, in all their munificence, who have been trying—let us be honest about this; there is nothing generous about the Bill—to get these estates off their hands since the early 1980s, after Mr. Edward du Cann's Public Accounts Committee reported on the DAFS—Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—estates, did not accept the amendment. Nothing would be achieved if the estates transferred without their primary assets.
  Therefore, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is essential, even as a gesture of good will on the part of the Minister, but, as I have said, this is only the appetiser. It has got the subject up and running. The problem for the Secretary of State and the Minister is the assertion that communities have the right to own their own land on a communal basis if, by historical accident, the land happens to be owned by the Secretary of State. However, the equivalent community next door has no such right to own its own land and manage its own affairs if another form of historical accident has visited on it the most vicious and

  733
  rapacious landowner in the highlands and islands. That anomaly cannot and will not be sustained, but let us get the precedent right.
  These are the dying days of this Parliament. I have no idea to what extent the Bill will be used. If it is used, crofting communities that buy their land must have the right to own all the assets of that land. We should end once and for all the ludicrous separation between the right of tenure and the ownership by others of all economically worthwhile aspects of the land.
  4 pm
  On many occasions, the Secretary of State, as crofting landlord, has been prepared to sell to the highest bidder the sporting rights on a crofting estate. That has not been a sign of good will towards crofting communities. If the Bill goes through in its present form, there will be nothing to stop the Secretary of State continuing to let off the salmon fishing and shooting rights and to sub-let the mineral rights to parties other than the communities that have nominally taken over the estates. If that anomaly is not ended by the Bill, it will be done by a future Bill covering not only publicly owned crofting estates, but privately owned ones.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the Bill gives the Government the flexibility to address the circumstances of each proposal for a trust on a case-by-case basis. Surely that is right. Ownership of sporting rights runs with the land, although it may be let to other parties. Sporting rights will therefore be transferred automatically.
  The Bill would not prevent the Secretary of State from transferring mineral rights at the outset or in future. We would welcome trusts wishing to acquire mineral rights. When a trust wished to acquire the rights, the public interest would normally require that a valuation be agreed and a charge negotiated.
  The Secretary of State holds mineral rights over 27 of his 53 crofting estates. The total annual income from those rights is currently in the region of only £17,000. In many cases, therefore, the appropriate charge for the freehold transfer of mineral rights would be modest.
  Our presumption is that mineral rights would, when possible, be included in a transfer of assets to a new crofting trust. If a prospective trust is not initially able or willing to assume the relevant mineral rights, we propose that it should be able to benefit from the income while the Scottish Office retains the mineral rights. Such an arrangement offers flexibility to address each case and the aspirations of each crofting trust. Whatever arrangements are agreed must be fair to the trust and the public purse, from where the money to acquire the estates and support them over the past decades came.
  With that assurance, I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL
  Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'persons' and insert 'the community'.
  The Minister is aware of the debate that we had on this is Committee, when the terms "persons" and "community" featured heavily. He said in Committee that the Crofters Commission would take account of local community development when preparing advice to the Secretary of State on the general interests of the crofting community, which it is required to consider, or any other matter that it thinks relevant. On that basis, he suggested that the amendment tabled in Committee was unnecessary.
  In addition, the Minister suggested that the term "local community" was uncertain, and could include more than just the residents and the property to be disposed of. That is the point of the amendment.
  The wider community interests require to be recognised for simple reasons. As others have stated, those concerned with policy innovation in the highlands and islands know that support, confidence and agreement do not come easily. It is therefore important that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism which will ensure that a transfer takes place only where there is demonstrable local support for it.
  Our view is that the Bill is too narrowly drawn and that the interests of the wider community are not taken into sufficient consideration. Indeed, the Scottish Crofters Union expressed its concern to me yesterday and this morning. It points to the fact that a strict legal interpretation suggests that people living on certain areas of land may not reside on original crofting property. In legal terms, a body will acquire the land-owning interest over a piece of property. That interest carries with it certain burdens, such as march fencing, as well as certain rights to sanction development of a non-agricultural nature or forestry, and the right to resume land for a reasonable purpose such as development. Other rights, such as sporting and mineral rights over the property, may also be transferred.
  The wider community interest needs to be taken into consideration. If, for example, development takes place, the environmental interests and local economic interests should be high up the agenda. Those interests are protected by local planning authorities and statutory bodies, and those bodies have a set of procedures that aim to gather the views of parties affected by possible decisions. Any individual or township can have an input in the consultative process.
  The Scottish Crofters Union recognises that the danger is that rights in land for people who are not resident in the property could undermine crofting development yet, by the same token, it considers it perfectly reasonable that the wider community should be considered when non-crofting developments are being contemplated. At present, it is more common for the wider community interest to be dealt with through wider legislative mechanisms. If, for example, development takes place, planning legislation provides for the wider community's input, as do elements of the criminal law, such as laws dealing with nuisance.

  735
  The principle, with which the Scottish Crofters Union agrees, is that the wider community should have greater involvement in any wider development initiatives. It believes that that can best be dealt with through the articles and memoranda of association of any body acquiring property. It is in the interests of that wider involvement that we ask the Minister to focus his attention on the point. Support from communities is essential if the Bill is to achieve its worthy aims.
  Mr. Maclennan: I too have heard from Dr. Fraser Macleod, the director of the Scottish Crofters Union, in terms similar to those described by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). In our discussion in Committee about the appropriateness or otherwise of the words
  "the interests of persons residing on such property"
  I was anxious to focus on the apparent restrictions of the use of the word "persons". I preferred the use of the words "the people". It seemed possible that "persons" could be a small number, not necessarily the majority of those who constituted the crofting community. Although I had no doubt that that was not the intention of the legislation, I had and still have concerns that the use of the word "persons" does not sufficiently embrace the interests of all those residing on the crofting estate.
  I believe that the words "the community" suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbarton in place of the word "persons" attempts to meet my point and another point, which is the one on which the Scottish Crofters Union has focused—the desirability of the crofting trust having in mind in its establishment the promotion of the interests not just of crofters resident on the land being transferred but of their neighbours in the development of the crofting land.
  I take the point made by the Scottish Crofters Union that, strictly legally defined, crofting communities are those associated with crofting land. I remain concerned about the use of the word "persons" for the reasons that I have given, but understand why the Scottish Crofters Union takes the view that to speak of wider community interests would potentially impose on crofters a duty to take into account considerations of those who are not, stricto senso, of that crofting community, and might impose on them burdens such as the construction of fences or other burdens that should not adhere to them as a result of acquiring the land.
  The underlying purpose of clause 2 to ensure that the transfer of land from the Secretary of State to the trust considers the wider interests of all those living in the area remains unsatisfactorily spelled out. The Scottish Crofters Union is clear that that is a purpose of the clause, and I am clear that it ought to be a purpose, but it is not spelled out, and I regret that.
  Lest there be any question of inadvertently imposing new burdens on crofters through "the community" being in place of "persons" in the Bill, I however incline to the view that my original wording was to be preferred. At this stage, I think that we shall have to wait and see how the provision works in practice. As there is some ambiguity in what is meant by "persons", there is however a great deal of virtue in the Minister putting firmly on the record his judgment of the intention. If the courts are called on to adjudge the matter, the words will be weighed with considerable care.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe that the amendment may risk jeopardising the ability of some
  736
  crofters to establish crofting trusts. I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would wish.
  Any requirement that a crofting trust represent a community may be interpreted to require that a community be shown to exist on the relevant property. Decisions of the Scottish land court have found that scattered crofts can be deemed not to form a community. It is therefore possible that crofters in the eastern highlands, where there are no common grazings and crofts are often some distance apart, may be frustrated in attempts to establish trusts if they cannot demonstrate that a community exists on their scattered holdings. The amendment could therefore remove from some crofters the ability to establish a trust, which is contrary to the Bill's principle.
  Where a community can be shown to exist, our advice is that the terms "the community" and "persons" have no legal difference, and that in this context, the amendment is unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. McFall: Although the Scottish Crofters Union does not hold the same view as the Minister on the point, I recognise the validity of his statement. The issue of the wider context still divides us a little, but in the light of his assurance and his very reasonable response—perhaps for the first time, which is very important at the end of this Parliament—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: The importance of the Bill is not to be measured by its length or the fact that it is reaching its concluding stages at a time when the eyes of the public are diverted from the House to the political battle elsewhere. This is a significant little Bill. It was conceived in haste by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the history—to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred—of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, when it was chaired by Mr. Edward du Cann.
  The evidence for my belief that the Bill was conceived in haste is that the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware of the extent of the obligations contained in the Bill. The earlier debates on the Bill showed much uncertainty about whether the Government were prepared to contemplate the transfer of the sporting and mineral rights with the crofting rights. Today, we have heard a helpful defining statement from the Government on that issue, which marks a development in their thinking.
  The Bill has also been given a considerable fillip by the success of the Assynt Crofters Trust, which took a private initiative to acquire the north Assynt estate near Lochinver in my constituency in the early years of this Parliament. That initiative showed how crofters, coming together in a community to acquire the ownership of an estate, could help to benefit their own interests and those of the wider community, economically and socially. That precedent may start a landslide in due course.

  737
  The benefits of common acquisition by crofters of a sporting estate have been seen in north Assynt and further north in Sutherland, where the Talmine estate is being similarly transferred to the crofters on the initiative of the proprietor. That estate is in the neighbourhood of Melness, one of the remaining Gaelic communities in Sutherland, and the transfer is a welcome development. Other inquiries and initiatives have followed the north Assynt acquisition, and the Bill will play a useful part in changing attitudes and improving the prospects of crofters in the highlands.
  It is clear that many holdings have better prospects of viable development if they are managed by the crofters, in their interest. Most crofters believe that the Secretary of State has been a good landlord, but the appurtenances of ownership in today's world—with the possibility of raising further finances on the security of an estate, or coming together to develop assets that cannot be developed in isolation—offer real advantages in certain areas.
  In discussions earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, I have been at pains to ensure, most importantly, that transfers of ownership from the Secretary of State would take place only when there was an absolutely clear view within the community that they would be in the interests of the crofters. There should be no question of this becoming simply a way of disembarrassing the Secretary of State of a loss-making concern. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government's intention.
  It is also important that, when the Crofters Commission, under clause 2, carries out tests of opinion so as to advise the Secretary of State whether it is in the interests of the crofting community that the transaction should take place, the tests should be completely transparent, deliberate, open and well considered by all affected.
  It is satisfactory that the Crofters Commission has said that that would be its intention, although it has not yet defined what it would regard as a significant majority, or said whether it would wish to establish opinion by means of a secret ballot, and whether absentee crofters should be consulted. All those are significant matters that could affect the judgment whether the Crofters Commission has properly discharged its function of determining the will of the people affected.
  I would be happier if those details had been given before the Bill reached its concluding phases in the House. It seems to me that a secret ballot is a desirable mode of determining the view of the community. I distrust opinions expressed at a single public meeting, with hands either raised or not raised. There is no doubt that, in many communities, there are people who have a dominant influence on opinion, and that others with as much right to be heard may feel less able to be forthright in expressing their views.
  I do not think that a decision of such importance should be arrived at without the kind of deliberative approach that I have recommended from the beginning. Such a step would bring the process of transfer into disrepute, which would not be in accordance with the wishes either of the Secretary of State or of Parliament.
  A great trust is being given to the Crofters Commission—to act as the principal adviser. In the past, the commission has had a quasi-judicial role, often
  738
  considering the interests of particular individuals and determining matters such as what to do about a particular crofter's rights in a common grazing, but I do not believe that any equivalent power has been given to it before.
  Although the commission's role will be only advisory, it could turn out to be the critical role. It is hard to believe that its advice would be rejected by the Secretary of State. I therefore go firmly on the record as saying that I hope that the Crofters Commission will weigh its decisions in such matters with great care, and in no case rush to judgment.
  I do not believe that the Bill need be the prelude to a rapid transfer of title. The initiative ought to come from the communities themselves. As the burdens of ownership are not to be ignored, they will approach the matter with great caution.
  I conclude by expressing satisfaction that one of the last matters to come before this Parliament is the consideration of how best to assist the development of these estates, for they lie at the heart of the highland community. Their well-being remains key to the future of parts of our loved country, which is close to the hearts of all who represent it.
  Mr. Wilson: The best that can be said of the Bill is that it is harmless. That cannot be said of much of the legislation that goes through the House, so I regard it as something of an achievement. A few small victories have been won in the Government's lifetime against the onward march of privatisation. It is a cause of satisfaction to some of us that two such measures have been in the highlands and islands context. Caledonian MacBrayne remains firmly in the public sector, in spite of three efforts by the Tories to flog it off, as do the highlands and islands estates of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department.
  I well remember that the initial ploy was to privatisation the estates, to sell them on the open market, and to leave it to the fate of that market to decide who ended up owning the estates that were held in trust by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was repelled. The current Secretary of State returned with other proposals, which are embodied in the Bill.
  The crucial element of the Bill is the lack of compulsion. The estates will be sold only if the people who live on them want them to be sold, and they can be sold only to the local community. Those two advances are vast, and they transform the nature of the legislation compared with the original concept in the 1980s. The first comfort is that there is no compulsion, and the second is that there will be no Tories to carry through the legislation. Even in its much muted form, this legislation would be dangerous in the wrong hands. It would be possible for the element of pressure, if not the element of compulsion, to return.
  The general rule of thumb for land legislation in the highlands and islands is summed up in the old saying, "The law favours the landlords, because the landlords made the law." That has literally been true for most of Parliament's history, particularly in the other place. However, during one period in its history, that was not the dominant theme. From the 1880s to the 1920s, Governments of all persuasions were compelled to listen to the voices of the people instead of to the voices of the landlords, because of the pressure for land and the pressure from people who were without land.

  739
  When we hear rubbish such as that spouted by the Secretary of State in Stornoway a couple of weeks ago about the sacred rights of property, it is worth noting that the crofting system is probably the biggest incursion into the rights of private property for which the House has ever legislated. To an enormous extent, crofting law removed the rights of private landowners, removed the market-led approach to the ownership of land in the highlands, and certainly removed the right of landowners to act capriciously towards tenants whom they had previously evicted at free will and subjected to various other indignities.
  The crofting laws changed all that, and did so in response to the pressures from the people who lived on the land. Crofting laws were by no means perfect, for some of the reasons to which I alluded earlier—for instance, they left sporting and mineral rights outside the rights of communities, and large areas of the highlands and islands are not subject to them.
  We are dealing with estates owned by the Secretary of State on behalf of the nation and, in debating a Bill dealing specifically with these lands, it would be amiss not to recognise that the only reason the lands are in common ownership today is that landless ex-service men—many of whom were returning from the first world war—were prepared to struggle, to fight and to demand the right to remain on the land, and were not prepared to be driven off to the four winds at the whim of any landlord. It is because they took that stand that the state was obliged to intervene to acquire land in areas where there was great congestion and great demand, but where land was in the ownership of people whose sole interest was to clear as many people as possible from it and to use it for private economic and sporting interests.
  It is because ordinary people in the communities stood up to be counted, often physically resisting the forces of landlordism, that the state was obliged to intervene and to bring the estates into public ownership. That is why we have Scottish Office-owned estates to discuss today—because, in the early part of this century, men and women alike were prepared to go to gaol, to physically resist and to say that the rights of common people were greater than the rights of any landowner or Government.
  I salute today the people whose struggles created the publicly owned estates in the highlands and islands, and allowed succeeding generations to live on those lands. The only reason there are healthy and lively communities in the crofting areas of Scotland today is that that struggle was engaged in and those rights secured.
  One of the problems was that the crofting laws did not cover the whole of the highlands and islands. One score that I would like to see settled while I am still in this House is the omission of the island of Arran from the crofting laws. It is a particular irony that today we have two Ministers on the Front Bench—one by the name of Robertson, and the other by the name of Douglas-Hamilton.
  When the crofting laws were introduced in 1886, they included the county of Bute, which at that time included the island of Arran. The only reason why Arran was taken out of the protection of the crofting laws was that there was a Tory Member of Parliament for Bute at that time named Robertson and a landowner—who needs no introduction to the Minister of State—called the Duke of
  740
  Hamilton. Each of them used his lobbying power in this Chamber and in another place to get Arran excluded from the crofting laws.
  The result of that successful piece of vested interest was that, instead of coming within the crofting system—in which case, it would be a different community today—Arran was excluded. Right down to the present day, Arran is run on a feudal basis by some of the most unpleasant and interventionist landlords in Scotland, who constantly use the powers open to them to extract money and to implement feudal power against the people who live on the island.
  What a wonderful thing it would be if at least those who are renting on the island of Arran under the smallholders legislation were to be given the status of crofters and the protection of crofting tenancy. The same argument applies in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), where people are rented under the legislation. They are crofters in all but name, but they do not have the protection of the crofting laws. That is one of the elements that will be contained in real crofting reform legislation in the future.
  This is only the start. The Secretary of State thought he could pull a publicity stunt by saying that he was addressing the highland land question. What an unlikely thing for a Tory to do—giving crofters the right to buy their own land.
  The legislation does not begin to nibble at the highland land question, because it deals only with the publicly owned estates, while the abuses in the highlands and islands take place in the privately owned estates. Once the principle is established that communities can buy their land on a communal basis from the landowner—presumably at 15 times the rental value—no legitimate argument separates publicly owned from privately owned crofting land.
  The challenge is to introduce genuine crofting reform legislation as soon as possible, to bring all crofting land under a pan-highlands and islands crofting trust, to extend the area under crofting tenure, to give people the wonderful protection that was created under the Crofters Holdings Act 1886 and to give them all the resources of their own community. That is the way in which to transform the social and economic base of the remoter parts of the highlands and islands.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been looking at the Hansard report of Second Reading, which took place at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Montrose on 17 February. Here we are today, on 18 March, which goes to show that, where there is a will, and a legislative opportunity, a way can be found to address matters relating to crofting and the crofting counties. Perhaps this sets a useful benchmark for the future in terms of the additional legislation of which many of us would be in favour. The generally supportive spirit in which the legislation has progressed has been notable and welcome.
  The Bill itself, however, remains permissive rather than prescriptive, and while that may be the best way in which to structure the legislation, it leaves a lot unsaid, albeit deliberately so. We have had various clarifications—we had a few more this afternoon in response to questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—about intent and the meaning of words, but such intent and interpretation do not appear in the Bill.

  741
  I strongly underscore my hon. Friend's point, that it will be absolutely crucial, for the practical implementation of the Bill, when individual applications appear before the putative crofting trust, whatever shape that may take, that the quality of analysis carried out by the Crofters Commission, and the transparency of the advice given to the Secretary of State of the day, should carry the confidence of the local communities.
  My hon. Friend referred to one obvious shortfall being the lack of detail on what constitutes a majority, and how it is to be weighed and recorded. A straight numerical majority, even if one could agree on what constitutes the electorate—does one count the absentee crofters, for example?—would not be a basis on which a crofting trust application could proceed. A 51 to 49 per cent. division of opinion would be absolutely disastrous, and in those circumstances I would be flabbergasted if the commission were to recommend approval.
  Equally, in considering the division of opinion in any crofting trust community, it would be right to take into account the age profile of those for and against, because of the longer-term implications. One would also have to take cognisance of the fact that in the longer term, once trust status has been achieved, considerations may arise from the bit-by-bit disposal by the trust itself of some parts of the trust lands.
  Assynt has been somewhat of a trail-blazer in that respect: it has disposed of some extremely small marginal bits that have not affected the nature or critical mass of its trust; but suppose some future trust got into financial difficulties because of some of the burdens that it had inherited, and started to realise commercially some of its property—assuming that that was allowable under the deeds drawn up when trust status was achieved—on the open market. Those factors could have far-reaching long-term effects.
  In approving this permissive legislation, we are right to place it on record that the devil will be in the detail. It will be important for Members who represent highlands and islands constituencies and the crofting counties generally, as well as the commission, to keep a close eye on applications. We must remember the Scottish Crofters Union's original submission to the Government's consultation paper, which said that the one thing of which we can all be certain is that there is no simple or single solution. It is right that the legislation should be permissive in recognising that reality, but hon. Members must lay down markers for the future.
  This legislative event is significant and must be seen in tandem with the discussions and decisions at the last meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. The Secretary of State has agreed to set up a working group to consider the wider issues of land reform in the highlands.
  An important decision in the other place was reached as a result of a test case over feudal rights and pre-emption rights, involving representatives of the then district councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty. One of those events has already had a significant legal impact, which will in due course affect the Bill. The other, depending on future meetings of the convention, could have a significant impact on future legislation.
  742
  Now that the issue is up and running legislatively, and in terms of the national debate and of political and parliamentary discussion, I hope that there will be windows of opportunity for further legislation. However, such legislation would be more likely to receive an earlier and more open window, as well as a more sensitive and informed discussion, if it were conducted in a legislative body in Edinburgh rather than in Westminster. The matter would be an early candidate for legislative priority if, after the general election, we achieve a Scottish Parliament. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but we have much further to go.
  4.41 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will be brief. I spoke on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, but I did not serve on the Standing Committee, because of other commitments.
  The Benches are hardly packed; some might ask where the passion is. I assure hon. Members that nothing arouses greater passions in the highlands and islands of Scotland than land use and ownership. Many hon. Members could recite words from folk songs and poems about the people who were condemned by the black-faced ram and the factor's fire-raiser. After the highland clearances, there had to be radical reforms to enable people to come back to the highlands and islands. Those are the historical roots of the issue.
  I welcome the Bill generally, but, like the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I think that it is permissive, and that we have to look beyond that. From examining the legislation and reading the comments made both in Committee and elsewhere, it seems that many legal niceties will emerge. It will be like the planning permission arguments that hon. Members often experience, where some people want one attitude to be taken, but others feel that it is wrong. It is a minefield.
  When I wrote to the Minister of State, he replied that he did not think that it was a lost opportunity. I think it is, because we could have addressed the argument about the feudal system in the highlands and islands. As has been said, the former councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty did much work in trying to resolve some of the difficulties, and a concession was eventually made. Beyond that, the issue of feudal superiority will still apply to many people.
  Whoever is in power after the general election, we should take account of what was said at the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. Neither Front-Bench spokesman was present at the convention, but several hon. Members who are here were. Dr. Jim Hunter, who is much respected, has offered to put together a paper on land use and ownership that should be considered in future legislation. It is not enough to deal with the matter piece by piece; we need a radical approach to crofting, land use and land ownership in Scotland.
  The land register that was set up has not reached its conclusion. It was supposed to have done that by this year. It will be another 10 years before we have a full land register in Scotland. In what will probably be my last speech in this Parliament, I have to say that the land issue must be addressed much more seriously by all the political parties. I am proud that my party established a land commission under Professor MacInnes of Aberdeen university, who acted in a neutral capacity and took much

  743
  evidence from around the country. That is a helpful contribution to the debate. Without land, we can do nothing. We need land and people to build a more secure society; the two go together.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Although the issues have had a good airing at the Grand Committee in Montrose, on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it is only right that I should respond to some of the points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked of the success of the crofting trusts at Assynt and Borve. Their success, with that of Annishadder, has demonstrated that the time is right to offer tenants on the Secretary of State's estate the opportunity to benefit from land ownership.
  The response to the Government's consultation paper last year showed that there was considerable potential interest. The Crofting Trusts Advisory Service has commissioned three pilot studies into the feasibility of three possible local trusts. It is too early to say whether that will translate into specific proposals, but there is a growing body of opinion that that is the way forward. We need to be in a position to respond.
  The hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) said that the legislation might not be used. Perhaps he was thinking of the case of Skye and Raasay, when crofters responded to an earlier initiative in 1990 by deciding that they would prefer to remain tenants of the Secretary of State rather than setting up a crofting trust. He will agree that times have changed, and that there is more interest in the trust option. The setting up of trusts at Assynt and Borve, and at Annishadder in Skye, demonstrates that it is a feasible option for crofting communities.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) wondered whether the Secretary of State's crofting tenants should have a right to buy their estates as a whole. Individual crofters already have a statutory right to buy their crofts. To give crofters a right to buy an estate as a whole would be feasible only if the Bill defined precisely which crofters would enjoy the right, and the sort of body that would have to be formed to take over ownership.
  The Government believe that it is preferable for the Bill to allow flexibility, so that different approaches can be tried in different areas. The Bill must allow the Secretary of State the right to refuse proposals from crofting trusts, in order to safeguard crofters' interests—for example, if proposals are judged not to be properly representative of crofting interests.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also asked for trusts to be allowed to sell off their land and assets. That will be a matter for the trust. Trusts will no doubt consider carefully the effect of selling or leasing land. The loss of land will need to be weighed against the possible benefits, such as providing a source of money with which to undertake development projects in the interests of the local community.
  Moreover, crofting legislation provides protection for the crofting interest, as the land remains in crofting tenure unless the landowner, in this case the trust itself, successfully applies to the Scottish land court to have it resumed. In considering applications for resumption,
  744
  the court must be persuaded that the resumption is required for some reasonable purpose in relation to the good of a particular croft estate as a whole or of the public interest.
  Some Opposition Members asked why the Bill was not being extended to cover privately owned estates.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to raise one point before the Minister moves on. In the example that he cited, the land court and resumption would come into play. It is clear that he sees the potential for longer term difficulties.
  Suppose that a crofting trust, through no fault of its own, or perhaps through bad management or a change in personnel between its formation and several years or decades down the track, finds itself facing financial difficulty or perhaps ruin. Things will be very much in the lap of the gods, or at least the judicial gods of the Scottish Land Court. The outcome will depend on whether the court judged such straitjacket financial circumstances as sufficient reason for granting a resumption order.
  Let us hope that it would not come to that. No Secretary of State would grant trust status to something that might not be viable. We are taking a slight gamble on some of the applications that will be made in the next few years, because the circumstances could look markedly different a few years down the track.
  Mr. Robertson: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but, as he says, it is difficult to legislate for something that may or may not happen. It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would allow any trust to go forward that had not proved itself financially viable not only in the short and medium term but in the long term. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.
  The Bill extends to privately owned estates. Its purpose is to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to dispose of his estates. There is no legal impediment to prevent any private landowner from selling his large crofting trusts if he wishes to do so. It would be wrong for the Government to seek to compel landowners to sell.
  There is also the question of land under the control of the Forestry Commission. There is no legal barrier to prevent the commission from disposing of land acquired under the Forestry Acts to a crofting or community trust. Where the land is in crofting tenure and has not been planted, the Government will positively encourage the Forestry Commission to look sympathetically at disposing of the land to a suitable crofting trust.
  In the case of existing or newly planted woodland, a number of options could be considered under the Forestry Commission's recent disposal programme and its recently announced extension to the sponsorship arrangements for preferred sales to communities for social and economic development.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about the mechanism for ensuring that transfer took place only where there was demonstrable local support. I assume that the hon. Gentleman had it in mind that there should be a ballot, and that a transfer should take place only if there was more than a specified percentage of support.
  It is clearly right that there should be substantial support for any crofting trust proposal before it goes ahead. It would be a mistake to write any specific figure

  745
  into the Bill. Should the figure be a simple majority, say, two thirds, or should 90 per cent. or 99 per cent support be required? Who should vote—those with crofting rights, or all adults? Then there is the problem of absentees. Should crofters who live in Canada or Glasgow, or whose employment takes them away from the croft for most of the year, have a vote? Should the percentage be calculated as a proportion of those who vote or of the electorate as a whole?
  Before agreeing to transfer any estate to a crofting trust, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must consult the Crofters Commission, which in turn must have regard both to the general interests of the crofting community in the district and to the views of the crofters. That will ensure that these matters are addressed, but it gives more flexibility to take account of local circumstances.
  As my noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay made clear in another place, we have no set views on whether a minimum or maximum size of trust will have to be prescribed. A trust must clearly involve more than one croft holding, and, ideally, at least 10 holdings might be desirable, but we will consider each proposal on its merits. Similarly, we have no upper limit in mind. In our view, trusts are particularly suited to local communities, but a trust for larger areas, such as Skye or the Western Isles, could certainly be considered.
  The Bill does not prescribe the size or structure of a crofting trust. It is important, as I and my noble Friend have stressed, that any proposal meets the needs of local communities. The Bill offers sufficient flexibility to deal with a variety of local solutions. It would be open to communities to propose trusts which consisted of a whole estate, part of an estate or an aggregation of several estates. The Secretary of State would listen to representations from any crofter on an estate, any part of which was the subject of a proposal to establish a crofting trust.
  As for whether all crofters will have to become members of the trust, if, after consultation with the Crofters Commission and due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides to transfer an estate to a crofting trust, all the land owned by him in that estate will become the property of the trust. However, it will always be possible for an individual crofter to use his statutory right to buy his own croft land from the trust. In addition, depending on the precise type of body established, it might be for individual crofters themselves to decide whether they wish to become members of the trust, although they should all have the opportunity to join.
  As for whether trusts will need to be based on townships with common grazings, the idea of common ownership through a trust certainly makes most sense where there are one or more townships with common grazings, and most of the land in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's estate would fall into that category. However, we will not rule out a trust based on a series of separate crofts without any township common land if that is what the local crofters want.
  On Second Reading, the question of a pan-highlands and islands trust was raised. It is intended that a pan-highlands and islands trust will be a possibility under the provisions of the Bill. Whether such a trust would
  746
  make sense in practice will depend very much on the nature of the proposal and the extent to which it enjoys sufficient support from the crofters themselves.
  The primary purpose of our initiative is to give ownership and control of the crofting estates to the crofters who live on them, and we would have to be satisfied that any pan-highland and islands trust achieved that objective. We would not be interested in a pan-highlands and islands trust if it meant imposing a remote bureaucracy on reluctant crofters.
  My noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay met the crofting land trust steering group on 7 February to discuss the consultants' report. The meeting was useful, but it would be premature for the Government to offer a view on the feasibility of a crofting land trust. We are talking here about a report by the consultants to those bodies which commissioned the work, and there is no actual proposal as yet.
  Hon. Members asked why the Government should not interfere with the rights of pre-emption, which have been raised throughout our proceedings. If the Government took no action, the transfer of land to a proposed trust could be delayed while the question of any rights of pre-emption was sorted out, or even frustrated, if the inheritors to title decided to exercise their right.
  That would create uncertainty, and would be contrary to Government policy, so the Bill abolishes any rights of pre-emption that might exist over the land in the public interest. However, to be fair to the persons who may enjoy such rights, the Government will consider claims for compensation, and the Bill provides a right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court.
  Where a particular individual can demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate right of pre-emption, stemming either from the 1919 Act or from the title deeds for the land in question, it is only right and proper for the Government to consider compensation. In considering the amount that might be appropriate, the Government will take account of the circumstances of the case.
  Our understanding is that such rights as do exist are simply a right to have first refusal to buy, usually at market value, and it may be that, in the context of crofting land, such a right would have little value. At the end of the day, however, if the person is dissatisfied, it will be for the Scottish Land Court to decide whether a right exists, and the level of compensation that should be paid.
  Tracing persons who have a statutory right of pre-emption can be a very lengthy and expensive process, and it will often be simply impossible. That is why the Bill puts a duty on the Government to publicise the transfer, so that any persons who consider that they have a right of pre-emption can lodge a claim for compensation. However, the Government are prepared to give an assurance that they will, in practice, notify any persons whom they think, on the basis of the information available, have a right of pre-emption.
  The Bill allows four months for a claim to be lodged. Since all that will be required at this stage is the simple initial notification of a claim, four months would seem to be adequate. Any subsequent discussions between the Government and the parties concerned—for example, to obtain more information in support of their claim—would not be affected by this four-month period.
  The Bill places a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advertise the disposal in such a manner as appears to him appropriate. Flexibility is

  747
  necessary, as the precise arrangement for advertisements will need to be according to the nature of the estate. For example, rather different arrangements may be necessary when a whole estate is purchased than when part of an estate that is still in the same family ownership is involved. Each case will have to be looked at separately in order to identify the best means of advertising for the estate in question.
  Unfortunately, there are no established principles for valuing rights of pre-emption that could easily be incorporated into legislation. My right hon. Friend will consider all evidence submitted by claimants in respect of compensation for loss of rights of pre-emption. When agreement cannot be reached between the Government and the person concerned, provision has been made for appeal to the Scottish Land Court, which has considerable experience in dealing with crofting matters. We believe that the court is best placed to consider the facts of the case, and decide on an appropriate sum.
  The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the Crofters Commission before disposing of any of his crofting property to a particular crofting trust. In giving its advice, the commission is required to have regard to the general interests of the crofting community in the district in question, the views of crofters in that district, and any other matters it considers to be relevant.
  That gives the commission an important role, which is entirely right, given its position as statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on crofting matters and its knowledge and expertise. My right hon. Friend will therefore wish to give careful consideration to the views of the commission, but, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State must have the discretion to make the decision that he thinks is right.
  During the debate, it was asked whether the Crofters Commission would be required to hold a ballot of those crofters who are affected before giving its advice on their views. That will be entirely a matter for the commission, which has a great deal of experience of consulting crofting communities in the course of its day-to-day work.
  748
  The Crofting Trusts Advisory Service was set up to provide advice to crofting communities interested in establishing trusts on public or private estates. It is doing valuable work in providing that assistance. Advice of the sort it offers will be vital to those who wish to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to establish trusts on former Scottish Office estates. The longer-term future of CTAS will be decided in the light of developments following the successful passage of the Bill.
  Iain MacAskill, chairman of the Crofters Commission, has made it clear that the commission has taken no position on the relative merits of different trusts. The commission has provided advice to successive Secretaries of State for four decades, and is well-placed to ensure that the interests of the crofting community and the views of crofters are properly represented in advice given to the Secretary of State. We see no need, therefore, for any additional body with the inevitable additional bureaucracy and resources that it would require.
  The Bill will provide the necessary powers to put into effect my right hon. Friend's crofting trusts initiative. The initiative has received widespread support from all parties in the House, which support was shown on Second Reading in the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, in Committee, and today on Third Reading and Report.
  The Bill will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Crofters Commission, to transfer his crofting estates to bodies that are representative of the crofting interests in the property. It will allow my right hon. Friend to provide financial assistance towards the costs involved in establishing such a body. The Bill also ensures that any rights of pre-emption over the property are extinguished and makes provision for compensation to be paid in appropriate cases. This is a sound measure, which will devolve real responsibility to local communities to take decisions on the future of the land on which they live and work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 34

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      5.2 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 16, line 33, leave out '1 to 24' and insert '1, 3 to 24'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 16, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) Section 2 shall come into force on the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.'.
      Dr. Godman: I have been advised that I should be brief, and I always follow wise advice.
      The effect of the amendment is that section 2—now clause 2 of the Bill—would come into effect on the Bill's receiving Royal Assent. The reason for the amendment is powerful: the Bill provides that many sections will come into effect on such days as the Secretary of State will appoint; my amendment would ensure that there was no delay in bringing into force the provisions of section 2, which determines which payments will be affected by the Act.
      What is the reason for the postponement? The Court of Session and the sheriff court in Scotland have co-extensive jurisdiction over cases for compensation. There are certain jurisdictional advantages in taking a case to the Court of Session rather than the sheriff court. The Minister is a lawyer and, while he may not have a degree in Scottish law, I know that he has some knowledge of Scottish law. Although I do not know what pertains in English and Welsh courts, a disadvantage in going to the Court of Session is that it can be difficult to stop proceedings in that court. Postponing matters in the sheriff court can also be troublesome, but the problem is particularly applicable to the Court of Session.
      Given the area that I represent, The Minister will not be surprised to learn that asbestosis is all too common among my constituents. If Royal Assent and commencement were to coincide, would he not agree that that would obviate all clawback decisions that would arise if there was a time lag of some six to seven months between the two dates?
      I should have said—although I suspect the Minister knows it—that I am not a lawyer and have had no legal training in Scottish law. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a real problem where cases are due to be heard. Several of my constituents have expressed deep concern about what they, as lay men and women, see as legal, technical and procedural problems. One man—a skilled tradesman who was severely injured at work a few years ago, who has a wife and children and who has not worked since the injury—asked me, "Why should there be these delays? Why October? Why not April?" Those are reasonable questions for the Minister to answer.
      Mr. Frank Maguire, a Glasgow lawyer who advises Clydeside Action on Asbestos, wrote to the Minister as recently as 13 March and, after posting the letter to the
      750
      Minister, he kindly gave me a copy. I know that masses of correspondence fall on the Minister's desk, but I should like to remind him of what Frank Maguire—a fellow lawyer—had to say. He wrote:
      "While many personal injury lawyers are not advancing cases in anticipation of the Act coming into force so that their case is not settled or determined as at that date there are cases where trials have been fixed."
      Although he is a good friend of mine, I have to say that he writes like a lawyer.
      "The number of cases about which we are speaking is therefore limited."
      I do not think that the Minister will challenge that statement. I cannot speak about what is happening in England and Wales, but in Scotland the number of cases is relatively small.
      Mr. Maguire continues:
      "Having regard to the limited number we cannot see how the Act cannot apply to cases which have not been settled or determined at the date of Royal Assent and CRU recoupment applied after October 1997."
      He states that there is a precedent for that, and continues:
      "While we appreciate you may not have been responsible for the original 1989 Act the Government then had no qualms in bringing into force an Act in the middle of 1989 which it applied to accidents or diseases after 1st January 1989."
      I tabled amendment No. 1 because of my serious concerns for some of my constituents. The case of a young man in Port Glasgow is now being dealt with in the Court of Session and the sheriff court by a firm of lawyers in Greenock, who are highly skilled in such cases. Another man, who is an ambulance driver, was badly injured. He, too, is concerned about such delays.
      I expect a positive response from the Minister, to make the dates of Royal Assent and commencement the same. If he were to do that, he would earn the gratitude of many people in constituencies such as mine.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned his constituent's simple question on why the provisions of the Bill come into effect only in October and not on Royal Assent—I think that he mentioned April. That request is straightforward. It is, "Please, let us have the Bill in force now, and let it catch all the claims that are in the pipeline as of today or the day of Royal Assent." I readily understand, accept and appreciate the force of that argument, but there are real and considerable practical difficulties.
      On 12 March 1997, after discussion in Standing Committee on that and other matters, I wrote to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow as a member of that Committee. In it, I explained that, in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish gave undertakings that there would be extensive consultation with all interested parties on the detailed regulations that would be consequent to the Bill's passage. Those undertakings were specifically asked for by the Opposition. The Labour party tabled about 10 amendments on consultation, and undertakings were given.

      751
      Therefore, even if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow were to persuade Opposition Front Benchers to release us from those undertakings, the undertakings were given not only to the Labour party but to the world at large. The first difficulty is that the Government and Ministers are committed to consultation. Moreover, it is important that there should be consultation. There are important legal and technical issues—as I know the person in the street and the injured party will appreciate—and, in the interests of all those involved in the process, it is important that we get the regulations right.
      As I explained, if we are to have proper consultation, it is probably necessary to allow the months of April and May for the process. "Consultation" means just that; it does not mean hitting people over the head with a tablet of stone and saying, "That's what we'll do." Therefore, it would be wrong to think that the process of drafting the regulations can be properly advanced beyond a preliminary stage until the consultation process has been completed.
      In the timetable in the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Fife, Central—which was copied to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—I stated that we envisage that the regulations will be drafted in June and July, possibly extending into August. Our intention is that, at the beginning of the summer recess, the legal framework will be in place so that the legislation can be implemented from the beginning of October 1997.
      It is a matter, however, not simply of legislating but of rewriting the software that runs the compensation recovery unit's computer systems. Although we can attempt to do both tasks in parallel, the people who deal with the programmes complain bitterly when we attempt to do so, because it infinitely complicates their job, adds to expense and can cause delays in itself. They prefer to have the rules made by the House in final-cast form before translating them into the necessary instructions and software for the computer programmes that run the system.
      5.15 pm
      There will also be some administrative adjustments. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that one of the striking features of the evidence given to the Social Security Committee on the workings of the compensation recovery unit—very possibly some of the people who gave the evidence were slightly surprised to be giving it—was that, administratively, the system worked well. Accordingly, we think that not only consultation but a process of drafting the regulations and subsequently writing the software is necessary, so that the system will come into effect in October in a ready state that will not cause any technical or administrative hiccups for those who must deal with it.
      Those who deal with personal injury actions—whether on behalf of the plaintiff and trade unions or defendants and insurers—cannot settle or dispose of cases under the old or the new rules without the vital certificate from the compensation recovery unit. If that process were not to work reliably and efficiently, considerable difficulty and inconvenience—if not chaos—would be caused. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that—although I understand the point of view of his constituent, who would say, "Why can't we do it more quickly?"—there are real practical reasons, which I have partly explained in writing and amplified today, why a process of six months is necessary after Royal Assent, which I anticipate will occur soon.
      752
      I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman that that necessity will cause considerable difficulties for those with claims in the pipeline. The Government intend, and the legislation has been cast, to ensure that, on the day the provisions come into force at the beginning of October, all cases in the pipeline at that point that have not been settled or determined will be caught by the new rules of the new regime. If they are settled or determined before the beginning of October, they will be covered under the current regime. I readily accept and appreciate that that causes concern. Many hon. Members have written to me about specific problems of constituents, who ask, "What do I do between now and October?"
      Individuals must take proper legal advice. It may well be that the change of rules will not affect their specific case to their advantage. We are talking about some hard cases that were identified—particularly by the Select Committee, and particularly the asbestosis cases from the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—when the old regime was particularly harsh and unfortunate. In other cases, there will be no financial difference, whichever way individuals settle. Therefore, constituents must first take legal advice on whether they will benefit.
      If an individual will be affected and it is a matter of settling, he must determine what he can do to postpone the settlement—if that is the advice—until after the beginning of October and the introduction of the new regime. It was once easier to do that than in these modern interventionist days, when the rules of court encourage progress. I have no doubt that, if one has commenced proceedings, it will be more difficult to postpone than if one has not. If one has not commenced proceedings and is within the limitation period, one is entitled to dilly-dally if necessary. One is ultimately at risk of being penalised with costs if one dilly-dallies too much, but if one has not yet started proceedings, there is an opportunity to slow up the process. Most plaintiffs hate delay. They say bitterly to their lawyers, "Why doesn't the process operate more quickly? Why can't we get it through faster?"
      Let us suppose that postponement is not possible because proceedings have already begun. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, with more generosity than accuracy, that I might have some knowledge of Scots law. I have only a layman's understanding of what takes place in Scotland, so I am not in a position to comment in detail on the differences in procedure and litigation between the Court of Session and the sheriff court. Not having practised at the English Bar for nearly three years, I may also have forgotten—or not had occasion to attend to—the precise evolution of the rules of the Supreme Court and the county court.
      In the bad old days, once a writ had been issued, one had a year in which to serve it. In other words, a person could do nothing for a year and probably even renew the writ within the limitation period. So the plaintiff, in the driving seat, could decide to park the car if he really wanted to do so.
      Under the modern system of more instructions, both through the rules of court and through the operation of the listing procedures and the application of automatic directions, there is indeed a problem—people may be driven to proceed more quickly.
      Mr. Michael Clapham: I detect that the Minister is being helpful, but he will realise that, when a case has already been prepared for court, the employers will apply pressure—even though the lawyers working on behalf of the victim may want a postponement. Because they stand to benefit, however, the employers will press for a case to be heard.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Ironically, one of the beneficial consequences of the Bill will be the strong financial incentive, for the first time, for the defendant's insurers to speed up the process. That will happen after October, because recoupment and liability stop at settlement or determination. So for the first time, once the Bill comes into effect, there will be a direct financial incentive for the defendant's insurers to press for haste.
      As is well known, some such insurers have before now dragged out litigation on the basis that, five years down the line, the plaintiff may have died, or become exasperated, or gone away, or decided to accept a pittance, or not turned up on the day. It may have become easier to buy the plaintiff off by then, and in any case the money allocated will come from the sixth financial year, not the first or second—even though the latter might have been more just and commonsensical. That is all part of the workings of the insurer's mind.
      In short, this legislation will act as a powerful financial incentive for insurers to get a move on, because recoupment will be more substantial. That is a good thing, but it may be awkward and unhelpful for the class of person to whom the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred, who may be wondering what will happen between April and October. Such a person, who may have begun the court process, may want to stop it reaching court before October because that will be to his advantage.
      There may be quite powerful tools in the hands of the defendant's insurers, enabling them to make life awkward for the plaintiff. They can make generous payments—one can only hope, generous enough to compensate for the circumstances. At least in England and Wales—I cannot speak for Scotland—Lord Woolf's inquiries into speeding up the civil justice system have all been directed to the sort of judicial activism that speeds up these processes. In this context, that has led to a problem.
      One of the difficulties inherent in a substantial change to the law, as this is, is that some people will be adversely affected if they are on one side of the line rather than the other. I can see the force of the argument for activating the measure earlier, but I cannot carry out the undertakings that the Government have given and, at the same time, implement the proposals earlier.
      To make matters more complicated, I can well understand the purpose of the amendments from a purely humanitarian point of view. We all have constituents in this position; they tell us that the Bill is necessary and represents an improvement. It rights a harsh injustice for the limited class of people whom the Select Committee rightly identified as needing assistance from legislation. I regret to say, however, that complications arise when some people are caught out by the timing.
      An additional problem is the fact that the amendments do not even accomplish what they are meant to. I regret to say that they would bring about general chaos, with
      754
      unknowable consequences. Amendment No. 1 means that clause 2 alone would come into effect on Royal Assent. Clause 2 reads:
      "This Act applies in relation to compensation payments made on or after the day on which this section comes into force".
      The problem with the amendment is that nothing else would come into force until the Secretary of State issued the appropriate commencement orders—I refer at this point to amendment No. 2.
      The results would be complications beyond measure. One is that the clause in the Bill which repeals part IV of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 would not be implemented. We would thus have one law prescribing one regime, and a later section of the new Act suggesting that there was a new regime in force. Unless the Secretary of State then advanced the process of implementing the remaining sections, there would be no machinery to apply the new regime—no framework for regulations to come into force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have the power to make such regulations unless the rest of the Act was in force, too.
      I cannot predict what the courts might make of that. I can only respectfully suggest that it would generate such uncertainty that I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow would want to place us in that position. Litigation and/or chaos would be left to resolve the situation; it certainly would be an unfortunate one.
      I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire for us to hurry up and activate the legislation at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot see how to do that practically. I am stuck with the undertakings given by the Minister in the other place. What is more, the 1948 scheme was riddled with anomalies and difficulties until it was swept away, on 1 January 1989, by the present arrangements. I suggest, in the interests of the expeditious disposal of personal injuries litigation, that we get the rules and regulations right and make them fair and comprehensible for all involved.
      Accepting the force behind what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve, I invite him not to press the amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
      Dr. Godman: In mitigation I might point out that I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman. I sincerely hope, however, that the Crown Office in Scotland will be made aware of the Minister's remarks today so that, if need be, advice can be given to sheriffs and judges in the Court of Session—
      Mr. Roger Evans: I do not know whether it is right for a Minister to attempt to give guidance to an independent Scottish judge, but I undertake carefully to examine what can be done.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister. He might mention my concerns in passing to his colleagues at the Scottish Office. I am sure that they will give him the appropriate advice.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
      Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 17, line 15, at end insert—
      '3A. Any payment to the injured person arising out of their contracting mesothelioma.'.
      Mesothelioma is a pernicious form of cancer. I am not a medical man; my doctorate results from a thesis on the development of steam trawlers in the port of Aberdeen and elsewhere. This, however, is a serious matter and the prognosis for victims is almost always grim. I believe that there is no cure for the ailment.
      In relation to the pursuit of a legal claim on behalf of a mesothelioma victim, is it the case, or was it the case hitherto, that if such a victim died before he was examined by a medical specialist employed by the Benefits Agency, any legal claim would fall, despite the fact that the death certificate stated that the death was due to mesothelioma? I sincerely hope that that is not the case now, but I seem to recall that it was hitherto. What is the situation if an examination has not been carried out? In Scotland, any death resulting from the ailment legally requires a post mortem, so a death certificate could state that mesothelioma was the cause of death.
      Mr. Roger Evans: May I seek clarification in the interests of attempting to answer that question? Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a claim for some form of benefit from the Benefits Agency, or a legal claim for damages?
      5.30 pm
      Dr. Godman: I do not wish to be awkward, but both cases interest me. Naturally, the question concerning benefits looms larger than the second question. I hope that a death certificate is a legally valid document in terms of determining a person's death and that a legal claim would not fall because the person had died.
      My hon. Friends with Clydeside constituencies and I share an abiding concern for the poor, unfortunate people who fall victim to mesothelioma. Victims and their families must be protected, not just by local Members of Parliament, but by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has a long and honourable record in that regard. As the Minister well knows, my hon. Friend and I have been closely associated with Clydeside Action on Asbestos, a remarkable group of people who came together because of illnesses to which they and their families had fallen victim. They are remarkable campaigners, on behalf not just of their friends and families but of people throughout Scotland and elsewhere.
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the asbestosis issue interested him because,
      "regrettably, Clydebank in my constituency is the national leader for male deaths from mesothelioma. Our death rate is 11 times the national average because of the deathly cocktail in our background of shipyards, ship repairing and an asbestos factory."
      Delete "asbestos factory", and my hon. Friend could have been speaking about my constituency. I am sure that similar problems are also characteristic of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) in Yorkshire.
      756
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie went on to say:
      "Between 1976 and 1991, in Greater Glasgow, there were 500 deaths from mesothelioma alone … According to the Government, the people who died came into contact with the dust between 50 and 60 years ago; as has been said, asbestos-related diseases are by far the biggest industrial killer, and the problem is getting worse."
      In specific relation to my amendment, my hon. Friend said:
      "there will be between 1,300 and 3,000 deaths from mesothelioma in 20 years' time".
      An eminent consultant with whom I spoke in Inverclyde Royal hospital trust in Greenock this morning said that, in his opinion—he deals with about 10 cases a year and says that the number is increasing—we shall reach a plateau in 2005. We shall not see the end of the disease for a considerable time yet.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that that figure
      "dwarfs all industrial deaths, deaths on the roads and deaths from any similar cause. If we take into account the fact that there are estimated to be one or two deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer for every death caused by mesothelioma, we realise the scale of the continuing problem."—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 188.]
      Mr. Frank Maguire made a similar remark in his letter to the Minister. He said:
      "With respect, you misunderstand the distinction of mesothelioma from other cases. It is becoming increasingly the case that the younger claimants are suffering from mesothelioma. We are now encountering cases where a mesothelioma victim is in their 40s. There would therefore be and are a large and increasing number of cases where there are claims for wage loss and where the victim has been in full employment. The Act will do nothing other than hinder resolution of these cases."
      The problem is found not only in shipyards. Two local men came to see me last Friday at my surgery. They are Caledonian MacBrayne employees and crew members of the Pioneer. They went on board the vessel recently and became alarmed when they saw a joiner working, equipped with a respirator and goggles. When they asked him why he was so equipped, they were told that there was strong evidence of asbestos in the deckhead materials lining the formica. There was a substance called ammonite, which gives rise to asbestos dust. That was confirmed by an official of Caledonian MacBrayne, who stated that health and safety inspectors had been called in to test for asbestos.
      We must remember that there is no immediate indication of asbestos. The company told those men:
      "As a result of compressed asbestos panelling being found on MV 'Pioneer', the company is aware of individual concerns with regard to health and the effect that asbestos may or may not have
      In order to alleviate such concerns, the company offer, at no cost to the individual, the opportunity to receive an x-ray at Greenock health centre. Should an employee wish to take up this facility he or she should present themselves at the health centre and at Dr. Hulme's reception where the necessary arrangements have been made."
      We are, therefore, not speaking only about employees who were caught up in such circumstances years ago. That incident took place just a few days ago when the ship was being repaired in a yard just a few miles away from me.
      Another note to the employees stated:
      "As a result of compressed asbestos panelling being found on board M. V. "Pioneer", the company by way of compensation to cover damage to clothing incurred by crew members, offer the sum of £100.00. The award is given in full and final settlement of any claim made in this respect."

      757
      I should be grateful to the Minister if he would bring the case to the attention of his Scottish Office colleagues. If the Health and Safety Executive is involved, there may be a case for the incident being reported to the procurator fiscal in Greenock or Troon. The Minister should respond positively to the amendment, as he did earlier.
      I refer again to the observations of the eminent consultant whom I questioned today—a man I have known for some years. He told me that he deals with 10 cases a year in the Inverclyde area. Not just shipyard workers, ferry crews or others in similar industries are involved; a recent patient of his was a bus conductress. Another victim was the wife of a shipyard worker. It was found that the regular hand-washing of her husband's protective clothing led to the woman contracting this dreadful form of cancer. Another patient was the secretary to the managing director of a shipyard. She, too, contracted this appalling illness.
      The consultant told me that a plateau in the number of cases may be reached in 2005, and that there was a time lag of 30 to 40 years before onset. The average time of survival after diagnosis is nine months. Mesothelioma is one of the most resistant of all cancers. Less than 25 per cent. of patients get relief from pain by way of radiotherapy. Some of his patients suffer the most appalling pain from the disease, and radiotherapy is not effective in 75 per cent. of cases. He is one of our foremost consultants in the west of Scotland, but he said that, with the science and medical knowledge currently at our disposal, there is no cure. There is a case—south of the border, I think—of a woman who has managed to survive for two years. The consultant was astonished that she had survived for so long, as most patients die within six to 12 months.
      For those reasons, I impress upon the Minister the merit of my amendment. He knows that I have been guided by members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Frank Maguire and the cases that have come to my—we are supposed to call them advice bureaux now, but being old Labour I still call them surgeries. I have a constituent who has that complaint, and it is heartbreaking to see. A friend of mine in my constituency, a shipyard worker, recently died of the disease.
      There is a powerful case for giving victims the support that I seek through the amendment. The Minister, being skilled in both parliamentary draftsmanship and the law, will tell me that my amendment is, as we say up our way, going to Gourock—in other words, cock-eyed. On behalf of all the people in our Clydeside constituencies who have suffered grievously from mesothelioma, I want the Minister to give me a positive response. They deserve our continuing and abiding sympathy, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond in a way that they and their families deserve. Many victims live their last few months in agony; pain killers and radiotherapy are not much use, and chemotherapy is not used in such cases.
      I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I do not want to divide the House. We are speaking of people in dreadful pain, with an appalling prognosis. They deserve his deepest sympathy.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Roger Evans: I entirely endorse the graphic description given by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) of this class of case and the victims' sufferings. There is no doubt that mesothelioma is a particularly pernicious cancer, as he said. Its effects are as appalling as he described.
      Dr. Godman: It is just a minor point, but the Minister will be much more popular in my constituency if he pronounces Greenock correctly.
      Mr. Evans: I represent a Welsh seat and we have the same sort of problem. I apologise to Greenock for the discourtesy, which was not intended. It was fair to pull me up for that, and I apologise.
      The amendment is important and has been forcefully presented by the hon. Gentleman. I am well aware of the helpful and constructive role of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the discussions that led to the legislation and the way in which it has developed. When we discussed the previous amendment, I meant to mention Mr. Frank Maguire, whom it is fair to say I have not seen recently, but to whom I had the advantage of speaking during discussions, which were helpful and constructive.
      A debate on the Bill was encouraged, which was partly the responsibility of the Social Security Committee. Many practitioners representing different aspects have given their advice to the Government and participated in the discussions.
      I was asked whether it was or is the case that, if a mesothelioma sufferer died before examination by a Benefits Agency doctor, the claim failed. I asked the hon. Gentleman to clarify which sort of claim he was referring to—benefits or damages at common law—to which he helpfully replied, "Both."
      With regard to industrial injuries disablement benefit, I do not have the relevant expert advice to hand to give a confident answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. With regard to a claim for damages at law, at least in England, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 would provide for the survival of the action in certain circumstances to some degree. If there is a widow and dependants, they have a fatal accidents claim. It then becomes simply a question of proof, and no doubt there are other means of proving what happened to establish the cause of action.
      The hon. Gentleman invited me to draw the attention of my Scottish Office colleagues to the case that he described. It may assist us all if he would write to them or me. I appreciate the force of his observations.
      This is a hard amendment to answer, as the situation is heart-rending. Mesothelioma is an horrific condition. I am advised—I asked for background information of the sort that the hon. Gentleman obtained from his constituent, the distinguished consultant and medical man to whom he referred—that the median time from contracting mesothelioma to death is nine to 15 months, depending on medical opinions. It is possible, I am advised, to contract mesothelioma without exposure to asbestos, but that is very rare. There has apparently been a small number of cases involving children who, as far as anyone is aware, have not been exposed to asbestos.
      The number of deaths from mesothelioma is about one quarter, I am advised, of all the deaths caused by asbestosis. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman again pointed

      759
      out with considerable force, one of the more horrific problems of the condition is the fact that there is a long period between exposure to asbestos and the striking down by mesothelioma.
      I am advised that research by Whitewell and Rawcliffe in 1971 among 52 patients, mainly in Liverpool shipyards, revealed that the mean period between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is 42 years—and that is the mean. That is what is so horrific, why it strikes people in old age and why that group of people was so affected by the existing legislation, which this Bill replaces. I am advised that the range can be anything between 13 and 63 years.
      On the face of it, with that sort of situation, why do I not agree to the amendment? The difficulty is this: one of the horrific features of asbestosis is that one does not know how and when death will follow. Deaths from mesothelioma are about a quarter of all deaths from asbestosis. One of my constituents, whom I was speaking to this weekend, who has contracted asbestosis and who is pursuing his remedies through the courts, told me that one of the more horrific aspects of asbestosis was simply not knowing whether mesothelioma would strike.
      One of the problems is that people can die of lung cancer, which is, I am advised, medically a separate and distinct form of cancer, as well as a result of asbestosis. Of course, even if they do not die of either of those two conditions, asbestosis sufferers face other horrific, unpleasant and on-going consequences. I recognise the force of the argument, but I respectfully suggest that it is difficult, if death is the consequence of asbestosis, to single out one particular group, albeit one for which one might reasonably and properly have the greatest sympathy.
      Mr. Clapham: On mesothelioma, I think that the Minister will find that the Benefits Agency will take on a posthumous case. If that proves not to be true, will the Minister consider referring the matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council so that we might get a decision on how the issue should be tackled? It is an important issue.
      Mr. Evans: I am not entirely clear of the point that has been raised. The point that I was asked about involved someone dying of mesothelioma without medical examination by the Benefits Agency doctor. That is a specific point. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting a slightly broader point. I am aware of the considerable concerns on mesothelioma. It is the function of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to keep Ministers advised on these matters. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with his specific concerns, I will happily consider them and ask the council specifically to advise.
      I point that I was developing was that it was difficult to distinguish one class of asbestosis sufferer from another, but it should also be borne in mind that there are other equally horrific and fatal forms of cancer which can result from exposure during working time and which cause death. A classic example is exposure in the dye industry, which causes bladder cancer much later. I am suggesting, therefore, that this is an area in which one is bound to have sympathy for any of the groups of sufferers. It is difficult to make the distinction that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has made.
      760
      The hon. Gentleman said—I do not criticise it—that I might find technical difficulty with his amendment. There is one slight technical problem; he has managed to exempt defendants and their insurers in mesothelioma cases from having to pay anything to the compensation recovery unit. I should have thought that he would have wanted to do exactly the reverse: to protect particular sufferers.
      For that combination of reasons, although I accept fully the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I respectfully urge him not the press the amendment, as I think he said he would not, to a Division.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I am sorry that there is a fault in the amendment—I would certainly not want to push it to a Division with such a fault. I am grateful to the Minister also for acknowledging the devastating nature of this ailment, and hope that the Bill, without my amendment, will give some consolation to the victims and the families concerned. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      5.55 pm
      Mr. Roger Evans: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill deals with a discrete and separate part of the social security system. It is probably not a sector familiar to most of our constituents, but it is an area of great concern for those involved in the personal injuries litigation process. A number of hon. Members know a great deal about the subject, on which trade unions classically give much helpful advice to their members. There is a great body of expert advisers in the sector: solicitors, lawyers of one sort or another and people who are concerned with the subject and deal on a day-to-day basis with the system.
      The Bill's importance involves the fact that the current arrangements, which were enacted in 1989, succeeded well in doing certain things. It delivered valuable savings to the taxpayer without placing an untoward administrative burden on either compensators or victim representatives. It is worth noting that the Select Committee on Social Security made particular reference to those aspects of the existing scheme. More than £500 million has been recovered since the inception of the existing scheme.
      The Select Committee also concluded that the recovery of benefits to prevent double compensation was justified, but it also drew attention to an unintended consequence of the existing scheme: in some cases, it can lead to the erosion of victims' damages for pain and suffering. It is to put that right that the Bill has been advanced and that its Third reading has been moved.
      Before introducing the Bill, the Government consulted extensively with interested parties. Two separate exercises were mounted, the first on the implications of the Select Committee's recommendations, the second on the compliance cost assessment. I wish to restate our thanks to all the people who were consulted for the positive responses that we have received. I particularly thank Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which I mentioned earlier.

      761
      We have had a constructive dialogue with that group, as well as with other people. That has enabled us to advance our thinking on some important issues.
      The consultation process culminated in the introduction of the Bill in another place on 7 November last year, before it was transferred to the House on 21 January. I thank all those who have most carefully followed the Bill in the House and shown considerable and keen interest in the measures proposed. I particularly thank the hon. Members who considered the Bill in Standing Committee.
      I have referred to the importance of the Bill. I suspect that that is why it has taken the course that it has.
      This important topic has not had a happy past. We are talking about phase three. Phase one existed between 1948 and the coming into force of the present scheme on 1 January 1989. Under the first scheme, the defendant or his insurers were entitled to deduct against special damages half of certain specified benefits. That curious arrangement was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee in 1986. It had the perverse and extraordinary consequence of providing a subsidy out of public funds for the tortfeasor or his insurers. That cannot have been right. The Public Accounts Committee and others consequently recommended that it be changed, as it was in 1989.
      The second striking and unsatisfactory feature of the 1948 scheme was that it began with three named benefits that existed at that time. Thereafter, the benefit system altered, with benefit succeeding benefit. The consequences for the arrangement were not clear. As a result, litigation—going in many cases to the House of Lords—occurred on a series of different benefits paid by the Department. Certain issues of day-to-day importance for those engaged in litigation were unclear.
      Some classic examples include supplementary benefit, which was introduced in 1966, but not sorted out until 1982. Benefit paid up to the date of a damage award was taken into account, but not thereafter. It was determined in 1980 that unemployment benefit should be deducted in full. It was also eventually decided that statutory sick pay should be deducted in full.
      One of the advances in the Bill that I particularly commend to the House is schedule 2, which, for the first time, lists not only the heads of compensation, but the benefits that can be recouped against them or set off. Under the new scheme, the set-off arrangement is specified in detail and a power is provided by regulation passed by affirmative instrument to alter that from time to time. The arrangements between 1948 and 1989 were not satisfactory. We have corrected them and introduced a better mechanism to enable adjustments to be made later, as the benefits system develops.
      The main advantage of the Bill is that it protects plaintiffs—particularly asbestosis sufferers whose diagnosis was made in retirement—who suffered enormous recoupment against their pain and suffering damages. That has been put right. The 1989 scheme put more of the burden on the plaintiff. The Bill puts more of the burden on the defendant and, in particular, his insurers.
      That is surely right, because the defendant and, by secondary implication, those who cover his risks, commit the tort of negligence—or whatever it happens to be—that
      762
      causes the injury. It is right that he should bear the greater part of the burden, subject only to a set-off against the plaintiff in circumstances in which the plaintiff might be said to be doubly recovering in a way that would not be fair and appropriate in comparison with an ordinary private contract of indemnity insurance.
      The Bill strikes a balance between the parties and for the public, because we have preserved the principle of the protection of public funds embodied in the 1989 Act and extended it. The whole may now be recovered from the defendant and his insurer, subject only to the right of set-off.
      I respectfully suggest to the House that the Bill strikes a far better balance between the three parties involved. The plaintiff has a fairer deal in cases that were adversely affected by the 1989 scheme, more burden is properly placed on the defendant and his insurer and the public interest is protected. It would be rash to suggest that the scheme will last as long as the 1948 scheme, which was in force for 40 years. The 1989 scheme was not so long-lived. This time, bearing in mind the long gestation of the arguments and the full discussions and consultation processes that we have had, we may have produced a measure in this important area that should endure at least for a generation and, I hope, for longer. I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.4 pm
      Dr. Godman: I promise to be exceedingly brief. I am immensely relieved that the Bill is going through, when there are just a few days left in this Parliament. My constituents will be relieved that it is to receive Royal Assent. I have reservations about it, but I shall not voice them now, because I expressed them when speaking to my amendments this afternoon, as well as on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. There are still problems. I am still bothered about delays in appeals. The Minister kindly responded to my concerns.
      The Minister said that this is the third stage. The schemes have a remarkable history in our parliamentary democracy, largely because of the lobbying from a number of pressure groups, particularly Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The Select Committee agreed to investigate the modus operandi of the compensation recovery unit. It came up with a first-class report, and now we have the Bill. I have reservations about the Bill, but it demonstrates what can be done when there is good will on both sides of the House. Such good will has been noticeable by its absence during my years here. I give a qualified welcome to the Bill, which will give some relief to many of my constituents and thousands of others in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      6.7 pm
      Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not detain the House. I welcome the fact that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the general election campaign proper. I am delighted that some of my constituents and people across the country will benefit from it. I have always felt it wrong that any amount over £2,500 was clawed back by the Treasury from injured people in receipt of state benefits. The Bill will be to the advantage of those who have been injured, the taxpayer and the Treasury.

      763
      The Bill is long overdue. Let us hope that it helps the injury victims whom it is designed to help. As I said on Second Reading, I am worried about clause 8 and would have liked some changes to it, but the Minister is well aware of my reservations on that, and I welcome the Bill.
      6.8 pm
      Mr. Clapham: I, too, welcome the Bill, but I would not like the House to run away with the idea that there will not still be substantial deductions. On Second Reading, I put some figures to the Minister that were not as clear as they should have been. He suggested that I should clarify the matter. I ask him to consider the case of someone in his 40s with a multiplier of eight years and earnings of £10,000, giving a loss of earnings of £80,000. In addition, he would have his amount for pain and suffering. Such a serious case would be likely to have to wait some time for the medical evidence to be resolved. The five years deduction of benefit could well exceed five years of loss of earnings and may move towards wiping out most of the person's loss of earnings. I gave the Minister an example of a case in which the deduction for loss of earnings was £50,000.
      Mr. Roger Evans: I need more facts to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely the point is that, if the deductions will exceed such a sum, it is likely that there will be serious disability benefits of an expensive nature paid on top of loss of earnings benefits. There is a combination of those two benefits. If disability benefits are being paid, there will be a claim at law for damages for those costs as well.
      Mr. Clapham: I take the Minister's point. We are talking, however, about a man or woman having to wait a considerable time for the medical condition to reach stability. During that time, benefits continue to mount, and the result can be substantial deductions, leaving a man or woman with a payment for pain and suffering on which they will have to live. Under the present regime, they would have to continue to draw on that benefit for their livelihood until the amount dropped below £8,000.
      764
      Although I welcome the Bill, I have grave concerns about it. I hope that, after it has been enacted, we may be able to return to it and deal with some of those concerns.
      6.10 pm
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, because, like Opposition Members who have spoken, I have taken an interest in this matter based on my work over a number of years in practice at the Bar. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I used to do quite a lot of personal injury work. It is of concern to all of us who have worked in that field that there is an anomaly, which the Bill happily corrects after many years, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained.
      Will my hon. Friend and his officials bear in mind the fact that there will still be some problem cases? I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he and his officials are prepared to respond on specific cases where there have been problems. He and his officials will be aware that I have a constituent, Mr. Mullender, who had a great deal of difficulty in dealing with officials at a low level in the Benefits Agency. I hope that, if I write to my hon. Friend with some further details, he will be able to respond.
      Mr. Roger Evans: I am, of course, happy to respond to any request.
      Mr. Hawkins: The Bill achieves the objects that my hon. Friend the Minister set out. There have, however, been a number of concerns to which, in my role as deputy chairman of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, I would like to draw attention.
      The results of the consultation exercise from organisations such as the Association of British Insurers and the Law Society are extremely important. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to look at them carefully as this welcome Bill becomes an Act.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

      Business of the House
      6.12 pm
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business to be taken tomorrow.
      The business will be as follows:
      WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
      Remaining stages of the Police Bill [Lords].
      Committee and remaining stages of the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill.
      Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection from Harassment Bill.
      Motion relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
      Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order.
      Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
      Motion on the Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
      Motion on ministerial accountability.
      At 10 pm, the question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
      Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
      Remaining stages of the Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [Lords].
      Remaining stages of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
      The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
      As all hon. Members can attend, I should remind them that on Wednesday 19 March, there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
      I expect to make a further statement tomorrow about business on Thursday.
      The House will also wish to know that Prorogation is intended to be at 11 am on Friday 21 March.
      [Wednesday 19 March 1997: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 36-xi (1996–97).]
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House, but I believe that there will be some disappointment that he has made such a limited statement, and that we do not yet have the business for Thursday.
      On a minor point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the private Members' Bills to which he has referred will be taken in the normal way at this stage and that what is being proposed is not that Government time be given for such Bills, but that the House simply be given an opportunity to accept or reject Bills that have reached the appropriate stage?
      766
      Many hon. Members will feel that the programme over the next two days is not very balanced, because so much business is to be completed tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the only three items outstanding from those that he has announced today are the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which is in another place today, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill and the Education Bill, all of which may be subject to Lords amendments?
      If there is no further clarity today on those issues, hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position. Some may wish to participate in debates on those issues, and there may be votes. It will be difficult for Members to plan and to ensure that they are present in the House if they do not get the longest possible notice. We all accept that this is a difficult situation, but I believe that hon. Members have the right to as much warning as possible. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that we have been co-operative, but that there may have to be votes on some items of outstanding business.
      On a different note, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is particularly pleased that co-operation has extended to the Government dropping clauses 1 to 19 of the Education Bill. That will allow us to make progress.
      Mr. Newton: First, I say straightforwardly that I share the hon. Lady's disappointment at the fact that I have not been able to make a statement covering Thursday as well. In a way, that point links with what she said about the Crime (Sentences) Bill and the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent with what she said about the Education Bill, and the difficulties of planning. She will know that proceedings are proceeding in another place at this very moment on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Inescapably, there are a number of uncertainties which put me in the position of not being as clear-cut with the House as I would otherwise wish to be. I take note of the hon. Lady's point, however, about the desirability of gaining certainty as soon as possible. I will do anything I can to achieve that.
      I can confirm what the hon. Lady said about the private Members' Bills. We think that it is right to give the House a chance to express its opinion on the two Bills that have completed all stages in the Lords and are awaiting final stages in the Commons.
      I agree that the Opposition have been co-operative in facilitating the passage of business in this unusual period. I note the hon. Lady's point about votes, and I also note her rather more political point about the Education Bill. I can say only that the Government are pleased that we have agreement to proceed with all the measures on discipline and standards, which account for three quarters of the Bill. We shall come back to the selection and grant-maintained deregulation measures at the earliest possible opportunity.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: There were some rumours earlier today about the Adjournment slot tomorrow morning. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate will proceed on the basis of titled debates rather than involving a generality of subjects as it used to do when we had the debate on the Easter Adjournment and the rest? It would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could clear up that matter.

      767
      I was pleased to be able to contribute to the agreement on the Education Bill; that is substantial progress. However, I must contrast that with the lack of the Official Opposition's continued opposition to the crime Bills. May I say in no uncertain terms so that there is no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resolutely use every opportunity that the dying hours of this Parliament afford us to oppose both the crime Bills and the Police Bill? Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that amendments to the two crime Bills will not be tagged on to the Lords amendments at the end of Wednesday's business to which he referred in his business statement, and that they will be dealt with in a proper, substantial debate on Thursday?
      Mr. Newton: If I may take those points in reverse order, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the clear-cut undertaking that he asked for at the end of his remarks. The matter must inescapably be considered in the light of progress in another place. Apart from that, I note what he said on those matters. I am rather less able to confirm the co-operation of the Liberal Democrat party in these unusual days, as I have called them, because it is being totally unco-operative on Bills to which many people outside as well as inside the House attach very considerable importance in maintaining the fight against crime. I can confirm his understanding that the debates tomorrow will be of the kind that he indicated.
      Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend give some assurance that, if not tomorrow at least on Friday, the recommendations dealing with tax simplification and the revision of Standing Orders will be put to a vote in the House so that they can be dealt with before Parliament is prorogued?
      Mr. Newton: The basic answer to that question is yes. I hope that there will not be a vote, because the basis on which I am putting forward my right hon. Friend's Committee's proposals is that there is general agreement on them.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government in their last few days are subject to all this dither? This is the third business statement in two days in the last few days of this Parliament. Is it any wonder that "The Soaraway Sun" has deserted the tired, old Tories, who cannot even manage the last few days of this Parliament? It has obviously reckoned that it is time that they were gone. Get on with it, and let us get this other lot in.
      Mr. Newton: All that I can say is that, on this occasion, if those on the Liberal Bench behind the hon. Gentleman were as co-operative as he is, we would not be having all these difficulties.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that it was drowned in ribaldry, during Prime Minister's Question Time the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked a perfectly legitimate question on cash for questions. Having now looked at—I will not say that I have read the entire thing—the complaint against the Home Secretary to which the Leader of the House referred me yesterday, may I say that some of us think that Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed is something of a fantasist? If that is true, may we have an interim report for the
      768
      protection of the good name of the House from what I gather is an absolutely massive amount of evidence in front of Sir Gordon Downey? Will the Government at least make an interim statement especially in relation to Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed's claims, which were seen by so many people?
      Mr. Newton: For reasons that I have rehearsed on a number of occasions in responding to the hon. Gentleman, I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the Government, as distinct from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, concerning the matter. Equally, were I to respond in quite the way that he has suggested, I would, in effect, be going beyond my powers as Chairman of a Committee whose reports have been the reports of a Committee and not produced at my dictation. I shall, however, certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is a distinguished fellow member of it, has heard them.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the electoral registration figures for England and Wales be published in the Library tomorrow? I understand that they are to be made available on Thursday. Whether any hon. Member may approach Madam Speaker about trying to use a procedural device in order to debate the figures depends on the time at which they are made available.
      Mr. Newton:This is a little uncharitable of the hon. Gentleman in view of the efforts that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Director of the Office for National Statistics and I have made to meet his concerns. After what has been said on a number of occasions about the expectation that the statistics would be made available on 26 March, they will in fact be made available in the Library on Thursday 20 March in a pre publication version entirely to respond to his pressure. What is more, the Office of National Statistics wrote to him very courteously and told him so.
      Mr. David WinnickIs the Leader of the House aware that these daily piecemeal statements are totally unsatisfactory? The responsibility undoubtedly lies with the prime Minister, who refused to disclose the date of the election, despite the fact that everybody knew that it would be 1 May. The Government are clearly ending in the same shambles in which they have been for past five years-although I do not put any blame on the Leader of the House. If this is to be my last business question of this parliament, may I thank him for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with business?
      MR. Newton: Those last remarks have completely blocked the answer that I was about to give the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. John Gunnell: I reminded the Leader of the House in last week's business question of the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that efforts were being made to table an all-party view of ministerial accountability in the form of a resolution. Has there been progress on that matter? Will there be such a resolution?
      Mr. Newton: I realize that I announced so much that, as it were, hon. Members' eyes and minds may have

      769
      glazed over during it. I said that there will be a motion on ministerial accountability tomorrow, but I cannot say that it will necessarily be on an all-party basis because I understand that, as on a number of other issues, the Liberal Democrats have taken an idiosyncratic view.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Leader of the House has responded to me on more than one occasion, the most recent occasion being Thursday, about the House debating the best option for dealing with the grotesque stockpile of the remains of more than 1 million cattle. Half an hour ago, I received a written answer that said the remains were being
      "incinerated or stored safely pending destruction by the best practicable environmental option".
      We have still not had the opportunity to debate or hear a ministerial statement on the best practicable environmental option for such destruction and what that might mean for future generations, who may be put at risk by the horrible stockpile that is building up all over the country.
      Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Lady asking for a debate tomorrow?
      Mrs. Jackson: I am.
      Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to promise a debate tomorrow—unless you, Madam Speaker, indicate something about the debates you have chosen or the changing of them on the motion for the Adjournment. Once again, I undertake to draw the hon. Lady's concerns to the attention of my ministerial colleagues, although the answer that she was given seems reasonably clear.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a short statement tomorrow on the chaotic evacuation of over 65 British citizens—including a constituent of mine—from Albania on Wednesday? They were kept on the quayside in Durres for 14 hours without food and water and under constant threat of being killed by gunfire. I understand that HMS Birmingham, which was supposed to be there at the time, did not arrive until two days later.
      Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary,
      770
      although I cannot undertake to see that a statement is made. Without revealing any state secrets, I can confirm that I have read the telegrams from our people in Albania. It is clear that they have made every effort, in a difficult situation, to assist British citizens to the best of their ability.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House comment on the complaint by Lord Justice Ackner earlier this afternoon in another place? He complained about the way in which the Government are bouncing through some of the criminal justice legislation without due consideration by either House. He called the Government's actions unconstitutional. While I recognise the need for collaboration by both sides of the House to get business through, we have a massive backlog of legislation because the Leader of the House has not properly programmed Parliament's time. Too much is going through in too short a time, without due debate. That is unfair and unconstitutional, and makes a mockery of the work of Parliament which is supposed to debate legislation and vote after due consideration.
      Mr. Newton: In view of the attitude that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench have taken to the legislation, his remarks might be directed to them, not to me. Beyond that, I have enough difficulty commenting on what is said in this Chamber, without committing the offence of commenting on what is said in another place.
      Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time tomorrow to debate the excellent state of the British economy? I am sure that everybody in the House, and people outside, would like a debate so that they can understand the great strength of the British economy and how it is the best in Europe.
      Mr. Newton: That is a very good idea, but, to my great regret, I cannot accommodate it.

      BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Read the Third time, and passed.

      POLICE
      Resolved,
      That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 4) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

      Criminal Law
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1997, dated 27th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.— [Mr. Carrington.]
      6.32 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify one point on the powers of stop and search. As I understand the guidance that the Minister has published, the new powers depend on clearly identifying members of a gang and do not, therefore, amount to the reintroduction of wider powers of stop and search that might give rise to concern. That is an important point and concerns many people, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put his advice on the record.
      6.33 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am delighted to be able to confirm that the changes proposed are a response to the development of a perceived knife-carrying culture among some young people, and the formation of gangs in which knives are used with intent to maim or kill. There are additions to the code. If it is helpful, I will read out briefly the crucial part of the code, which is still there and which the order does not dilute. Section 1.7 of the code states:
      "a person's colour, age, hairstyle or manner of dress, or the fact that he is known to have a previous conviction for possession of an unlawful article, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the sole basis on which to search that person. Nor may it be founded on the basis of stereotyped images of certain persons or groups as more likely to be committing offences."
      I trust that that will assure the hon. Gentleman, on the record, that the new power cannot be twisted in any way and used as an excuse to stop people of an ethnic minority group or a certain age or colour. The additional powers to stop people who bear a distinctive insignia and who are part of a knife-carrying gang will be helpful to the police, who have warmly welcomed them.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister. That clarification is important.
      Question put and agreed to.

      Treasure
      6.34 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
      That the Treasure Act 1996 draft Code of Practice (England and Wales), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      That the Treasure Act 1996 Northern Ireland draft Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
      Mr. Sproat: I apologise to the House for the fact that, because the statutory instruments are complex, I may have to take slightly longer than has been taken on the previous measures. The instruments seek the approval of the House for two draft codes of practice on the Treasure Act 1996.
      It may be useful if I briefly remind the House of the scope and purpose of the Treasure Act 1996. The Act was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant), to whom the House is deeply indebted, as a private Member's Bill, and it received Royal Assent last July. It was debated at some length both in the House and in another place, and it received all-party support.
      The Act replaces the common law of treasure trove in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Treasure trove hitherto provided effectively the only legal protection afforded to antiquities found in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the old law of treasure trove, all finds of objects made of gold or silver had to be reported to the coroner. However, before an object could be declared treasure trove and be the property of the Crown, it had to pass three tests: it had to be made substantially of gold or silver; it had to have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery; and its owner or his heirs had to be unknown. Finds of treasure trove were offered to museums, which had to pay the full market value for them, and that was passed on to the finder as a reward: if no museum wished to acquire the find, it was returned, usually to the finder.
      The Treasure Act 1996 reforms that ancient law. It removes the need to establish that objects were hidden with the intention of being recovered, except in a very few cases; it sets out the precious metal content required for a find to qualify as treasure; and it extends the definition of treasure to include other objects found in archaeological association with finds of treasure. The Act confirms that treasure vests in the Crown or the franchisee if there is one, subject to prior interests and rights. It simplifies the task of coroners in determining whether a find is treasure, and it includes a new offence of non-declaration of treasure. Lastly, it states that occupiers and landowners will have the right to be informed of finds of treasure their land on, and that they will be eligible for rewards.
      A recent survey suggested that perhaps 400,000 archaeological objects are found each year with metal detectors. Over the past 10 years, 22 finds a year on average have been declared treasure trove. Those finds comprise on average 6,000 individual objects, so they

      773
      amount to about 1.5 per cent. of the total number of objects found. We believe that the Act may double the number of cases of treasure, but that would increase the proportion covered from 1.5 per cent. to only 3 per cent. of objects found.
      Section 11 of the Act requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice relating to treasure, to keep it under review, and to revise it when appropriate. The code has to set out the guidelines to be followed by my right hon. Friend when considering whether treasure should be offered to a museum, or to the finder, or to any other person, when determining a reward and when deciding whether to disclaim the Crown's title to treasure. The code may—and does—also provide guidance for finders, museums, coroners and others who are concerned with treasure.
      Before preparing the code, my right hon. Friend was required to consult such interested parties as appeared to her to be appropriate and the code, or any revision of it, will not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. My right hon. Friend is required to publish the code in such a way as will bring it to the attention of all interested parties, and she may publish separate codes for England and Wales, for Northern Ireland, and for different parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland if deemed appropriate.
      When the Treasure Bill was passing through Parliament, I gave a commitment that it would not come into force until the codes of practice had been approved by both Houses. I should explain why two codes have been drafted, the first to take effect in England and Wales, and the second in Northern Ireland. It was necessary to have two separate codes because of the different legislative regimes that exist in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales.
      In the Province, under the terms of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, there is a statutory duty for finders to report all archaeological objects, and anyone excavating on any land for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects requires a licence. Neither of those provisions exists in England and Wales. The Northern Ireland code therefore follows the policy laid down in the code for England and Wales, but has been adapted to take account of the different statutory regime in the Province.
      It may be helpful if I summarise what the codes do, and then describe the consultation process that we have gone through. As I have said, the codes have three main purposes. They describe the requirements of the Act, they provide guidance to finders of treasure, and they set out the guidelines on the payment of rewards.
      First, the codes set out what objects should be reported, and where. Importantly, the English and Welsh code proposes that the Department will draw up local agreements for each coroner's district, setting out arrangements for the delivery of finds of treasure. Secondly, the codes give clear guidelines on which objects qualify because they are found in association with treasure. In addition, they urge metal detectorists to seek advice from archaeologists as soon as they come across any large or unusual finds, and state that they will not lose out if they do.
      774
      The codes urge archaeologists to involve finders in any archaeological investigation resulting from their finds, and confirm that objects that no museum wishes to acquire can be disclaimed without the need to hold an inquest, thus streamlining the system.
      One issue that proved controversial when the Treasure Bill was debated in Standing Committee concerns the position of the bodies that held franchises. However, I am glad to tell the House that all the regular exercisers of franchises—there are only four of them—have agreed to abide by the principles of the code.
      The codes set out revised guidelines on the valuation of finds of treasure that museums wish to acquire. At present, the independent treasure trove reviewing committee advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on such valuations, its role being to determine the full market value of the objects discovered. Under the old system, the national museums—that is, the British museum for England, and the national museums and galleries of Wales in the case of finds in Wales—used to submit valuations to the committee, which would then take further advice if it thought that necessary.
      The codes propose that the national museums will no longer submit valuation reports. Instead, in all cases the committee will issue reports from independent experts drawn from the trade. Finders and museums will be able to comment on the valuations before the committee makes its recommendation, and finders will continue to be able to commission their own reports, as they can at present.
      On the payment of rewards, the codes set out for the first time a comprehensive policy. The aim is to strike a balance between the interests of finder, occupier and landowner. The responses that we received from the consultation exercise suggest that we have done so.
      To summarise, the codes state that, where the finder has permission to be on the land, rewards should continue to be paid in full to him or her. The burden of proof as to whether he has permission will rest with the finder, and if the finder has made an agreement with the occupier or landowner to share a reward, the Secretary of State will be prepared to follow the terms of the agreement.
      Where the finder has been trespassing, he or she may expect a reduced reward, or none at all. For the first time, landowners or occupiers will be eligible for rewards in such cases. Lastly, the codes define the respective interests of the landowner and the occupier in cases in which they are eligible for rewards. The Act requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult such persons as appear to her to be appropriate.
      The first draft of the code was therefore issued for consultation on 17 December, with a request for comments to be made by 14 February. About 1,500 copies of the English and Welsh codes were sent out, and all the main interested parties were given an opportunity to comment. Those included all metal-detecting clubs, leading archaeological societies and museum bodies, selected museums, antiquarians, coin dealers and landowners' groups.
      Although we had already fulfilled our legal obligations to consult to secure the widest possible consensus, on 28 February we circulated the revised draft of the English and Welsh versions of the code to the 50 or so organisations and individuals most closely interested in it.
      Provided that the House and another place agree to approve those codes, we need a period during which the final version will be circulated as widely as possible

      775
      before the Act comes into force. That is why we propose that the commencement date of the Act should be 24 September. We expect to print up to 30,000 copies of the codes, and we shall also produce a leaflet or leaflets summarising the main points, which will be distributed even more widely. I commend the codes of practice to the House.
      6.43 pm
      Sir Anthony Grant: Over 32 years I have despairingly endeavoured to introduce private Members' Bills of one sort or another, so I am especially gratified that one of them—the Treasure Act 1996, as it now is—reached the statute book successfully.
      The motion before the House is the final act and deed to put that excellent measure into effect. I hope that the House will pass it. I believe that if it does, we shall have put on to the statute book a measure that will contribute greatly to the heritage of our nation, and in which everybody can participate, whether they be detectorists, archaeologists or anyone else.
      The measure brings common sense to a law that has been in need of reform since mediaeval times. I should like to say how grateful I am to the Department of National Heritage for all that it has done. I am especially grateful to Dr. Roger Bland, and, if I may say so, for the splendid co-operation that I have always had from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I wish the measure well.
      6.44 pm
      Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the code of practice, and I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the detail. Many people have battled for years, both inside and outside the House, to bring the measure about, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on his perseverance, and also Lord Perth on his work in another place.
      I hear what the Minister says—that it makes sense to wait until September for the instrument to come into force. Indeed, we have been patient so long that I suspect that all the interested parties outside the House will understand that argument. They will also understand the part of the code that says that, because we shall be in new territory, in spite of the availability of the best expert advice—I might mention Dr. Roger Bland and others—nobody quite knows how the legislation will work in practice.
      776
      We appreciate the Government's caution in scheduling a review to take place in three years' time, so that we can see how the Act and the code are working. We welcome that, and I congratulate the Minister and the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire on the new legislation. We look forward to its contributing to our cultural life and to a more orderly organisation of such matters.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the Treasure Act 1996 draft Code of Practice (England and Wales), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
      Resolved,
      That the Treasure Act 1996 Northern Ireland draft Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.—[Mr. Sproat.]

      LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
      Resolved,
      That the draft Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
      Resolved,
      That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

      POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL
      Ordered,
      That Standing Committee A be discharged from considering the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Streeter.]

    PETITION

      Prepayment Devices (North West Water)
      6.46 pm
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: The petition is signed by 12,000 electors who live in the area served by North West Water, and arises out of their concern about the health and safety aspects of the company's plans to introduce prepayment devices that cut off households' water supply when the money runs out.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons render prepayment water devices illegal as a means of payment for water and sewerage services for low income families.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Child Poverty
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
      6.47 pm
      Miss Joan Lestor: I have served as a Member of Parliament for 26 years, having entered the House 30 years ago, been rejected for four years by Slough but then been embraced in a love affair with Eccles. During that time I have done many things and had many interests as a parliamentarian, but the issue that has dominated my life has been that of children both here and abroad, and I wanted to go out on a note that highlighted that interest.
      Next month, the Save the Children Fund will launch a national campaign concerning child poverty and nutrition. Later this week, the Child Poverty Action Group and the King's Fund will publish a report documenting for the first time the wide range of health problems associated with poverty among young people, including accidents, depression, drug abuse and suicide. The report also reveals that poorer young people run a four times higher risk of early death than those who are better off.
      Those facts cannot be ignored; they describe our society today. Many Conservative Members might prefer to deny them, but there are appalling levels of poverty and inequality in this country.
      I am sure that many people must have been shocked when Oxfam announced that it was to extend its poverty work to the United Kingdom, a full five years after the Conservative Government signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which specifically called on states to take appropriate measures to combat disease and malnutrition through the provision of adequate nutritious foods, and to ensure that all segments of society were informed, had access to education and were supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition.
      What is the Government's record on these issues? The Prime Minister, in what I thought was a breathtakingly complacent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) last October, claimed:
      "The United Kingdom has extensive social protection and assistance arrangements, among the most comprehensive in the world. It is by working to maintain and improve living standards through economic and social policies that we will fulfil the aspirations of the United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty, and in a way that is relevant to our society."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 650.]
      That statement should be considered in the context of the 3 million families on income support, or the 14.1 million people living in households with an income that is less than half the average. Of those people, 4.3 million are children—one in three children in the United Kingdom. The work of the family budget unit at York university shows the inadequacy of income support levels to provide minimum acceptable standards of living, including nutritional standards, for children.
      If the Government are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of poverty, it follows that they will not be too keen to acknowledge the link between poverty and poor health. I pay tribute to health visitors: the professionals in the front line of defence against disease, ignorance and social inequalities. They are well equipped to report back on the nation's changing health profile. They are
      778
      concerned about the mounting problems associated with poverty and poor nutrition among our children, and yet the health visitor service is being cut again.
      Cambridge and Huntingdon district health authorities agreed on 26 February to cut the funding of health visiting and the school nursing service by £300,000. Buckinghamshire health authority and South Buckinghamshire NHS trust are proposing a 60 per cent. cut in school nursing. South and West Devon health authority is planning to reduce the number of school nurses by up to 50. I could go on. At least one national health service trust, the Mid-Anglia NHS trust in Bury St. Edmunds, has tried to take a do-it-yourself approach to health care by advising parents of rising two-year-olds to carry out their own developmental assessment of their children.
      When the Health Visitors Association's report was mentioned in the House in January, the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand and said that he did not accept its findings. I have not heard of any other research that has contradicted that report. It was a nationwide survey of social conditions at the end of the 20th century. It uncovered disturbing new evidence of widespread child malnutrition. Families live in overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, and suffer as a result of fuel debt and disconnections.
      The Government must have a twinge of conscience about the return of rickets and tuberculosis among the child population. The report's conclusions were not the generalisations of a politician or political party, but based on first-hand information provided by concerned professionals who have had to pick up the pieces after almost 20 years of Tory government and, in the process, have discovered the return of the diseases and social conditions of the 19th century. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but that was in the report. If it is wrong, I hope that he will explain the position.
      Jackie Carnell, director of the Health Visitors Association, said that great strides have been made in public health, due in no small part to the work of health visitors in preventing ill health. It is a tragedy that, as we approach the end of the 20th century, the many improvements in health and welfare are being undermined by the effects of desperate poverty on a national scale. Health visitors are uniquely placed to tackle many of those problems, so the service should be strengthened and expanded, not watered down and dismissed in the cold climate of Scrooge-style economics.
      The survey found that almost one third of health visitors had had cases of tuberculosis in the previous 12 months, 61 per cent. had come across iron deficiency and 83 had had cases of failure to thrive. Those findings are more than backed up by an inner-city area report by Wendy Doyle for the British Medical Association. It shows that one third of 12 to 13-year-old girls in Hackney are calcium-deficient, one quarter are deficient in magnesium, and a quarter are deficient in zinc. Two thirds of health visitors have cases of families whose gas or electricity supply has been disconnected. Of the more than 5,600 families in the sample, 5 per cent. had had their water cut off.
      Findings from the survey give an insight into the number of families suffering from disease and nutritional defects that are made worse by poor living conditions. Health visitors are frequently asked to help families who

      779
      live in unsuitable, overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, with poor facilities for preparing food. Half the health visitors in the United Kingdom deal with families living in unfit buildings with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities, which seriously hampers the hygienic preparation of food.
      The "Milk for Schools" campaign produced a report last year called "The Hunger Within", which showed that the Government have given nutritional provision for children a low profile. Poor diet and poverty in childhood have long-term implications. Some of the effects are immediate, such as children falling asleep in their classrooms because they have had no proper food or breakfast. I know one teacher who keeps a supply of biscuits and fruit juice in the cupboard, which he gives to children whom he feels are undernourished.
      The Minister may try to dismiss my comments as hearsay, but can he deny the evidence of a ward sister in a hospital in Romford in Essex, who yesterday wrote to me that tonsil operations were being delayed because a significant number of children were too anaemic to take the anaesthetic? A dental clinic in Leeds could not extract children's teeth, for the same reason.
      Since the 1980s, the National Heart Forum has been concerned about the poor quality of children's diets, and the diet-related ill health that often begins in childhood. The poorest 20 per cent. of families spend on average £12.82 per person per week on food, and many spend far less. The effect of such low nutritional standards is appalling. Until 1980, school meals had to provide one third of a child's daily intake of energy and nutrients. It was a Tory Government who removed the obligation on local education authorities to meet nutritional standards.
      More than 1 million school meals that are served daily are free, but the number of children in need of nutritional support is far greater. For example, children from families who do not qualify for income support but receive other benefits are not currently eligible. According to several surveys, 5 per cent. of children do not have a breakfast, and more than one quarter of them have no cooked meal, often because they are in accommodation that does not provide the wherewithal, so the school lunch is probably their most important meal of the day. We must ensure that it contains the essential nutrients for good health in both the short and the long term.
      Several studies show that school meals play an important role for children from low-income families. Children from poorer families receive a significantly higher proportion of the day's nutritional intake from school meals than from any other source. It has been a cause of concern that the only meal provided at lunchtime is a sandwich.
      Today's children are physically less active, but they still need a nutritionally dense diet. What they are currently offered is a diet that is high in fat, high in sugar, low in non-starch and low in iron and calcium. Research has found that an average school meal contains 46 per cent. fat, which exceeds the Government's recommendation of 35 per cent. A poor diet will affect children's general level of activity and their academic performance.
      Without a proper nutritional base in childhood, people may suffer heart disease later on. That, as we know, is one of the major causes of death in the United Kingdom. An estimated 30 per cent. of such deaths are attributed to
      780
      a wrong or poor diet. The disease process begins in childhood: thickening of the arteries has been seen in children under the age of 10. Obesity is on the increase. A study published in the British Journal of Nutrition estimated that the number of obese children doubled between 1980 and 1990. A change in school meal cooking methods and content could make a significant difference.
      Dental decay is one of the most common diseases of childhood, with more than half of all children having dental decay before their second set of teeth. That is one reason why I am appalled by the widespread introduction of sweet-laden fizzy drinks and snack dispensers in schools—it is doing the children no favours. Iron deficiency—the main cause of anaemia—is three times more common in girls than in boys, for obvious reasons. As well as affecting tissue growth, it can lead to adverse effects on intellectual performance and behaviour.
      I know that the Government are not entirely unaware of this problem, which is partly of their own making. Just as the Education Act 1980 abolished nutritional standards in school meals, so the Local Government Act 1988 introduced compulsory competitive tendering to the school meals service. Very few school meals contracts have mandatory standards for nutrients built into them— often, the cheapest bid wins the contract, with no compulsory nutritional base line. Caterers often opt for a cafeteria system, providing burgers and chips. Much of the monitoring of school meals contracts focuses on hygiene and health and safety, rather than on nutrition.
      Last night—after intensive lobbying by trade unions such as Unison and health professionals—the Government issued guidelines for school meals which were welcomed by, among others, Professor Tim Lang, chair of the School Meals Campaign, but he added:
      "We look forward to the guidelines becoming compulsory rather than voluntary. Ofsted could be given the power to ensure that school food providers are complying with the guidelines, highlighting the school meals service in the same way as they do educational performance."
      The shadow Education Minister has pledged our determination to address the problem of inadequate nutrition in school meals and to introduce national nutritional standards. Some 4 million United Kingdom children eat just one meal a day, and the Government have a duty to ensure that that meal is a good one.
      The poorest 25 per cent. of society spend £1.64 a day on food—that is a fact. Official food consumption statistics, according to Suzi Leather's excellent book "The Making of Modern Malnutrition", show that the people in the largest poor families eat, on average, the equivalent in nutritional terms of a couple of Brussels sprouts per person per day for their nutritional value. The fresh food consumption of the largest poor families is the equivalent of one quarter of an apple a day. In large poorer families, the consumption of fresh green vegetables has dropped to one third of the amount eaten in 1980.
      The growth of out-of-town shopping has had an enormous impact on the diets of the poorest. In a six-year period, 30 per cent. of greengrocers closed. As one mother of two put it:
      "It costs money to go to the shops. It costs us £7 to get to the shops and back—and we are only spending £30 a week on food for all four of us."

      781
      A recent study carried out by the London school of economics compared the shopping basket prices of small shops and supermarket chains, and the price difference could amount to between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent., depending on the food bought.
      We underestimate the considerable psychological stress that results from food poverty on parents, who feel that they are failing their children by not providing the right food, and on children, who see their parents going without to feed them. In the words of one mother of two with a husband on a low wage:
      "I don't always eat. I sometimes have breakfast, about four times a week. I always go without lunch, just a cup of tea, and very often without an evening meal. I might eat up what the kids leave. Saturday evening is the only good meal of the week."
      That is happening in 1997.
      As we approach the millennium, official concern about child nutrition and poverty seems to be reaching an all-time low. As Suzi Leather so effectively points out, the last decade and a half has seen the systematic reduction in state support for the diets of the most vulnerable— especially our children. Let us look at the details. In 1971, Thatcher's milk legislation abolished free school meals. In 1980, school meals were deregulated and nutritional standards abolished. The Social Security Act 1986 cut the number of children entitled to free school meals by one third, and made the provision of schools milk discretionary.
      In 1988, special dietary additions were abolished, compulsory competitive tendering was introduced to the school meals service, and single payment grants for items such as cookers and fridges were replaced with social fund loans. In 1992, further social security changes took away from 35,000 of our children entitlement to free school meals, and removed the educational entitlement of all secondary school children to education in nutrition and cooking skills under the national curriculum. Finally, the 1995 Budget saw the Government opt out of the EU scheme which subsidises the use of milk as an ingredient in school meals and the provision of milk for drinking in secondary schools.
      As we approach the millennium, these facts are affecting a large number of our children. We tend to look at the children of successful people and those who come from homes and families which can afford proper food, but there are thousands of children who do not eat proper food and who are deficient in a variety of ways. Child poverty, poor nutrition and ill health—both short and long-term—are linked. To ensure healthy children, society must help their parents by achieving improvements in income and living standards. We need access to healthy diets in schools and we need to help parents.
      I believe that the Government have failed our children, and have neglected to see what is taking place in schools and the poverty being experienced by many of our children. The Government have a duty to ensure that proper investment in our children should include a substantial nutritional element. I am sure that the next Labour Government will do that.
      7.6 pm
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I should like to pay tribute to the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), in which she
      782
      displayed the social conscience that she has shown whenever she has spoken in the House. The subject of her speech is dear to her heart, and has a local bearing, but during her time on the Opposition Front Bench she has spoken robustly in favour of assistance for countries overseas that are not as well provided for as we are. In doing so, she has displayed her social conscience and fought her corner with a robustness which sometimes has not received the recognition it deserves. I am sure that the House will be much diminished following her departure, and I wish to use this opportunity on behalf of Conservative Members to pay tribute to the work that she has done as an honourable Member of this House.
      7.7 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles. She said that she wanted to go out on a high note because of her continued commitment to children, both in this country and overseas. I would like to pay tribute to her for her work over the past 20 years, and for the passion of her views. Obviously, she will not be surprised to learn that I do not share her concluding views, and she was unduly harsh on the Government. As she has wide experience in this House, she would not expect me to necessarily agree with everything that she said in a well thought out, detailed and knowledgeable speech.
      The vast majority of households are better off as a result of the Government's policies: average income has risen by more than a third—by 37 per cent.—between 1979 and 1993–94, and those rises are not confined to a few top earners. Average income is up for all family types throughout the country.
      It is a fallacy to claim that there are more children living below the poverty line than ever before. Such a claim, which rests on equating the poverty line with the income support level, would imply that any increase in benefit levels brings about an apparent increase in poverty, and that, conversely, by cutting benefit levels we could reduce the numbers on low incomes.
      The facts are that those usually thought of as poor have also seen their income increased in the past 18 years. For example, a typical unemployed couple with two children, receiving income support, is 20 per cent. per week better off in real terms than in 1979. The less well-off, the bottom 10 per cent., now possess more consumer durables. The possession of such items as telephones and central heating is up by more than a half, and half those people now have cars and video recorders.
      We have continued to concentrate help where it is most needed, on low-income families, less well-off pensioners and sick and disabled people on low incomes. Extra help is available to low-income families through income-related benefits worth about £1.4 billion a year more, in real terms, than in 1988. More than 706,000 families benefit every week from family credit payments.
      Family credit, a benefit introduced by the Government, plays an important part in helping families with children to break out of the poverty trap, making easier the jump from the state benefit system back into work by raising their incomes through the early stages of their return to work. That is an important help, which has enabled 706,000 families to get back into work and enhance their standard of living.

      783
      The biggest cause of low income is unemployment, which has fallen by 1.1 million since December 1992. We are building on that, as recent unemployment figures have shown. I cannot anticipate what the figures will show tomorrow, but I have no reason to doubt the continuing economic recovery of this country. We have an economy that is the envy of our European partners, and that should continue to develop and strengthen in a stable and excellent way, bringing benefits to both individuals and their families, and to manufacturing, the retail sector and others.
      About 750,000 people a year will benefit from a range of innovative measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his 1994 Budget to help people to move into and stay in work. From April this year, the parent plus initiative will offer help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support to get back to work: £20 million will be invested in the scheme and supporting initiatives. It will be piloted for three years in 12 Benefits Agency districts, covering almost one tenth of Britain.
      Of course we acknowledge that there is an association between health and socio-economic status: that is not unique to this country, but is seen throughout the developed world. There are also variations in health between different areas and social and ethnic groups, and between men and women. The experts agree that there are likely to be many factors at work: living and working conditions, resources, individual preferences and social relationships.
      The Government are determined to work towards improving the health of the nation and breaking down the barriers between the different factors that can have an adverse impact on individuals' health, be they adults or children. Through the "Health of the Nation" initiative, we have set targets for improving health. We are the first Government to do so. Within those targets, we have asked health authorities to work with others to concentrate efforts on those whose needs are greatest. That means that we can focus on those who face poorer health than others, whether because of low income, gender, ethnicity or geography.
      I want now to concentrate on the more narrow and focused area of children's health and nutritional requirements. The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned a number of issues relating to children's health, on which I am afraid that I cannot agree with her conclusions.
      We know that children of all ages and in all population groups are taller and heavier than before. No group shows the signs of faltering growth that could result from under-nutrition. Indeed, Government surveys of food, nutrition and diet over the past 20 years have shown consistently that there is no evidence of malnutrition in British children. The average intake of nutrients for all groups surveyed is above the appropriate dietary reference value. The exceptions are for iron in women and girls, and calcium in some adolescent girls, but those exceptions cut across all socio-economic groups.
      It is important at this stage to define a healthy diet, because I believe that there is a great deal of confusion on the subject among too many people. A healthy diet, as the hon. Member for Eccles will know, is a well-balanced and varied diet. It should consist of foods in the following groups: bread, other cereals, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy foods, meat, fish and alternatives.
      784
      It is important for people to understand the fundamental basis of a healthy diet. The diet of British schoolchildren is important. The growth of primary school children between the ages of five and 11 in England and Scotland was monitored between 1972 and 1994 by the national study of health and growth, which was funded by the old Department of Health and Social Security and the current Department of Health.
      In 1995, the health survey for England took over that responsibility. The NSHG has demonstrated consistently over the years that children of all ages, in all population groups, including low-income, inner-city and ethnic-minority groups, are growing taller and heavier than before. That is significant, because it suggests that there is no evidence of under-nutrition among young people and children in this country.
      A summary of the results of the survey, "Trends in Growth in England and Scotland", was published in a scientific journal on 11 March and generated much media attention, as it claimed to show that, although children in all groups studied had grown on average taller and heavier year on year, that was not wholly good news, because fatness among the children had also increased markedly. It was speculated that that was due to increasingly inactive life styles over the period.
      The heights and weights of children were measured by the national diet and nutrition survey, which was published in 1995. It showed that children in all groups had heights and weights at or above the national standard—again, no sign of the faltering growth that may be due to under-nutrition. It is important to have that on the record, so that people do not misunderstand the results of the expert research.
      There is no recent representative study of children in secondary school, but the Department of Health and Social Security survey of the diets of British schoolchildren carried out in 1982–83 found that both 10 to 11-year-olds and 14 to 15-year-olds were growing taller and heavier than ever before. That reflected the evidence of the research I mentioned earlier, on the younger age group. The field work suggests that there is no evidence of under-nutrition. A survey of the diets of more than 3,000 children aged 10 to 11 and 14 to 15 carried out in 1982–83 showed that, for intakes of all nutrients, children were above recommended levels. That adds weight to the argument that there is no under-nutrition.
      Some recent surveys claim to show that a significant proportion of women on income support are seriously deficient in several essential vitamins and minerals, causing low birth weights and a high rate of infant mortality. However, our records show that infant deaths— deaths of babies under one year—which is accepted internationally as an indicator of general health, are at their lowest rate ever.
      In social classes IV and V, infant death rates have fallen by more than half over the past 15 years. Infant death rates in social class V are better than those of social class I only 15 years ago. The trend is towards steadily improving health. I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes that, because it is a great step forward for the infant mortality rate to drop so dramatically over a relatively short period.
      The hon. Lady mentioned reports on nutrition-related diseases. The claim that children are living in poverty on inadequate diets concerns us all and cannot be lightly

      785
      dismissed, even if we are not prepared to agree that there is evidence from proper research to back up that claim. In recent years, several reports have claimed exactly that. As she said—they are her words, not mine—they claim that we are returning to 19th-century levels of illness, with rickets and iron deficiency on the increase. Those claims are not borne out by the facts. I repeat that, because it is important: the claims are not borne out by the facts.
      Let us take, for example, rickets. There is no reliable evidence that rickets, which is caused by vitamin D deficiency, is on the increase. In fact, there is good evidence that rickets, which used to be especially prevalent among Asian communities, is no longer a significant problem for those groups.
      We know of occasional cases of rickets associated with extreme diets. Every effort is being made to identify their causes, with a view to reducing even those isolated cases by, for example, making available vitamin drops containing vitamin D for pregnant and lactating women, and for children under five. They are available free to families on income support, income-related jobseeker's allowance or family credit. They are available at low cost through child health clinics to the rest of population.
      I caution against relying on anecdotal reports of rickets in the medical literature on extreme diets. As I have said, there is no reliable evidence that rickets is on the increase, and we have evidence to show that it is declining. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has established an expert working group to consider the nutritional aspects of bone health in the UK population. A report from the group is expected in 1998.
      On 2 January, field work for the national diet and nutritional survey of young people aged four to 18 years started. That will measure all aspects of the diet and nutritional status of young people, and will be an important enhancement of our knowledge and understanding, based on scientific and medical research.
      The hon. Lady mentioned tuberculosis, which is also worrying. I agree that no one should downgrade or dismiss the problems, suffering and misery associated with it. However, the UK has an excellent record of TB control, and we are determined that that should continue. TB notification in England and Wales has reached the low level of fewer than 6,000 cases a year, compared with around 50,000 a year in 1950, only 47 years ago. She will agree that that is a dramatic drop over a relatively short period in the history of medical science.
      Our success has been achieved against the background of a worldwide resurgence of TB, which is having a small but important impact on UK trends. The Government are responding positively to adverse developments abroad by strengthening our policies to protect the health of the nation against TB. Notifications of TB tend to be higher in more deprived, inner-city areas, but that does not mean that poverty and TB go hand in hand. That is down to the co-existence of some key risk factors, including a high proportion of ethnic minority groups, higher levels of HIV infection, and homelessness. We are working to deal with the specific needs of those groups by the following measures.
      We are considering how to improve screening procedures for immigrants from countries with a high incidence of TB, which will allow us to treat them more
      786
      effectively. A working group on TB set up by the Department of Health to recommend further improvements in TB prevention and control published two reports last summer. One, entitled, "Tuberculosis and Homeless People", considers in detail the special needs of homeless people. We are acting on its recommendations.
      Finally, and most importantly, our BCG immunisation programme to protect against TB is continuing. BCG immunisation is routinely recommended for all schoolchildren aged between 10 and 14. In addition, immunisation of high-risk groups and babies continues. That wide-ranging package should allow us to continue our proud record of TB control. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by those Government actions.
      I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive for me dealing with anaemia, which is an important problem associated with children, but one that she did not mention. Anaemia is the clinical manifestation of iron deficiency. Its prevalence among young children has been monitored by the national diet and nutrition survey of children aged one and a half to four and a half years, which was published 1995. Seven per cent. of males and 9 per cent. of females in that age group had haemoglobin levels below the 11 g/dl World Health Organisation level which is considered indicative of anaemia.
      On 2 January 1997, field work for the national diet and nutrition survey of young people aged four to 18 years started. It will include measures of iron status. The joint Department of Health/Medical Research Council nutrition research programme will fund research to help develop better measures of iron status. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has agreed to convene an expert group to assess the iron status of the population. Although the group has not yet started work, it will do in due course.
      Related to anaemia and iron deficiency is the question of healthy eating, which is important for everyone. Research shows that many young people could eat a better balanced diet that was less rich in fat. The hon. Lady devoted a significant proportion of her speech to the problems associated with the quality of the diet given to children by their parents. With the advent of fast food, that is a problem, because young children and teenagers are attracted to hamburgers, beefburgers and fried chicken rather than to what nutritionists consider a more responsible, sensible and healthy diet.
      May I briefly explain the background to school food? As the hon. Lady will know, under sections 512 and 534 of the Education Act 1996, local education authorities and grant-maintained schools were given the responsibility for the presentation, content and cost of school meals. They must provide free meals to children whose parents receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. They are not obliged to provide meals for other pupils, but in practice most schools do. The price of meals can be subsidised by LEAs and schools.
      The development of practical national guidance for the school catering sector was taken on by the nutrition task force's catering working group, which set up a sub-group consisting of representatives from the catering world, the health education world, school meals providers and local authorities. The guidance is based on detailed nutritional guidelines for school meals, drawn up by the Caroline Walker Trust.

      787
      The project team has developed voluntary guidance in three parts. The first is aimed at head teachers and governors; the second at LEAs and grant-maintained schools; and the third at school caterers. There are no plans to introduce compulsory nutritional guidelines, and the guidance makes no reference to recent food scares, but it provides guidance which should have a positive and beneficial effect on the balance of the diet of school children.
      If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall stray into controversial politics, briefly and in narrow terms. I do not want to let pass one of her comments. She said that, in 1971, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven withdrew free school milk. The hon. Lady is factually correct, but, if my memory serves me right, there was a Labour Government between February 1974 and May 1979, and they made no attempt to reintroduce school milk.
      My memory is now getting better. I think that the hon. Lady was a junior Education Minister during part of that period. I should be interested to know why the policy was not reversed, especially given the hon. Lady's ministerial capacity. Did she passionately believe in reintroducing school milk? Did she fight her corner vigorously and discreetly outside the glare of the media? Was she, unfortunately from her point of view, unsuccessful?
      Miss Lestor: I will not go out on a note of discord. All that I will say is that it was wrong to abolish free school milk, because milk is essential to the diet of all our children.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
      To get off controversial political issues, I turn to food and the national curriculum, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Food is now a compulsory part of the design and technology curriculum up to key stage 2. It is a voluntary topic in key stage 3. Nutrition is already a specified part of the science curriculum, so children are now assured of a better grounding in nutrition than ever before.
      As in so many other things in life—such as the age-old problem of litter and the problem of drink-driving—good nutrition requires a process of education. A lost generation of parents in their 20s and 30s are not interested in nutritional balance in the diet, so they are not the people best qualified to provide guidance to their children at home on a properly balanced diet.
      As the hon. Lady rightly said about the school education system, we may have to educate people from the bottom up through their children. That is important. The nutrition components of the curriculum at key stages 2 and 3 are a way of seeking to undo some of the damage that has happened, because a lost generation of parents all too often take the easy option. Now Kentucky fried chicken and Big Macs and other hamburgers are popular. When I was a teenager, the less glamorous fish and chip shop provided almost the only source of fast food.
      When I was at school, school food was notorious for its poor quality and variety. Although life has probably improved, I suppose that it has not done so all that dramatically. At my school, if it was Monday it was Irish stew. If it was Tuesday, it was minced beef. If it was Wednesday, it was Irish stew with a pastry top. If it was Thursday, it was shepherd's pie. If it was Friday, it was
      788
      fish fingers. If it was Saturday, it was something cold, such as spam or ham. If it was Sunday, we got roast beef, roast lamb or sometimes roast chicken, depending which Sunday of the month it was. The quality was appalling. The variety was non-existent, because there was no choice.
      Most children will vote with their feet if they do not like the food that is put before them. They refuse to eat it. They go out and spend their money on fast food, or badger their parents to buy it for them. It is easier for some parents to take that option than to go through all the trouble of preparing and cooking vegetables and meat, or whatever, at home, then sitting down and eating it and clearing up afterwards. It is easier to go to a fast food outlet and buy meals with few nutritional benefits for children or adults.
      Mr. Colvin: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about fast food and the importance of school meals. I happen to represent a constituency—or rather, I hope to represent the constituency after the election— in which one of the largest apple farms in the country, run by the John Lewis Partnership, is situated. We produce Cox's orange pippins.
      There is a good case to be made for ensuring that an apple a day is on the menu of every child in school. It is an old adage, I know, that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but it is true. It is also important that the apples distributed in schools are British, not apples drawn in from continental suppliers, under whatever name. There is nothing like an apple a day, and it ought to be a Cox's orange pippin.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is extremely fortunate to have such an orchard in his constituency.
      Mr. Colvin: Constituency-to-be. We have had a boundary change.
      Mr. Burns: I am sorry. I am about two weeks ahead of my time—or six weeks.
      I am sure that the owners of the orchard will have heard his comments today. I was brought up on an apple a day to keep the doctor away. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for it.
      Mr. John Marshall: I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) had to say about apples. I must first declare an interest, in that my father-in-law was an apple grower, and some of my wife's family are still apple growers.
      My hon. Friend said that all apples served in British schools should be English apples. Although that is clearly preferable, is my hon. Friend aware that a Cox can only keep for about eight months, and that there is therefore always a window in which one cannot supply the market with English apples? It is one of the great tragedies of the British apple industry that, from April to August, there can be no English apples on the market. Will he bear that in mind when considering the issue?
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that highly technical information. It is wonderful what one can learn from one's colleagues while standing at the Dispatch

      789
      Box, and I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind. A British apple would be best, but, given the problem of the window in which, for seasonal reasons, one cannot find or buy British apples, we are fortunate to be living in a society that can import apples, so that people are not be deprived of their daily apple, even if it is not their daily British apple.
      Returning to the question of food and nutritional benefits to children and young people, it is appropriate to mention the welfare food scheme, which provides a nutritional benefit in kind, rather than in cash, for pregnant and breast-feeding mothers, and for children under five in low-income families.
      As the hon. Member for Eccles is probably aware, the main provision of the scheme is that expectant and breast-feeding mothers and children under five in families in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance receive the following free of charge. Welfare milk beneficiaries receive a milk token per week, which may be exchanged for seven pints or eight half-litres of liquid milk. Infants under one year who are being bottle-fed may receive instead 900 g per week of a range of specified brands of infant formula. Vitamin supplements beneficiaries receive either vitamin drops or tablets containing vitamins A, D and C.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister—having only just come into the Chamber, it is rather impertinent of me to intervene in his speech. He has been talking about a range of benefits, but is there not some rumour that, dependent on the election results, there might be some risk to child benefit and related allowances? May I take it that the Conservative party is committed to the existing position, and that, along with the benefits about which he has been speaking, those benefits will be maintained? If, perchance and by severe misadventure, there should be a change of Government, is it not true that some of those benefits might be at risk?
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's perspicacious views. As he rightly points out, the Conservative Government pledged—and have honoured the pledge throughout the life time of this Parliament—to maintain child benefit for all mothers with children under a certain age. I do not know how much the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his spin doctors have been arguing with the shadow Cabinet, but there have indeed been rumours and announcements that the shadow Chancellor was going to get tough and cut off child benefit for 16 to 19-year-olds who are still in school.
      That would have an impact on the financial position of many families. If a universal benefit paid to all mothers with children of the qualifying age was cut off, those on low incomes would suffer, as well as those in middle or high income brackets. I know that any such proposal would be ring-fenced, so that anyone in receipt of a state benefit such as income support would not have their child benefit cut off, but there are many families who are above income support level but are not rich or well-off, and their family income would be cut. That tax-free sum would be
      790
      taken from them, and they would have less money to spend on good-quality food to help to give their children a proper balanced diet.
      Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair, and is taking advantage of a situation. As I understand it, what has been discussed or said is that there is a problem whereby the children of the rich stay on at school, such as those at Eton college which is in my old constituency, and their parents, who can well afford to keep them at school, receive child benefit for them; whereas children of poorer families would often like to stay on at school if the benefits made if possible for them to do so, but they cannot.
      The proposition that was discussed—there has been no policy announcement—was how resources could be switched away from those who do not need them towards those who need them most, and thus encourage them to stay on at school because it is in their interests to do so. That is what the argument was about; it was not about removing child benefit from poor families, and the Minister knows that.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. As a member of the Labour party, she may be better equipped to know exactly what was going on in the internecine wars of the shadow Cabinet. One of the problems currently facing the country is that, all too often, the Labour party does not tell us what its policies are, whether on child benefit or a windfall tax.
      From the announcements on child benefit, which might affect the diet and the nutritional value of meals for teenagers, my understanding was that the benefit was going to be cut for all 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in this country except those whose families were on benefit. That would hit the less well-off who are above benefit level as much as it would hit the families mentioned by the hon. Lady whose children are at Eton college. Poorer families would be hit far harder than rich families, and it could adversely affect not only their diets but the quality of the food in their homes.
      Mr. Colvin: I very much doubt whether any families with children at my old school actually claim child benefit, but, were they to do so, a fair way of solving the problem would be to tax the benefit. I cannot understand why either party cannot have a policy stating that that sort of benefit should be taxed, because that would ensure that no one had an unfair advantage.
      Mr. Burns: I shall not stray into taxation policy, because I may incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is the last thing I want to do.
      I should like to say to my hon. Friend that there are assisted places at Eton for young boys—as far as I know, Eton college is not co-educational—so many families benefit under the assisted places scheme. As he knows, the Labour party plans to phase out that scheme and reinvest the money in health education. That will affect the psychological health of a child who previously thought that, because of his academic achievement, he would benefit from an assisted place, but then found that he would not be able to do so, because some future Labour Government had phased it out.
      That raises another interesting point, which puzzles me. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you saw Mr. Jeremy Paxman in a razor-sharp interview of the

      791
      right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on "Newsnight" last night. If not, I strongly suggest that you go to the House of Commons Library and get a video of it. It was an eye-opener. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield did not seem to be very persuasive about the money that would come from the assisted places scheme, which would be phased out and would therefore not provide a lot of money at once. I also do not think that he has considered the psychological effects of Labour's pernicious policy of depriving bright people of the opportunity to attend a school to which their parents could not otherwise afford to send them.
      Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that there were one or two things that he did not know about Labour party policy. He should get a copy of tonight's Evening Standard, which says that there are 50 things we do not know about Labour party policy. To return to the issue of food and nutrition—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to do so.
      Mr. Marshall: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to deal with the subject of food, nutrition and young children.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that income is one of the factors determining the amount of nutrition that parents can afford to give their young children, and that that income is very much a function of whether they are in employment? Does he not therefore agree that there are very real risks to young children's nutritional standards from certain proposals that will be made in the United Kingdom?
      Does my hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would affect young children, because their parents will become unemployed? Does he also agree that the social chapter would affect them? On food and nutrition, is he aware that the Brewers Society has suggested that the minimum wage would add 7p to a pint of beer?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions are almost becoming tedious repetition. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to pull up him or any other hon. Member on that point again.
      Mr. Burns: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will certainly do my best not to be tedious or repetitive.
      I was explaining to the hon. Member for Eccles the important welfare food scheme. I should like to return to one point—not for the purpose of repetition but because, due to the enthusiasm of my hon. Friends, I suspect that the hon. Lady would like me to jog her memory. I was saying that welfare milk beneficiaries receive one milk token per week, which may be exchanged for seven pints or eight half litres of liquid milk. Infants under one year who are being bottle-fed may receive 900 g per week of a range of specified brands of infant formula. Vitamin supplement beneficiaries receive either vitamin drops or droplets containing vitamins A, D and C.
      792
      Parents of children aged under one in families in receipt of family credit are entitled to purchase at a reduced price—currently £3.65–900 g of infant formula per week from clinics.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Burns: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to finish the section on welfare food schemes. I shall then be delighted to give way.
      Liquid milk means whole or semi-skimmed liquid cows' milk, including long-life or UHT milk but not fully skimmed milk. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eccles will agree that that is a wide range, in a time when consumers want choice and shop around for the different types of milk that they think is particularly suitable for their family. The scheme has embraced that principle.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that it is not consistent or logical to say that children's nutrition and their family's wealth necessarily go together, and that there is not necessarily such a correlation? Cannot people spend large sums on food that is not nutritious? Does he not agree that it is fundamentally important that schools across the United Kingdom should have programmes to educate people on family nutrition?
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid and important point, which is similar to the one about the person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Any individual can spend a considerable sum on food, but merely because the food is expensive does not mean that it is good food with nutritional value, or that it has as much nutritional value as other types of food that might be infinitely cheaper. As he said, the important factors are knowledge of the type of food one buys, why one should buy good food, and how one's family and oneself can benefit to the maximum extent.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has rightly said that education is fundamentally important. As he will be aware, key stages 2 and 3 of the national curriculum provide for such information and knowledge to be provided to young children. As I told the hon. Member for Eccles—to avoid being out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not elaborate in detail—we may well have a lost generation of parents, who are aged in their 20s and 30s, who never received such education. They do not understand the problems, and think that they can put any type of food in front of a child. That is why we may have to educate those parents through their children.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend almost anticipated my supplementary question. What about that lost generation of parents who do not know how best to feed their children? What about that lost generation of parents who spend disposable income on Haagen-Dazs ice cream, which may taste nice but is not nutritious? What is his Department doing to educate parents who did not benefit from current educational programmes?
      Mr. Burns: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Department of Health is extremely concerned about

      793
      educating individuals—whether they are children, teenagers, young adults, adults or the elderly—on all health matters, such as nutrition, preventative medicine and looking after themselves. It is also concerned about ensuring that we improve, through "The Health of the Nation" targets, the health of the nation; it is as simple as that. One method is through diet.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Notwithstanding Haagen-Dazs ice cream and its nutritional qualities, and the states in which some people eat it—I gather that some people like to eat it in various states of undress—does not the matter have some bearing on a slightly attached but distant subject: how people are educated about food in schools, such as in domestic science? We know that that is not a specific part of the national curriculum. Does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps we should be thinking of pushing people down that road in the future, when we return from the general election?
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; education has a key role to play, as I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire. As I said, part of the national curriculum, in key stages 2 and 3, deals with nutrition, food and dietary requirements. It is an important function of the national curriculum.
      Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was not there a little bleeping just now in the Chamber?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been a little bleeping going on for quite a while. I did not hear the latest one.
      Mr. Burns: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a bleeping, and it puts me in a rather difficult
      794
      position. I am not being paged by a spin doctor, and I have set my pager to vibrate rather than to bleep. Unfortunately, however, the battery in my pager has run down. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will turn it off.
      I should now like to make some progress.
      Mr. Hartley Booth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that there have been many interventions in his reply to this important debate. On the subject of education, would he say that his Department is in constant correspondence and linking with special needs education in the Department of Education and Employment, with which I am involved?
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend has raised an important subject. The Department of Health is in constant touch with all Government Departments and, through the Children's Services Strategy Group with local authorities, discussing children's issues—special needs, diet and nutrition, and many other important areas that affect the lives of children.
      Healthy eating is important for everyone. A balanced, sensible diet is critical. Education is needed; we must make sure that everyone is aware of the best nutritional foods, so as to enhance and maintain the health of families and the community at large.
      If this was the hon. Lady's swan song, she certainly went out on the high she hoped to reach when she began her speech, on which I congratulate her. Given her commitment and interest, she will be sorely missed by hon. Members, who have never once questioned the sincerity of her commitment to improving the lives of children, in this country and around the world. She will indeed be greatly missed.
      Question put and agreed to
      Adjourned accordingly at Eight o 'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19774]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has sponsored a total of 60 Bills in the last 15 years. Of these, 54 have been passed by Parliament, with one other being partially enacted. The Bills, arranged according to the relevant parliamentary Session, were as follows:

  1981–82

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

  Criminal Justice Bill

  Fire Service College Board (Abolition) Bill.

  1982–83

  Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill

  Marriage Bill

  Data Protection Bill (fell at Dissolution)

  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (fell at Dissolution).

  1983–84

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

  Data Protection Bill

  Cable and Broadcasting Bill

  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill

  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

  1984–85

  Prosecution of Offences Bill

  Representation of the People Bill

  Interception of Communications Bill

  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill.

  1985–86

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill

  Drug Trafficking Offences Bill

  Public Order Bill

  Shops Bill (defeated at Second Reading).

  1986–87

  Broadcasting Bill

  Criminal Justice Bill1

  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill.

  1By agreement with the Opposition Parties in both Houses, Part 1 of the Bill dealing with the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office was enacted before Dissolution: the rest of the Bill fell.

  1987–88

  Criminal Justice Bill

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill

  Immigration Bill

  Licensing Bill.

  488

  1988–89

  Official Secrets Bill

  Police Officers (Central Service) Bill

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

  Representation of the People Bill

  Security Service Bill.

  1989–90

  British Nationality Hong Kong Bill

  Broadcasting Bill

  Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill

  War Crimes Bill (defeated at Second Reading).

  1990–91

  Criminal Justice Bill

  Dangerous Dogs Bill

  Maintenance Enforcement Bill

  War Crimes Bill.

  1991–92

  Aggravated Vehicle Taking Bill

  Prison Security Bill

  Charities Bill

  Asylum Bill (fell at Dissolution).

  1992–93

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission Bill

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Criminal Justice Bill

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill

  National Lottery Bill.

  1993–94

  Sunday Trading Bill

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  1994–95

  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill

  Criminal Appeal Bill

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.

  1995–96

  Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill

  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill

  Security Service Bill

  Asylum and Immigration Bill.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by each police force in England and Wales within each category of crime in 1996; how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by each force; how many of the burglaries recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1996 were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building. [20191]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested is given in the table.
  489

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  England and Wales 1996

  Police area

  Total crime

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Burglary dwelling

  Burglary other

  Avon and Somerset

  156,557

  8,809

  1,037

  2,022

  35,151

  81,096

  4,293

  22,970

  1,179

  16,224

  31,246

  19,320

  15,831

  Bedfordshire

  52,005

  3,396

  412

  658

  10,237

  25,983

  2,033

  8,727

  559

  5,760

  9,157

  5,287

  4,950

  Cambridgeshire

  69,532

  3,246

  427

  427

  14,544

  38,521

  1,500

  10,339

  528

  6,616

  14,127

  6,376

  8,168

  Cheshire

  66,214

  3,616

  575

  390

  15,521

  30,499

  2,359

  11,635

  1,619

  6,402

  9,070

  7,496

  8,025

  Cleveland

  78,608

  2,957

  314

  678

  22,234

  37,230

  1,475

  12,977

  743

  8,615

  12,700

  12,050

  10,184

  Cumbria

  39,739

  2,562

  208

  103

  8,419

  18,184

  995

  8,796

  472

  2,108

  6,571

  3,880

  4,539

  Derbyshire

  78,896

  4,158

  486

  384

  18,856

  38,328

  1,355

  14,558

  771

  8,314

  14,362

  7,967

  10,889

  Devon and Cornwall

  103,121

  6,184

  772

  493

  24,841

  51,549

  2,374

  15,545

  1,363

  5,964

  19,716

  11,365

  13,476

  Dorset

  49,731

  2,019

  324

  189

  9,924

  26,653

  1,303

  8,679

  640

  3,789

  9,904

  4,732

  5,192

  Durham

  51,849

  1,895

  351

  221

  13,084

  22,630

  1,279

  11,575

  814

  5,995

  6,594

  5,885

  7,199

  Essex

  100,758

  4,859

  635

  461

  19,007

  51,937

  2,485

  20,381

  993

  9,410

  17,204

  8,146

  10,861

  Gloucestershire

  53,675

  1,697

  272

  423

  12,928

  29,335

  1,652

  6,962

  406

  4,399

  12,361

  6,626

  6,302

  Greater Manchester

  327,976

  11,069

  1,406

  6,271

  83,780

  144,890

  5,532

  72,272

  2,756

  46,740

  47,006

  49,132

  34,648

  Hampshire

  135,915

  6,745

  1,073

  576

  23,008

  70,517

  3,907

  28,178

  1,911

  8,574

  25,961

  9,804

  13,204

  Hertfordshire

  54,441

  2,108

  300

  326

  10,353

  28,892

  1,237

  10,738

  487

  5,572

  12,886

  4,343

  6,010

  Humberside

  126,932

  6,104

  665

  747

  37,834

  57,406

  2,610

  20,754

  812

  11,133

  17,938

  15,923

  21,911

  Kent

  147,980

  8,891

  908

  747

  32,516

  71,116

  3,155

  28,999

  1,648

  15,078

  22,676

  14,667

  17,849

  Lancashire

  122,487

  3,637

  713

  827

  30,500

  54,644

  3,446

  27,090

  1,630

  8,592

  20,245

  17,103

  13,397

  Leicestershire

  94,125

  5,228

  478

  1,439

  24,997

  43,968

  3,365

  13,897

  753

  9,448

  15,794

  13,417

  11,580

  Lincolnshire

  47,077

  2,701

  293

  138

  12,819

  21,085

  1,148

  8,297

  596

  3,388

  6,568

  5,722

  7,097

  City of London

  4,831

  130

  17

  34

  515

  3,303

  439

  276

  117

  125

  383

  37

  478

  Merseyside

  145,956

  8,236

  891

  2,985

  29,437

  71,393

  4,288

  26,907

  1,819

  18,867

  17,883

  17,920

  11,517

  Metropolitan Police

  841,784

  49,639

  7,355

  32,867

  164,926

  385,160

  38,983

  151,829

  11,025

  60,466

  115,750

  100,216

  64,710

  Norfolk

  55,314

  2,492

  428

  219

  11,751

  28,276

  1,251

  10,222

  675

  3,404

  8,892

  4,186

  7,565

  Northamptonshire

  57,378

  2,766

  345

  473

  12,542

  27,207

  1,246

  12,241

  558

  6,891

  8,894

  6,377

  6,165

  Northumbria

  169,656

  5,148

  601

  1,403

  42,822

  68,692

  2,109

  47,725

  1,156

  17,877

  20,626

  21,409

  21,413

  North Yorkshire

  56,919

  2,333

  311

  177

  13,972

  28,573

  1,052

  10,036

  465

  4,804

  9,024

  6,065

  7,907

  Nottinghamshire

  141,307

  8,529

  820

  1,166

  33,188

  61,603

  3,027

  31,903

  1,071

  14,350

  18,896

  16,671

  16,517

  South Yorkshire

  151,577

  4,427

  570

  1,209

  43,276

  70,448

  2,651

  27,800

  1,196

  22,053

  23,523

  22,392

  20,884

  Staffordshire

  92,155

  7,329

  532

  503

  24,511

  39,561

  2,004

  16,904

  811

  8,487

  13,415

  12,395

  12,116

  Suffolk

  37,094

  2,136

  351

  156

  6,384

  18,134

  1,333

  7,965

  635

  2,008

  5,523

  2,539

  3,845

  Surrey

  42,014

  1,942

  363

  212

  8,476

  21,611

  1,389

  7,457

  564

  2,777

  7,762

  3,777

  4,699

  Sussex

  118,086

  6,407

  759

  682

  21,534

  59,412

  2,815

  25,015

  1,462

  7,424

  20,217

  10,758

  10,776

  Thames Valley

  172,194

  6,606

  779

  1,429

  36,549

  93,239

  4,551

  27,257

  1,784

  17,584

  37,741

  18,678

  17,871

  Warwickshire

  38,926

  1,278

  207

  196

  9,181

  19,915

  975

  6,805

  369

  4,269

  7,227

  3,954

  5,227

  West Mercia

  82,254

  3,085

  526

  331

  16,435

  43,110

  1,894

  15,866

  1,007

  7,168

  14,908

  7,432

  9,003

  West Midlands

  317,892

  8,404

  1,124

  8,150

  88,860

  146,882

  6,365

  55,856

  2,251

  45,383

  50,632

  46,237

  42,623

  West Yorkshire

  268,716

  8,376

  1,588

  3,229

  80,010

  120,801

  5,071

  45,842

  3,799

  27,802

  41,655

  47,582

  32,428

  Wiltshire

  35,911

  2,126

  352

  153

  7,611

  17,854

  920

  6,473

  422

  1,880

  6,297

  3,615

  3,996

  Dyfed-Powys

  19,072

  2,098

  257

  47

  3,041

  7,704

  604

  4,571

  750

  1,010

  1,848

  1,159

  1,882

  Gwent

  44,572

  4,540

  431

  121

  8,717

  19,581

  1,305

  8,925

  952

  3,216

  6,515

  3,663

  5,054

  North Wales

  41,024

  2,467

  420

  111

  8,952

  19,586

  1,022

  7,921

  545

  2,147

  7,165

  3,217

  5,735

  South Wales

  141,578

  6,734

  571

  584

  31,121

  66,448

  3,105

  31,533

  1,482

  21,189

  22,583

  12,472

  18,649

  England and Wales

  5,033,828

  239,109

  31,247

  73,957

  1,164,364

  2,382,956

  135,902

  950,698

  55,595

  493,302

  799,445

  601,992

  562,372

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in each borough by the Metropolitan police within each category of crime in 1996; how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded in each borough; how many of the burglaries recorded in each borough were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building. [20192]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes have been reported in each of the London boroughs in 1997 to date, broken down by type of crime and clear-up rate. [20176]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not yet available centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compliance of his Department's policy in respect of the 490
  detention of asylum seekers convicted of using false documents with the terms of article 31 of the UN convention relating to the status of refugees; and if he will make a statement. [20277]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It is for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether to prosecute a person for using false documents. The prosecution of people who have not sought asylum in the United Kingdom, but have attempted to enter or leave the country using false documents, is not a breach of article 31 of the United Nations convention. Any subsequent application for asylum in the United Kingdom would be determined on its individual merits. Detention solely under Immigration Act powers would be authorised only if there were good grounds for believing that the person would not comply with the terms of temporary admission.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to open a new detention centre for asylum seekers at Dover; and if he will make a statement. [20278]
  491
  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are examining the case for seeking to locate an immigration detention centre in the Dover area, but no firm proposals have yet been developed.

  Police Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police

  Police and civilian strength in England and Wales

  May 1979

  September 1990

  September 1996

  Force

  Police

  Civilians1

  Police

  Civilians1

  Police

  Civilians1

  Avon and Somerset

  2,829

  683

  3,069

  863

  3,004

  1,209

  Bedfordshire

  900

  280

  1,051

  370

  1,118

  498

  Cambridgeshire

  1,071

  306

  1,193

  460

  1,253

  558

  Cheshire

  1,787

  391

  1,868

  497

  2,016

  755

  City of London

  832

  274

  790

  278

  868

  335

  Cleveland

  1,347

  318

  1,496

  452

  1,444

  599

  Cumbria

  1,064

  252

  1,176

  408

  1,124

  435

  Derbyshire

  1,587

  634

  1,773

  562

  1,795

  684

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,667

  752

  2,870

  964

  2,876

  1,164

  Dorset

  1,140

  277

  1,286

  532

  1,262

  614

  Durham

  1,312

  500

  1,371

  534

  1,426

  542

  Dyfed-Powys

  913

  190

  943

  242

  998

  334

  Essex

  2,490

  686

  2,845

  990

  2,927

  1,266

  Gloucestershire

  1,081

  229

  1,159

  344

  1,139

  425

  Greater Manchester

  6,440

  1,409

  7,019

  2,232

  6,961

  2,719

  Gwent

  971

  203

  1,000

  264

  1,231

  463

  Hampshire

  2,955

  708

  3,160

  967

  3,362

  1,350

  Hertfordshire

  1,455

  374

  1,652

  544

  1,721

  790

  Humberside

  1,861

  504

  1,986

  655

  2,042

  715

  Kent

  2,730

  888

  3,000

  973

  3,227

  1,274

  Lancashire

  3,093

  885

  3,183

  1,137

  3,203

  1,204

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  362

  1,778

  641

  1,933

  708

  Lincolnshire

  1,175

  314

  1,200

  445

  1,157

  489

  Merseyside

  4,441

  910

  4,686

  1,472

  4,271

  1,686

  Metropolitan

  22,225

  11,837

  28,287

  13,447

  27,049

  13,890

  Norfolk

  1,229

  246

  1,389

  426

  1,399

  573

  Northamptonshire

  909

  252

  1,134

  399

  1,186

  560

  Northumbria

  3,285

  773

  3,519

  1,185

  3,693

  1,215

  North Wales

  1,269

  317

  1,335

  437

  1,381

  536

  North Yorkshire

  1,337

  338

  1,386

  441

  1,334

  596

  Nottinghamshire

  2,120

  554

  2,336

  661

  2,339

  989

  South Wales

  2,945

  870

  3,112

  1,134

  2,913

  1,151

  South Yorkshire

  2,560

  599

  2,961

  877

  3,128

  1,316

  Staffordshire

  1,980

  573

  2,197

  667

  2,220

  758

  Suffolk

  1,077

  323

  1,206

  436

  1,159

  500

  Surrey

  1,442

  360

  1,659

  523

  1,632

  760

  Sussex

  2,759

  723

  2,990

  913

  3,097

  1,167

  Thames Valley

  2,653

  970

  3,699

  1,323

  3,682

  1,853

  Warwickshire

  843

  204

  1,022

  339

  948

  393

  West Mercia

  1,752

  501

  2,013

  844

  2,011

  958

  West Midlands

  6,031

  1,426

  6,866

  2,254

  7,203

  2,389

  West Yorkshire

  4,739

  1,191

  5,278

  1,842

  5,154

  2,091

  Wiltshire

  1,001

  252

  1,140

  438

  1,166

  493

  1Excludes traffic wardens.

  Police Cautions
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority the number and percentage of people arrested who were released after receiving a police caution in(a) 1990, (b) 1994 and (c) the latest available date. [20529]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Detailed data on the number of people arrested are not collected centrally.

  Information available on the number of people cautioned by police force area is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary
  492
  authority in England and Wales the number of (a) police officers and (b) civilian staff employed (i) in 1979, (ii) in 1990 and (iii) at the latest available date. [20649]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Tables, Volume 3". Table S3.7(A) in the 1990 and 1994 editions and table S3.6(A) in the 1995 volume contain that information.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Acquittals
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each(a) magistrates court and (b) Crown court the percentage of defendants acquitted in (i) 1990, (ii) 1994 and (iii) the latest available date. [20530]
  493
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Readily available information is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables".

  Magistrates court data for individual petty sessional divisions can be found in the 1990 volume 5, table S5.1 and in volume 4, table S4.1, of the 1994 and 1995 editions.

  Data for individual Crown court centres are published in the 1990 volume 3, table S3.6(A) and in volume 2, table S2.3, of the 1994 and 1995 editions.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual additional costs of police time arising out of CSA decisions; and if he will make a statement. [20172]

  Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against' at magistrates' courts and tried at the Crown Court for the offence of Possession of Cannabis by Police Force Area, 1994 and 1995

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against at Magistrates' court1

  Total tried at the Crown Court

  Police Force Area

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  594

  282

  228

  259

  33

  25

  Bedfordshire

  77

  94

  118

  182

  18

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  498

  377

  141

  63

  7

  6

  Cheshire

  784

  590

  290

  360

  8

  17

  Cleveland

  306

  406

  47

  67

  4

  10

  Cumbria

  326

  315

  255

  228

  7

  9

  Derbyshire

  259

  468

  147

  175

  9

  22

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,084

  1,073

  258

  311

  31

  23

  Dorset

  144

  196

  112

  127

  5

  8

  Durham

  153

  217

  103

  147

  2

  5

  Essex

  851

  848

  285

  284

  9

  18

  Gloucestershire

  459

  593

  108

  157

  3

  4

  Greater Manchester

  2,230

  2,032

  722

  767

  48

  58

  Hampshire

  1,380

  1,131

  328

  456

  26

  29

  Hertfordshire

  482

  453

  187

  229

  5

  8

  Humberside

  398

  280

  93

  137

  3

  7

  Kent

  684

  619

  342

  289

  11

  22

  Lancashire

  1,180

  1,341

  256

  407

  26

  27

  Leicesterhire

  380

  337

  130

  174

  6

  6

  Lincolnshire

  198

  235

  203

  191

  13

  16

  London, City of

  347

  535

  33

  64

  2

  2

  Merseyside

  597

  820

  790

  829

  26

  41

  Metropolitan Police

  13,268

  14,007

  4,291

  3,443

  232

  237

  Norfolk

  236

  490

  190

  272

  6

  7

  Northamptonshire

  448

  535

  60

  76

  9

  1

  Northumbria

  832

  1,192

  192

  166

  18

  17

  North Yorkshire

  307

  309

  193

  201

  16

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  361

  378

  188

  218

  19

  20

  South Yorkshire

  728

  731

  237

  336

  13

  18

  Staffordshire

  424

  478

  166

  213

  15

  14

  Suffolk

  537

  494

  82

  119

  10

  7

  Surrey

  —

  235

  142

  183

  7

  16

  Sussex

  821

  937

  361

  366

  11

  16

  494
  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally. The cost of specific activities and operations carried out by the police is a matter for chief officers. The Government would not collect data of this kind unless there was a specific and justifiable need to do so.

  Possession of Cannabis (Court Proceedings)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority in England and Wales the number, and percentage, of people arrested for possession of cannabis who were(a) cautioned, (b) tried in a magistrates court and (c) tried in a higher court in (i) 1990, (ii) 1994 and (iii) the latest available date. [20528]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Detailed data on the number of people arrested are not collected centrally.

  Information available on the number of people cautioned, proceeded against at magistrates courts and tried at the Crown court for 1994 and 1995 by police force area is given in the tables. Comparable 1990 data for offences of possession of a controlled drug do not distinguish the type of drug.
  495

  Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against1 at magistrates' courts and tried at the Crown Court for the offence of Possession of Cannabis by Police Force Area, 1994 and 1995

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against at Magistrates court1

  Total tried at the Crown Court

  Police Force Area

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  Thames Valley

  795

  692

  548

  594

  16

  16

  Warwickshire

  349

  459

  69

  71

  —

  3

  West Mercia

  773

  824

  187

  247

  10

  9

  West Midlands

  1,632

  1,526

  469

  420

  32

  36

  West Yorkshire

  566

  686

  723

  803

  43

  52

  Wiltshire

  400

  275

  54

  57

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  470

  469

  153

  206

  5

  7

  Gwent

  494

  497

  106

  130

  8

  8

  North Wales

  820

  837

  297

  292

  7

  8

  South Wales

  500

  578

  409

  402

  21

  20

  England and Wales

  38,172

  39,871

  14,293

  14,718

  800

  907

  1Includes those who were committed for trial at the Crown Court.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom which do not contain a police station. [20214]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has responsibility for the police service in England and Wales. The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Competing for Quality"
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the Government's response to the "Competing for Quality" policy review. [21077]

  Mr. Freeman
  The "Competing for Quality" policy review endorsed the Government's policy of improving efficiency and quality through competition and the involvement of the private sector and made a large number of recommendations for enhancing "Competing for Quality" programmes.

  Since the review was published, the Government have been considering their recommendations and have consulted the CBI and the Council of Civil Service Unions.

  I am happy to announce now that the Government accept the large majority of the review's recommendations. I expect Departments to follow the advice of the review in their "Competing for Quality" programmes.

  In particular, I want to stress:
  Departments should continue to develop co-operation with the private sector, in order to maximise the opportunities for improvement in value for money.
  the leadership of senior management in Departments continues to be important for success and they should encourage the scope of innovation and improvement through competition to be continuously widened.
  496
  staff are our key asset and they should be properly trained for and supported in managing competition programmes. The concerns of those affected by competitions should be addressed.
  improving quality and improving value for money should go hand in hand.
  transparency is important for success and will be achieved through the Government's initiatives on open government and by the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting.

  The Government are not able to accept fully the review's recommendations on:
  imposing minimum cost thresholds for competition
  The review points out that high process costs have eroded, or in some cases exceeded, savings made by submitting to competition small or low cost areas of work. It suggests a minimum threshold below which competition should be avoided. The Government consider that this is too inflexible and could inhibit Departments from making worthwhile gains even in relatively small areas. In any competition, Departments should package small activities together as well as looking for other ways to minimise process costs. Then they should satisfy themselves that the benefits would be worth the process costs involved. But the Government do not plan to impose rigid cost thresholds, as proposed by the review.
  restructuring activities in preference to competition
  The review recommends that internal restructuring options should be pursued before putting activities out to competition. It also recommends that, in general, strategic contracting out (that is, competition between private sector organisations to supply services to Government, without any in-house teams competing as in a market test) is to be preferred to market testing, because the net savings are likely to be higher and because it may offer a better way of handling staff interests. The Government's policy, as was set out in the "Continuity and Change" White Paper (Cm 2627), continues to be to improve efficiency and quality through competition and by involving the private sector. But within this policy, Departments are free to make informed judgements of the relative benefits of internal restructuring, market testing and contracting out.
  indemnities for contractors against redundancies after staff transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, 1981, as amended ("TUPE")
  The review recommends contractors should be indemnified by the Government against the cost of future redundancies in case work is abolished at the end of a contract. Indemnities would create contingent liabilities and, in general, the Government believe the interests of the taxpayer are best served by a clean break. But indemnities can be negotiated exceptionally, with the agreement of the Treasury, on the basis of criteria issued in 1994.

  497
  The review also recommended that indemnities should be given against the effects of any future amendments to the European acquired rights directive, on which TUPE is based. The Government do not give indemnities against changes in legislation, but would be prepared to consider whether any transitional arrangements were needed in the event of significant changes to the directive which resulted in the need to amend TUPE.

  In due course, the forthcoming Government's "Guide to Competing for Quality" will give fuller guidance to Departments.

  Civil Service Salaries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the average increase in civil service salaries since February 1993. [20653]

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available in the precise form requested but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 24 February,Official Report, column 125.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in how many cases, in the last 12 months, he was advised that the cost of answering a parliamentary question would exceed £450; and in how many of those cases he declined to provide an answer on grounds of disproportionate cost. [20652]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 5 March 1997,Official Report, column 618.

  HMSO
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1996–97 cash limit for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [21044]

  Mr. Freeman
  The cash limit for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, class XVII, vote 4, will be reduced by £50,000 from £1,191,000 to £1,141,000. This reflects the partial offset of increased expenditure in the Office of Public Service, class XVII, vote 1, as announced in a previous answer on 31 January 1997,Official Report, column 386.

  Government Business
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance is issued to Government Departments on the conduct of Government business once an election is announced. [21045]

  Mr. Freeman
  The guidance covering the conduct of Govnerment business once an election is announced was issued to Departments yesterday and copies of it have been placed in the Library of the House.
  498

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19779]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is as follows:

  1981–82: 3

  1982–83: 1

  1983–84: 4

  1984–85: 4

  1985–86: 4

  1986–87: 4

  1987–88: 3

  1988–89: 2

  1989–90: 3

  1990–91: 2

  1991–92: 0

  1992–93: 2

  1993–94: 1

  1994–95: 4

  1995–96: 4.

  With two exceptions—one in 1984–85 and the other in 1994–95—all of the Bills were passed by Parliament. The figures include measures of law reform, but not consolidation Bills.

  Justices Chief Executive (Hartlepool)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what decision he has reached concerning the application of the justices chief executive in Teeside to acquire the responsibilities of the justices clerk in Hartlepool; and if he will make a statement. [20839]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department has not yet received such an application.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19766]

  The Attorney-General
  Save for consolidation Bills, which are not treated as departmental business, none.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Treaties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many international treaties the United Kingdom has signed in each of the last 15 years; how many were judged to
  499
  require Acts of Parliament prior to notification; and how many times in that period a Bill to give effect to a treaty was not passed by Parliament. [19781]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  A total of 1,381 treaties have been signed by the United Kingdom since 1 January 1982:

  1982: 67

  1983: 78

  1984: 69

  1985: 65

  1986: 99

  1987: 105

  1988: 81

  1989: 110

  1990: 113

  1991: 92

  1992: 89

  1993: 122

  1994: 117

  1995: 84

  1996: 90.

  The treaties cover a wide range of subjects and in a majority of cases Government Departments other than the FCO would have been responsible for determining what legislation, if any, was involved. This information is not recorded in treaty records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19764]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, sponsored the following number of Bills in each of the last 15 years:

  1982: 1

  1983: 0

  1984: 0

  1985: 4

  1986: 2

  1987: 3

  1988: 3

  1989: 3

  1990: 1

  1991: 3

  1992: 1

  1993: 2

  1994: 2

  1995: 3

  1996: 2

  All of the Bills have been passed by Parliament.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the new jetty in the north of Montserrat will be completed; and what assessment he has made of the risk from a volcanic eruption to the people working in the harbour. [20840]
  500
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The stub of the new jetty was completed in February 1997. It can now be used for limited movement of people and supplies. The full jetty is due for completion in late May 1997. There is continual appraisal of the risk by the scientific team on the island. Contingency plans are in place for the rapid departure of essential workers from the harbour if the circumstances change.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Trans-Pennine Trail
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action she is taking to expedite the completion of the trans-Pennine trail. [18481]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when her Department established its Internet site; what representations she has received and what data she has collated on the use and utility of the site; and what steps she is taking to increase the amount of information available via the site. [19141]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage web site, www.heritage.gov.uk, was established in March 1996. The Department's web site allows people to provide feedback on the pages. Representations have been received from bodies wishing to have a link to their web site added to the Department's.

  A monthly report is produced which identifies the most commonly accessed information held on the site as well as the total number of people who have visited the site. There are a growing number of DNH publications on the web site with the most recent addition being "Reading the Future—A Review of Public Libraries in England". Future DNH publications will also be posted on the Department's web site and the range of information provided is under review in the light of the recent Green Paper on government.direct.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Treason Charges (Nigeria)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received on the treason charges bought against Nigerian dissidents on 12 March; and if he will make a statement; [20766]

  (2) what reports he has received on (a) the cases of the Nigerian political activists charged with treason by the Nigerian authorities on 12 March and (b) the conditions in which those detained are being held. [20767]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our high commission in Lagos has reported that, on 12 March, 15 people were arraigned before a magistrates court in Lagos, four in absentia, charged with two counts of treason against the Nigerian
  501
  Government. The case has been adjourned until 9 May. We have no information, at this stage, about the conditions in which the 11 Nigerian-based detainees are being held, but our high commission is following the case closely.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  McDermott v. Diana, Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the industrial tribunal application in the case McDermott v. Diana, Princess of Wales, was withdrawn or an award was made consequent on negotiations between the applicant and the respondent. [19960]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The industrial tribunal application in the case of McDermott v. Diana, Princess of Wales was settled prior to the tribunal hearing on 5 March, as result of an agreement reached between the applicant and the respondent.

  Internet
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps here Department is taking to prevent access by children to the adult material content of the Internet. [20195]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: My Department has worked extensively with the industry, the Home Office and the police to develop an appropriate approach to this important issue. We have encouraged the industry in a self-regulatory approach, backed-up by the application of existing law, and the existing penalties, in the Internet environment. As a result, on 23 September 1996, I was able to launch an industry led initiative— now known as "Internet Watch"—with the backing of the police and the Home Office.

  An independent "Internet Watch Foundation"—IWF— was created by the industry to provide a hot-line service where illegal material can be reported and acted upon with the involvement of the service providers and the police as necessary. IWF is also developing, with the help of an advisory board which includes child protection organisations, ratings systems to advise users and suppliers of the normal content of news groups and web pages. This provides both the means to uphold the existing law "on-line", and to provide advisory ratings for other material, which while legal, might be considered unsuitable for children or other vulnerable groups.

  Service providers have undertaken to support the availability of ratings material and the facilities in browsing software to screen out material which parents do not wish their children to encounter. This is a major step forward in promoting responsible use of the Internet and in giving parents the tools with which to exercise their own responsibilities for their children "on-line". Copies of the proposal describing the scheme, which has been operating successfully for several months, were placed in the Library of the House at the time the scheme was launched, under the name of "R3 Safety-Net".
  502

  British Bankers Association (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the British Bankers Association proposal to produce a binding code of practice in respect of holders of floating charges giving notice to companies of their intention to appoint an administrative receiver. [21261]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The British Bankers' Association—BBA—has today launched a statement of principles entitled, "Banks and Businesses: Working Together". I, along with my hon. Friends the Minister for Small Firms and the Economic Secretary, believe that this is a positive step in the direction of better communications between bankers and their business customers. As such, we believe it should be of major benefit to both small to medium enterprise—SME—companies and other businesses.

  The primary aim of the statement of principles is to bring about increased and improved communications in bank-customer relationships, particularly where financial difficulties are encountered. The banks will aim to provide businesses with early warning of any concerns they may have together with a reminder of the benefits of taking appropriate advice. By addressing problems at an early stage the statement of principles will underpin the banks' stated commitment to support sustainable rescues. It will also give business access to banks' complaints procedures and, where applicable, the banking ombudsman. For these reasons the statement of principles has potential additional benefits which would not be delivered by the five days notice proposal. At present 90 per cent. of the SME market will be covered by it.

  All the major clearing banks have agreed to be bound by the statement of principles but some of the smaller banks have yet to sign up. I strongly encourage them to do so without delay.

  The Government welcome the statement of principles and the issue of whether legislation is still needed will be reviewed in the light of whether it is delivering the expected benefits to business.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 35, if he will make a statement on how the methodology set out in the note placed in the Library on 2 February 1990 was used to assess the employment consequences of a national minimum wage on the basis of the 1995 new earnings survey. [20763]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The methodology was used in the same way as set out, in detail, in the note placed in the Library of the House on 2 February 1990. The calculation incorporated the latest earnings data from the April 1995 NES and employment figures for the first quarter of 1995 from the "Workforce in Employment". This gave a figure of around 1 million jobs lost from the introduction of a national minimum wage set at £4 an hour, assuming half restoration of pay differentials.
  503

TRANSPORT

  Ringway Parliamentary Support Group
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on each meeting between Ministers in his Department acting in an official capacity and the ringway parliamentary support group. [20313]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend met the group on 26 February 1997. The main subject of discussion was the liberalisation of bilateral air services agreements.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend attended a reception organised by the group in Westminster Hall in July 1995 and opened a small exhibition about the airport in the Upper Waiting Hall in July 1996. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping also attended a reception held in conjunction with the above exhibition in July 1996.

  Bus Working Group (Consultation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation has taken place between the bus working group and its sub-groups and(a) local authorities and (b) members of the public. [20445]

  Mr. Watts
  Consultation takes place by means of the membership of the bus working group and its sub-groups, all of which include representatives of the local authority associations and the National Federation of Bus Users. The membership of the bus working group was set out in my answer of 18 December columns 658–59 to the hon. Member.

  Bus Companies (Customer Complaints)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage bus companies to follow good practice in handling customer complaints. [20444]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 February,Official Report column 142–43.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19763]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is set out in the table. All of the Bills were passed by Parliament, with the exception of one—the Civil Aviation Bill of 1985—which was withdrawn.

  Year

  Number of Bills

  1982

  3

  1983

  3

  1984

  3

  1985

  4

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  2

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  5

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  504

  Year

  Number of Bills

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  3

  Total

  32

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the Highways Agency report on its reviews of the crossing of the River Avon south of Salisbury by the proposed Salisbury bypass. [21014]

  Mr. Watts
  Copies of the Highways Agency review report, which is in three volumes, were placed in the Library on 17 March. The report identified two possible alternative routes to the published route for the bypass which would avoid land having to be taken from the newly designated East Harnham meadows site of special scientific interest in the Avon valley. In accordance with undertakings given when my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment announced their views on the proposed bypass last October, we will shortly be affording interested parties an opportunity to comment on the agency's report.

  Marine Aids to Navigation
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future provision of marine aids to navigation by the general lighthouse authorities. [21125]

  Mr. Bowis
  The general lighthouse authorities carried out a consultation exercise during 1996 to determine user views on the future provision of marine aids to navigation. The major proposals, which were supported by respondents, were that the UK should provide a differential global positioning system, adopt the Loran C system as provided by the north-west Europe Loran C system agreement and discontinue the Decca navigator system and the radiobeacon service as soon as was reasonable. The GLAs proposed to maintain traditional aids to navigation, subject to regular reviews.

  We welcome the GLAs' proposals and accept the need to establish a civil marine navigation plan as a sound basis for planning the future provision of aids to navigation into the next century.

  We support the broad thrust of the proposals which are in line with developments in the international maritime community and will assist the transition to a civil global navigation satellite system. The balance of opinion following the consultation exercise supports the provision by the GLAs of DGPS for marine users based on the global positioning system at a relatively small cost to the general lighthouse fund. The system offers improved navigational accuracy while maintaining the system integrity of GPS, as well as the prospective benefits of providing future interface with electronic charting, integrated bridge system vessel traffic services and transponder systems.

  The UK is interested in adopting the NEL system to replace the Decca navigator system as the terrestrial back-up to GPS. We cannot commit the UK to NELS until

  505
  its future has been placed beyond doubt. In the meantime, users should be aware that the GLAs are unlikely to operate the Decca navigator system beyond the year 2000.

  The GLAs' proposals can be implemented within the income provided by the reduced level of light dues that we announced on March 6. They will save an estimated £32 million over the next 20 years while offering the prospect of improved accuracy to the navigator. Further reductions in user costs after 2000 are expected from the GLAs' on-going reviews of traditional aids to navigation which will be carried out in consultation with users.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government will revoke the line orders for the east London river crossing. [21126]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announced that the ELRC revocation order has now been made and is being prepared for publication on 26 March.

  The ELRC orders have remained in place while alternatives for crossing the Thames between Beckton and Thamesmead were being considered in order that businesses and residents directly affected by the scheme could continue to benefit from the statutory compensation which accompanied the orders.

DEFENCE

  Future Large Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Royal Air Force has made of the European staff requirement for the European future large aircraft. [20709]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We assess that the European staff requirement for the future large aircraft, as it is currently drafted, satisfies the United Kingdom's minimum technical requirements for a tactical military airlifter. We are currently considering whether our conditions for re-entry to the FLA programme set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 16 December 1994—Official Report, column 823—have been met.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it remains his policy to seek to purchase between 40 and 50 future large aircraft. [20694]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside on 11 February this year—Official Report, column 131–32.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for the chief executive of the Army Technical Support Agency for 1997–98. [21122]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Army Technical Support Agency has been set the following key targets for 1997–98.506

  1. Influence equipment design by attaining a 15 per cent. increase to 80 per cent. in Procurement Executive integrated logistic support project involvement where ATSA's contribution is equal to or greater than one half-year-man effort.

  2. Achieve a 10 per cent. gross cost saving in advanced order recommended spares purchasing without reducing sustainability or availability of land systems equipment.

  3. Answer 92 per cent. of ad hoc inquiries within two working days.

  4. Achieve an average response time of nine working days for demand for technical publications.

  5. Complete 90 per cent. of operational projects and 75 per cent. of priority A projects before the agreed target date.

  6. Ensure for at least 70 per cent. of projects that the maintenance specific spares, required to support an equipment throughout its service life, are identified and encoded on to the stores system record by the target date agreed with the equipment manager.

  7. Satisfy 90 per cent. of customers when undertaking technical projects.

  8. Improve efficiency by 3.6 per cent. over 1997–98 outturn.

  9. Respond to 100 per cent. of equipment failure report (or its equivalent) submissions within 14 calendar days of receipt.

  RAF (Reserve Personnel)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the use of the RAF's Reserve personnel; and if he will make a statement. [21154]

  Mr. Soames
  I am delighted to announce that three new Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons are to be formed. An Air Transportable Surgical Squadron will form at Royal Air Force Leuchars on 1 April 1997, with an establishment of 71 reservist personnel. Two Training and Standardisation Squadrons are also to be formed—the first at Royal Air Force Halton also on 1 April 1997, with an establishment of 21 personnel, and the second at Royal Air Force Shawbury on 1 June 1997, with an establishment of nine. In addition, the establishment of No. 4624 (County of Oxford) Movements Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force based at Royal Air Force Brize Norton will increase by 69 posts from 1 April 1997. From the same date, the establishment of the Inspectorate Royal Auxiliary Air Force also at Royal Air Force Brize Norton will increase from two posts to four. The new Role Support Squadron concept, which I announced in the House last year with the formation of the Helicopter Support Squadron, is developing in an encouraging way.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of personnel have(a) committed suicide and (b) suffered a fatal accident in each of the armed services in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement. [20033]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  507
  Letter from Mr. Paul Atobell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 March 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the percentages of personnel in the Services who have committed suicide or died as result of an accident since 1990. As Chief Executive of Defence Analytical Services Agency this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

  The percentage of armed forces personnel who committed suicide or who were killed in accidents from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1996 (based on information reported to DASA as at 3 March 1997)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Tri-service1

  Average strength (000s)2

  311.1

  305.4

  296.9

  276.3

  254.1

  234.9

  224.1

  Coroner verdicts of suicide (number)

  42

  34

  30

  323

  329

  318

  35

  Percentage

  0.014

  0.011

  0.010

  30.008

  30.011

  30.008

  30.002

  Accidents (number)

  159

  141

  124

  129

  107

  101

  75

  Percentage

  0.051

  0.046

  0.042

  0.047

  0.042

  0.043

  0.033

  Navy

  Average strength (000s)2

  62.7

  62.3

  61.5

  58.4

  54.4

  50.2

  47.1

  Coroner verdicts of suicide (number)

  8

  5

  6

  1

  6

  1

  32

  Percentage

  0.013

  0.008

  0.010

  0.002

  0.011

  0.002

  30.004

  Accidents (number)

  22

  26

  21

  34

  11

  16

  13

  Percentage

  0.035

  0.042

  0.034

  0.058

  0.020

  0.032

  0.028

  1Includes Gurkhas.

  2Average strength calculated by taking the strength at 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, 1 October of the year in question and 1 January the following year, divided by five. Strength shown in thousands.

  3The numbers and percentages of suicides are provisional, representing the current known position, based on medical events data supplied to DASA as at 3 March 1997. These figures are subject to change once coroners' verdicts have been made and information becomes available.

  The percentage of armed forces personnel who committed suicide or who were killed in accidents from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1996 (based on information reported to DASA as at 3 March 1997)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Army1

  Average strength (000s)2

  159.1

  155.3

  150.9

  138.5

  125.6

  114.7

  113.4

  Coroner verdicts of suicide (number)

  20

  22

  19

  18

  318

  315

  33

  Percentage

  0.013

  0.014

  0.013

  0.013

  30.014

  30.013

  30.003

  Accidents (number)

  92

  91

  75

  65

  71

  55

  46

  Percentage

  0.058

  0.059

  0.050

  0.047

  0.057

  0.048

  0.041

  RAF

  Average strength (000s)2

  89.3

  87.8

  84.5

  79.4

  74.1

  70.0

  63.6

  Coroner verdicts of suicide (number)

  14

  7

  5

  34

  35

  32

  30

  Percentage

  0.016

  0.008

  0.006

  30.005

  30.007

  30.003

  30.000

  Accidents (number)

  45

  24

  28

  30

  25

  30

  16

  Percentage

  0.050

  0.027

  0.033

  0.038

  0.034

  0.043

  0.025

  1Includes Gurkhas.

  2Average strength calculated by taking the strength at 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, 1 October of the year in question and 1 January the following year, divided by five. Strength shown in thousands.

  3The numbers and percentages of suicides are provisional, representing the current known position, based on medical events data supplied to DASA as at 3 March 1997. These figures are subject to change once coroners' verdicts have been made and information becomes available.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for 1991 those countries(a) where British service personnel categorised as loan service personnel were based and (b) in which training exercises took place involving British service personnel. [19914]

  Mr. Soames
  According to available records, in 1991 British loan service personnel were deployed in the following countries:

  Antigua

  Australia

  Bahrain

  508
  The information you request is detailed in the attached table. Please note that the figures and percentages shown in the table represent the position based on information we have received as at 3 March 1997 for compatibility with your earlier questions. The figures for suicides ware still provisional for the later years as some Coroners verdicts' are still awaited.

  I hope you find these figures useful.

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Brunei

  Colombia

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Hong Kong

  Jordan

  509

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe

  The full records of exercises involving British service personnel in 1991 are not available. According to available records, British service personnel exercised in or with forces from the following countries and dependent territories in 1991:

  Ascension Island

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brunei

  Canada

  Colombia

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Dominica

  Falkland Islands

  France

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Hawaii

  Hong Kong

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Luxembourg

  Malaysia

  Namibia

  Netherlands

  Netherlands Antilles

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Oman

  Portugal

  Saudi Arabia

  510

  Singapore

  Spain

  Sweden

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  UAE

  United Kingdom

  United States

  In addition, UK forces exercised with the states of the regional security system and the West Indies Guardship, as part of her routine deployment, would have exercised with many of the Caribbean countries and dependent territories.

  Foreign Military Personnel (Training)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign military personnel were in the United Kingdom undergoing military training on 1 March; and if he will list the countries from which they came. [20175]

  Mr. Soames
  According to our records, on 1 March 1997, a total of 831 military personnel from the following countries were attending training courses in the United Kingdom;

  Antigua

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Chile

  China

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Fiji

  France

  Germany

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Greece

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  511

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Former Yugoslavia

  Republic of Macedonia

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Paraguay

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sweden

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  Uruquay

  United Arab Emirates

  USA

  Yemen

  Zimbabwe

  In addition, an exercise involving some 2,021 personnel from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and USA was taking place in UK waters on that date.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the vaccinations administered to armed services personnel and medical 512
  support staff who served in Operation Granby, indicating the reasons in each case for the decision to administer the respective vaccination. [20454]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 21 January 1997—Official Report, column 550.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1997,Official Report, column 552, when the Treasury initially introduced the non-movers package; when responsibility for relocation expenses was transferred to Government Departments; and what additional changes to the terms originally on offer they are permitted to make. [20209]

  Mr. Soames
  The arrangement for civilian staff that is not known in the Ministry of Defence as the non-mover's package was first introduced by the Treasury in 1989.

  The Treasury delegated to Departments the responsibility for determining relocation expenses for civil servants in May 1993.

  Departments have a degree of flexibility to make changes within the rules laid down in the civil service management code.

  Nuclear Test Programme (Participation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he has taken of(a) the case of Kenneth McGinley and EE v. United Kingdom and (b) the ensuing report of the Europe Commission of Human Rights in determining his policy towards compensating participants in the nuclear test programme. [19136]

  Mr. Soames
  The European Commission of Human Rights concluded in its report on the case of McGinley and EE v. UK that there was a violation of article 6(1) of the convention because, in its opinion, the applicants' lack of access to "relevant records", defined as yield and radiation level records contemporary with the nuclear tests, prevented effective access to the pensions appeal tribunal. It is normal for the Commission to make proposals for compensation to provide "just satisfaction" for a breach of the convention. The Commission's proposals on compensation, however, expressly did not relate to a finding of increased mortality, cancers or other illnesses with participation in atmospheric nuclear tests. As the Committee of Ministers has referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the question of compensation no longer falls to be considered at this stage. Compensation would be a matter for the court to decide should it determine a violation of the convention. The Government intend to contest the case.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19765]
  513
  Mr. Soames
  The number of Bills sponsored by my Department in each of the past 15 years is as follows:

  1982: 1

  1983: nil

  1984: 1

  1985: nil

  1986: 2

  1987: 1

  1988: nil

  1989: nil

  1990: 1

  1991: 2

  1992: 1

  1993: 1

  1994: nil

  1995: nil

  1996: 2

  All the Bills were passed by Parliament.

  Retirement Pensions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of each former two-star appointment and above in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy who is currently in receipt of a retirement pension and the date of their retirement. [20056]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 710–11, if the organophosphate pesticide investigation team report has been sent to the organisations which represent service men and women who served in the Gulf war; and if he will list the main conclusions of the report. [20342]

  Mr. Soames
  The OPPIT substantive report—Parts One to Three—which contains details of what is now known about the use of organophosphate pesticides by British service personnel during the Gulf War, was published on 10 December 1996 and a copy was placed in the Library of the House. Copies were requested by and sent to a number of Gulf veterans, but not specifically to any veterans organisations. Further copies are available from the Ministry of Defence. The report contained 14 findings and eight observations.

  Otterburn Training Area
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many years the(a) multi-launch rocket system and (b) AS90 self-propelled gun are planned to be in service in the Otterburn training area. [20553]

  Mr. Soames
  The multiple-launch rocket system is due to remain in service until 2025. The AS90 is expected to remain in service until at least 2020. The Army has made proposals for the development of the Otterburn training area to provide facilities for training regiments equipped with MLRS and AS90 throughout their in-service lives.
  514
  The notice of proposed development of Otterburn is now subject to a non-statutory public inquiry which commences on 22 April.

  Defence Estate Organisation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Defence Estate Organisation. [21121]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Estate Organisation will launch as a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence, on 18 March 1997. The agency will be responsible for assisting MOD in managing the optimum estate of land, buildings and installations to meet the operating needs of the Department. While the management of the estate will remain the responsibility of the occupying MOD budget holder, the DEO plays a vital role in: supporting budget holders estate staff; improving MOD's stewardship of the estate; ensuring MOD receives best value for money for estate services, property management and new works procurement; acting as MOD's centre of estate expertise; and maintaining a strategic overview of the defence estate.

  The DEO agency has about 1,400 staff in offices throughout the UK and abroad. The DEO's new headquarters will be at Sutton Coldfield.

  The DEO's chief executive, Mr. Brian Hirst, is a widely experienced chartered surveyor recruited from the private sector, who has considerable public sector experience. He has been set the following key targets to be achieved by March 1998, by the end of DEO's first full year of operation:

  1. Strategic Overview:

  (a.) To develop the information systems infrastructure necessary to support a strategic overview of the Defence Estate by March 1998.

  (b.) To develop a series of output-based targets for strategic overview.

  2. To complete 30–35 establishment development plans across the Defence estate in FY 97–98.

  3. To achieve 90 per cent. of total disposals' receipts within year against the 1997–98 target.

  4. To meet the following contracts targets:

  (a.) To complete 75 per cent. of construction contracts within one month of the contracted completion date.

  (b.) To complete 90 per cent. of construction contracts within three months of the contracted completion date.

  (c.) To have less than 10 per cent. average variation on financially complete construction contracts.

  5. To meet the following efficiency targets:

  (a.) To achieve a reduction in operating costs of 25 per cent. compared with the 1996–97 outturn.

  (b.) To develop a volume measure for all of DEO's business, baseline it and propose targets for subsequent years.

  6. To complete the rural defence estate maintenance CFQ scoping and feasibility studies by end of March 1997 and to complete a CFQ scoping study for the whole of the DEO by December 1997.

  7. To develop a mechanism for measuring customer satisfaction, establish a baseline by September 1997 and propose targets for subsequent years.

  8. To put in place an integrated compliance audit and effectiveness review system for projects by March 1998.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document and corporate plan to be placed in the Library of both Houses.
  515

  Gulf War (Carcases)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the carcases of camels, sheep and other animals killed during the Gulf war were(a) flow to Boscombe Down airfield, (b) transported thence to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down and (c) tested for the causes of their deaths, indicating the results of the tests. [19518]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 10 march 1997]: At present my Department has no verified information concerning reports of dead animals being found during the Gulf war. The Chemical and Biological Defence sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, situated at Porton Down, has no record of any dead animals being received or analysed in connection with the Gulf war. However, a search for information relevant to this subject is currently underway.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to Romford. [19196]

  The Prime Minister
  During the next few weeks, I hope to visit all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Employment Prospects (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of Her Majesty's Government's policies on employment prospects in Lichfield. [19200]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's sound economic policies and labour market reforms have encouraged employment creation throughout the country. Unemployment has fallen by more than a million in the United Kingdom, by more than 20,000 in the county of Staffordshire, and by more than 2,000 in Lichfield.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19537]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19538]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness (Disabled People)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many disabled people were accepted as homeless and in priority need by local authorities in England during 1996. [20352]
  516
  Mr. Curry
  Information is given on the numbers of households for whom local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985, in the quarterly information bulletin entitled, "Households found accommodation under the homelessness legislation: England", the latest issue covers 1996. Table 3 provides a breakdown of acceptances by category of priority need, including one for households with a member who is vulnerable due to physical disability. Copies of the bulletin are in the Library.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department offers to local planning authorities on how to ensure that a hedgerow's importance is accurately evaluated within the statutory 28 days if those days fall outside the wildlife breeding season; and if he will make a statement. [20272]

  Mr. Clappison
  The draft Hedgerows Regulations, which were laid in both Houses on 3 March, allow a local planning authority a period of 42 days to respond to a hedgerow removal notice, and so to evaluate the importance of the hedge. The draft regulations also provide that whether the hedgerow contains rare or endangered wildlife species shall be determined either by a site survey or by reference to previous records, as set out in schedule 1. Guidance on the implementation of the regulations, including how local planning authorities should apply the evaluation criteria, will be issued before they come into effect.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made over the last two months of the representations he has received regarding hedgerow protection; and if he will make a statement on how future(a) proposals and (b) legislation will ensure that targets set out in the biodiversity action plan are achieved. [20273]

  Mr. Clappison
  A total of 465 responses to the Government's consultation on draft Hedgerows Regulations were included in the analysis reported on by the consultants ERM. A copy of their report is in the House Library. These reponses were carefully considered and taken into account in the revised draft regulations laid in Parliament on 3 March 1997.

  Once passed by Parliament, implementation and enforcement of these regulations to protect important hedgerows will contribute towards the targets set out in the biodiversity action plan on ancient and/or species rich hedgerows. The group which will review progress and take forward this action plan, chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will meet on 24 April.

  Straw Bale House Construction
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the scope for straw bale house construction in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [20270]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment has made no assessment of the use of straw bales for house construction in the UK. However, at the end of last year, staff of the Building Research Establishment
  517
  inspected a single storey demonstration project in Belfast and it has since agreed to undertake some monitoring studies.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the(a) environmental and (b) financial benefits of straw bale built housing; what Government training opportunities are available in this construction method; and if he will make a statement. [20271]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment has made no assessment of the environmental and economic benefits of straw bale built housing. There are no Government training opportunities available at present.

  Water Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been made under section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 for offences in north Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [20165]

  Mr. Clappison
  There have been 11 prosecutions for illegal discharges under section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 in the two Environment Agency pollution control districts which cover most of north Staffordshire. Seven of these offences related to pollution caused by agricultural discharges, three to industrial premises and one breach by a sewage treatment works of a consent condition in respect of colour.

  Sewerage Discharges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on sewerage discharge in upper Trent; and if he will make a statement. [20166]

  Mr. Clappison
  None.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many samples of discharge have been taken by the Environment Agency since 1 April 1996 in Stoke-on-Trent, North; of these, how many showed a breach of discharge consent under the Water Resources Act 1991; and in each case what was the nature of the breach. [20167]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statistics relating to the area of Stoke on Trent, North are not available. However, for the two relevant pollution control districts of the Environment Agency, since 1 April 1996, 567 sampling visits have been undertaken during which 364 samples were obtained. Of these, 19 indicated a breach of the conditions of a discharge consent. I understand that the Environment Agency has already provided the hon. Member with details of these cases and the results of subsequent investigations.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases the Environment Agency has granted new discharge consent without advertisement in north Staffordshire. [20168]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since the formation of the Environment Agency only one discharge consent has been issued in the two relevant pollution control districts of the agency. This related to the discharge of minewater and site drainage and was not advertised.
  518

  Water Protection Policy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 682, when he estimates his Department will issue the discussion paper on using economic instruments to achieve water protection policy objectives; and if he will make a statement. [20312]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government intend to issue the paper during the spring.

  UN Environment Programme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current financial position of the UN Environment Programme. [19137]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 19th governing council of the United Nations environment programme met in Nairobi from 27 January to 7 February. The Government's main objective was to secure decisions which would restore confidence in UNEP and hence reverse the sharp decline in UNEP's funding over recent years. Satisfactory proposals on the governing structure and UNEP's mandate were proposed by the president of the Governing Council, and gathered a wide measure of support from developed and developing countries, but were resisted by some member of the Committee of Permanent Representatives. The governing council was suspended and the Secretary of State took the view that we should suspend our voluntary contribution to the environment fund until these issues are resolved. The United States and Spain took the same view. The Government are now actively seeking ways of resolving this problem with all interested parties.

  Chemicals Convention
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards proposed negotiations on a chemicals convention at the UN General Assembly special session. [19138]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government supported the recent UNEP governing council decisions on negotiation of legally binding instruments on prior informed consent for trade in certain hazardous chemicals, and on persistent organic pollutants. The governing council also invited the executive director of UNEP to develop a report outlining options for enhanced coherence and efficiency among international activities related to chemicals, including the instrument on the prior informed consent procedure under development and a likely future agreement on persistent organic pollutants. We will consider the conclusions of the report, including any proposal for a chemicals convention, when it is completed.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19770]
  519
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has been responsible for a total of 63 Government Bills between 1982 and 1996. The breakdown for each year is as follows:

  1982: 4

  1983: 5

  1984: 5

  1985: 9

  1986: 2

  1987: 5

  1988: 5

  1989: 2

  1990: 6

  1991: 9

  1992: 3

  1993: 2

  1994: 1

  1995: 2

  1996: 3

  All of these Bills were approved by Parliament, except for one in 1983.

  Water and Sewerage Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total indicative value of the water and sewerage companies calculated for each year between 1989 and 1994. [20339]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total indicative value of the 10 water and sewerage companies calculated in 1989 was £15.2 billion. Indicative values were not recalculated for subsequent years.

  Show Houses (Taxation)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusion he has reached following his consideration of the representations recently made to him about the taxation of show houses; and if he will make a statement. [20554]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are still considering our response to representations from the House Builders Federation and the Manufacturing and Construction Alliance that shows houses should be subject to the council tax rather than non-domestic rates. If we decide that show houses should be treated as domestic, we could effect this change through secondary legislation.

  Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates of, and attendees at, the meetings of his Department's release committee since its inception; what matters were discussed at each meeting; and if he will place in the Library copies of the agendas and papers discussed at each meeting. [20759]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment—ACRE—has been meeting several times a year since its inception as a statutory committee in 1993. I will write shortly to the hon. Gentleman with a list of dates of meetings, and attendees at the meetings. However, a description of the matters which were discussed at each meeting could be compiled only at 520
  disproportionate expense. It would be impracticable to place in the Library copies of the agendas and papers discussed at each meeting, but the advice provided by ACRE on consent application for the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, together with key papers, is maintained in a public register at the Department of the Environment offices in Romney house, Marsham street, London.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Health and Safety Executive in regard to proposed amendments to European Council directive GO/219/EEC on genetically modified micro-organisms; what action he has taken following the consultations; and if he will make a statement. [20760]

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the European Commission's adoption in December 1995 of its proposed amendment to the directive, I agreed a strategy for negotiation of the proposal with the Health and Safety Executive based on support for its essential elements. This was reflected in an explanatory memorandum cleared by the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament last year.

  The proposal has been discussed at three meetings of the Environment Council which I have attended during 1996. The Health and Safety Executive was consulted and full account was taken of its advice. At the last Council, held on 9 December 1996, there was broad agreement between member states that the essential elements of the Commission's proposals should be supported.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes in respect of the environmental implications of genetically modified organisms. [20761]

  Mr. Gummer
  None. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advises Health and Agriculture Ministers and the heads of Departments of Health and Social Services and of Agriculture for Northern Ireland on any matters relating to the irradiation of food or to the manufacture of novel foods or foods produced by novel processes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament report, A4–0070/97, to the proposal for a Council directive amending directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (COM (95) 0640-C4–0271/96–95/0340 SYN). [20764]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Health and Safety Executive, in consultation with officials in the Department of the Environment and other interested Departments, studied the amendments in the light of the objectives which I agreed following the European Commission's adoption of its original proposal. Most of the amendments were consistent with the United Kingdom's objective of reducing ineffective administrative burdens at the same time as improving protection of human health and the environment by targeting areas of highest risk. A substantial number, however, would have undermined that objective.
  521
  The European Parliament voted on the proposed amendments on Wednesday 12 March. I am pleased that most of the amendments contrary to our objectives were rejected. A significant minority, however, were passed. Of particular concern is the proposal to alter the legal base of the directive from that which provides for the establishment of minimum safety standards for human health and the environment to that concerned with the establishment of harmonised standards to enhance the functioning of the internal market. The contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms has nothing to do with the internal market, so the proposed change of legal base would be quite inappropriate.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conferences his Department(a) has sponsored and (b) been represented at since January 1996 on genetically modified organisms and the environment. [20765]

  Mr. Gummer
  (a) On 10 March, my Department sponsored a national conference on biotechnology at which I made the opening speech. This conference was chaired by Lord Selborne, and the outcome of the conference will be reported to me shortly. The conference was informed by the outcome of three consultation conferences. One of those, on the environment applications of biotechnology, was sponsored by my Department.

  (b) My officials attend conferences on genetically modified organisms from time to time, but we do not keep a central register of such attendances.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the(a) containment measures, (b) targeting of areas of risk, (c) incorporation of technological changes and (d) notification periods in Council directive GO/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. [20771]

  Mr. Gummer
  In administering and enforcing the regulations which implement this directive inadequacies have been shown in all four areas.

  (a) The containment measures set out in the directive are based on what is appropriate to large-scale activities. Safety would be better ensured by a more flexible approach to containment measures which would enable users of genetically modified micro-organisms to select those most appropriate to the particular type of activity they propose to undertake.

  (b) The directive bases notification requirements on the classification of GMMs according to their inherent properties and on an inflexible test of the purpose and scale of intended activities. These criteria are not properly risk-based and therefore result in a disproportionate focus by competent authorities on activities of negligible risk.

  (c) The procedure for amending some of the key technical annexes to the directive is far too protracted to allow scientific developments to be taken quickly into account.

  (d) The notification periods are unnecessarily long. We have found that notifications can be processed long before the expiry of the periods prescribed in the directive. Notifiers must, however, observe the prescribed periods. The consequence is that the planning schedules of those engaged in contained use activities are needlessly extended and work is delayed.

  522
  I am pleased that the European Commission's proposal for amendment of the directive, currently under negotiation, includes provisions which would go a long way to remedying these inadequacies.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has evaluated from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on the impact of the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment on human health and environmental protection. [20772]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no recent representations from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on this subject.

  Abattoirs (Liquid Waste Discharges)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations cover the discharge of liquid wastes from abattoirs; how these regulations are implemented; and what plans he has to review their operation. [20768]

  Mr. Gummer
  Discharges from abattoirs into the public sewer are regulated by the relevant sewerage undertaker under powers contained in the Water Industry Act 1991. Discharges from abattoirs directly into controlled waters are regulated by the Environment Agency under powers contained in the Environment Act 1995.

  Slaughtered Cattle (Disposal)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice he has issued on the environmental implications arising from the disposal by(a) landfill and (b) incineration of cattle slaughtered in connection with the BSE crisis; [20828]

  (2) what advice has been requested in the last year from (a) his Department and (b) the Environment Agency on the best practical environmental option of disposing of the backlog of cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme. [20829]

  Mr. Clappison
  Cattle suspected of displaying signs of BSE are slaughtered and their carcases sent for direct incineration in plants contracted to MAFF, which are subject to authorisation by the Environment Agency or relevant local authority under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture made it clear in the House on 16 April 1996 that cattle wastes from the over-30-months scheme would be treated primarily by rendering, with the resultant material being disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. The disposal of wastes from the scheme is subject to Commission Regulation (EC) 716/96. The regulation requires that the wastes be directly incinerated, or processed at a rendering plant and then destroyed. The regulation does not permit landfill. Rendered material—meat and bonemeal and tallow—is either being incinerated or stored safely pending destruction by the best practicable environmental option—for example, incineration, burning for energy recovery by power stations.
  523
  The Government have sought advice from the independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on methods of dealing with cattle wastes. SEAC's conclusions were published on 7 June 1996 in a news release issued by MAFF. A copy is available in the Library of the House. SEAC's advice has been made available to relevant enforcement bodies.

  Green Belt, Nottinghamshire
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to protect the Nottinghamshire green belt from development proposals in the local plan. [21015]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Following a public local inquiry last year into objections to the Nottingham local plan, I understand that the inspector has recommended acceptance of the city council's proposals to release some green belt land for development. It is now for the council to decide whether to accept the inspector's recommendations, and publish any proposed modifications prior to adoption of the local plan.

  In making this decision, the council will need to take account of national planning policies. In this regard, the Government remain committed to the protection of green belts, and to ensuring that opportunities for reuse of urban land for developments are maximised. I shall therefore need to be fully satisfied that loss of green belt land is unavoidable in order to meet the future development needs of Nottingham, when I come to consider the council's proposed modifications to its draft plan.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey executive agency in the year 1997–98. [21123]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1997–98:

  1. To recover at least 86 per cent. of the costs incurred by the agency, representing an increase of 3 per cent.

  2. To ensure that, by 31 March 1998, 97 per cent. of existing major detail is surveyed and available to customers in the national topographic database at any one time—an increase of 1 per cent. over 1996–97. The target will increase to 99 per cent. by the year 2002.

  3. In order to provide a quality service to customers, to despatch products in response to orders as follows:

  95 per cent. of all land-line digital map units within five working days—reduced from six days; and

  92 per cent. of small scale products within five working days—an increase of 2 per cent.

  4. To increase by 3 per cent. the annual revenue earned per number of staff employed.

  These targets are closely associated with the main corporate aims of Ordnance Survey and demonstrate the agency's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for money for all its stakeholders. These more stringent targets represent significant improvements and will deliver an increasing level of services.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take 524
  against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1995–96. [21124]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 14 January this year, 52 statutory notices were served on 36 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations to meet the required financial objectives in 1995–96. My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices, and has decided to give 40 directions to 31 local authorities.

  The directions take the following forms:

  Preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in 1996–97 or 1997–98.

  for Wolverhampton MBC (grounds maintenance),

  Preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in 1997–98 or 1998–99.

  for Liverpool city council (other catering, building maintenance)

  for New Forest district council (other catering),

  Requiring the authority to retender the work and to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if proposing to award the work in-house.

  for Aylesbury Vale district council (refuse collection),

  for Carrick district council (other catering),

  for Cheltenham borough council (highways and sewers),

  for Harborough district council (refuse collection),

  for London borough of Merton (vehicle maintenance),

  for London borough of Newham (grounds maintenance),

  for North Hertfordshire district council (building maintenance),

  for Oxfordshire county council (schools and welfare catering),

  for Peterborough city council (other cleaning),

  for Rochdale MBC (building maintenance),

  Requiring authorities to retender work if they fail to meet the financial objective in 1996–97 or 1997–98, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award work in-house.

  for Amber Valley district council (other cleaning),

  for Bassetlaw district council (refuse collection),

  for Birmingham city council (grounds maintenance),

  for London borough of Brent (other cleaning),

  for Knowsley MBC (other catering),

  for London borough of Newham (highways and sewers),

  for Northumberland county council (schools and welfare catering),

  for Nottinghamshire county council (schools and welfare catering),

  for Pendle borough council (refuse collection),

  for Rochdale MBC (schools and welfare catering),

  for Sefton MBC (vehicle maintenance),

  for South Lakeland district council (refuse collection),

  for South Tyneside MBC (schools and welfare catering),

  for Stoke on Trent city council (highways and sewers),

  for Westminster city council (grounds maintenance),

  for Wolverhampton MBC (schools and welfare catering).

  525
  Requiring authorities to retender work if they fail to meet the financial objective in 1997–98 or 1998–99, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award work in-house.

  for Amber Valley district council (grounds maintenance),

  for Barnsley MBC (schools and welfare catering),

  for Cannock Chase district council (highways and sewers),

  for Cheltenham borough council (building maintenance),

  for Oldham MBC (vehicle maintenance, building maintenance, highways and sewers),

  for Peterborough city council (building maintenance),

  for Wyre borough council (other cleaning).

  Requiring authorities to retender work if they fail to meet the financial objective in 1998–99 or 1999–2000, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award work in-house.

  for Tynedale district council (building maintenance).

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1996–96 by:

  Bedfordshire county council (building cleaning, grounds maintenance, other catering)

  Co. Durham district council (new construction over £50,000),

  Corby borough council (sports and leisure management),

  Hart district council (other catering),

  London borough of Merton (other catering),

  North Hertfordshire district council (sports and leisure management),

  Peterborough city council (grounds maintenance),

  Preston borough council (highways and sewers),

  Wyre borough council (highways and sewers, vehicle maintenance).

  This action demonstrates our commitment to protect the interests of local taxpayers, and ensure that they receive value for money services from their local authorities. Where authorities' in-house teams have failed to achieve their financial targets, and where they do not seem to have taken the steps necessary to bring about an improvement in their performance, we will not hesitate to take statutory action.

  Community Alarm Systems
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has following his recent consultation exercise on local authorities' powers to provide community alarm systems; and if he will make a statement. [21127]

  Mr. Curry
  Having carefully considered the more than 100 responses received to our consultation, we have concluded that local authorities should be empowered to provide community alarms to anyone resident in their area, and to be able to charge for such services. Community alarms can help the elderly to continue to live in their own homes, disabled people to lead independent lives, and can also be useful in tackling crimes such as repeat burglary, domestic violence or racial harassment. We intend to bring forward legislation at the next convenient opportunity.
  526

  Central-local Government Information Flows
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish the Government's response to the recent efficiency scrutiny on information flows between central and local government; and if he will make a statement. [21128]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today published the Government's response to the report of the efficiency scrutiny on information flows between central and local government.

  This scrutiny, which was published on 14 November 1996, forms part of the Government's war on waste campaign and was the first in a rolling programme of efficiency scrutinies on local government matters designed to cut the burden of paperwork and unnecessary bureaucracy between central and local government. The scrutiny focused in particular on certain key services— personal social services, education, housing and transport—and looked at the European regional development fund, the European social fund and monitoring of local government spending. The scrutiny report concluded that the paper flow could be cut by up to one third, and set out specific recommendations for streamlining information flows.

  We have now consulted the local authority associations and other interested bodies, including the Audit Commission and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—CIPFA—on the report and its recommendations. Responses we have received have been overwhelmingly supportive of the thrust of the report. In the light of this consultation, the Government have prepared their response to the scrutiny's recommendations, which takes the form of an action plan for implementation of the report's recommendations.

  In recognition of the need for central and local government to work closely together, the implementation of the action plan will be overseen by the joint group of senior officials and representatives of the local authority associations, the Audit Commission and CIPFA which I established with local government when the report was published last November. The Government will also establish, with local government, a task force with a remit to make rapid progress in developing and facilitating electronic data transfer between local authorities and Government Departments. The task force has been asked to report by the summer.

  The action plan sets out a substantial programme of work, involving a number of Government Departments, to rationalise the data that the Government require of local authorities and the arrangements for its collection. This work reflects the Government's on-going commitment to removing unnecessary burdens on local authorities in their dealings with central Government and should deliver considerable benefits for both central and local government in terms of efficiency gains and better quality information.

  I am arranging for copies of the Government response to be placed in the Library of the House. Copies are being sent to the local authority associations and to individual local authorities in England.
  527

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentre Vacancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans her Department has to ensure that jobcentres accept individual vacancies for display from private employment agencies only when there is a genuine vacancy; [19756]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding jobcentre vacancies. [19757]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your questions about Jobcentre display of vacancies from private employment agencies and the policy on Jobcentre vacancies.
  In accordance with Employment Service (ES) policy on working with external labour market organisations, the ES has an agreement with the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services (FRES), the national umbrella body for private employment agencies, under which unemployed jobseekers have access to agency vacancies which are advertised in Jobcentres. This increase the number of jobs available to them through the Jobcentre network. Agency vacancies are accepted for display in Jobcentres only where there is a genuine vacancy; that is where there are details of a specific job, and where a contract exists between the agency and the employer. The service is at the discretion of ES local Business Managers who have guidance which sets out clear criteria for accepting agency vacancies.
  Your second question relates to our policy regarding Jobcentre vacancies more generally. Jobcentres provide vacancy advertising services to employers under the provisions of the Employment and Training Act 1973. In 1996 Jobcentres handled over 2.5 million vacancies and helped over 2 million people into jobs. These included both full time and part time jobs and covered a range of occupations and pay levels.
  Jobcentres work to guidance which advises them to get full information from employers about each vacancy to enable jobseekers and the ES to determine the suitability of the vacancy for individual clients. The guidance also stipulates that Jobcentres must not accept vacancies from employers which are illegal; would result in a breach of the law; or might put jobseekers at risk.
  Once a vacancy has been accepted from an employer it is normally put on the Jobcentre vacancy display boards. The information displayed includes the job title, description of main duties, experience/qualification requirements, hours of work, salary and any additional relevant information.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Direction
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the instruction to Employment Service adjudication officers contained in the "Adjudication Offices Guidance", volume IV, paragraph 26664.4, is required to be taken into account when a jobseeker's direction is issued to a claimant. [20295]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  528
  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking whether the instruction to Employment Service adjudication officers contained in paragraph 26664.4 of the Adjudication Officer's guidance, is required to be taken into account when a Jobseeker's Direction is issued to a claimant.
  The Adjudication Officer's guidance states that it is not reasonable to expect claimants to take steps that could result in an offer of employment that they would have good cause for refusing if it was notified to them by an employment officer. I can confirm that this is required to be taken into account when a Jobseeker's Direction is issued to a jobseeker.
  I hope this clarifies the position.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if(a) drug and (b) alcoholism related conditions qualify as good causes for reducing the prospects of employment due to circumstances beyond their control for claimants of jobseeker's allowance. [20329]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about whether drug and alcohol related conditions qualify as good causes for reducing the prospects of employment due to circumstances beyond their control for claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance.
  Jobseekers are generally required to be available for work for at least 40 hours or more each week. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. People who suffer from a mental or physical condition that limits the work they are able to do can restrict their availability for work in any way providing their restrictions are reasonable in the light of their condition. They do not have to have reasonable prospects of securing employment.
  If an employment adviser accepts that a jobseeker has either a physical or mental health problem and that the restrictions placed are reasonable in the light of that condition no further action is taken on the claim and there would be no referral to adjudication on that account.
  Drink and drug problems can interfere with mental and physical health and any jobseekers with a known problem will have their circumstances taken into account when considering their availability for employment. Advisers encourage such jobseekers to seek specialist help and employment as getting and keeping a job may go part of the way to solving the problem. However, should the problem affect their ability to do any work they would be referred to the Disability Employment Adviser in the Jobcentre who in turn may suggest they see their doctor or seek specialist help.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools in England and Wales have opted into grant-maintained status; and what are the average league tables scores for(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) schools under local education authority control. [20675]
  529
  Mrs. Gillan
  There are now 486 grant-maintained primary schools in England. Pupil attainments are generally higher in GM schools than LEA schools; details of their relative performance in national curriculum assessments and GCSE examinations are given in the following tables.

  Grant-maintained schools in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Table 1: Percentage of 7-year-old pupils achieving National Curriculum level 2 and above, 1996

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Key stage 1

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  79

  —

  82

  82

  84

  —

  Reading

  78

  78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Writing

  76

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Speaking and listening

  82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GM schools

  85

  —

  86

  87

  88

  —

  Reading

  84

  84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Writing

  82

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Speaking and listening

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TA = teacher assessment.

  Test = national test.

  Table 2: Percentage of 11-year-old pupil Curriculum level 4 and above achieving Native, 1996

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Key stage 2

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  60

  57

  60

  54

  65

  62

  GM schools

  64

  63

  64

  60

  69

  68

  TA = teacher assessment.

  Test = national test.

  Table 3: Percentage of 14-year-old pupils achieving National Curriculum level 5 and above, 1996

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Key stage 3

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  60

  56

  61

  56

  59

  55

  GM schools

  68

  65

  69

  65

  68

  65

  TA = teacher assessment.

  Test = national test.

  Table 4: Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving graded GCSE results in 1996

  GCSE passes

  5A+-C

  5A+-G

  1+A-G

  4A: all schools

  LEA schools

  40.6

  87.1

  93.4

  GM schools

  50.1

  91.1

  95.3

  4B: comprehensive schools only

  LEA comprehensives

  40.0

  87.0

  93.3

  GM comprehensives

  46.4

  91.1

  95.6

  Football Pools Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the change in the number of jobs in the football pools industry in(a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside since the national lottery was established; and if she will make a statement. [20769]
  530
  Mr. Paice
  The Government are aware that some jobs are being lost in the football pools industry on Merseyside. We naturally regret job losses in any sector of the economy. While jobs will inevitably disappear as markets change in a successful and vibrant economy they will be replaced by new jobs providing new products and services. On balance, over 900,000 extra jobs have been created in Britain over the last four years, and unemployment on Merseyside has fallen by nearly 30,000. A wide range of employment and training measures is available to help those who lose their jobs take advantage of the employment growth currently taking place in the UK.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19382]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Seven charters and 25 charter standard statements have been published by Government Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland. The table gives details of the cost of publication and circulation of the charters and charter statements and the number issued in each case. Individual public service organisations are responsible for producing and distributing their own charters for those who use their services. The table shows costs of production and distribution in so far as they are available centrally.

  The drafting of charters and charter standard statements is generally carried out as an integral part of the work of the services concerned and therefore the cost of drafting is not available.

  Northern Ireland charters and charter standard statements

  Charter/charter standard statement

  Costs of publication and circulation(£)

  Number of copies issued

  Charters

  Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter

  34,200

  3,500

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland: "Our Service Standards"

  22,776

  34,000

  Parents Charter

  114,000

  347,000

  Further Education

  29,500

  31,000

  Patients and Clients Charter

  87,110

  18,000

  Social Security Agency

  6,885

  16,000

  Child Support Agency

  4,135

  3,700

  Charter statement

  Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Unit

  1,161

  11.000

  Rivers Agency

  3,300

  1,100

  Training and Employment Agency

  43,968

  60,000

  Redundancy Service

  2,800

  13,000

  Trading Standards Branch

  3,838

  1,370

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  3,200

  200

  Government Purchasing Agency

  1,933

  9,500

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1,485

  4,000

  Statistics and Research Agency

  2,220

  410

  Community Services

  36,132

  100,000

  Maternity Services

  14,041

  100,000

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI)

  2,930

  2,750

  Public Record Office (NI)

  875

  630

  Planning Service

  8,000

  1,500

  Rate Collection Agency

  4,443

  4,700

  Construction Service

  1,130

  1,400

  531

  Northern Ireland charters and charter standard statements

  Charter/charter standard statement

  Costs of publication and circulation(£)

  Number of copies issued

  Roads Service

  7,543

  7,800

  Water Service

  8,440

  7,000

  Land Registry of Northern Ireland

  8,000

  1,500

  Environmental and Heritage Service

  10,000

  6,800

  Belfast Action Teams

  8,245

  5,000

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1,800

  5,000

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  4,810

  8,500

  Prison Visitors

  8,500

  Compensation Agency

  2,000

  1,400

  Ceasefire
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what savings to public funds he estimates occurred as a result of the IRA ceasefire; and if he will indicate where these sums were spent, breaking the figures down by heading. [19363]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Following the provisional IRA and loyalist ceasefires, the 1994 Northern Ireland public expenditure survey identified some £180 million over the period 1995–96 to 1997–98 which could be prudently reallocated from the plans for the law and order budget. The 1995 survey identified a further £106 million which could be reallocated from the Police Authority for Northern Ireland grant over the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. In addition to the survey changes, it was possible to release a further £12 million and £13 million during 1994–95 and 1995–96 respectively, largely from the PANI grant.

  Resources reallocated from law and order, together with other easements internal to the Northern Ireland block, are included in an undifferentiated pool of resources available for reallocation within the block. Moreover, the pool of resources is also affected by external changes driven by national fiscal policy—that is, the Northern Ireland totals were reduced in the 1994 survey and increased in the 1995 survey. Consequently, while it is not possible to identify allocations to individual programmes as coining specifically from law and order, it is a fact that the totals allocated to Northern Ireland programmes, other than those from which the law and order savings were withdrawn, were enhanced by the value of those savings.

  As a result of the breakdown of the PIRA ceasefire in February 1996, and of major public order problems, some £36 million had to be reallocated back into the PANI grant

  Total properties

  Increases

  Decreases

  Above 25 per cent. below 50 per cent.

  Above 50 per cent. below 75 per cent.

  Above 75 per cent. below 100 per cent.

  Above 100 per cent.

  Antrim

  1,458

  187

  116

  70

  123

  606

  Ards

  2,514

  410

  341

  125

  219

  952

  Armagh

  2,291

  390

  203

  92

  99

  840

  Ballymena

  2,321

  248

  71

  38

  81

  1,224

  Ballymoney

  1,053

  88

  30

  12

  27

  609

  Banbridge

  1,623

  175

  93

  58

  129

  831

  Belfast

  15,639

  2,130

  1,512

  945

  2,347

  5,141

  Carrick

  1,050

  78

  37

  23

  58

  721

  Castlereagh

  1,157

  198

  165

  69

  113

  407

  Coleraine

  2,483

  288

  131

  61

  86

  1,411

  Cook stown

  1,518

  309

  213

  89

  101

  519

  Craigavon

  3,062

  590

  387

  142

  113

  1,069

  Down

  2,349

  382

  209

  105

  173

  994

  532
  and compensation for 1996–97 and a further £120 million added back in the 1996 survey, covering the plans for the period 1997–98 to 1998–00.

  Harryville Chapel Protest
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers have been injured while policing the protest at Harryville chapel.[19830]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Ten police officers have been injured while policing the protests at Harryville.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers have been deployed at the Harryville chapel protest over the past 26 weekends. [19832]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The average number of police officers deployed at Harryville chapel at weekends since Saturday 14 September 1996 is 180.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people(a) from and (b) from outside the Ballymena area have been arrested or cautioned over incidents related to the protest at Harryville chapel. [19831]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Twenty persons from the Ballymena area have been arrested in relation to incidents at Harryville chapel. One arrest has been made from outside Ballymena sub-division.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the policing operation at Harryville chapel in Ballymena for the past 26 weekends. [19829]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of the policing operation at Harryville chapel from Saturday 14 September 1996 to Saturday 1 March 1997 has been calculated at £984,000, including all police manpower and associated costs.

  Rate Bills
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many establishments in each council area in Northern Ireland will have their rate bill increased by more than(a) 25 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 75 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent., and how many will have their bill reduced in the 1997–98 financial year as a result of the recent rates revaluation. [20317]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The table provides the information requested:
  533

  Total properties

  Increases

  Decreases

  Above 25 per cent. below 50 per cent.

  Above 50 per cent. below 75 per cent.

  Above 75 per cent. below 100 per cent.

  Above 100 per cent.

  Dungannon

  2,325

  377

  291

  159

  202

  807

  Fermanagh

  2,745

  497

  383

  174

  196

  959

  Larne

  1,207

  99

  41

  23

  53

  803

  Limavady

  982

  168

  106

  29

  47

  442

  Lisburn

  3,020

  290

  160

  97

  279

  1,562

  Derry

  3,293

  396

  193

  64

  177

  1,786

  Magherafelt

  1,646

  302

  184

  74

  110

  670

  Moyle

  782

  57

  16

  13

  34

  518

  Newry and Mourne

  3,433

  485

  219

  98

  177

  1,641

  Newtownabbey

  2,207

  272

  101

  38

  155

  1,127

  North Down

  2,251

  460

  180

  139

  260

  396

  Omagh

  2,017

  387

  290

  143

  130

  682

  Strabane

  1,419

  250

  195

  64

  105

  534

  Totals

  65,845

  9,513

  5,867

  2,944

  5,594

  27,251

  The figures for increases above 25 per cent., 50 per cent., 75 per cent. and 100 per cent., 23,918 properties in total, include those who will benefit from the transitional relief scheme announced in February. Approximately 19,000, 79 per cent. of the 23,918, will qualify for relief having NAV £10,000 or less.

  Department of Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the budgeted capital expenditure at DENI headquarters, Bangor, for the last financial year; what is the figure for the present financial year; and what estimate he has made for the next financial year. [20353]

  Mr. Moss
  The budgeted capital expenditure for the three years is as follows:

  1995–96: £0.075 million

  1996–97: £2 million

  1997–98: £2.4 million

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparations his Department is making for the UN General Assembly special session to review progress since the Rio earth summit of 1992, and for the preparatory committees leading up to the summit; and what consultations he has undertaken. [19139]

  Mr. Moss
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is taking the lead within Government on the preparations for the UN General Assembly special session in June to review progress since the Rio earth summit of 1992.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on Wednesday 5 March 1997 to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), Official Report, column 634.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19771]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All the Bills sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office in the last 15 years have been passed by Parliament. The details are as follows:

  1982

  The Northern Ireland Act

  1985

  The Elections (Northern Ireland) Act

  The Northern Ireland (Loans) Act

  534

  1987

  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

  1989

  The Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act

  The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act

  1991

  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

  1Social Security Contributions Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act

  1Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act

  1Social Security (Consequential provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act

  1995

  Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act

  1996

  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

  The Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act

  1Statute Law Revision or Consolidation Act

  Ulster Hospital (Union Flag)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a Union Flag has been provided to the Ulster hospital, Dundonald; if the Ulster hospital has been provided with the dates for flying the Union flag; if the Union flag was flown at this hospital on Commonwealth day; if the person responsible for flying the Union flag at the Ulster hospital is prepared to carry out this duty; and if he will make a statement. [20506]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The Ulster, North Down and Ards hospital health and social services trust has confirmed that it owns a Union flag and that it was flying on 6 February 1997, Commonwealth Day. However, the trust has advised that the flag was wrapped round the flag pole and had to be unwrapped by a member of staff once the wind died down. The schedule of the dates for flying the Union flag has been advised to staff and the person responsible for carrying out this duty has no difficulty in fulfilling same. However, there is no requirement for the trusts to fly the Union flag on these dates, and it is at the discretion of each organisation whether the flag should be flown on those buildings occupied by its staff.
  535

WALES

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19387]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is shown in the following table. Expenditure on drafting cannot be identified separately.

  A Charter

  B cost of publishing (£)

  C cost of distribution(£)

  D Number of copies issued

  Parents charter for Wales

  1st Edition 1991

  150,076

  Included in B

  60,000

  2nd Edition 1993

  73,943

  Included in B

  250,000

  3rd Edition 1994

  138,595

  100,402

  1,252,000

  Patients charter for Wales

  1st Edition 1991

  250,000

  100,000

  Over 1 million

  2nd Edition 1994

  43,793

  Included in B

  150,000

  3rd Edition 1996

  33,993

  7,978

  160,000

  Further Education charter for Wales

  1993

  41,354

  1,175

  40,000

  Higher education charter for Wales

  1993

  40,362

  1,175

  35,000

  Tenants charter for Wales

  1992

  175,987

  Included in B

  250,000

  Heritage charter Statement

  1994

  14,000

  No added costs incurred

  100,000

  A Charter standard for farmers in Wales

  1995

  15,391

  Included in B

  7,400

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people he has appointed to non-departmental public bodies in Wales. [20284]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 November 1996,Official Report, column 439.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of money paid to members of non-departmental public bodies in Wales for their service as members of organisations in the last year for which figures are available. [20282]
  536
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1995–96. The information requested is contained in "Public Bodies" 1996, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Upland Species and Habitats
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what targets the Government have endorsed in the UK biodiversity steering group report for the conservation of certain upland species and habitats. [20171]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Government's Response to the UK Steering Group Report on Biodiversity", published in May 1996 (Cm 3260).

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 91, on overgrazing, how many cases of overgrazing ADAS is currently investigating in Wales; when the investigations are expected to be completed; and if the results will be made public. [20210]

  Mr. Hague
  At my Department's request, ADAS is carrying out work in relation to the overgrazing and supplementary feeding conditions which attach to the payment of livestock production subsidies at 12 locations in Wales.

  I have no plans to publish any reports which ADAS produce. Some reports will be made available to graziers and landowners affected as the basis for discussion where my Department believes it has demonstrated that livestock are grazing land in such numbers as to adversely affect the growth, quality or species composition of vegetation—other than vegetation normally grazed to destruction—on that land to a significant degree.

  ADAS work currently under way will result in reports to my department during 1997.

  Lamb and Beef Exports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the value of(a) lamb and (b) beef exported from Wales in (i) 1985 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [20285]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Exports from Wales are not separately recorded.

  NHS Trusts (Expenses and Rewards)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of cash paid to members of NHS trusts as(a) expenses and (b) rewards for service in the last year for which figures are available. [20283]
  537
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  NHS trusts board members' costs for 1995–96 are as follows:

  £000

  Non-executive directors' remuneration

  1,067

  Executive directors' remuneration:

  basic salaries

  6,703

  benefits

  362

  performance related bonuses

  204

  pension contributions

  278

  Compensation for loss of office

  66

  Other board members' costs1

  329

  9,009

  Note:

  1Includes: recharges to any other health body; employers, NI contributions; reimbursement of "out-of-pocket" expenses; and reimbursement of travelling and other allowances, including home to work travel costs.

  Source:

  NHS trust's annual accounts.

  Mandatory exceptions

  Discretionary exceptions outside the PSB

  Discretionary exceptions within the PSB

  Aggregated schools budget

  Local authority

  Average sum per pupil (£)

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil (£)

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil (£)

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil (£)

  Percentage of the GSB

  Blaenau Gwent

  144

  6.1

  235

  9.95

  178

  7.5

  1,806

  76.4

  Bridgend

  148

  6.2

  241

  10.1

  189

  7.9

  1,804

  75.7

  Caerphilly

  99

  4.3

  243

  10.5

  196

  8.5

  1,770

  76.7

  Cardiff

  386

  16.0

  149

  6.2

  187

  7.8

  1,692

  70.0

  Carmarthenshire

  350

  12.7

  266

  9.7

  194

  7.1

  1,935

  70.5

  Ceredigion

  264

  9.3

  313

  11.0

  226

  7.9

  2,041

  71.8

  Conwy

  408

  15.4

  254

  9.6

  191

  7.2

  1,794

  67.8

  Denbighshire

  262

  10.95

  183

  7.7

  189

  7.9

  1,754

  73.45

  Flintshire

  360

  14.6

  213

  8.6

  188

  7.6

  1,712

  69.2

  Gwynedd

  181

  6.8

  284

  10.7

  219

  8.2

  1,977

  74.3

  Isle of Anglesey

  166

  6.5

  263

  10.35

  208

  8.2

  1,904

  74.9

  Merthyr Tydfil

  209

  8.45

  221

  8.95

  203

  8.2

  1,837

  74.4

  Monmouthshire

  168

  6.7

  274

  11.0

  201

  8.1

  1.847

  74.2

  Neath Port

  Talbot

  272

  10.4

  191

  7.3

  171

  6.6

  1,969

  75.6

  Newport

  272

  11.4

  211

  8.9

  174

  7.3

  1,718

  72.3

  Pembrokeshire

  256

  9.5

  268

  9.9

  216

  8.0

  1.958

  72.6

  Powys

  338

  11.8

  372

  13.0

  186

  6.5

  1,968

  68.7

  Rhondda

  Cynon Taff

  239

  9.4

  281

  11.1

  176

  6.9

  1,841

  72.55

  Swansea

  123

  5.4

  150

  6.6

  161

  7.1

  1,847

  81.0

  Tarfaen

  111

  5.0

  195

  8.7

  180

  8.0

  1,743

  78.2

  Vale of Glamorgan

  287

  12.4

  199

  8.6

  128

  5.55

  1,699

  73.4

  Wrexham

  125

  5.7

  201

  9.1

  176

  8.0

  1,704

  77.2

  Source:

  Section 122 (formerly section 42) LEA budget statements for 1996–97 (where available audited figures have been used) and the 1996 school census pupil numbers.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19777]

  Mr. Hague
  Eight Bills have been sponsored by my Department in the last 15 years; Seven have so far been passed by Parliament, as follows: one in 1983, one in 1988, one in 1990, one in 1991, two in 1993, one in 1994.
  538

  Schools Budgets
  Mr. Sweeny
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is(a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget allotted by each local education authority int he current financial year for discretionary exceptions outside the potential schools budget and which is (i) delegated and (ii) not delegated to schools; [20564]

  (2) what is (a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget, allotted by each local education authority in the current financial year for (i) mandatory exception from delegation, (ii) discretionary exceptions outside the potential from delegation, (ii) discretionary exceptions outside the potential schools budget, (iii) discretionary exceptions within the potential schools budget and (iv) the aggregate schools budget. [20563]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is as follows:

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much rate support grant the Welsh Office(a) provided to the Vale of Glamorgan in 1996–97 and (b) plans to provide in 1997–98. [20527]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The rate support grant system was replaced in 1990–91 by one that provides central Government support to local authority revenue expenditure by way of revenue support grant and
  539
  redistributed non-domestic rates. The allocations in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan for the years requested are given in the following table:

  Central Government support for the Vale of Glamorgan county borough council

  £ thousand

  Revenue support grant

  Share of redistributed non-domestic rates

  Total support

  1996–97

  62,358

  16,300

  78,658

  1997–98

  59,798

  20,543

  80,341

  Premature retirement costs

  School transport

  Statement etc.

  School meals net of income

  Local authority

  Average sum per pupil

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil

  Percentage of the GSB

  Average sum per pupil

  Percentage of the GSB

  Blaenau Gwent

  40

  1.7

  42

  1.8

  27

  1.1

  91

  3.8

  Bridgend

  13

  0.5

  71

  3

  37

  1.5

  96

  4

  Caerphilly

  21

  0.9

  79

  3.4

  61

  2.7

  75

  3.3

  Cardiff

  18

  0.7

  27

  1.1

  80

  3.3

  64

  2.6

  Carmarthenshire

  14

  0.5

  97

  3.5

  106

  3.8

  99

  3.6

  Ceredigion

  15

  0.5

  155

  5.5

  96

  3.4

  91

  3.2

  Conwy

  28

  1

  108

  4.1

  41

  1.5

  53

  2

  Denbighshire

  39

  1.6

  85

  3.6

  17

  0.7

  38

  1.6

  Flintshire

  36

  1.5

  98

  4

  39

  1.6

  44

  1.8

  Gwynedd

  29

  1.1

  103

  3.9

  85

  3.2

  86

  3.2

  Isle of Anglesey

  22

  0.9

  99

  3.9

  75

  2.9

  65

  2.5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  11

  0.4

  59

  2.4

  35

  1.4

  105

  4.3

  Monmouthshire

  32

  1.3

  132

  5.3

  32

  1.3

  69

  2.8

  Neath Port

  Talbot

  27

  1

  80

  3.1

  17

  0.7

  32

  1.2

  Newport

  33

  1.4

  51

  2.2

  23

  1

  78

  3.3

  Pembrokeshire

  13

  0.5

  126

  4.7

  69

  2.6

  96

  3.6

  Powys

  17

  0.6

  182

  6.4

  77

  2.7

  62

  2.2

  Rhondda

  Cynon Taff

  13

  0.5

  97

  3.8

  20

  0.8

  115

  4.5

  Swansea

  25

  1.1

  48

  2.1

  24

  1

  39

  1.7

  Torfaen

  32

  1.4

  49

  2.2

  17

  0.8

  76

  3.4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  16

  0.7

  65

  2.8

  73

  3.2

  54

  2.3

  Wrexham

  38

  1.7

  110

  5

  18

  0.8

  41

  1.8

  Source:

  Section 122 (formerly section 42) LEA budget statements for 1996–97 (where available audited figures have been used) and the 1996 school census pupil numbers.

  A487 (Bypass)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the earliest possible commencement date for the construction of the bypass for Llanllyfni, Penygroes and Groeslon on the A487 in Gwynedd. [20744]

  Mr. Hague
  All major schemes—those costing over £3 million—in the forward trunk road programme have been reviewed in the light of the spending priorities I announced in the House of Commons on 12 December 1996, columns 405–19, on public expenditure in Wales in 1997–98. The competing priorities of individual schemes have been reassessed given the limited resources available. Details of the revised forward trunk road programme will be published on 20 March in the Welsh Office's departmental report. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Therapy Services
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) treatment units, (b) professional staff and
  540
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget allotted by each local education authority in the current financial year for (i) money allocated to schools via age-weighted pupil units, (ii) premature retirement compensation, (iii) school transport, (iv) statementing and support for statemented pupils and (v) school meals, net of income. [20513]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Local education authorities must allocate at least 80 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget on the basis of pupil numbers. To break down the ASB on the basis of age-weighted pupil units could be done only at disproportionate cost. Details of the other elements, of all of which are retained centrally by the local authority are as follows:

  (c) financial resources are being made available to provide physiotherapy treatment, occupational therapy and physical rehabilitation for patients in south-east Wales from March 1997 to 1 January 2000. [20548]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Detailed informed on services is not held centrally. It is primarily the responsibility of Bro Taf and Gwent health authorities to purchase services and for the relevant trusts to provide appropriate numbers of staff and the facilities to deliver them.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of patients awaiting(a) physiotherapy treatment, (b) occupational therapy and (c) physical rehabilitation in the borough counties of Rhondda Cynon Taff, Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Ogwr, Aberavon Neath, Merthr Tydfil, Powys, Swansea, Caerphilly, Newport, Torfaen and Monmouth; and what was the total number of patients awaiting such treatment in 1995 and 1996. [20549]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  541
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the planned(a) capacity and (b) resources for providing physiotherapy treatment, occupational therapy and physical rehabilitation for patients at the new district general hospital at Llantrisant. [20551]

  Mr. Jones
  Detailed planning of facilities is a matter for the East Glamorgan NHS trust.

  Talygarn Treatment Centre
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which organisation owns the Talygarn treatment centre at Pontyclun in south Wales. [20550]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Talygarn rehabilitation centre is owned by the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were referred to, and treated at, the Talygarn treatment centre in 1995 and 1996; how many are currently being treated; and how many are proposed to be treated in 1997, 1998 and 1999. [20552]

  Mr. Jones
  In the financial year 1995–96, 417 new patients were reported as attending the Taylgarn treatment centre. Information on the number of referrals is not centrally available. Proposed levels of activity are a matter for the East Glamorgan NHS trust in contract negotiations with Bro Taf health authority and GP fundholders.

TREASURY

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 35, if he will list the main differences between the main Peat Marwick consultancy cost-benefit analysis study on the Cardiff bay barrage presented to his Department in November 1987 and the second version presented in mid 1988. [16994]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The economic evaluation report on a Cardiff bay barrage received in June 1988 was a revision of the one presented in November 1987. A valid detailed comparison cannot be made except at disproportionate cost. However, the revised study took account of the completion, by the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, of a regeneration strategy for the bay and the choice of a single barrage option. These led to significant changes in the assumptions made in the first study, including increases in infrastructure costs and land disposal values. The net present value of the barrage option remained positive. The estimated betterment figure of £227 million remained as in the original 1987 study.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as part of the programme for a common system of VAT, he will agree to changing the status of the EC VAT Committee from an advisory committee to a regulatory committee with powers of implementation. [20075]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government support limited reform of the VAT Committee with a view to improving its operation, but would oppose a change in its status to 542
  that of a regulatory Committee. The Government believe that unanimity in the Council should remain the basis for EC decisions on VAT matters.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the steps taken in ECOFIN(a) to change the status of the EU VAT and Tax Committee following the Verona summit decision and (b) to create the provisional timetable for the European Commission's proposal for a common VAT system for member states. [20157]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  ECOFIN has taken no steps to change the status of the VAT Committee which was established by the sixth VAT directive in 1977. The informal Verona ECOFIN of April 1996 did, however, establish a new high-level working group on tax.

  The European Commission's suggested programme for a "common system" for VAT to apply throughout the Community was presented to ECOFIN in October 1996, on a "take note" basis with no debate or discussion. There has been no other discussion or debate at ECOFIN about the suggested programme or its timetable.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the VAT and Tax Committee established by ECOFIN has completed the draft code of conduct on VAT harmonisation. [20158]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Verona informal ECOFIN of April 1996 established the high-level group on tax—the Monti group—to examine member states' tax systems and to consider issues of fiscal erosion. Monti recommended in a personal report to the Dublin European Council that the high-level group be continued in the form of a taxation policy group. This report was submitted to Parliament with an explanatory memorandum. The Dublin Council agreed to the continuation of the group and the taxation policy group met for the first time on 11 March 1997. The question of a code of conduct on unfair tax competition was raised but there are no proposals on the table. There is no code of conduct on VAT harmonisation.

  Inland Revenue (Standard Letters)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of issuing a standard letter by the Inland Revenue requesting payment of a tax underpayment. [20314]

  Mr. Jack
  The individual cost of issuing a standard letter is not calculated, but it will vary according to the type of letter and method of issue.

  Century Date Change (Computers)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce measures to ease the financial burden of millennium compliance of computer systems for companies. [20162]

  Mr. Jack
  As far as taxation is concerned, the position is that companies will normally be able to deduct the cost of making amendments to their existing software in computing their taxable profits. Capital expenditure on purchases of new software to deal with the millennium will normally qualify for capital allowances. Thus, I see no need for any special tax measures.
  543

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average wage for(a) men and (b) women. [20213]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. John Battle, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question about current average wages for men and women. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  The latest information, from the April 1996 New Earnings Survey, is shown below. I will also arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adultrates, whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence

  At April 1996

  £

  All males

  391.30

  All females

  283.00

  Tax Underpayment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the minimum sum of tax underpayment for which the revenue will issue a letter requesting payment. [20315]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue will generally issue a letter for payment where the circumstances of the case make it cost-effective to do so.

  Abortions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have been performed on girls under the age of 16 years (i) at Kettering general hospital and (ii) nationally in each year since 1987; and in each case what that figure was as a percentage of abortions performed(a) at the hospital and (b) nationally. [20207]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. William Powell, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on how many abortions have been performed on girls under the age of 16 years (i) at Kettering General Hospital and (ii) nationally in each year since 1987; and in each case what was that figure as a percentage of abortions performed (a) at the hospital and (b) nationally. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  544
  For confidentiality reasons, abortion data are not released for individual hospitals. Figures for legal abortions performed on resident and non-resident girls aged under 16 in England and Wales for the years 1987–1995 are presented below:

  Year

  Number of abortions on girls under 16

  As a percentage of total abortions on women of all ages

  1987

  4,075

  2.3

  1988

  3,804

  2.1

  1989

  3,576

  1.9

  1990

  3,622

  1.9

  1991

  3,317

  1.8

  1992

  3,167

  1.8

  1993

  3,269

  1.9

  1994

  3,399

  2.0

  1995

  3,401

  2.1

  Source:

  Abortion statistics 1987–1995, England and Wales, series AB numbers 14–21, 96/5.

  Live Births
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number of live births in each of the last three years. [20860]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question asking for the number of live births that occurred in England and Wales in each of the last three years for which data are available.
  The figures requested are shown in the table below.

  Live births in England and Wales

  Year

  Live birth

  1995

  648,138

  1994

  664,726

  1993

  673,467

  These figures are published in the annual reference volume "Birth Statistics" Series FM1, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  EU Countries (Income)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries of the European Union in rank order of income per head, using the latest available figures. [19277]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Edwina Currie, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on income per head in the EU.

  545
  The latest figures for GDP per head relate to 1996 and are based on projections made by the OECD using the relative rates of inflation between OECD countries and the USA as measured by their implicit price deflators for GDP. These projections are published in the February 1997 edition of the OECD publication Main Economic Indicators a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Too much emphasis should not be placed on the rankings when as in the case of income per head, countries are bunched closely together.

  Michael Allcock Case
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public interest immunity certificates were issued in the case of Inland Revenue v. Michael Allcock. [18855]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: No certificates or affidavits claiming public interest immunity were issued in this case, which was a criminal prosecution conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service and not by the Inland Revenue.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the levels of overseas investment in (1) the United Kingdom, (2) France and (3) Germany from (i) other EU members and (ii) countries outside the EU for the years 1979 to 1996,(a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage change on the previous year and (c) as a real figure calculated on 1996 values; [20098]

  (2) what were the levels of direct foreign investment in the United Kingdom from (i) the United States and (ii) Canada in each year from 1979 to 1996. [20099]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: Figures for the levels of foreign direct investment of each OECD country, by region and by country of origin, can be found in the OECD International Direct Investment Yearbook which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss the implementation of landfill tax exemptions for waste from contaminated sites; and if he will make a statement. [20320]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: I have no such plans. Officials of HM Customs and Excise will meet representatives of the Building Employers Confederation on 20 March, and will give a full report of their meeting to Treasury Ministers.

  Nomura Securities
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possible impact of the current circumstances of Nomura Securities on United Kingdom companies in which it has an interest; and if he will make a statement. [20438]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: It is for the companies concerned to consider the situation and take such steps as they consider appropriate in their own commercial interests.
  546

  Investment Income (Tax)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average amount of income tax paid on investment income by(a) pensioner and (b) non-pensioner households with annual investment income of (i) less than £50, (ii) £50 to £99, (iii) £100 to £499 and (iv) over £500 for the most recent year for which information is available. [20555]

  Mr. Jack
  Reliable information on the investment income of households is not available. Information on individual taxpayers' investment income was given in my answer to the hon. Member on 18 February 1997—Official Report, columns 441–42.

  Abortion and Maternal Deaths
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many surgical terminations of pregnancy there were in each of the last 15 months for which figures are available; and how many maternal deaths there were in each month. [20150]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on how many surgical terminations of pregnancy were performed in each of the last 15 months for which figures are available, and how many maternal deaths there were in each month. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  The monthly number of surgical terminations of pregnancy performed on women residents and non-residents of England and Wales in the last 15 months for which data are available, namely April 1995-June 1996, are as follows:

  Number of surgical terminations

  1995

  April

  12,150

  May

  13,479

  June

  14,358

  July

  13,880

  August

  13,971

  September

  13,484

  October

  13,503

  November

  13,448

  December

  12,368

  1996

  January

  14,558

  February

  15,360

  March

  15,494

  April

  14,549

  May

  15,793

  June

  14,809

  There were no maternal deaths recorded over the 15 month period.

  Dependent Children
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of families with dependent children which are(a) married couples and (b) cohabiting couples in the category of families with dependent children designated as married/cohabiting couple family type for 1995 in table A4 of "Living In Britain". [20374]
  547
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Julian Calder to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question about the percentage of families with dependent children which are either married couples or cohabiting couples. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  The following table, taken from the 1995 General Household Survey, provides this information.

  Family type and marital status of lone mothers: families with dependent children, Great Britain 1995

  Number

  Per cent.

  Married couple

  2,153

  71

  Cohabiting couple

  207

  7

  Lone mother

  610

  20

  single

  237

  8

  widowed

  30

  1

  divorced

  207

  7

  separated

  136

  5

  Lone father

  52

  2

  All lone families

  662

  22

  Base

  3,022

  Heads of Households
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he
  will list the percentage of households headed by a person who is(a) married, (b) co-habiting, (c) single, (d) widowed, (e) divorced, (f) separated and (g) co-habiting with someone of the same sex.[20375]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Julian Colder to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on the marital status of the heads of households. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  The following table, derived from the 1995 General Household Survey, gives the information requested.

  Marital status of head of household

  Frequency (per cent.)

  Married

  54

  Cohabiting

  6

  Single

  14

  Widowed

  14

  Divorced

  8

  Separated

  3

  Same-sex cohabiting

  1—

  1 Estimated at 0.1 per cent.

  548

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the advisory cost limit for replies to parliamentary questions; when it was last increased; and if he will make a statement.[19354]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The advisory cost limit for replies to Parliamentary questions is £450. It was last increased in 1993—Official Report, 18 February 1993, column 307.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time that currently unemployed men aged(a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59 and (c) 60 to 64 years have remained unemployed. [19249]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the average length of time that currently unemployed men, by varying age groups, have remained unemployed.
  The information you requested is given in the table below of median durations of spells of unemployment which were uncompleted in January 1997. Figures are not available for the 60–64 age band, and those for 60 and over are shown instead.

  Median durations of male claimant unemployment in the UK in January 1997

  Age

  Median duration of unemployment (weeks)

  50–54

  46.6

  55–59

  56.4

  60 and over

  20.3

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) men and women
  aged (i) 16 and 17 years, (ii) 18 and 19 years, (iii) 20 to 24 years and (iv) over 24 years have never had a paid job since leaving school.[19586]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people, broken down by age and sex, have not had a paid job since leaving school.
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey are shown in the attached table.
  To help put the information into context I have provided an additional table which shows the total broken down by educational and economic status. For example, you can see that of the total of 1,675,000 nearly 80 per cent (1,329,000) were economically

  549
  inactive, that is they had not looked for work in the past four weeks or were not available to start work in the next two weeks or were not waiting to start a job they had already obtained.
  These breakdowns are probably very seasonal especially for the younger age groups.

  People who have not had a paid job since leaving school by age and sex

  Great Britain, summer 1996

  thousands

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1,675

  624

  1,051

  16–17

  308

  170

  138

  18–19

  267

  130

  137

  20–24

  431

  205

  227

  25+

  669

  120

  549

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey.

  People who have not had a job since leaving school by educational and economic status

  Great Britain, summer 1996

  thousands

  Not seasonally adjusted

  All

  (of which:)

  Full-time student (not at school)

  Not full-time student

  All (of which:)

  1,675

  438

  1,237

  ILO unemployed

  346

  68

  279

  Economically inactive

  1,329

  371

  958

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the general Government's expenditure per head in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [19552]

  Mr. Wldegrave
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: In 1994–95, identifiable expenditure per head was £4,505 in Scotland and £3,760 on average for the United Kingdom, as given in table 7.6B of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1996–97 (Cm 3201).

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 389, if he will list those categories of data collected by the Office of National Statistics which are based on postcode areas. [19629]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent Question on categories of data collected by the ONS which are based on postcode areas.
  550
  All data collected by ONS use post code reference systems where representative geographical samples are necessary and for the purposes of any geographical analysis. However local area data can only be provided to the extent that they are of sufficient quality and do not breach confidentiality obligations.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the future annual totals of MRSA deaths in England if present trends continue. [20028]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question asking what is his current estimate of the future totals of MRSA deaths in England if present trends continue. In his absence, the Director has asked me to reply.
  Staphylococcus aureus is one of the more common causes of severe invasive bacterial disease in England and Wales. Each year the Public Health Laboratory Services' Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre receives at least 7,000 reports of blood stream infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Methicillin resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus account for a minority of these reports (less than 25% in 1996).
  There is no specific code for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) within the international classification used for recording deaths in this country. Deaths resulting from such infections will be counted within the total number of deaths from all forms of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Statistical data on deaths from MRSA are not, therefore, available.
  Mention of antibiotic resistance might be made on death certificates of patients whose death is due to Staphylococcus aureus infection, and such information could be ascertained by searching the text from death certificates. However, such data are likely to be liable to bias, as the probability that methicillin resistance is mentioned on a death certificate is likely to change with the perception of the public health importance of the condition. Registration data on deaths from Staphylococcus aureus infection are not suitable, therefore, for making reliable estimates of future trends in mortality from this condition.

  Unemployment-related Benefits
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) men and women have made (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three or more claims for unemployment-related benefits in (1) Great Britain, (2) each standard region of England, (3) Wales and (4) Scotland for each major group of the standard occupational classification since January 1995. [19584]:

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 18 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people have experienced at least one, two and three or more spells of claimant unemployment since January 1995, broken down by sex, region, and by major occupational group.

  551
  I have attached tables of the information requested, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  Please note that for claimants who have had more than one spell of claimant unemployment since 1 January 1995, the information from their most recent claim has been used to determine the claimant's region and usual occupation.

SCOTLAND

  Land Purchases (Grants)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each grant which has been made to a voluntary body for the purchase of land by Scottish Natural Heritage since its inception to the latest available date, naming the area of land and the cost involved. [20015]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Applicant

  Sites

  Hectares

  Grant (£)

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Eastfield, West Lothian

  18.3

  14,615

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Back of Moss, West Lothian

  33.5

  85,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Easter Breich, West Lothian

  33.00

  75,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Roughcastle, Falkirk District Lothian

  32.00

  12,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Swinabbey, West Lothian

  12.00

  15,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Wester Moffat, Monklands

  6.00

  3,900

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Chapelhall, Monklands

  5.1

  5,400

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Longriggend Farm

  67.6

  70,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Easter Dunsyston

  42.7

  52,000

  Crinan Harbour Association

  Land purchase at Crinan Harbour

  unknown

  536

  James Rice Memorial Trust

  Shillay, Sound of

  54.90

  8,000

  John Muir Trust

  Oldshoremore & Sandwood Estates

  4,400.00

  28,000

  John Muir Trust

  Torrin Estate

  2,024.29

  40,000

  Kilmuir Village Woodland Association

  Kilmuir Wood

  12.00

  500

  Lochielside Crofters Woodland Trust Ltd.

  Camasnagaul & Achaphubuil

  30.77

  7,957

  National Trust for Woodland Trust Ltd

  Blackpotts Farm— St. Abbs Head

  50.00

  41,000

  National Trust for Scotland

  Kiltyrie Farm—Ben Lawer

  82.00

  50,000

  National Trust for Scotland

  Morenish Estate— Ben Lawers

  1,303.00

  20,000

  National Trust for Scotiand

  Glencoe, visitors centre/campsite

  17.81

  178,750

  National Trust for Scotland

  An Torr Wood, Glencoe

  18.00

  24,607

  National Trust for Scotland

  Corrieshalloch

  12.00

  13,000

  North Assynt Crofters Trust

  North Assynt Estate

  21,000.00

  20,000

  Royal Society for the protection of Birds

  Purchase of Mersehead Farm

  —

  63,000

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Insh Marshes

  —

  63,000

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Mosstown Farm, Loch of Strathbeg

  —

  20,000

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Fannyside Mill Farm—Lanark

  154.00

  15,000

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Rossie Braes and Salty Dyke— Montrose Basin

  4.4

  4,452

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Halls Farm, Woodhall Dean— East Lothian

  24.00

  5,000

  552

  Applicant

  Sites

  Hectares

  Grant (£)

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Purchase of Dullatar Marsh

  41.7

  5,539.75

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Purchase of Carsegowan Moss

  49.9

  5,833.50

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Purchase of South Shian Wood

  21.7

  8,235

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Purchase of Blackcraig Wood

  17.00

  6,900

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Gight Wood

  —

  2,800

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Eastbister Farm, Hill of White Hamars Reserve

  —

  7,800

  Wigtown Bay Wildfowlers Club

  Purchase of Maidland Merse

  89.5

  35,000

  Woodland Trust

  Backmuir Wood— Dundee

  42.00

  29,333

  Woodland Trust

  Ledmore and Migdale Woods

  710.00

  128,000

  Woodland Trust

  Portmoak Moss— Perth and Kinross

  42.00

  37,975

  Woodland Trust

  Abriachan Woods

  133.60

  7,471

  Woodland Trust

  Urquhart Bay Woods

  0.80

  2,500

  Woodland Trust

  Purchase of Aldouran Glen

  12.00

  8,750

  Local Government Reforms
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums his Department has spent on promoting local government reforms in each of the last three years. [20185]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The amount which the Scottish Office has spent on public information about local government reform in the most recent three financial years is set out in the table:

  Financial year beginning:

  Amount (£)

  1 April 1994

  139,507

  1 April 1995

  997

  1 April 1996

  13,790

  External Consultants
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on external consultants in each year since 1979. [20485]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure over the past five years by the Scottish Office and its associated agencies on external consultants was:

  1991–92: £10,836,000

  1992–93: £4,370,000

  1993–94: £5,383,000

  1994–95: £4,079,000

  1995–96: £5,440,000

  No comparable data are available for the periods prior to 1991.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19768]
  553
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following Scottish Bills were sponsored by my Department during the past 15 years:

  1996–97

  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill

  Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill

  Contract (Scotland) Bill

  Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill

  Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration (Scotland) Bill

  1995–96

  Education (Scotland) Bill

  Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  Deer (Scotland) Bill*

  1994–95

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

  Children (Scotland) Bill

  1993–94

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

  1992–93

  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill

  Crofters (Scotland) Bill*

  Scottish Land Court Bill*

  1991–92

  Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill

  1990–91

  Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill*

  1989–90

  Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

  1988–89

  Transport (Scotland) Bill

  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill

  Prisons (Scotland) Bill*

  1987–88

  Housing (Scotland) Bill

  School Boards (Scotland) Bill

  Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill

  Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

  Scottish Development Agency Bill

  1986–87

  Debtors (Scotland) Bill

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

  Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill

  Animals (Scotland) Bill

  Housing (Scotland) Bill*

  1985–86

  Housing (Scotland) Bill

  Salmon Bill

  Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill

  1984–86

  National Heritage (Scotland) Bill

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

  Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill

  Family Law (Scotland) Bill

  554

  1983–84

  Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill

  Tenants Rights etc. (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill

  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  Roads (Scotland) Bill

  Foster Children (Scotland) Bill*

  Mental Health (Scotland) Bill*

  Rent (Scotland) Bill*

  1982–83

  Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

  Land Valuations Amendment (Scotland) Bill

  Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill

  Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  The 1996–97 Bills have yet to receive Royal Assent. All the other Bills were enacted. The list includes consolidation Bills, which are marked with an asterisk, but excludes private members' Bills. In addition, we have co-sponsored a large number of Great Britain-United Kingdom Bills during this period.

  Health Service Property (Ayrshire and Arran)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the properties formerly used for health service purposes in Ayrshire and Arran, which are currently unoccupied and in the ownership of(a) Ayrshire and Arran health board, (b) the Ayrshire NHS trusts and (c) the Secretary of State; what is the total annual cost involved; what action is being taken to dispose of these proprieties; and if he will make a statement. [20726]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Any such property formally in the ownership of the Secretary of State if accounted for, and managed by, individual health boards and NHS trusts. The information requested is not held centrally.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inward investment projects have been attracted to Scotland in the 11 months to the end of February; what is the value of the planned investment concerned; and how many planned jobs will be created or safeguard thereby. [21155]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In the 11 months to the end of February 1997, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department helped to attract to Scotland a total of 80 inward investment projects. These projects involve planned investment of £3.0 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of 13,679 jobs.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance chief constables in Scotland operate under in relation to electronic surveillance of suspects; and what is his Department's involvement in the process; [14131]
  555
  (2) on how many occasions chief constables in Scotland have authorised electronic surveillance of suspects outside the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 in each of the last five years; [14132]

  (3) what new proposals he has in respect of the powers of chief constables in Scotland to implement electronic surveillance of suspects; in what circumstances electronic surveillance operations are currently permissible. [14135]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1997]: Electronic surveillance of suspects may be authorised by chief constables in Scotland in accordance with non-statutory guidelines on intrusive surveillance issued by the Scottish Office in 1985.

  Under the current guidelines, intrusive surveillance may be authorised only in circumstances where the investigation concerns serious crime, normal methods of investigation have been tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed, and there is good reason to think that the use of equipment would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction or, where appropriate, to the prevention of acts of terrorism.

  Figures for each of the last five years are not available centrally.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the advantages of extending the provisions of part V of the Crime and Punishment Bill (Scotland) to members of the Faculty of Advocates to enhance consumer protection. [19073]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to extend the provisions of part V to members of the Faculty of Advocates. Such a proposal would require consultation with those affected and further detailed consideration in the light of experience of the implementation of these provisions in relation to solicitors.

  Children (Sexual Abuse)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) rape and (b) sexual assault victims were under the age of 16 in each of the last five years. [19123]

  Charter

  Drafting £

  Publishing £

  Distribution £

  Total costs £

  Number issued

  Patients

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  41,729

  33,350

  Parents (1991)

  n/a

  170,782

  24,365

  195,147

  36,000

  (1995 up-date)

  n/a

  77,452

  24,530

  101,982

  75,067

  Tenants

  n/a

  69,000

  n/a

  69,000

  32,000

  Further and higher education

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  144,700

  64,800

  Justice

  n/a

  61,362

  1,700

  63,062

  29,000

  Local environment

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20,600

  n/a

  Serving crofting

  First edition

  n/a

  5,117

  n/a

  5,117

  10,000

  Second edition

  n/a

  4,282

  4,362

  3,000

  Serving farmers

  First edition

  n/a

  5,304

  n/a

  5,304

  4,500

  Second edition

  n/a

  Nil

  n/a

  4,000

  Rent registration service

  1,720

  n/a

  n/a

  1,720

  100

  Scottish Office statistical services

  600

  Nil

  Nil

  600

  n/a

  Scottish Office inquiry reporters unit

  565

  878

  700

  2,143

  3,500

  Scottish Office planning services

  6,000

  3,200

  1,300

  10,500

  6,000

  556
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: Information is not collected centrally on the age of victims in recorded crimes of rape, assault with intent to rape or ravish or indecent assault.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. McFall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the advantages of extending the length of probation orders for those who commit sexual offences to a maximum of five years.[19074]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: No representations have been received proposing such a change. Any views put forward will be considered by the working group tasked with any future review of the national objectives and standards for social work services in the criminal justice system in respect of probation. Any legislative changes recommended by that group would be considered.

  Salmon Strategy Task Force
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement recommendation No. 33 of the report of the Scottish Salmon strategy task force.[20816]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has received a copy of the task force report. This Department will be closely involved in formulating the Government's formal response to the recommendations affecting fisheries in England. However, no decisions will be taken until the consultation process is complete.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued.[19395]

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of his Department's spending on each charter produced under the citizens charter programme.[20183]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  557

  Charter

  Drafting £

  Publishing £

  Distribution £

  Total costs £

  Number issued

  Executive agencies

  Scottish fisheries protection agency

  250

  150

  50

  450

  200

  Scottish agricultural science agency

  First edition (1994)

  n/a

  950

  n/a

  950

  150

  Second edition (1996)

  n/a

  1,248

  n/a

  1,248

  173

  Historic Scotland

  n/a

  1,350

  n/a

  1,350

  6,500

  Scottish prison service 3 charter standard documents

  (1) public

  200

  408

  —

  608

  2,982

  (2) prisoners

  200

  760

  No extra costs incurred

  960

  12,008

  (3) visitors

  200

  222

  —

  422

  43

  Scottish Office pensions agency

  148

  1,619

  No extra costs incurred

  1,767

  37,500

  Students awards agency for Scotland

  500

  5,000 per annum

  No extra costs incurred

  5,000 per annum

  225,000 per annum

  n/a indicated that the information requested is either not available or is not known.

  Figures on numbers issued are actual numbers issued where known or numbers printed where not known.
  The SAAS charter is incorporated in the booklet "Student Grants in Scotland" which is revised and re-issued each year to all students.
  The statistical services charter is published on the back of all statistical bulletins, so there are no separate costs and it is difficult to estimate numbers issued.

  Glenfeshie and Rothiemurchus Estates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been paid from public funds in each of the past 20 years to the owners of(a) Glenfeshie and (b) Rothiemurchus estates for the purposes of (i) conservation and (ii) forest regeneration. [19911]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Information in the form requested on payments by Scottish Natural Heritage and its predecessor bodies is not available, but I have asked the SNH to write to the hon. Member.

  Payments made by the Forestry Commission for the purposes of replanting after felling; work to encourage natural regeneration; and new planting are set out in the table:

  Year

  Amount (£)

  Glenfeshie

  1979

  1,860

  1987

  8,370

  Rothiemurchus (figures prior to 1983 not available)

  1987

  2,970

  1989

  10,265

  1990

  2,773

  1991

  263

  1992

  5,336

  1993

  57,535

  1994

  273,549

  1995

  85,859

  1996

  419,893

  Mr. W. J. Duff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on each investigation since 25 August 1986 into the claims for treatment made by Mr. W. J. Duff. [19050]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: Mr. Duff has been the subject of checks under random sampling arrangements and more systematic monitoring. As a result of such monitoring, Mr. Duff was referred to a service committee in December 1990 in respect of one patient. Mr. Duff was found not to be in breach of his terms. He was referred in January
  558
  1994 to the NHS tribunal and then to the General Dental Council. Subsequently, his name was removed from the dental list of Greater Glasgow health board, he was excluded from practising in the NHS and his name was removed from the council's register.

  Slaughterhouse Hygiene
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date his Department first received a copy of(a) the draft report on slaughterhouse hygiene written by Mr. Swann, and (b) the final report issued by the Meat Hygiene Service; what was the grade of the civil servants who assessed each report; and what reports of their contents were made to Ministers, and on what dates. [20125]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: My Department received the report written by Mr. Swann on the afternoon of 6 March 1997 and the final report issued by the Meat Hygiene Service earlier that day. I discussed the contents with officials on 6 and 7 March.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with which external bodies the Scottish Office consulted on the draft report on slaughterhouse hygiene written by Mr. Swann; and to which such bodies it made the report available. [20124]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The report which was received by my Department on 6 March 1997 has been made available to the Pennington Group, which is considering its contents in finalising its report on E. coli.

  Assisted Businesses (Political Objectives)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if businesses and organisations with declared political objectives can, or could obtain, financial support in the form of grants, loans and other assistance from(a) local enterprise companies, (b) Highland and Islands Enterprise, (c) Scottish Enterprise and (d) any of their predecessor bodies. [20416]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  It is very unlikely that a business or organisation whose declared objectives were exclusively or largely political would qualify for financial support from any of these bodies. Applications for
  559
  assistance for projects are normally considered against a number of criteria including commercial viability, number of jobs created or safeguarded and conformity to the objectives of the scheme in question.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Quota
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) for each member state in the European Union and (b) (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland the current milk quota (1) in tonnes and (2) per head of the population; and what is the average milk quota per head of population in the European Union as a whole. [20536]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table shows the milk quota allocated to each member state in the 1995–96 quota year, its population in 1995 and quota per head. The table also includes quota registered to producers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which has been used to determine the quota per head in these countries.

  Milk quota allocation to member states in 1995–96

  Member state

  Total quota (000 tonnes)

  Population (000)

  Quota per head (tonnes)

  Belgium

  3,310

  10,145

  0.33

  Denmark

  4,455

  5,214

  0.85

  Germany

  27,865

  81,944

  0.34

  Greece

  631

  10,442

  0.06

  Spain

  5,567

  39,170

  0.14

  France

  24,263

  58,048

  0.42

  Ireland

  5,246

  3,580

  1.47

  Italy

  9,930

  57,344

  0.17

  Luxembourg

  269

  405

  0.66

  Netherlands

  11,075

  15,433

  0.72

  Austria

  2,737

  8,054

  0.34

  Portugal

  1,872

  9,951

  0.19

  Finland

  2,366

  5,109

  0.46

  Sweden

  3,303

  8,810

  0.37

  United Kingdom

  14,590

  58,606

  0.25

  England

  10,429

  48,903

  0.21

  Wales

  1,487

  2,917

  0.51

  Scotland

  1,225

  5,137

  0.24

  Northern Ireland

  1,440

  1,649

  0.87

  Total EU 15

  117,478

  372,255

  0.32

  Source:

  1. Quota information for EU member states—Council Regulation 3950/92.

  2. Quota information for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—Intervention Board.

  3. Population information for EU member states (excluding the UK)—EU Commission.

  4. Population and Northern information for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—The Office for National Statistics.

  Note:

  Quota information for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland reflect the quota registered with producers in these countries. The sum of the quota registered in these countries will not equal the UK total allocation because of the quota held in the national reserve.
  560

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a substantive reply will be made to the letter of 20 January from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to the Minister of State concerning Mr. Harvey Richmond. [20115]

  Mr. Baldry
  The matter raised in the letter from the hon. Member is a complex one requiring detailed investigation. A reply will be forwarded to the hon. Member by 24 March at the latest.

  Cattle Feed
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if avoparcin was licensed as a feed additive in the rations of non-lactating cows prior to the introduction of the Beef (Emergency) Control Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20752]

  Mrs. Browning
  I can confirm that avoparcin was authorised as a feed additive for non-lactating cows prior to the introduction of the Beef (Emergency) Control Order 1996.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department took to revoke the licence for the use of avoparcin as an in-feed antibiotic in dairy cows after the Council of Ministers declined to add it to annexe 1 of directive 70/524/EEC and on what dates; and if he will make a statement. [20751]

  Mrs. Browning
  As a result of concerns expressed by Denmark and Germany, in July 1995, the Council of Ministers decided not to support the entry of avoparcin into annexe 1 of directive 70/524/EEC for use in feed for dairy cows and member states were requested to withdraw project licences. We did not do so as the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee—VPC—which advises the Government, had been satisfied that the criteria of safety, quality and efficacy had been met for avoparcin, and because the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition—SCAN—was examining evidence submitted by the Danes and the Germans in support of their bans on avoparcin as a feed additive for all species. SCAN concluded that, on the basis of science, the evidence presented did not establish a risk to human health, animal health or the environment. The VPC welcomed the SCAN report and its conclusions but expressed some concern about the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as additives in animal feed and over the misuse of antibiotics. However, at the December 1996 Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition, the Commission proposal banning the use of avoparcin as an additive to animal feed was agreed. We will therefore be implementing the ban and revoking existing product licences by the 1 April 1997 deadline.

  Incineration Contracts
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations in respect of which the Intervention Board has offered contracts to incinerator companies for which planning permission has subsequently been(a) refused and (b) granted. [20811]
  561
  Mr. Baldry
  The Intervention Board offers contracts to incineration companies only when it has obtained all necessary consents and licences.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incinerator companies to whom the Intervention Board has issued letters of intent for the burning of(a) cattle carcases and (b) the rendered meat and bonemeal remains of slaughtered cattle in the past six months. [20809]

  Mr. Baldry
  Nine letters of intent have been issued to prospective suppliers of carcase burning facilities. The companies are:

  P. J. Hayman

  Euromet

  Kingsclear Technologies and Associated Companies Ltd.

  Sacone Industries Ltd.

  Canfield Incineration Ltd.

  Time-Right Ltd.

  WRE Services Ltd.

  Durga Environmental Ltd.

  Bronzeoak Thermal Processing Ltd.

  No letters of intent have been issued in respect of incineration of rendered meat and bonemeal although there have been expressions of interest by potential suppliers in a current tender.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preparations his Department is making for the UN General Assembly special session to review progress since the Rio Earth summit of 1992 and for the preparatory committees leading up to the summit. [19135]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department of the Environment is taking the lead within the Government on preparations for the UN General Assembly special session. Officials in the Ministry have provided advice, as appropriate, for the preparatory discussions taking place in sessions of the secretariat of the UN commission on sustainable development, particularly in relation to agricultural, ocean resource and land use issues.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of scrapie-associated fibrils in the central nervous system of dogs in the United Kingdom. [19437]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of scrapie-like transmissible spongiform encephalopathy has ever been confirmed in a dog in the United Kingdom, or reported in any other country in the world.

  Brains from culled hounds in packs throughout Great Britain, which are traditionally fed fallen livestock, and so may be considered a high risk population exposed to potentially infected tissues before controls were introduced in September 1990, have been examined and the results considered by Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in August 1994 and subsequently re-evaluated by it in June 1995. The committee concluded that the results were inconclusive because there were certain limitations in the protocol of the study. It was
  562
  recognised however, that the study established that in the dogs studied there was no evidence of a pathologically overt SE similar to that reported in the domestic cat.

  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his scientists first reported to him their view that the occurrence of feline spongiform encephalopathy was causally linked with the epidemic of BSE. [19438]

  Mrs. Browning
  This was first reported in 1993 and recorded in the report of the chief veterinary officer— "Animal Health—1993", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. It stated that the uniformity of the lesion profile in feline spongiform encephalopathy— FSE—complements the results of primary transmission of FSE and BSE to mice, in which similarities suggest that FSE is the result of exposure of cats to the BSE pathogen prior to September 1990 when statutory controls were introduced.

  Chlamydial Disease Research Unit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to close the unit researching chlamydial disease at the central veterinary laboratory; what alternative research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on this disease. [19439]

  Mrs. Browning
  In deciding to reduce MAFF support for research on chlamydia when the existing projects came to an end, the programme of chlamydia research supported by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department—£460,000 in 1996–97—was taken into account.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19767]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sponsored the following numbers of Acts over the last 15 years, all of which have been passed by Parliament:

  Session

  Number of Bills

  1981–82

  1

  1982–83

  4

  1983–84

  2

  1984–85

  2

  1985–86

  1

  1986–87

  0

  1987–88

  1

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  2

  1993–94

  0

  1994–95

  1

  1995–96

  0

  563

  Mineral Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the ban was implemented on the use of mineral hydrocarbons in food manufacture; and what were the reasons for the ban. [20697]

  Mrs. Browning
  Restrictions on the use of mineral hydrocarbons in food have been in place since at least 1949. The current regulations came into force in 1966. These are based on the general principle applying to the use of all food additives, that they should be permitted only under strict control and where there is a demonstrated technological need, and take account of the duty of Ministers to have regard to the desirability of restricting so far as practicable the use of substances of no nutritional value as ingredients of food.

  Channel Tunnel (Animal Electrocution Apparatus)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice he has issued to the operators of the channel tunnel with regard to recommissioning the animal electrocution apparatus in the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement; [20710]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of recommissioning the animal electrocution apparatus in the channel tunnel. [20712]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has drawn to the attention of Eurotunnel its obligation to maintain electrified grids in the channel tunnel. These grids are designed to deter animals from passing through the tunnel, not to electrocute them. This is one of a series of measures intended to prevent animals entering the channel tunnel.

  The electrified grids currently installed in the tunnel are not operational. I met Eurotunnel's chairman this morning to discuss this. Eurotunnel is working urgently on devising a technical solution which is capable of being implemented. The cost of that work is a matter for Eurotunnel.

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relative risk of rabies infection entering Britain from(a) free-living animals entering via the channel tunnel and (b) animals entering by other means; and whether he has commissioned a risk assessment. [20711]

  Mrs. Browning
  Measures are in place to prevent rabies infection entering Great Britain either from(a) animals entering the channel tunnel or (b) animals entering by other means.

  (A) The controls in place to prevent animals from entering the channel tunnel include fencing, video recording, routine surveillance by service personnel, deterrent lighting, and routine baiting for small animals.

  Electrified grids have been installed in each of the tunnels as an additional deterrence to animals. However, due to technical difficulties, these are not currently operational. I met the chairman of Eurotunnel this morning to discuss this. He assured me that Eurotunnel is working urgently on devising a technical solution capable of being implemented very rapidly.
  564
  The environment in the channel tunnel is extremely hostile and would not sustain any animal life because of the train movement—the air vortex created by a train in the tunnel is likely to kill any animal the size of a dog or fox—and because of arrangements designed to ensure that the tunnel is not a source of food.

  (B) The legislation on rabies quarantine is in place to prevent rabies infection entering by other means.

  Slaughtered Cattle (Disposal)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, in date order, the consultation papers and research reports which he has commissioned, since 20 March 1996, on the options for, and public health and environmental implications of, the disposal of cattle slaughtered as a result of BSE-related programmes; and if he will set out the bodies producing each document. [20827]

  Mrs. Browning
  As on other issues in relation to spongiform encephalopathies, the Government look to their independent Spongiform Encephaphalopathy Advisory Committee. A special sub-group was set up to look at a range of environmental issues which met on 6 May 1996. The report of that group to the main committee was discussed at the committee meeting on 29 May 1996 and resulted in a public document which was issued by the Department on 7 June 1996. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made to ensure that the information paper on meat hygiene which he promised in his statement on 12 March,Official Report, columns 372–74, is publicly available. [21264]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I laid in the Library of the House on 18 March 1997 a copy of the information paper, "Driving up meat hygiene standards". It is freely available on request from the MAFF helpline—phone 0645–33–55–77. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) is also sending copies to industry, enforcement and consumer organisations.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the cash limit for class III, vote 2-Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for 1996–97. [21265]

  Mr. Boswell
  The cash limit for class III vote 2 for 1996–97 will be reduced by £280,000 from £892,586,000 to £892,306,000. This reduction covers the surrender by the Ministry to the Exchequer of funds matching payments to the tanning industry.

  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the latest volume of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" to be published. [21266]
  565
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1996" was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Slaughter Practices
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to support the European Commission's proposals that(a) minimum stunning currents should be laid down by law and (b) the 1993 directive on welfare at slaughter should be amended to require both carotid arteries to be severed at slaughter. [20077]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Interested organisations have been asked for their comments on proposals received from the European Commission in respect of directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. The UK approach to both issues identified by the hon. Member will be carefully considered, taking into account the views expressed by all those consulted.

  BSE
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the contract between the Ministry of Agriculture and Electrophoretics International covering work to develop a diagnostic test for BSE and (b) a copy of the evaluation made of that work. [20664]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: (a) MAFF has no contract with Electrophoretics International—EI—to develop a diagnostic test for BSE. It did, however, have an agreement with EI which was one of collaboration. As required by the terms of that agreement, we have written to EI requesting its agreement in writing to our placing a copy in the Library of the House. If EI agrees, we will do so once we have its reply.

  (b) Since no work was commissioned by MAFF from EI, no such evaluation has been made.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received over the past 12 months regarding the disposal of BSE-infected carcases to landfill sites. [20523]

  Mrs. Browning
  Between 21 March 1996 and 14 February 1997, the Department's BSE correspondence unit dealt with in excess of 7,200 letters on BSE-related issues, some of which would have concerned the disposal of BSE suspect carcases to landfill sites. Establishing the precise number could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  State Veterinary Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets were employed by the State Veterinary Service in each year from 1979 to present. [17629]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply 27 February 1997]: The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the State Veterinary Service at 1 January each year since 1980 is detailed in the table. Since 1980, the structure of the State Veterinary Service has changed several times. The central veterinary laboratory which previously
  566
  formed part of the State Veterinary Service, became the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in April 1990. The CVL figures are incorporated in this return for the years 1 January 1980 to 1 January 1990. As from 1 June 1990, the figures do not include the CVL. The veterinary investigation service became part of the VLA on 1 October 1995 and is not included in these figures since then.

  Year

  Number of vets

  1980

  583.0

  1981

  571.0

  1982

  549.0

  1983

  549.5

  1984

  545.5

  1985

  530.5

  1986

  511.5

  1987

  464.5

  1988

  442.5

  1989

  442.0

  1990

  450.0

  1991

  407.0

  1992

  414.5

  1993

  420.0

  1994

  410.3

  1995

  394.5

  1996

  301.2

  1997

  289.5

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19773]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Parliamentary session

  Bills

  Sponsored by the Department of Social Security

  1995–96

  1

  1994–95

  4

  1993–94

  3

  1992–93

  2

  1991–92

  1

  1990–91

  4

  1989–90

  1

  1988–89

  1

  Sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security

  1987–88

  2

  1986–87

  1

  1985–86

  2

  1984–85

  3

  1983–84

  2

  1972–83

  3

  1981–82

  3

  All Bills received Royal Assent. 1. The Department of Social Security was formed in July 1988. The figures given for 1981–82 to 1987–88 are for Bills sponsored by the former Department of Health and Social Security.

  All-work Test
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations his Department has had from the Disability Alliance in
  567
  relation to the Benefits Agency medical services and complaints from disabled people about the all-work test for incapacity benefit; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement. [20057]

  Mr. Burt
  No recent representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I received a letter from the Disability Alliance on 12 March. I have replied to the Disability Alliance today, sending it the information that it has requested. I have also sent a copy of my reply to the right hon. Member.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the expenditure on rent rebate and council tax benefit for unemployed claimants in each year from 1978–79 to 1996–97; [20297]

  (2) what was the expenditure on housing benefit for unemployed claimants in each year from 1978–79 to 1996–97. [20298]

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

  Disaggregated information is not available for the years before 1994–95 and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on unemployed a claimants

  Total housing benefit and Council tax benefit1 (or community charge benefit or rate rebates)

  Housing benefit (rent rebate)

  Housing benefit (rent allowance)

  Council tax benefit

  1978–79

  241

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  270

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  354

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  555

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  700

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  814

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  912

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1,015

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1,101

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1,142

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1,211

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  1,127

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  1,489

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  1,747

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  2,187

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  2,331

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2,626

  738

  1,542

  346

  1995–96

  2,679

  617

  1,765

  297

  Note:

  1 Council tax benefit was introduced in 1993–94 and replaced
  community charge benefit, formerly rate rebates.

  Sources:

  1. Figures underlying table 5 in the 1996 departmental report.

  2. Housing benefit management information system.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming housing benefit and (b) the average housing benefit payment to 18 to 24-year-olds. [20343]
  568
  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients

  Average weekly housing benefit

  Claimants aged 18 to 24

  452,000

  £45.61

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample May 1995.

  Notes:

  1.Figures exclude cases eligible for housing benefit but whose entitlement was 'nil'

  after account taken of non-dependant deductions.

  2. Age is given as age of claimant only.

  3.Recipients may be single persons or couples.

  Savings
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide data from the family resources survey on the average amount of savings held per household in(a) Post Office accounts, (b) tax-exempt special savings accounts, (c) building society accounts, (d) bank accounts, (e) other accounts, (f) gilts, (g) unit trusts, (h) stocks and shares,(i) personal equity plans,(j) national savings bonds,(k) save-as-you-earn and(l) premium bonds, broken down by gross weekly household income divided into £100 bands. [20478]

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available.

  The family resources survey collects data on the amount of money respondents have in different accounts, but only for those respondents who are willing to provide an estimate of the value of their total savings and report a value between £1,500 and £20,000. Around 35 per cent. of all households surveyed fall into this category.

  Income Support
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming (i) income support and not housing benefit and (ii) income support and housing benefit and (b) the average payment in each case. [20299]

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

  Housing benefit and income support claimants aged 18–24 years (Great Britain, May 1995)

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Average weekly amount of housing benefit (£s)

  Average weekly amount of income support (£s)

  Income support without housing benefit

  482

  —

  41.52

  Income support with housing benefit

  382

  47.58

  54.33

  Notes:

  1.Average amounts have been rounded to the nearest penny, recipients to the nearest thousand.

  2.Housing benefit figures excludes cases where there is no entitlement because of non-dependant deductions.

  3.Age is given as age of claimant only.

  4.From October 1996, most 18 to 24-year-olds would receive jobseeker's allowance instead of income support.

  Sources:

  1.Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. inquiry, with income support, taken at the end of May 1995.

  2.Income support statistics quarterly inquiry, May 1995.
  569
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming income support by benefits office in each year since 1992. [20300]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming income support and (b) the average income support payment to 18 to 24-year-olds. [20340]

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

  Income support claimants aged 18–24 years (Great Britain)

  Number of claimants (000)

  Average weekly income support (£)

  May 1995

  864

  47.18

  May 1996

  804

  48.21

  Notes:

  1.Average amounts have been rounded to the nearest penny, claimants to the nearest thousand.

  2.Sample size 5 per cent.

  3.Age is given as age of claimant only.

  4.From October 1996, most 18 to 24-year-olds would receive jobseeker's allowance instead of income support.

  Source:

  Income support statistics quarterly inquires, May 1995 and May 1996.

  War Pensions (Gulf War)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 719, what research his Department has evaluated to indicate that present medical evidence does not support a causal relation between increasing disablement and exposure to organophosphates. [20344]

  Mr. Heald
  My answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 719, referred to the pattern of claimed disablement seen to date in Gulf claimants. The immediate toxic effects arising from exposure to high-dose organophosphates are the subject of medical consensus. The longer-term disabling effects of high exposure are not established; nor are the effects of low-dose exposure known, either short-term or chronic.

  These conclusions are based on evaluation of the medical and scientific literature and discussion with expert toxicologists in academic departments, at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Child Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the combined value of child dependency addition and child benefit for the child of a widowed mother in(a) cash and (b) real terms as a percentage of average earnings, in November 1979 and at each subsequent uprating date; and what were the factors underlying each fall in value which occurred. [20650]
  570
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the tables:

  Child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency increase for first child

  Uprating date

  Cash as a percentage of average earnings at each uprating date

  Real terms as percentage of average earnings at April 1996

  November 1979

  11.0

  8.0

  November 1980

  10.2

  7.7

  November 1981

  9.8

  7.2

  November 1982

  9.7

  7.2

  November 1983

  9.0

  7.1

  November 1984

  8.7

  6.9

  November 1985

  8.4

  6.8

  July 1986

  8.0

  6.7

  April 1987

  7.7

  6.5

  April 1988

  7.2

  6.4

  April 1989

  6.8

  6.2

  April 1990

  6.4

  5.9

  April 1991

  6.3

  5.9

  October 1991

  6.5

  6.1

  April 1992

  6.4

  6.1

  April 1993

  6.2

  6.1

  April 1994

  6.1

  6.0

  April 1995

  6.0

  5.9

  April 1996

  5.9

  5.9

  Child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency increase for subsequent Children

  Uprating date

  Cash as a percentage of average earnings at each uprating date

  Real terms as percentage of average earnings at April 1996

  April 1991

  6.3

  5.9

  October 1991

  6.2

  5.8

  April 1992

  6.1

  5.8

  April 1993

  6.0

  5.9

  April 1994

  5.9

  5.8

  April 1995

  5.8

  5.7

  April 1996

  5.7

  5.7

  1. The average earnings of full time adult employees were calculated using the new earnings survey and average earnings Index, both produced by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) was used to put child benefit and widowed mothers allowance child dependency addition into real terms as at April 1996. This was then compared with average earnings for April 1996 to give the percentage quoted.

  3. The factors underlying the fall in value are:(a) Since 1980, CDIs have been uprated on the basis that the uprated amount of the CDI is reduced by an amount equal to the cash increase in child benefit.

  (b) The rate of child benefit was not increased in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 199, how many and what proportion of medical examinations in connection with claims for disability living allowance or attendance allowance were carried out in February by doctors who were members of disability appeal tribunals. [20959]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  571
  It is estimated that, out of a total of 24,401 medical examinations in connection with claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance which were allocated to examining medical practitioners in February, approximately 5 per cent. were allocated to doctors who also sit as members of disability appeal tribunals.

  Note:

  The total number of examinations allocated includes those which may have been subsequently aborted or have not yet been carried out.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent amendments to the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations on the number of and hearings of appeals. [20963]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 March,Official Report, column 718.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1995 to require tribunal members to inform appellants of any salary or fees they have received from his Department, other than for their work as tribunal members, in the preceding six months. [20962]

  Mr. Evans
  No such amendment is considered necessary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Benefits Agency medical services not to use doctors who are members of disability appeal tribunals for the purpose of examining claimants in connection with claims for disability living allowance or attendance allowance. [20960]

  Mr. Burt
  No.

  There is no reason why membership of a disability appeal tribunal should be incompatible with work for Benefits Agency medical services as long as appeals do not relate to cases specifically handled by the doctor. To limit BAMS to using, for the examination of claimants at the request of the adjudication officer, only those doctors who are not members of disability appeals tribunals would unnecessarily reduce the number of people who could be involved on this work.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1995 to require that the action taken by a tribunal clerk to supply tribunal members with copies of documents relating to an appeal should be the same, irrespective of whether the appeal is to be decided without an oral hearing. [20961]

  Mr. Evans
  This is a procedural matter which is not appropriate for regulation.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the Minister of State, the right hon. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with representatives of the Royal British Legion and of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People on 12 March to discuss noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss and war pensions. [20762]
  572
  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained that the change in the approach to noise-induced hearing loss in war pensions was made neither as a matter of policy nor of re-interpretation of the legislation, but because of the requirement to reflect current medical understanding. As a consequence, and as with all such changes, he was obliged under the existing legislation to introduce it as soon as it was identified. He also confirmed that no pensioner would have their pension reduced: all existing awards would be honoured using exceptional powers to maintain payment even where the award had no foundation. Those claiming for the first time, who were suffering from service-related NISHL assessed at 20 per cent. or above, would receive a pension.

  The experts advising the Royal British Legion raised the issue of the relationship between hearing loss (impairment) and speech-hearing disability. It was agreed that the Department's medical advisors would meet the experts to discuss the possible relevance of this complicated area; officials have already written to Professor Lutman. We remain satisfied that we are applying current medical understanding in the way that the law on war pensions requires.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to the national insurance contributions rules before the beginning of the next tax year. [21042]

  Mr. Heald
  The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations were laid on Friday 14 March and will come into force by 6 April. These make three changes to national insurance contributions. First, they maintain the alignment of tax and NICs treatment of jobmatch work incentive allowances. Secondly, they change the date of payment of class 1A contributions for employers ceasing to trade or transferring business to another company. Thirdly, they exempt from NICs allowances paid to service personnel, other Crown servants and employees of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the British Council based overseas. A similar exemption has existed in tax legislation for some years. These regulations therefore bring the treatment of overseas allowances for crown servants under national insurance legislation into line with their tax treatment.

  I also intend to introduce a fourth measure, also to come into force from 6 April. This will also maintain alignment of tax and NICs on employer-funded training. Regulations for this will be laid shortly.

  Departmental Agencies (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set his Department's agencies for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [21043]

  Mr. Lilley
  The targets I have set my Department's executive agencies for 1997–98 are as set out.

  The targets represent a significant challenge to each agency, and focus effort on the key elements of their individual businesses.
  573
  Further information on the agencies' plans for 1997–98 is contained in their indvidual business plans which have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The targets for 1997–98 are:

  BENEFITS AGENCY

  1.Benefit accuracy

  Income support accuracy—to pay the correct amount in 87 per cent. of cases.

  Jobseeker's allowance accuracy—to pay the correct amount in 87 per cent. of cases.

  Incapacity benefit accuracy—to pay the correct amount in 94 per cent. of cases.

  Family credit accuracy—to pay the correct amount in 91 per cent. of cases.

  Disability living allowance accuracy—to pay the correct amount in 96 per cent. of cases.

  Claims clearance times

  Jobseekers' allowance claims—65 per cent. in 10 days and 90 per cent. in 21 days.

  Faster family credit—90 per cent. in 5 days.

  Financial recovery and financial control

  160,000 claims of those obtaining benefit by deception to be withdrawn within 10 days of fraud investigation and 185,000 within 28 days.

  Security savings—£2100 million.

  Overpayment recovery—£120 million.

  Social fund loans recovery—£333 million.

  Resource management

  To manage the agency's resources to deliver its business plan within allocations.

  To keep to the cash limit agreement with Treasury for the discretionary social fund budget approved by Parliament.

  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY

  1. Records Maintenance

  New accounts properly registered for: 95 per cent. of juveniles in advance of their 16th birthday, and 90 per cent. of adults without NI accounts within eight days of receipt of complete application forms.

  Changes to personal details properly recorded, completing 92 per cent. of cases within 15 days.

  NI contributions properly recorded for: 98 per cent. of appropriate notifications for class 1 contributors by 31 December 1997 or within 30 days thereafter; 90 per cent. of class 2–3 contributors within five days of receipt of payment.

  NI details properly recorded following investigation: for 90 per cent. of cases by 31 March 1998 where there are inappropriate submissions by employers; for 85 per cent. of cases in 90 days where contributors/others identify an inaccuracy.

  2.Information provision

  95 per cent. of requests from Government agencies and Departments within: three days when no clerical action is required; 10 days with clerical involvement; and 45 days when detailed investigation is necessary to establish the NI position.

  92 per cent. of requests from pension providers and scheme administrators completed within 25 days.

  95 per cent. of customer inquiries and complaints within 20 days.

  Conformance

  £3.55 billion of NI contributions collected by the NI fund.

  £170 million of arrears identified and reference made to the Inland Revenue for collection.

  NI rebates accurately paid to pension providers, with 98 per cent. of cases completed within one calendar month after the recording of an accurate end of year return.

  574

  Contracting-out certificates properly issued, clearing 99 per cent. within five days.

  Variation and surrender action properly completed, clearing 96 per cent. within 10 days.

  Initiate investigation action within 10 days, where schemes are in breach of contracting-out conditions.

  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

  1. Performance

  £500 million of maintenance to be collected or arranged.

  97 per cent. of payments to parents with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt.

  Cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 85 per cent. of cases.

  60 per cent. of second-tier reviews to be cleared within 13 weeks and 95 per cent. within 26 weeks.

  A minimum of 525,000 cases to be cleared; 60 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and on 31 March 1998 no more than 5 per cent. of all applications received by the agency to be over 52 weeks old.

  WAR PENSIONS AGENCY

  1.Performance

  Disablement Claims—66 per cent. cleared in 145 days.

  War Widows' Claims—82 per cent. cleared in 70 days.

  Claims accuracy—95 per cent.

  Appeals status—At 31 March 1998, to have no more than 28 per cent. of outstanding appeals more than 260 days old.

  Appeals volume—To clear 10,000 appeals during 1997–98.

  Resource Management

  To manage the agency's administration resources so as to deliver the business plan within budget allocation.

  Customer satisfaction

  To complete a survey of welfare service clients by 31 March 1998.

  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AGENCY

  1. Financial targets

  Manage the agency's income and expenditure (derived from normal trading activities), as presented on audited accruals accounts, so that the agency recovers its full economic costs through receipts from customers within a tolerance of plus or minus 2 per cent.

  Manage the ITSA purchaser vote so that the agency's expenditure outturn is in line with allocations and estimates— final outturn to be within 1 per cent. of the forecast provided for the end-of-year review of expenditure in December 1997.

  To reduce unit costs and prices in order to deliver to overall business efficiency improvement of 5 per cent.

  Customer service targets

  Measure customer satisfaction using the business excellence model, an industry standard and achieve a 10 per cent. BEM score improvement for customer satisfaction.

  Deliver 95 per cent. of services to customers to service levels for budget, time and quality as agreed within contracts.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures exist to ensure that parents whose children are sentenced to be detained do not continue to receive(a) child benefit and (b) other benefits in respect of them. [18099]

  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.
  575
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Shaw, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what procedures exist to ensure that parents whose children are sentenced to be detained, do not continue to receive a) Child Benefit and b) other benefits in respect of them.
  Customers receiving Child Benefit are obliged to report any changes of circumstances in accordance with the instructions contained in their order book. This would include instances when a child is detained in legal custody. Similarly, those in receipt of Widows Benefit, Retirement Pension, Income Support or short term benefits which include an additional amount for a dependent child must report the changes.
  Customers receiving benefit by Automated Credit Transfer are periodically sent details of what changes of circumstances should be reported.
  The position is different for people receiving Family Credit (FC). Entitlement is calculated and benefit is awarded for a fixed period for a family's circumstances at the date of the claim. If a child subsequently leaves a household, entitlement continues unless the child is included within another family claiming FC. There are no provisions within FC legislation for payments to cease in any other circumstances involving children.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Truro Benefits Agency
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many information officers are currently employed at Truro Benefits Agency to give advice on the types and amounts of benefits available on retirement. [20197]

  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. David Jamieson, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many information officers are currently employed at Truro Benefits Agency (BA) to give advice on the types and amounts of benefits available on retirement.
  It is one of the aims of the BA to provide the best service in the most cost effective way. We are aware that the provision of distinct Customer Service roles are extremely valuable in providing customer groups with increased access to the Benefit Agency. With this in mind the provisions of outreach and liaison work have been examined to confirm that they are the best and most cost-effective ways of meeting local needs. District Managers have the flexibility and local knowledge to target resources and continue to provide the most appropriate services for their local community.
  Cornwall District includes the BA offices at Falmouth, Launceston, Penzance, St. Austell and Truro (Lemon Quay House). There is currently a Customer Service Manager for the District based at Truro. The Customer Service Manager is available to give information and advice on the best way of accessing BA services. The District Information Officer (DINO) has recently been moved to Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) Implementation duties. The reinstatement of the full range of DINO responsibilities for Truro will be considered in late Summer when the conversion of all JSA will have taken place.
  All reception staff are trained to give information and advice on benefits on retirement. In addition to this eight members of staff are available to answer telephone queries on Retirement Pension and to discuss complicated matters face to face with customers in the Truro office. Customers are welcome to call at Truro Office (Lemon Quay House) or to telephone (01872 355000) for the information.
  576
  There is also a national telephone service "Pensions Info-Line" for DSS material on pensions, the telephone number is 0345 313233 and is charged at the rate of a local call.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

HEALTH

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of MRSA and measures taken to combat its spread. [19172]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is currently working with professional groups on the revision of clinical guidelines on MRSA. We have also sponsored an educational video for nurses and issued an information leaflet on MRSA to nursing and residential homes. The public health laboratory service recorded incidents of MRSA in 177 hospitals in England last year, affecting just over 19,000 patients. Health authorities are required—through their contracts with providers—to ensure that adequate infection control arrangements are in place within hospitals. Hospitals are similarly required to ensure that their hospital infection control team covers all hospital facilities.

  Insulin Pens (Disposable Needles)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about disposable needles for insulin pens. [19174]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received a number of representations in favour of allowing general practitioners to prescribe insulin injection pen needle on the national health service.

  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  Mr Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about clinical services at St. Cross hospital at Rugby. [19175]

  Mr. Malone
  The delivery of safe and effective clinical services is a matter for health authorities and trusts which are best placed to take into account local needs and circumstances.

  Health Boards and Trusts (Membership)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to review the membership of health boards and trusts following criticisms by the health service ombudsman. [19176]

  Mr. Malone
  We are currently studying the report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on the issues raised in the health service commissioner's report for 1995–96.

  Factor 8
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability throughout England of recombinant factor 8. [19177]

  Mr. Horam
  Our aim is to ensure that the best health care is obtained for the resources available. We believe that aim is best achieved when decisions on appropriate
  577
  treatments are made locally, taking account of the patient's individual needs, the alternative treatments available, and the availability of resources.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve assistance to small community pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [19178]

  Mr. Malone
  The essential small pharmacy scheme already provides financial support to pharmacies located more than 1 km from the next nearest pharmacy and which dispense at least 6,000 and fewer than 18,636 national health service prescriptions in a year.

  Tobacco Companies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage tobacco companies to enter into an agreement to make available the same sum of money as they spend on advertising and promotion to health promotional groups. [19179]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government have no such plans.

  Drugs Budget
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the analysis his Department has carried out of the drugs budgets of general practitioner fundholders and of non-fundholders. [19180]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities allocate prescribing budgets annually, to both fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners, to meet patient needs. Guidance is issued to help health authorities achieve equity between fundholding and non-fundholding practices and the national health service executive's regional offices oversee the whole process to ensure fairness. Analysis of the management of drugs budgets by fundholders and non-fundholders shows a 6 per cent. saving by each wave of fundholders compared with trends in expenditure by non-fundholders. These savings are "locked in" and currently represent some £100 million each year.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on prescription charges. [19181]

  Mr. Malone
  Only those who can afford to do so are asked to pay prescription charges. Extensive exemption arrangements mean that 85 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free to patients, for example because of their age, income or medical condition.

  Cancer Treatment (Lancashire)
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he proposes to make to improve hospital cancer treatment facilities in Lancashire. [19182]

  Mr. Horam
  Four Calman cancer units are being developed, at Preston and Chorley; Blackburn and Burnley; Blackpool; and Lancaster, Kendal and Barrow.
  578
  A new radiotherapy facility has been built at Preston acute hospitals national health service trust. The radiotherapy unit opened and treated the first patient on 24 February 1997.

  The cancer unit at Preston and Chorley will be developed in due course into a Calman cancer centre— over the next five years.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the contribution the private finance initiative is making towards capital expenditure in the NHS. [19183]

  Mr. Horam
  The contribution that the private finance initiative will make to national health service capital spending is estimated to be as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1996–97

  65

  1997–98

  166

  1998–99

  307

  1999–00

  4212

  Orthodontists (North West)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the shortage of orthodontists in the north west. [19184]

  Mr. Malone
  Orthodontics is one of the priority areas for training additional specialist registrars in the year 1997–98, and as shown in the table, the number of specialist orthodontists in training has risen significantly in the last two years.

  Numbers of orthodontic specialists in training

  Whole time equivalent registrars

  Senior registrars

  30 September 1994 (England and Wales)

  50

  28

  30 September 1995 (England and Wales)

  56

  34

  28 February 1996 (All UK)

  85

  42

  For 1997–98 the standing workforce advisory group (SWAG) has recommended that not less than six and not more than 21 orthodontic specialist posts should be created.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on bed blocking. [19185]

  Mr. Burns
  We have consistently emphasised the need for health and local authorities to work closely together in this area. The implementation of the community care reforms required health authorities and local authorities to reach agreements about arrangements for hospital discharge. It is also a key element of the work which health authorities undertook to implement the guidance on national health service responsibilities for continuing care.
  579
  On 28 November 1996, we announced the continuing care challenge fund which is targeted at initiatives which aim to alleviate delays in discharge by avoiding inappropriate admissions to acute hospitals, facilitating discharge following rehabilitation and avoiding unnecessary readmissions by ensuring the availability of support at home. A total of £16 million has been allocated to 69 health authorities in 1996–97 and £20 million, matched by £40 million from health and/or local authorities will be available to 95 health authorities in 1997–98.

  Doctors (Training)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the correlation between the numbers of students entering medical schools and the shortfall of doctors in the NHS. [19186]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are advised by the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee— MWSAC—on the balance between future supply and demand for doctors. In 1995, we accepted the MWSAC recommendation for an increase of the target medical school intake by 500 to 4,970 by 2000; and funds are being provided for this through the higher education funding councils.

  MWSAC is now working towards its third report and has taken evidence from a number of interested parties. It will make recommendations based on the evidence and analysis.

  NHS Budgets
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the proportion of NHS budgets spent on administration since 1989. [19187]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 3 December 1996, column 635.

  Changes over the years in the roles and responsibilities of family practitioner committees, family health services authorities, district health authorities, and regional health authorities, and the transfer of functions to national health service trusts, mean that the figures are not directly comparable. These figures also include expenditure on medical negligence, capital charges grants to voluntary bodies and some health care services, for example, health promotion.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on capital expenditure in the health service. [19188]

  Mr. Horam
  The last 10 years have seen the largest sustained building programme in the history of the national health service with over 700 schemes each costing over £1 million being completed. It is anticipated 580
  that £1.9 billion will be spent in 1996–97 on constructing, improving and modernising NHS buildings using both public capital.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of people on NHS waiting lists at the latest available date. [19189]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisional figures show that, on 31 December 1996, there were 1,095,940 parents waiting for admission to national health service hospitals in England on an in-patient or day case basis, only 2 per cent. of whom had been waiting more than a year.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting(a) over one year and (b) over 18 months for treatment (i) in each region and (ii) nationally in December 1996; and how many (1) in each equivalent region and (2) nationally were waiting for (a) and (b) in March 1991. [20370]

  Mr. Horam
  The table gives the information requested. Information on the number of patients waiting over 18 months is not available for 1991. Regions have been adjusted as far as possible to allow comparisons between 1991 and 1996, but some differences remain, notably due to boundary changes in south Humber, Bedfordshire and Morecambe bay.

  Patients Waiting over one year at end December 1996 (provisional)

  Region

  Patients waiting over one year

  Of which: Patients waiting over 18 months

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,563

  0

  Trent

  5,277

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,561

  22

  North Thames

  4,007

  59

  South Thames

  2,924

  28

  South and West

  2,507

  12

  West Midlands

  288

  0

  North West

  2,813

  2

  England

  21,940

  123

  Patients waiting over one year at end March 1991

  Region

  Patients waiting over one year

  Northern and Yorkshire

  17,801

  Trent

  10,525

  Anglia and Oxford

  19,713

  North Thames

  36,593

  South Thames

  26,265

  South and West

  24,452

  West Midlands

  17,473

  North West

  16,939

  England

  169,761

  Regions not directly comparable due to boundary changes, notably in south Humberside, Morecambe bay and Bedfordshire.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet general practitioners from north Derbyshire to discuss his Department's plans for primary care. [19190]
  581
  Mr. Malone
  We have already sent copies of the White Papers "Primary Care: The Future—Choice and Opportunity" and "Primary Care: Developing the Future", to all general medical practitioners. Subject to parliamentary approval of the NHS (Primary Care) Bill, we shall be writing to all general medical practitioners, and issuing guidance to health authorities and NHS trusts, advising them how they can pilot some of the new arrangements for the delivery of primary care.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pending the result of the inquiry by Judge Fallon, what action should be taken by the chief executive of a special health authority high-security psychiatric hospital on receipt of a dossier of allegations concerning another special hospital; and if he will make a statement concerning the reporting relationships between the chairmen and chief executives of the special hospitals and the chairman and chief executive of the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board. [17802]

  Mr. Burns
  It would not be appropriate to comment on matters that may be considered by his honour, Mr. Peter Fallon in the course of his deliberations.

  Chairmen and chief executives of the three hospital authorities are responsible for providing high secure psychiatric services, as commissioned by the NHS executive on behalf of the Secretary of State, taking advice from the High Secure Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the value of prescribed products which are imported from overseas having been manufactured in the United Kingdom and (b) the savings achieved as a result of not purchasing direct from a United Kingdom manufacturer. [18874]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available.

  Medical Officers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those responsible for the duties formerly carried out by municipal authority medical officers of health; for which geographical areas each is responsible; who appoints such people; what are their usual minimum qualifications; to whom they are accountable; what statutory provisions relating to the former duties of these medical officers(a) apply and (b) do not apply to these persons; and what subsequent legislation governs their activities. [20012]

  Mr. Horam
  The Local Government Act 1972 provides for the appointment by the local authority of'Such officers as they think necessary'
  such for the proper discharge of their functions and obligations. Each local authority may appoint "proper officers" (defined in s270 of the 1972 Act) for particular purposes.
  582

  Children in Need
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children below the age of 16 years were found in need in central London in the last year for which figures are available. [20410]

  Mr. Burns
  The relevant figures are not available centrally.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) GPs and (b) GP practices the Government estimate will become fundholders from April 1997; and what projections he has made for subsequent years.[20371]

  Mr. Malone
  A total of 1,714 general practitioners in 646 practices will join the fundholding scheme on 1 April this year. This will give a total of 15,137 GP fundholders in 4,381 practices. This means that 58 per cent. of people in England will have a fundholder as their GP from this April.

  GPs have until 31 July 1997 to apply to join the eighth wave of GP fundholding.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expert advice he has received or has requested about the advantages of(a) antenatal screening for and (b) infant vaccination against hepatitis B; and if he will make a statement. [20211]

  Mr. Horam
  The United Kingdom has one of the lowest prevalence rates of hepatitis B carriage in the world. Our current policy is to target immunisation at groups at increased risk of infection including babies born to women who are chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus or who have had acute hepatitis B infection during pregnancy.

  The National Screening Committee is considering the antenatal screening programme for hepatitis B and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is considering what may be the most appropriate future strategy for the control of hepatitis B, in the context of the whole childhood immunisation programme.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from the Children's Liver Disease Foundation about(a) antenatal screening for and (b) infant vaccination against hepatitis B; and if he will make a statement. [20212]

  Mr. Burns
  I met representatives of the Children's Liver Disease Foundation on 11 March. Antenatal screening for hepatitis B and childhood Immunisation against hepatitis B were among the matters discussed at the meeting.

  Ondine's Curse
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department has collated concerning the incidence in the United Kingdom of congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (Ondine's curse); and if there is any record of a patient outgrowing the disorder. [20208]
  583
  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not collate this data. The national health service executive is currently funding a research project into the management of children who require long-term ventilation support. This study includes the collation of data on children affected by congenital central hypoventilation syndrome. There is no record of a patient outgrowing this condition.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of employees of the Medicines Control Agency who possessed a qualification in(a) epidemiology and (b) statistics on (i) 1 June, (ii) 1 August, (iii) 1 October and (iv) 1 November 1995. [20558]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to state how many employees employed by the Medicines Control Agency had a qualification in either epidemiology and statistics as the agency does not keep such records.

  Social Services Expenditure
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on social services in 1979–80; what estimate he has made of the level of that expenditure in the present year; and what is the real terms percentage change in expenditure between the two years. [20687]

  Mr. Burns
  In 1979–80, net expenditure on personal social services was £1,314 million. Local authorities have budgeted to spend £7,923 million on personal social services in 1996–97, 129 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979–80.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into the delivery of paediatric cardiac surgical services at Bristol royal infirmary from 1990 to 1995. [21263]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. Concerns about the quality and management of paediatric cardiac surgical services and related issues at that time lead me to believe that an inquiry is necessary. However, the General Medical Council is currently considering proceedings in respect of paediatric cardiac surgery at the United Bristol Healthcare national health service trust and I would not wish to prejudice its deliberations. Therefore this inquiry will not start until the GMC has completed its proceedings. Further announcements about the remit and form of the inquiry will be made in due course.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations his Department is making for the UN General Assembly to review progress since the Rio Earth summit of 1992 and for the preparatory committees leading up to the summit. [19140]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government are committed to ensuring the United Kingdom meets the targets set at the Rio Earth summit. The Department is working, together with other Government Departments, to deliver those with health implications.
  584

  Lewisham Hospital
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of(a) the number of surgical procedures cancelled at Lewisham hospital since the imposition of the emergency-only admission policy in November 1996 and (b) the likely figure at the end of the current financial year. [19412]

  Mr. Malone
  Ministers are aware that elective surgery has been rescheduled at Lewisham hospital. The delivery of services locally is a matter for health authorities and trusts. The Department of Health does not analyse cancelled surgical procedures at a local level. The hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Maurice Lessof, chairman of Lewisham hospital NHS trust for details.

  Accident and Emergency Service
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make an official visit for north-east London to review the working of the accident and emergency service. [19780]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit north-east London to review the working of the accident and emergency services.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19776]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is:

  Parliamentary session

  Bills

  Sponsored by Department of Health

  1995–96

  3

  1994–95

  3

  1993–94

  0

  1992–93

  2

  1991–92

  1

  1990–91

  0

  1989–90

  2

  1988–89

  0

  Sponsored by Department of Health and Social Security

  1987–88

  2

  1986–87

  1

  1985–86

  2

  1984–85

  3

  1983–84

  2

  1982–83

  3

  1981–82

  3

  All Bills received Royal Assent.The Department of Health was formed in July 1988. The figures given for 1981–82 to 1987–88 are for Bills sponsored by the former Department of Health and Social Security.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each month in 1994 the total attendance allowances paid to members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [20148]
  585
  Mr. Malone
  The available information for each month in 1994 is as follows:

  Attendance allowance

  Month

  £

  January

  2,025

  February

  2,025

  March

  1,725

  April

  1,725

  May

  1,925

  June

  1,725

  July

  1,925

  August

  No meeting

  September

  2,650

  October

  2,025

  November

  1,825

  December

  1,625

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) daily attendance and (b) preparation allowance payable in October 1995 to a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [20147]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information per meeting in October 1995, was(a) £100 and (b) £60 per member.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes which have been made in the subcommittees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines with effect from 1 January 1996; whether those changes were made by regulations in terms of schedule 1 of the Medicines Act 1968; and if he will make a statement. [20137]

  Mr. Malone
  The sub-committee on harmacovigilance was established on 1 January 1996.

  The committee may, with the approval of Ministers, appoint sub-committees under regulation 6 of the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970. Regulation 6 was made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which chairmen of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have resigned before the scheduled conclusion of their period of office. [20142]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Product Licences
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years for which information is available the (i) mean, (ii) standard deviation and (iii) range of the times from receipt of a valid application for a product licence for a new chemical entity until the date for which a product licence is granted or declined. [20138]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not collected by the Medicines Control Agency. The agency publishes information on its licensing performance in the Medicines Act information leaflet. The leaflet is published bi-monthly and copies are placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public announcements on issues of drug safety made by or on behalf of the licensing authority since 1 January 1986, which resulted in a compulsory 586
  variation of product licences; and if he will list for each what body or individual made the announcement on behalf of the licensing authority. [20143]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 9 May 1996 at columns 244–45 and 9 July 1996 at column 148.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what public health reasons postponed the start of despatch of the "Dear Doctor" letters dated 18 October 1995; and if he will make a statement; [20139]

  (2) if, prior to 13 October 1995, the Medicines Control Agency gave a written undertaking to Professor Hershel Jick and his colleagues that their unpublished data on the safety of oral contraceptives would be treated in confidence; [20151]

  (3) if, at the meeting of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 17–18 October 1995, the United Kingdom representatives informed the CPMP that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had met on 13 October 1995. [20152]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 17 March 1997 column 472.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the oral contraceptives which contain desogestrel or gestodene which currently have a product licence; and for each product if he will list the company which holds the product licence and the date on which the product licence was granted. [20140]

  Mr. Malone
  The following currently granted marketing authorisations for oral contraceptives contain desogestrel or gestodene.

  Oral contraceptives containing desogestrel

  Marvelon 150/30

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Granted 4 November 1981

  Marvelon 75/50

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Granted 4 November 1981

  Mercilon tablets

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Granted 11 February 1986

  Gracial 25/40

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Granted 28 February 1996

  Gracial 125/30

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Granted 28 February 1996.

  Oral contraceptives containing gestodene

  Minulet tablets

  John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.

  Granted 27 August 1987

  Tri-minulet tablets

  John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.

  Granted 20 February 1989

  Minesse

  John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.

  Granted 17 March 1995

  587

  Harmonette 23

  John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.

  Granted 28 June 1995

  Femodene tablets

  Schering Health Care Ltd.

  Granted 22 July 1986.

  Clinical Trials
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory instruments which regulate the approval of clinical trials by the licensing authority; and if he will make a statement. [20141]

  Mr. Malone
  The following is the information:The Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Clinical Trials) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2808).
  The Medicines (Exemption from Licences and Certificates) (Clinical Trials) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2809).
  The Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Clinical Trials) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974/498).
  The Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Special Cases and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1200)
  The Medicines (Exemptions from Licences) (Special and Transitional Cases) Order 1971 (S.I. 1971/1450)

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the ministerial responsibilities of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 13 October 1995; and what change was made to those responsibilities prior to his move to the Home Office in November 1995. [20144]

  Mr. Horam
  The ministerial responsibilities of the Under-Secretary of State, on 13 October 1995 and until his move to the Home Office in November 1995 were published in "Vacher's Parliamentary Companion", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees of the Medicines Control Agency on 13 October 1995 had a qualification in epidemiology; and if he will make a statement. [20145]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to state how many employees employed by the Medicines Control Agency on 13 October 1995 had a qualification in epidemiology as the agency does not keep such records.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the recruitment and retention of staff in the Medicines Control Agency with a qualification in epidemiology. [20146]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency has an epidemiology unity with the post-licensing division which has staff with expertise and experience in pharmaco-epidemiology. Regarding recruitment and retention, the MCA is continually looking at ways in which to increase the complement of professional staff in general, including use of the agency's delegated authority to speed up the recruitment process and the flexibilities in terms and conditions which may be available.
  588

  Clinical Depression
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to include targets for improving the diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression in a future review of the "The Health of the Nation" programme. [20200]

  Mr. Burns
  We have no plans to introduce such targets.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from clinical depression in the United Kingdom each year. [20201]

  Mr. Burns
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' survey of psychiatric morbidity carried out in Great Britain in 1993 revealed that 21 per thousand people aged between 16 to 64 years suffered from depression in the preceding week before the survey.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent his Department currently supports research into clinical depression; and what future plans he has for such support. [20202]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department's policy research programme has commissioned a number of studies into severe mental illness, many of which are related to depression. The national health service research and development programme strategy established a national mental health programme in 1992. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC has a comprehensive portfolio of research on depressive illness, both at its own establishments and in the form of grant support to universities. These programmes are on-going.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the Government have not imposed a ban on the use of organophosphates; [20337]

  (2) what restrictions exist on the sale of substances containing (a) malathion and (b) other organophosphates.[20338]

  Mr. Horam
  Organophosphates are insecticides, widely used on crops, animals—including sheep dips— and have some uses in the home and garden. Additionally, malathion, an OP, is used for treatment of headlice. Use of OPs for any of these purposes is strictly controlled.

  Pesticides, such as those used on crops or in the home, must be approved by Ministers before they can be advertised, sold, supplied, stored or used. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides—ACP—advises the regulatory Ministers on the granting, amendment or revocation of individual approvals. Applicants for pesticides approvals must show that their products are effective, humane and pose no unacceptable risk to human beings, non-target species or the wider environment before approval is granted.

  For a human medicinal product to be marketed in the United Kingdom it must receive a marketing authorisation granted by the licensing authority on the basis of safety,

  589
  quality and efficacy. Malathion is an authorised human medicinal product in the UK. There is no evidence to suggest that malathion when used for the treatment of head lice has led to any serious adverse effects. Its supply as a human medicine is restricted to sale in pharmacies only.

  The Veterinary Products Committee is the independent group of scientific experts which advises the Government on veterinary medicines, including those containing organophosphorus substances. Before they can be marketed in the UK, all veterinary medicines must satisfy the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety in this context includes the consumer of any product from the treated animal, the operator and the environment, as well as the health and welfare of the treated animal.

  As to the reasons for not imposing a ban on OPs, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him on 6 March 1997, column 707.

  Mineral Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the cancer risks associated with mineral hydrocarbons; and if he will list the conclusion of this research. [20695]

  Mr. Horam
  There has been no recent research commissioned or evaluated by the Department of Health into the cancer risks associated with mineral hydrocarbons.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medicines containing mineral hydrocarbons which are sold across the counter at pharmacies. [20696]

  Mr. Malone
  There are 79 licensed medicinal products containing mineral hydrocarbons as the active constituent that may be supplied at pharmacies without prescription. A list of these medicines will be placed in the Library shortly.

  NHS Beds (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute, (b) long stay and (c) other NHS beds there were in north Yorkshire in 1992; and how many there are currently. [20880]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally can be found in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest information is for 1995–96.

  Finished Consultant Episodes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) individual patients were treated and (b) finished consultant episodes were recorded by each NHS trust in north Yorkshire in the latest year for which figures are available. [20886]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of patients treated is not available centrally. Data on finished consultant episodes for each trust in England is available 590
  in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest year for which figures are available is 1995–96.

  Local Pay
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by NHS trusts in north Yorkshire on local pay negotiations in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97.

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not centrally held.

  Nurses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have(a) left NHS employment and (b) completed basic nurse training in north Yorkshire in each of the last five years. [20877]

  Mr. Horam
  Information relating to nurses leaving national health service employment is collected 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 annual reports are available in the Library.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, for details of nurses who have completed basic nurse training.

  Patients (Readmissions)
  Mr. Bayley
  to ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients discharged following(a) surgery of all kinds, (b) cataract operation, (c) appendectomy, (d) prostatectomy, (e) hysterectomy and (f) total hip replacement in each NHS trust, were subsequently readmitted to hospital as an emergency within 28 days of the discharge in each of the last three years. [20885]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by north Yorkshire NHS trusts on preparing PFI schemes. [20883]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 17 July 1996, column 562. Further information is not held centrally.

  NHS Trusts (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which north Yorkshire NHS trusts reduced their rate of elective admissions for patients of non-fundholding general practitioners in the final quarter of 1996–97. [20878]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Information by health authority on the number of elective finished consultant episodes is collected and figures for the final quarter of 1996–97 will be available later this year.
  591
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent on hospitality by NHS trusts in north Yorkshire in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1995–96; [20889]

  (2) how many NHS consultants employed by each NHS trusts in north Yorkshire undertake private work; and what proportion of their time they spend on private work; [20873]

  (3) what was the average number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors in each NHS trusts in north Yorkshire in each year since 1992–93; [20876]

  (4) how much was spent on attendance fees, travel and expenses for NHS staff from north Yorkshire to attend conferences (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1995–96. [20888]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what would be the cost of making all NHS wards in north Yorkshire single sex wards; [20879]

  (2) how many pay beds there are currently in each NHS trust in north Yorkshire; and how many were there in 1992. [20872]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Patients (Purchasing)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the procedures which North Yorkshire health authority has(a) ceased purchasing and (b) placed restrictions on purchasing for patients. [20875]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for North Yorkshire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mrs. Susan Wrigley, for details.

  Lease Cars
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lease cars were provided for NHS managers in north Yorkshire in 1992; and how many are provided currently. [20887]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact trusts and the health authority in North Yorkshire for details.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the pilot study for an alternative to litigation for clinical negligence will be available. [20837]

  Mr. Horam
  The mediation pilot scheme is expected to run until the end of this year. An evaluation of the project should be completed early in 1998. Ministers will then consider, in the light of the evaluation, whether further action is needed to encourage mediation as a possible alternative to litigation in resolving cases of alleged clinical negligence.
  592

  Depression Alliance
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the work of, and provide financial support for, the Depression Alliance. [20871]

  Mr. Burns
  The Depression Alliance provides information, advice, support and fellowship to all who suffer from depression and their carers and promotes research into the causes and prevention of depression. The Department provides financial support amounting to £33,000 in the current financial year and will provide £89,000 in 1997–98.

  Ambulances (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances there were in the North Yorkshire ambulance service fleet in 1992; and how many there are currently. [20882]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The second report of the Health Committee in Session 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library, provides some information about the number of emergency ambulances in service at the time of the report.

  Dental Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were registered as NHS patients with a general dental practitioner in north Yorkshire in each year since 1992–93. [20874]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the number of adults, children and total number of patients registered at 30 September in each year from 1992 to 1996 in North Yorkshire family health services authority. Since May 1994, the Dental Practice Board has continued to improve procedures for eliminating duplicate registrations. This will have resulted in a lower registration figure.

  General Dental Service: Number of child and adult registrations1,2 in North Yorkshire at 30 September from 1992 to 1996

  Child registrations

  Adult registrations

  All registrations

  September 1992

  108,254

  351,027

  459,281

  September 1993

  112,996

  343,918

  456,914

  September 1994

  114,580

  333,895

  448,475

  September 1995

  113,699

  319,965

  433,664

  September 1996

  114,098

  315,910

  430,008

  Notes:

  1Dentists receive scheduled payments a month in arrears. Therefore the September figures relate to the status of registrations at the end of September. An active registration is one for which payment has been made in respect of September and which the registration was not due to lapse until after September.

  2The number of registrations counted on the Dental Practice Board data basis is not the same as the number of patients registered, since it is possible for one patient to be registered with more than one dentist. Over the period April 1994 to September 1996 a considerable number of such duplicate registrations have been cleaned from the database. The Dental Practice Board processes which ensure the correct recording of registrations have also been tightened.

  Cancer Deaths
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the patients in each NHS trust died within(a) one year and (b) five years of being diagnosed as

  593
  suffering from cancer of the (i) trachea, bronchus or lung, (ii) large bowel, (iii) female breast and (iv) ovary in the most recent period for which data are available. [20884]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on diagnosis and mortality is not collected in the form requested.

  Corticosteroid
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the documented side-effects of the drug corticosteroid; and if this research is in the public domain. [20834]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health has not commissioned research into the side-effects of corticosteroids. The available research into the side-effects of corticosteroids, as with all medicines, was assessed at the time of granting the individual products' marketing authorisations and continues to be evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency whenever new information emerges. A national programme for monitoring the side-effects of marketed medicines exists which includes evaluating data obtained from various sources such as the yellow card system, scientific literature, and information received from other regulatory authorities.

  Much research has been published in the literature about the side-effects of corticosteroids and is therefore in the public domain. In addition, the side-effects for corticosteroids are well documented in product information which is produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority, and in the "British National Formulary" which the Department sends free of charge to all doctors.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of current hospital admissions in the United Kingdom relate to adverse effects arising from the drug corticosteroid. [20836]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally relates to the number of admissions to hospitals in England where an adverse reaction to "Drugs medicaments and biological substances in therapeutic use" has been recorded.

  Information for 1994–95, which is the latest available year, shows that 886 finished consultant episodes—less than 1 in 10,000—related to adverse effects arising from the drug corticosteroid.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning were reported in(a) York and (b) north Yorkshire in each year since 1979. [20838]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures are published annually in the series MB2 "Communicable disease statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. For 1996 data I refer 594
  the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 February 1997, at column 286. Provisional figures for the fourth quarter have been placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16789]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health was not formed until July 1988, therefore information is not available for the period before then.

  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by the Department in the sessions 1988–89 to 1995–96, as supplied by the POLIS database, is available in the Library.

  Other information requested is shown in the table:

  Session

  PQ answered with "disproportionate cost" in reply

  PQ answered with "Not available/collected centrally" in reply

  1988–89

  21

  156

  1989–90

  10

  200

  1990–91

  18

  193

  1991–92

  6

  130

  1992–93

  35

  327

  1993–94

  39

  227

  1994–95

  42

  310

  1995–96

  24

  276

  Source:

  1. POLIS database.

  2. Due to the on-going development of the POLIS database and the way figures were collated statistics given previously may now be out of date. The figures supplied in this reply are therefore not comparable with those given previously.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the meeting dates for 1996 and 1997 of the Medicines Commission. [20149]

  Mr. Malone
  Medicines Commission meetings were held on the following dates in 1996:

  17 May

  19 July

  20 September

  15 November.

  There have been no meetings so far this year. Meetings are scheduled for the following dates in 1997:

  21 March

  18 April 20 June

  19 September

  14 November.

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

London Underground: Privatisation Advisers
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much Civil Service time was spent and what costs were incurred in developing the policy and preparing the statement on the privatisation of London Underground which was presented to Parliament on 25th February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, all the preparation work relating to the London Underground privatisation policy was carried out by civil servants already in place in the course of their normal duties. Departmental civil servants do not generally log their time spent on individual tasks.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his Answer, perhaps I may point out that the original Statement was made on 25th February, when there was not the slightest chance of implementing the proposals before the general election, and also that in another place on the same day his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he hoped that the decisions of electors in London would be influenced,
"by our plans for London Underground".—[Official Report, Commons. 25/2/97; col. 164.]
Is the drawing up of the Conservative Party's manifesto not a most inappropriate use of politically neutral civil servants?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is nonsense. The duty of civil servants is to advise Ministers and to help to implement their policies. It is entirely appropriate that departmental civil servants working on London Underground matters should advise the Government on their intentions to produce a privatisation policy. A small group of civil servants already working within the department did just that. There is no question of impropriety. Indeed, I was pressed on a number of occasions by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to reveal our intentions towards London Underground. When I came to the House and made a Statement, I was then criticised for making it. Noble Lords cannot have it both ways.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the overwhelming success of every privatisation—a fact accepted by every country, including Russia and China, but not by the party opposite—would the Minister
758
give an undertaking that, when the Government are returned after the election, they will proceed with the privatisation of London Underground?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, it is our firm intention to continue with this policy and it is my firm expectation that it will be opposed by the party opposite, just as they have opposed every privatisation so far, although they generally change their mind when it is shown to work.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister recall signing Questions of Procedure for Ministers? It is stated therein:
"Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes"?
Is this not a flagrant breach of that code of procedure?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe it is appropriate on this occasion, since the Minister is soon to depart, and as this is the last transport Question of this Parliament, to say that throughout the time he has held his office he has been unfailingly courteous, and we appreciate that. There is nothing at all wrong with his courtesy; it is just his answers that are unacceptable. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a world of difference between making a statement several weeks in advance of the election and making one which is clearly stated to be part of the election manifesto and promise of his party? Does he not see that there is something slightly remiss in causing the Civil Service to help to develop the Tory Party manifesto?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, back in October my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we wanted to examine whether the benefits of privatisation, which has been shown to work with the heavy railway industry, could be applied to the London Underground. Subsequently civil servants, quite properly, took part in working up this policy to the point where it was possible to come before your Lordships' House with a Statement. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The Government would never ask civil servants to do anything which was in any way political.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would my noble friend not suggest that the party opposite fears the results of this expenditure being very popular with the electorate? Is it not difficult to understand how it can object to this unless it thinks that the policy is right?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. It is also interesting that most of the recent questions with regard to London Underground have carefully steered away from the policy itself and concentrated on the issue of the three principal civil servants who helped with the drawing-up of the plans, matters concerning consultants, and so on. The fact is that every policy of privatisation with which we have

759
come forward has been opposed tooth and nail by members of the party opposite but they have come round to it. I am sure that they do not want to make the same mistake again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, how is it that the noble Viscount finds difficulty in answering that part of my noble friend's Question that relates to the costs incurred by the Civil Service in view of the fact that, whenever the Government have a question put to them which they do not wish to answer, or are afraid to answer, it is their practice to be able to cost quite accurately the amount of time spent on answering a Parliamentary Question? Why can the noble Viscount not provide even an approximate figure—the House will always accept a degree of approximation—in answer to the Question raised by my noble friend?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when we consider Parliamentary Answers to Written Questions, we know that there are limits to the amount of money that can be spent on finding out the answers. The noble Lord will know that. Our policy is to examine the costs very closely. If we know that they will be above a certain amount, we would give the appropriate disproportionate cost answer. But that is a quite separate issue. Certainly, the work that has been taken forward on developing that policy was done by civil servants already in post, civil servants who are already considering London Underground matters—the privatisation, PFI, core funding or whatever. They do not log their time. So it is not possible for me, however much I should like to do so, to come forward with an answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the duties of the Civil Service is to control public expenditure? If time is spent by civil servants on privatisation, whatever it may be, the cold fact of the matter is that whatever the cost has been to the Civil Service, the privatisation policy of this Government has resulted in a reverse of the £50 million per week spent by the taxpayer becoming now a receipt of £60 million a week to the Exchequer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend's sentiment is quite right. That is why noble Lords opposite have stopped opposing some privatisations which they so bitterly opposed at the time. It is worth noting that £2.6 billion a year in taxes is now contributed by privatised companies which paid only £37 million a year when they were operating in the public sector.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but I note that we have a full quota of Questions today. I wonder whether the House might feel that the time has come to move on.

Industrial Tribunals: Members' Expenses
2.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the data which lay behind the recent statement of the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals to the effect that over half of the expenses claims by members of tribunals "are for less than £10 and a fifth for less than £5" include both travel and subsistence claims; and how far the levels of claims vary from region to region and by reference to whether members are employer or employee nominees.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the data, based on a random sample of claims from across Great Britain, included both travel and subsistence claims. The proportion of claims for less than £10 varied between 48 per cent. and 76 per cent. across the industrial tribunals' five operational management commands in England and Wales and Scotland. The sample did not identify separately claims from employer and employee nominees.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Surely he must accept that it is not satisfactory. For example, we do not know the proportion between employer and employee representatives and we do not know what will be the consequences of those decisions. Will he accept that we are creating a situation in which side members and parties who are forced to travel more than 10 miles by train or 20 miles by coach will be out of pocket? On the noble and learned Lord's own estimates, that will have a disproportionate effect on people who live a long way from the tribunals and have to spend that money. Does he agree that there are better ways of saving the money, if it has to be saved, than the way advanced by the Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought it was clear from the first Answer that I gave that the majority of claims are for less than £10 and a third of them for less than £7. Those members were receiving £119 as a daily fee and that has now gone up to £129. It does not seem to me that there is any significant loss to anyone who participates and indeed there will be some who will gain from it. I am bound to say that I do not consider that this is a matter of any great substance. Indeed, as the letter went out to tribunal members, the present arrangements were being changed, as was simply spelt out, because they were regarded as being unnecessarily cumbersome. I should have thought that the detail that I gave in the Answer would reveal that that was a perfectly sensible decision at which to arrive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member who sits on a tribunal panel. Is it not a fact that that letter gave the news that the increase would be £10 on the daily rate? Did it not also give the reason that it was to save a very large amount of money in administrative costs? There were costs in

761
checking those very small amounts—certainly in London it might cost £1.50 for transport each way and there was a luncheon allowance of £4.25 only if one sat for the whole day. As I understand the letter of explanation, it was to save those very heavy administrative costs.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed, I thought that was adequately encompassed in the description of "unnecessarily cumbersome". I should have thought it acceptable that if there is an increase of £10 in the daily fee and the majority of claims are for less than that sum, it is a matter of no great substance. It might have been a matter of greater substance if there were members who had to participate in the tribunal away from their normal office or hearing centre and they were caught in that. There might then be some point of concern. But, as the letter to which my noble friend referred says, if they go to an unusual place to sit, they will of course be paid expenses if they are required to sit in that alternative office.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to say whether the presidents of the industrial tribunals—that is the president of the tribunal in Scotland and the one for Wales—were consulted and whether any arrangement was made to consult the regional chairmen who are responsible for administering the tribunals? Was any consultation along those lines conducted before the changes were made?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure whether those particular persons were consulted. But, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, there is no representative organisation for the 2,500 or so members. Certainly the chairmen themselves are not included within the arrangement, for the very good reason that it will avoid any potential conflict of interests. Because they are legally qualified in the areas in which they practise, they are frequently required to participate in these tribunals well away from the areas in which they work. For that reason, they are not included within the arrangement.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the whole House appreciates the fact that administrative savings may be made by making a single lump sum payment. But we are concerned that parties, witnesses and members of industrial tribunals who incur exceptional significant travelling expenses will not be able to claim them. Can the Minister say whether it will be possible, in exceptional circumstances, for legitimate high travelling expenses to be reimbursed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, sometimes I get the mood of the House wrong, but I do not get the impression today that it is particularly concerned about this matter. As I indicated, exceptional circumstances are provided for. If a member is required to go away from the location at which the tribunal usually sits, travel expenses would be paid additionally.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the fact that this House is not concerned is what
762
is wrong with this House? This House should be concerned. This House does not know, on the basis of the Minister's statement, whether all the 50 per cent. or so of people who do not need the money are employer representatives and it does not seem to care. Is that not disgraceful?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords.

Parkhurst Prison: Suspension of Governor
2.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain of the opinion that the Home Secretary was correct in telling the House of Commons on 19th October 1995 that "there was no question of overruling the director-general" of the Prison Service on the suspension of the governor of Parkhurst Prison.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): Yes, my Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not there a conflict of evidence, if the Government are so satisfied, between the Answer we have just been given and the evidence given by Mr. Derek Lewis in his book, with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar? It reported the Permanent Secretary as saying that, if he did not suspend Marriott—the governor of Parkhurst—he would go to the House that afternoon and announce that he had been sacked.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am familiar with the book; it is misleading and inaccurate. The Home Secretary was not only anxious about that affair, he also needed to be consulted and had a right to know. There was grave concern about the escapes from Parkhurst. They worried the Home Secretary, as they should have done. He was entitled to be consulted and was consulted. The book is misleading and inaccurate.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, given the status of the Prison Service Agency, could the Home Secretary have overruled the director of the Prison Service on this matter?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, he could not.

European Union Development Council
2.52 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of the recent informal European Union Development Council meeting and what will be its implications for the aid and development policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Ministers discussed a wide variety of topics, including coherence of policy between development and other European Union policies, the reform of the UN, the future of the ACP/EU relations and the situation in a number of countries where there is conflict. I stressed the importance of setting up clear institutional arrangements to ensure coherence on food security, fisheries, migration and conflict prevention and management. As this was an informal council, no formal decisions or conclusions were adopted. However, we expect the issues to be taken forward in other fora, including the June development council.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure she will agree that it is important that we know what we will inherit on the European front when we take office in May.
Did the meeting make progress on better arrangements for co-ordination in responding decisively and effectively to acute humanitarian challenges, like that in Albania, as regards both short and long-term needs? What was agreed on more timely action to defuse developing crises in time and prevent human catastrophes on the scale of Albania? In relation to food security, what progress was made in dealing with the appalling way in which the common agricultural policy, with its consequential food dumping on third world countries, actively undermines the development priorities both of the Union and of individual member countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a whole list of questions. The evening discussion on humanitarian issues was enlightened by the presence of the EU envoy, Aldo Ayello, and the UN and OAU envoy, Mr. Mohamed Sahnoun, when we discussed in detail the questions worrying all of us on eastern Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi and the general Great Lakes problem. We also discussed Liberia and Sierra Leone, Angola, Afghanistan and Bosnia. A much greater understanding was achieved in that meeting.
In addition to those discussions, we had a useful discussion on food security, as I mentioned. Everyone agreed with the proposals that I have now put through twice on coherence, so that the decisions that are made in one committee of the European Union—such as that on export refunds for beef destined for southern Africa—should not be upset by decisions in another. The discussions on food security will need to be taken forward in the working groups of officials and will come to a formal council when decisions can be adopted. The general discussion was in a firm sense "forward" and it will be something to which I shall look forward to taking forward after the general election.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Lomé IV convention was discussed at the meeting? If so, was any agreement for refinancing
764
reached on that? Can she say also whether the issue of negotiating the budget which is to take place in 1999 was discussed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there was no discussion on the refinancing of Lomé, nor on the budget. They would be proper topics for a formal development council. We had a preliminary exchange of views in November's development council on the future of Lomé. I put forward a six-point plan on practical improvements for the delivery of aid, on simplification, programming, allocation, concentration, targeting and on management. They were discussed further in the informal council.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the meeting receive any information about the current situation in Liberia, of a more recent date than the Minister's last letter to me in which she said that 23,000 of the troops of the armed factions had by then been demobilised and that the Government were exploring the possibility of international assistance for the forthcoming elections there? Does not the noble Baroness believe that it is time to reconsider the proposals that were made by Mr. John McIntosh for resuscitation of the rubber industry in Liberia, which we had the pleasure of discussing with her some time ago? That would implement the agreement by ECOWAS that demobilisation and development had to go hand in hand in Liberia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to the best of my memory, slightly higher figures than the ones quoted by the noble Lord were discussed at the meeting because more soldiers have now come forward to be demobilised. There was a general feeling that the direction of progress was positive in Liberia and there was an understanding that international development was much needed. We had no specific discussion about the rubber industry, but that is a proposal which, if security is maintained in Liberia, can be taken forward. I look forward to seeing that that is done.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether she is content that the evidence is contained in the response to Albania that better arrangements for co-ordination are working? Can she also clarify whether she and her fellow Ministers were able to examine the tendency whereby in response to needs within—for example, France and Germany—increasingly resources are going to North Africa and East and Central Europe at the expense of the poorest countries? I understand that at the meeting the Minister bade farewell to her fellow Ministers. Can she clarify whether that was done in a personal position or on behalf of the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Albania was not discussed to the extent that the noble Lord seems to imagine in the actual sessions that were held because on 28th February the situation was not as grave as it has since become. What is absolutely clear is that all member states were minded to give whatever help was practical. At the informal General Affairs Council held last weekend in Appledorn, the Foreign Secretary

765
took forward proposals for an EU mission to Albania which will go in. That mission will seek to find out how best further help can be given. However, given the information in the newspapers over the past few days, I should be very surprised if the noble Lord had not realised that the insecurity there will make it very difficult to give the help which we would genuinely like to give. Nevertheless, we are working on this matter, and I believe that we will be able to help Albania. But Albania also needs to decide to help itself.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, what environmental issues were talked about at this informal meeting and what environmental items will my noble friend implement after May?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there were no specific items on the environmental agenda, but in discussing the questions of fisheries and of food policies in the developing world it was made absolutely clear that we should be ensuring that environmental concerns are considered as a mainstream issue in all the policies taken forward. That is why the discussions on coherence are so important. One of the frustrations that everyone finds is when different parts of the Commission do not exchange the information that they should which could enhance the development of the poorest countries. That is the end to which the British development programme is devoted—to enhance the needs of the poorest people. That is why we are concentrating our aid there, but we shall be discussing that matter on Thursday. In environmental terms, I can tell my noble friend only that the programme of more than 300 environmental projects across the world—some in forestry and some in looking after the flora and fauna—are all going forward. None is short-term. I hope that they will continue to grow, as they have grown very decisively in the past five years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister give some indication as to why it was decided to hold informal meetings to discuss these matters as distinct from the calling of a formal meeting? I am quite sure the noble Baroness can give the House a good reason for it. The question is by no means hostile to her intentions. I should like to know why the decision was made to have informal meetings. Was it because, for example, one would not have to have a communiqué after an informal meeting? Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it has become customary in each presidency to devote a weekend or part of a weekend to informal discussions on a topic which is not allowed sufficient discussion, particularly in the case of development, at the formal council which takes place only once every six months. During the previous two Dutch presidencies we had informal development councils. It has always been the practice of the Dutch Government during their presidency to hold an informal development council in addition to the development council. My experience is that such an informal discussion often helps to get sensible discussions out of the development council.
766
That is because Ministers will talk freely to one another with fewer prepared briefs than they sometimes have in development councils. The costs need to be watched but it is a useful practice if there is a proper agenda with proper objectives.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as Albania is one of the poorest countries in Europe, does the Minister agree that the distribution of food aid is urgently needed? Does she further agree that at the appropriate stage it is important to offer training and advice to ensure that a stable government pay proper regard to decentralising power and strong local government as opposed to a centralised system of government? Proper training should be offered when requested to help develop a separation between the media—in particular television—and government and police.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the preponderance of agricultural work in Albania means that there are not distinct food shortages across the country as a whole. There are some localised shortages at the moment. We are watching that carefully. However, it is a mainly agricultural country and is therefore in a position on many food stuffs to continue to feed its people, provided people are devoting themselves to the land and not to fighting. The noble Baroness asked about good government. There are many ways in which the West can help good government to be developed and, as the noble Baroness knows, there are many British institutes which are willing and able to give such advice.

Future Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, following my announcement yesterday I am now in a position to announce further business after discussions within the usual channels. I should begin by saying that, if the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill is returned from the Commons in the next few moments as expected, the House will be asked to consider the Message forthwith at the start of the dinner break this evening.
Perhaps I may also say a word about the arrangements for Friday. The House will sit at 11 a.m. for Prorogation. My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have kindly agreed not to proceed with their business scheduled for that date.
My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will in a moment move a Business Motion which will suspend certain Standing Orders. The rest of my announcement is, of course, subject to that. The House will, however, wish to know that, if my noble friend's Motion is agreed to, the Clerk of the Parliaments has agreed that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments to any Bill in advance.

767
As far as tomorrow is concerned, I can inform the House that my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, have kindly agreed to withdraw their balloted Motions for short debate. Steps are being taken to inform those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in these two debates.
The business for tomorrow, Wednesday, will accordingly be as follows: the Police (Property) Bill, Third Reading, followed by the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance Bill; further consideration on Report (and remaining stages) of the Education Bill; the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, Report (and remaining stages); the Building Societies Bill, Second Reading (and remaining stages); the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill, Committee (and remaining stages); the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, Report (and remaining stages).
The following business is proposed for tomorrow's dinner break, at 7 p.m., when dinner will be available in the Dining Room: Contract (Scotland) Bill, Committee (and remaining stages); the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill, Committee (and remaining stages); the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, Committee (and remaining stages); the Welsh Development Agency Bill, Committee (and remaining stages); and the Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill, Committee (and remaining stages). There will also be an opportunity to deal with the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill, Third Reading. Furthermore, in the dinner break there will be a Motion moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol to approve the Church of England Pensions Measure. A number of affirmative instruments will also be moved in the dinner break.
It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has an Unstarred Question which is, as always, entered last on the Order Paper. It is proposed to leave that on the Order Paper. I am also able to announce the following business for Thursday, but the House will also be asked to consider any Messages that are received from another place. I can confirm to your Lordships that dinner will be available on Thursday evening. There will be the Third Reading of the Building Societies (Distributions) Bill; the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, Consideration of Commons Amendments; if the Bill is received from the Commons, the Police Bill, Consideration of Commons Amendments; the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, the House to be again in Committee, and it is expected that we shall complete all remaining stages on that day. The Sex Offenders Bill, Committee and remaining stages, will be taken.
If the following Bills are received from the other place they will be taken; namely, the Appropriation Bill, Second Reading and remaining stages; the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill, Second Reading and remaining stages; and the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill, Second Reading and remaining stages. A number of affirmative instruments will also be moved.
768
I hope that your Lordships agree and recognise that we have plenty of business to be getting on with and that we should now proceed as quickly as we can.

Building Societies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
3.11 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the provisions of Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the Session to give Her Majesty's Government the power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Lord Privy Seal a bit further on the business statement. At first sight, it is reasonable to argue that the announcement of the date of the general election is the background to the statement. I shall not detain your Lordships long, but perhaps for a minute we can examine just exactly what has happened. The Government are taking what are really quite draconian powers at this late stage of a Parliament. To be fair to the Prime Minister, he has said repeatedly that the date of the general election would be 1st May. He has said that time and time again. In order to allow for polling day on 1st May, the latest date for the dissolution of Parliament will be Wednesday 10th April. Monday 8th April is the date for dissolution. It has always been known that the Easter Recess was a factor in the business coming before your Lordships' House.
How have the Government got themselves into a position where there is so much business left over at this late stage? When the loyal Address was made at the State Opening of this Session of Parliament, it was assumed that the business in that address was sufficient only to take us up to the date of the general election. These are quite draconian powers for any government to take to themselves. I say in conclusion that my main reason for raising this matter is to say to my noble friends on the Labour Front Bench that it is my earnest hope that the incoming Labour Government will be much better business managers than the outgoing Conservative managers.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I oppose the Motion moved by the Lord Privy Seal. I do so principally on the ground that it requires the House in less than 24 hours to complete the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which has been allocated today as the first day of the Report stage. Those of us who have had responsibility either in this place or elsewhere recognise that there are problems for a government on the eve of

769
dissolution. The noble Lord has said that the problems faced by the present Government, well spelt out in the statement made by the Government Chief Whip, are of their own making. They knew the timetable for the dissolution and, indeed, they could choose the date. Yet they chose at the time of the Queen's Speech to introduce into your Lordships' House or another place, Bills of such complexity and importance that their progress was bound to be slow. So I believe that none of us needs to have sympathy for the Government in their dilemma because they have brought it entirely upon themselves.
I look back to the occasions when it was necessary to discuss with the government of the day what the concluding business should be. It seems to me that the formula which was always adopted was threefold. First, the Government could drop altogether Bills which they felt were too complex, little advanced or so controversial that it was unreasonable to expect them to make progress before the dissolution of Parliament. Secondly, they could allow adequate time for scrutiny and debate even in the few remaining days. I say to the Government that there is no reason why your Lordships' House should not meet next week to conclude this business. There is no reason at all why the business should be crammed in for today, tomorrow and Thursday. Indeed, before the Prime Minister made his announcement and visited Her Majesty the Queen, it was widely understood that your Lordships' House might well return after Easter. So there is no reason at all why the Government should not allow this House to perform its time-honoured task of scrutiny on the basis of its own timetable for the general election.
The third point is this. There are some Bills that should be dropped and some that should be proceeded with. But every government at this juncture surely has discussions in this House not only with the Labour Party but with other parties, the Cross-Benchers and all Members of your Lordships' House as appropriate. It is reasonable to discuss a compromise which will give the Government at least some of what they want, but nevertheless recognising the strength of opinion elsewhere.
As regards the Crime (Sentences) Bill, to which I refer in particular, there is no proposal to drop it, although many of us believe that that would be by far the better course. There is no proposal to allow adequate time for scrutiny and debate. We may find it necessary to debate this measure through the night and into the following day. Neither is there any proposal for compromise.
Your Lordships will remember that on the first day of Committee stage of the Bill we debated a very important amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Your Lordships carried that amendment, and not simply in the name of the party of the noble Lord. The majority of those who voted for the amendment, which was 103 Members of your Lordships' House, were drawn from these Benches, the Cross-Benches, the Government Benches and the Bench of Bishops, too.
770
I had supposed that as regards the third possible course the Lord Privy Seal would inform us this afternoon. Perhaps he is still to inform us—or perhaps that task will fall to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—but we still do not know. But if we were told that the Government will not seek to overturn the decision of your Lordships' House and another place at least there would be an element of compromise which could be considered. However, there has been no such breath of change on the part of the Government. So the Bill is not to be dropped or scrutinised and there is to be no compromise.
I revert to what I believe has been the custom and practice. If it has been abandoned in recent years so much the worse and it should return. It is for the Government to look at three kinds of Bills. The first are those Bills which are necessary by common consent during the period of an election; for example, it might be a Bill for revenue purposes. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that your Lordships have a very limited role in that respect and would oppose such a Bill going through the House. There might be a counter-terrorism Bill which needed renewal. Nobody, certainly not noble Lords on these Benches, would dispute the need to make progress on such a Bill. There might be an emergency Bill which comes forward unforeseen and out of the darkness. But there are no Bills here which have come forward as being unforeseen. They are Bills which were laid before your Lordships' House or another place months ago. So there is no emergency in the list of Bills to which reference has been made.
Thirdly, there are Bills on international affairs. The ground for Parliament considering them is that the world will not wait. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition so Parliament must pass the legislation. But the Crime (Sentences) Bill is not a necessary Bill; it is not an emergency measure and has no international implications. If the Government are so confident of their prospects it would be easy to drop it and return to it in the first Queen's Speech of the next Parliament. But if there is doubt about whether the Government will be in a position to introduce the Bill, is it right that at this juncture, at this 11th hour and 59th minute, a Bill with constitutional implications should be carried through the House?
I refer again to those who have spoken against the Bill in whole or in part. There have been speeches against the Bill from the principal Opposition Benches. There have been speeches against the Bill made by those on these Benches which have been loud, clear and persistent. Noble Lords on the Cross-Benches have spoken against it as have those on the Government Back Benches. This is a Bill which is opposed not only by one of the Opposition parties but it is opposed on all sides of the House. It changes the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. It makes a major change in our penal system in relation to sentencing and it has been criticised heavily inside the House and outside it.
I do not hold the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal nor the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, responsible for the problem which your Lordships' House faces. Both noble Lords are very cognisant of the wishes of your

771
Lordships and are very sensitive to the atmosphere of this House. Decisions have been made elsewhere, either by the Cabinet colleagues of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, or—and I hope it is not the case—with the connivance of one of the spokesmen of Her Majesty's Opposition. We do not know and I make no accusation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will confirm his support for my wish and the wish of the House to proceed with this Bill following a reasonable timetable.
I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to go back to his colleagues and to ask them to think again and to listen to the voice of your Lordships. He knows what your Lordships' House believes. I ask him to reconsider this matter and to make a further Statement later today. Alternatively, many of us will have to vote against the Motion standing in his name.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. I have not spoken against the Crime (Sentences) Bill because there are many noble and learned Lords who have much greater knowledge than I do and I respect their views very much indeed, not least those of the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and many others. Therefore, I have not spoken on the Bill.
However, I understand that there may have been a deal to agree some form of Bill and I should be extremely concerned if that were the case. Whatever deal may or may not have been struck, I hope that noble Lords will ignore any such deal and vote today in the way that they think right. That may mean that the Bill could not go through in the present Parliament. I do not believe that that would be any kind of disaster. I hope that there may be a better Bill in the next Parliament on the same subject, whichever party is in government. I say nothing about that at the moment.
But I am very concerned that your Lordships should not feel bound to agree to the Crime (Sentences) Bill without the amendments which this House wishes to carry. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will ignore any deals, formal or informal, which may have been made.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Barnett. Whatever may be one's views of the merits of the Bill, I hope that we all agree that it is a Bill of extreme importance, and it is also a controversial Bill. It is important because it changes in major ways the sentencing policy which has been used in the courts of this country for many years. It introduces principles which have not been part of our criminal law in the past—whether it is in the extension of the number of mandatory life sentences or in bringing in mandatory sentences for other types of offences.
Part II changes completely the proposals for early release which were introduced in this country as recently as 1991 and which are now proposed to be changed totally by the Bill.
772
One reason that the Bill is controversial is that, in those aspects which I have mentioned, it is in total contradiction to the expressed views of this Government a few years ago in the White Paper and the legislation which they then passed.
Secondly, it is controversial not only because of differences within the party's approach but it is controversial in that it is opposed almost unanimously by those who are required to conduct business in the courts on our behalf. We have heard the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and many other senior judges. But I believe also that the vast majority of the judiciary as a whole, who will be required to implement it, opposes its principles.
That being so, if ever there was a Bill which required careful and sensible debate and consideration by this House, it is this Bill. I happen to believe that sentencing policy should not be a matter for party political debate. Where possible, it should be a matter for consensus between the parties and, even more so, a policy acceptable to those who are required to impose it. Therefore, it is vital that any such alteration to policy should be considered away from the fevered atmosphere of electioneering and should be given the full and detailed consideration that this House can give to such a Bill. We should take account of the views expressed in this House by senior members of the judiciary who are Members of this House.
What is the position? We have now had four days in Committee. We now start Report stage with 148 amendments on 23 pages, many of which are brought in by the Government themselves. None of those matters has yet been debated. Where we had debates, we made important changes to Clauses 2 and 3. But the whole issue of Part II was taken away to consider what amendments the Government should make. Those amendments were tabled last Thursday. They require greater consideration than can be given to them by taking all stages of the Bill today.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, there is absolutely no emergency or hurry with this Bill. It is accepted by the Government that the implementation of the Bill will depend on resources, and particularly resources within the Prison Service. It is accepted today that those resources of the Prison Service are stretched to a degree and it is not proposed by the Government, in their own White Paper and in the statements made in this House, that the main controversial issues in the Bill—that is, mandatory sentences for burglary and a change of rules regarding early release—should come into force before, at the earliest, October 1999.
In those circumstances, there can be no urgency at all with this Bill and I ask the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider the matter and to give this House adequate time to take into account the concerns which have been expressed by all those involved in the day-to-day working of our courts and the prison governors who are responsible for the organisation of the new proposals for early release. I see no urgency. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I believe that this Bill could come back to the House after the general election without any difficulty and loss following further consideration—and in a better form than its present one.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Motion before the House is not about the Crime (Sentences) Bill but about the business of the House between now and Prorogation and Dissolution. Such a Motion is far from unprecedented. I understand that, if not universal, it is the normal procedure of the House when Dissolution has been announced. However, I well understand the position of those noble Lords who feel strongly that a Business Motion of this kind should not apply to the Crime (Sentences) Bill. They will know that I have felt sufficiently strongly in opposition to the Bill to move amendments, a few of which have achieved the assent of your Lordships but many of which have not.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that there are three possible options for the future of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. One is that it should complete its proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. For that to happen the House would have to sit next week and probably after Easter because the time available for it did not allow for Report stage to be completed before 27th March. That would have meant that Third Reading and Commons consideration of Lords amendments would have had to take place after Easter. It is a fact, which we do not have to applaud or disapprove of, that that option is not open to us.
The second option, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is that the Bill should be subject to what he called "compromise"; in other words, its formal proceedings should be abandoned and agreement should be reached between the usual channels—of course, he would argue that for these purposes the usual channels should be extended—as to which parts of the Bill were generally acceptable and which parts were not.
There is a great deal to be said for that point of view, but the Government have it in their power to reject it and have rejected it. If this Business Motion is carried, the Government have it in their power to complete the stages of the Bill today: to have the Lords amendments considered by another place on Thursday and to have the Bill passed and receive Royal Assent by the end of this week. Many of your Lordships may feel that either of those two options would be better than the option that has been taken. Although I sympathise with that view, those options are simply not available to noble Lords. We must be realistic and accept that the Government have it within their power to complete the business but have not done so. They have it within their power to truncate the business and intend to do so.
Having said that, one is left with a third, inferior option. All I say about it is that, as your Lordships have been forcefully reminded, your Lordships have taken a view in opposition to the major plank of Part I of the Bill. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place will vigorously support your Lordships' decision on mandatory minimum sentences when the Bill goes back to another place on Thursday, if the business proceeds as is now proposed. Noble Lords have our assurance that every step will he resisted which seeks to overturn that important amendment, even if the Home Secretary were to say that it was a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that it is a
774
wrecking amendment, and I said so at the time. We will certainly support the amendments that your Lordships have passed.
I am a realist and I believe in accepting and working with reality. I also believe in looking forward to the future rather than complaining about the past. In looking forward to the future, I refer to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In speaking about the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, he said:
"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 prisoner population that might result".—[Official Report, 10/3/97; col. 95.]
I believe that those are wise words that apply equally to the Crime (Sentences) Bill as to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
In those circumstances, I believe that it is force majeure. We have no alternative but to accept the Business Motion that the Government have put forward. That has been agreed, and we shall support it. It is necessary for the proper conduct of the great range of business that must be completed by agreement before the end of this Parliament. It is unfortunate that it includes business over which there is no agreement. But that is a fact of life and of politics and we had better face it. Although we on these Benches will support the Business Motion I shall have no appetite for shadow boxing later today. I shall not be moving the amendments tabled in my name on the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I have no objection to the Motion moved by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. I shall not vote against it. It seems inevitable in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. But this is perhaps the only opportunity to express my grave concern about the use that is being made of the powers granted by this Motion in respect of the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
When he introduced his Business Statement yesterday my noble friend the Chief Whip ended the exchange of views with the hope that your Lordships would deal with the issue as sympathetically as possible so that the reputation of the House might be maintained. The reputation of our House depends above all on giving a digested consideration to a very major Bill.
It is well known that I am not in favour of some of the provisions in the Bill, but that is not the point that I seek to press at the moment. This is a major Bill with substantial effects on the judicial system, and the basis of justice in this country should not be changed in this or in any other substantial way until Parliament, including this House, has properly digested it. It has not been properly digested.
It is not just a question of mandatory sentences and their extension, which at Committee stage was a major issue and which remains a major issue. There are also issues relating to the Parole Board. Following Committee stage, the Government have tabled amendments which I believe will make improvements in that regard. But that very important aspect of the Bill requires further consideration and digestion. For

775
example, there is the question of the way in which prisoners on release do or do not comply with their conditions of parole and how they should be brought back and dealt with if they break them or threaten to do so. That needs much greater consideration. I do not believe that it is consistent with the reputation of this House to allow this Bill to go forward in its present form. It is much more than the much-contested amendments about mandatory sentences.
I believe that, of the options open to us, the only proper course is for this Bill to be dropped. While I shall support the Motion—this is necessary in order to complete our business before the general election—I urge the Government to think hard about the way that they propose to deal with this Bill. The matter cannot be dealt with on the basis of some unspoken compromise between the Front Benches and another place.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to express, quite briefly, the dismay that I feel at the course which it is proposed to adopt in relation to the Crime (Sentences) Bill. This Bill is not put forward as a short-term measure—a quick, overnight panacea, an instant fix. It is put forward as a measure intended to have profound and long-term effects on the lives of our fellow citizens and on the penal arrangements made for those in custody. It is a measure which, if implemented, will affect the lives of our fellow citizens for very many years to come. Surely this is a measure which, in the debt that we owe to them, if not to ourselves, requires us to give its provisions mature deliberation.
The need for such deliberation is greater because the Bill's provisions do not represent the considered conclusions of a Royal Commission or a wide-ranging committee of inquiry. They are not founded upon any independent research. They are not supported by most of those with responsibility for operating the system, and they have been widely condemned by most academic commentators. It is difficult to imagine measures more obviously calling for searching and thoughtful scrutiny in this House. I have a deep fear that if we legislate in haste, we shall repent at leisure.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would not the reputation of your Lordships' House be vastly enhanced if the Crime (Sentences) Bill were excluded from this Motion, which is otherwise wholly acceptable? One of the purposes of this Motion is to restore mandatory sentencing and to defeat your Lordships' amendments.
It is well understood that the Bill will now pass, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, with Labour support. I am told—I may have got it wrong, but my information differs from that of the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will divide another place on these amendments, and that unless another place rejects the amendments, he will withdraw the Bill. That in effect all but ensures that it is virtually certain that another place will reject your Lordships' amendments. I, too, am a realist.
776
As to the merits of the Motion as affecting the Crime (Sentences) Bill, if Standing Orders have to be suspended to save the Bill, well and good, so be it, but—there is a but—surely the Government should accept the Bill in the form in which it passes your Lordships' House and should not divide against Lords amendments on mandatory sentencing in another place.
The Bill, if it is withdrawn, will be returned to us before the Dissolution in a day or two—probably in the dinner hour, I expect—rejecting the Lords amendments. We have the right to insist, of course, but to do so would in fact kill the Bill owing to shortage of time. It is a decision which could be described as neither reasonable nor wise in those circumstances. But to reject the Motion, if it includes the Crime (Sentences) Bill, and to decline to barter entitlement for this potage could be—your Lordships may well think—an honourable solution, even if it were to kill the Bill, to return another day, under either this or another government.
For those reasons, speaking personally, I shall be unable to support the Motion unless the Crime (Sentences) Bill were to be excluded. The merit of the Motion, as it stands, could only be to avoid disparity on either side of the Border on mandatory sentencing with the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which I gather is due to receive similar treatment under a Motion tomorrow.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said. I shall speak as "a usual channel" that did not go along with the Statement made last night by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Indeed, at the meeting we had last evening I made it clear that my noble friends would not be able to agree to the Motion which we are now debating. The reason we took that view was the one expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. There is no urgency about this Bill at all. That is the one issue which I believe is common ground with anyone who knows anything about that measure.
I waited with some interest to find out how the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was going to justify the Motion, but in fact, with great respect, he made no effort to do so. He just moved the Motion formally. I very much hope that he will now address the issues which have been raised, as I am sure that he will, by a number of his noble friends and others in this House. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank said a few moments ago, there is no absolutely no requirement to have Prorogation of this Parliament on Friday of this week—none whatsoever. It meets the convenience of Ministers. It has no purpose other than that. That is the reality, as all of us know perfectly well. If Prorogation took place next week there would have been a serious prospect of some of the issues being debated properly, both on this Bill and its Scottish equivalent.
We of course recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, did a few moments ago, that Motions of this kind are perfectly understandable at the end of a Parliament, but

777
I must say, having been in this House for a substantial number of years, that I can remember no such Motion being moved in respect of a Bill which is as controversial as this is. There is in my view no precedent whatever. The only precedent I can recall—it is not much of a precedent but, nevertheless, let me mention it—was the Criminal Justice Bill 1987. That had not been carried through this House at the time the general election was announced.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who was a Minister of State at the Home Office, asked my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and myself whether we could reach some form of agreement on that Bill: whether there was some parts of the Bill which would be acceptable to us. The view he expressed on that occasion was that matters which were, in our view, controversial would await the new Parliament. We agreed with the clauses in the Bill which dealt with the creation of the Serious Fraud Office, but the rest of the Bill was reintroduced after the general election.
On that occasion, as on this, everyone recognised that there was no urgency with the Bill. The government of the day—the Home Secretary was Mr. Douglas Hurd—handled the matter in a most sensitive fashion. That, unhappily, has not been true on this occasion.
We are either a serious revising Chamber or we are nothing. There is no purpose in this House sitting and discussing matters of great public importance if we do not do our duty properly in scrutinising legislation. Yet the Motion in relation to the application of this Bill which we have been debating this afternoon means that we are in fact surrendering totally to the Executive our rights as regards that Bill. We are surrendering our rights as a revising Chamber. I would say only this to noble Lords opposite who may find the Government's arguments more attractive than I do: remember one thing, precedents are dangerous things. A government may surprisingly quickly become an opposition and they may find precedents of this sort peculiarly uncomfortable in the future.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move an amendment to the Motion, at the end to insert,
"except in its application to the Crime (Sentences) Bill".
I suggest the amendment for these reasons: the key proposals in the Bill are threefold—the imposition of automatic life sentences on anyone convicted for a second time of a serious or violent sexual offence; the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on repeat burglars and drug dealers; and the abolition of parole for prisoners serving determinate sentences, together with the shortening of remission.
In his speech in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said:
"it is necessary to test each of the proposals by asking four questions. Will it be just? Will it serve to reduce levels of crime or increase the protection of society? Will it be cost effective? Will it work in practice?
The Lord Chief Justice then said:
"I feel bound to tell your Lordships that in my judgment these measures conspicuously fail to pass all four of those tests".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 984.]
778
In the same debate, the Master of the Rolls said:
"If this Bill is implemented, it is my fear that it will prove to be an extremely expensive way of making the criminal justice system worse".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; cols. 996–70.]
In the other place the Home Secretary said that he was introducing the Bill essentially to improve the protection of the public against serious, dangerous and persistent offenders, and to increase public confidence in the sentencing process. In the course of the Committee stage, numerous speakers have said that the Bill will have the reverse effect. It will deprive the public of protection and in many ways it will make the system a mockery.
Finally, in support of my amendment, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that considerable research, considerable consultation and considerable discussion resulted in the 1990 White Paper which was the basis of the legislation in 1991. The proposals in this Bill are diametrically opposed to what was suggested in that White Paper and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said in a recent debate:
"the Government are overturning—there is no other way to describe it—the proposals, principles and philosophies which were put forward as recently as 1990 and embodied in the … 1991 Act".
The noble Lord concluded:
"I do not believe that in respect of such a vital matter the Government can just go into reverse into this way without explaining more deeply and clearly to us in Parliament and to the public as a whole why six years ago they were wrong—not just a little wrong but fundamentally wrong—and are now fundamentally right".—[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1051.]
They have not provided that information to date, hence my tabling of this amendment to the Motion.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the original Motion was as set out on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been moved thereto, at the end to insert,
"except in its application to the Crime (Sentences) Bill".
The Question before the House, therefore, is, That the amendment to the original Motion be agreed to:
Lord Hughes: My Lords, all that I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was whether his amendment should not include also a reference to the equally controversial Scottish Bill because, as things stand, that Bill would go through along with the rest.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am afraid that under pressure of events, I had time only to think of England. However, if the noble Lord wants me to continue speaking while he writes out an amendment, I have plenty of material that I could read out.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble and learned Lord is asking me to do something which I am not capable of doing at the moment. I am quite

779
sure, however, that if the noble and learned Lord gave a little thought to it, he could make a damn sight better job of it than I would.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Leader of the House!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say just a few words before the Lord Privy Seal rises to his feet. We would not be in a position to support the amendment just moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear the cries from my right and from opposite—
Noble Lords: Behind you!
Lord Richard: and from behind—but I thought that it was sensible for me to set out the Labour Party's position on this issue.
The original Motion is clearly necessary at the end of a Parliament. The timing of the end of this Parliament is not a matter for the Opposition. It is right, however, that an opposition should co-operate with the Government in trying to succeed in providing a sensible ending to the Government's legislative programme. That we have done—not only in relation to the Bills which are before the House today but in relation also to the Bills which will come before the House tomorrow and on Thursday. I do not think that it is possible to unravel the package that has been agreed—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I know that various noble Lords do not like the agreement, but, with great respect, that is not the point. They may disagree and they may say that they are not party to the agreement, but I say only that the Labour Party has entered into an agreement and that we propose to stick by it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Lord Privy Seal responds to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, perhaps I may make a few additional comments from these Benches. The agreement that has been reached in another place is in no way binding on this House, which did not reach that agreement itself. As I understand it, the purpose of this debate is precisely to determine whether it is the wish of this House to accede to that agreement which was made without discussion or deliberation with other Members of this House, including representatives of the Cross Benches and of some Opposition parties.
There can be almost no example more harsh of the power of the Executive than an agreement made between the two Front Benches without adequate consideration of the much wider considerations which cover this Bill. From all Benches in this Chamber in the
780
past few minutes we have heard very powerful arguments as to why the Bill should not be allowed to go ahead without due further deliberation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put forward what I regarded as a totally unacceptable argument. It went along the lines that if there is not the political will from the Front Benches, it is only realistic to say that there is no way in which their agreement can be overturned. I cannot accept that argument. It is a dangerous argument with the widest possible repercussions for a parliamentary democracy.
Perhaps I may make one further point on the substance of the matter. We know, because we have had evidence directly from the prison governors, that our prison system is in a state of advanced crisis. It may be the case that literally within the next few weeks or months the prison system will be unable to cope with the demands made upon it. We have heard from the Lord Chief Justice that those noble Lords who know most about the criminal justice system are extremely worried about the implications of the Bill. We know from my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that there are the strongest reasons why the Bill should be deliberated at much greater length, in much greater detail and with much greater consideration as regards our own responsibility for those who work in the Prison Service, in the criminal justice system, in the police force and, for that matter, for offenders.
It has been said that this is a revising Chamber if it is anything. However, I also understood that it was a deliberative Chamber if it was anything: a Chamber charged with deliberating about the pressures that are brought to bear on Ministers and Members of another place. All of us know the pressures that are currently bearing upon Ministers and their shadows as a result of trying to show who can be tougher on crime; but it is the job of this House to resist sudden pressures, often driven by the popular media, to consider the long-term consequences of what is done and to consider the effects of the law.
I plead that we give serious consideration to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because, as I understand it, it is an amendment in the true spirit of this House and its responsibility for the constitution of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords: Leader!
4 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I shall be just two minutes or less. The cat is now out of the bag. I am the political innocent who had not seen it all along. The cat is that there has been a satanic pact between the two main political parties to see that this ill-considered legislation is forced through without proper examination by this House, because neither is prepared to forgo the hope of outbidding the other for the populist vote in the law and order debate leading up to the election. That is the truth of the matter and, to my mind, it is a deplorably cynical attitude to the administration of justice.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is a well-known truism in British parliamentary life for the Back Benches to look more than once when both Front Benches tell the same story. I am fully conscious of the honourable tradition behind that observation, which is one that I know many rebels deployed in their time in the other place. However, despite all the eloquence which we have heard against the Crime (Sentences) Bill during the course of the past 50 minutes, I have to say, notwithstanding my opening observation, that the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord McIntosh, were perfectly correct in their fundamental observations.
This Motion is a Motion for the sake of good order and good government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the Government Front Bench, with its usual courtesy, gave a hearing to all noble Lords who have spoken thus far. I am sure, therefore, that noble Lords will wish to do the same for me.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, observed, it is a Motion which tries to ensure that the dying days of a Parliament are conducted with a sense of good order and with decorum. I have not a great length of parliamentary experience, but I find it difficult to remember the end of a single Parliament when there was not a substantial amount of legislation still outstanding, much of it controversial, and when the usual channels in both Houses have not done their best to achieve a practical accommodation in the dying days of a Parliament to try to preserve good sense and dignity to the end.
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will allow me to proceed for a little longer, I shall give way to him with the greatest of pleasure. However, I should like to complete this one point.
I believe it is fair to say that the Motion which I moved earlier, without, as some noble Lords observed, further explanation, is directed at that objective only. We deliberately put on the Report stage of the crime Bill this afternoon knowing that it would be important for noble Lords to consider whether they would like to make further progress on that legislation. If the Motion is passed by your Lordships and we proceed to the Report stage of the Bill, there will be more opportunities for noble Lords from all sides of the House to make speeches of very much the same character as we have heard this afternoon. I make no complaint about that. However, what I do say, with the greatest of respect to the many very distinguished noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken, is that this is not the Motion upon which to speak, unless it is the desire of noble Lords—and I say this with great diffidence—in some elegant way to begin to filibuster the discussion at every opportunity.
782
I noticed that the noble Lords, Lord Harris, and Lord Barnett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, regard it as the right of this House to kill a Bill should it feel so inclined. Should we ever be so unfortunate as to lose an election, I will remember those observations with some interest under different circumstances. I should also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms did indeed talk to the Convener and discuss the matter with him. I am assured by my noble friend that that is so. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I apologise for asking the following question. Can the noble Viscount explain to the House what is different in the circumstances of this Bill from the circumstances of the Criminal Justice Bill 1987? The noble Viscount said that there are often such situations at the end of a Parliament, but can he cite any single example where there was such strong opposition from his Benches, from many Members of the Cross Benches, from the whole of the judiciary and, indeed, from so many parts of the House?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as has been made clear by the Benches of the party immediately opposite, there has been an agreement about how the conduct of business should be arranged during the remaining days of this week. It is open to your Lordships' House to reject that agreement, as it is always open to Members of this House to vote against any Motion. I would strongly oppose such a thought but I would certainly support the right of noble Lords—as, indeed, noble Lords would expect me to—to express their opinion by way of voting or any other means. It is on the Motion that we will vote if the noble and learned Lord wishes to press the amendment to a vote. I make no quarrel about that. We have a suggestion which we have put before your Lordships and it is for your Lordships to decide.
I repeat, if your Lordships wish to object to any particular item of business which is before the House during the course of the next two or three days, it is open to your Lordships to do so on the basis of the business before us. However, what I find difficult is what I believe the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord McIntosh, also find difficult; namely, to interrupt what has been a well-established precedent that we try to bring our business to a reasonable conclusion in an elegant and agreed way in the last days of a Parliament.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, would not disagree with me, as a parliamentarian of many more years standing than I suspect I shall ever have, that the prerogative of the Prime Minister is clearly to call an election and to ask the Queen for prorogation and dissolution at his discretion. That decision is one which has been granted to Prime Ministers of all parties in power for some time now, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. It is then, in the light of that decision, a matter of whether or not either House of Parliament wishes to allow the proposed arrangement of business to stand.
If this order of business is to have any chance of standing, and if not only the crime Bill but also all the rest of the Government's proposed legislation—and, indeed,

783
many Private Members' Bills—are to have any chance of becoming law in an agreed and orderly manner, we will have to suspend this Standing Order. We have an opportunity to discuss the crime Bill after that. I suggest to your Lordships that is the moment when objections of a passionately felt kind are appropriate, if your Lordships wish to make them.
I have to say by way of conclusion that, of course, even if we had persisted until 8th April—the last possible date for Parliament to sit if we were to have an election on 1st May—it is highly unlikely that we would have been able to complete consideration of this Bill anyway. If we were to have done so, we would have had to suspend Standing Orders in any case. I say with the greatest of respect to the House that I think perhaps we are mixing apples and oranges here. I am sure there will be much passionate debate later this afternoon should my Motion find favour with the House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope I may ask the noble Viscount a question. Is he saying that the Prime Minister of the day always has carte blanche to fill up the timetable with masses of legislation in the final Session of a Parliament which he knows cannot be completed in time and then to ramrod it through at the last moment without debate?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is for promoters of Bills to propose and for Parliament to decide.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Motion was as set out on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been moved thereto at the end to insert,
"except in its application to the Crime (Sentences) Bill".
The Question before this House, therefore, is, That the amendment to the original Motion be agreed to.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Acton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Addington, L.

Bramall, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bridges, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brightman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brooks of Tremotfa, L.

Annan, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Avebury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Calverley, L.

Barnett, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Bingham of Cornhill, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Blease, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blyth, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

784

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Crook, L.

Mustill, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Newall, L.

Devonport, V.

Nicol, B.

Dickinson, L.

Northbourne, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Norton, L.

Dowding, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Emerton, B.

Onslow, E.

Exmouth, V.

Palmer, L.

Ezra, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flowers, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Gillmore of Thamesfield, L.

Pym, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Grey, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Hayter, L.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Stallard, L.

Hylton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strafford, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kennet, L.

Taverne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tenby V.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lane, L.

Tope, L.

Leathers, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walpole, L.

Longford, E.

Warnock, B.

Lowry, L.

Weatherill, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Meston, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Addison, V.

Butterworth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Byford, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Caithness, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Attlee, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Belstead, L.

Clinton, L.

Berners, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Boardman, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cranbrook, E.

785

Cuckney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Marsh, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denbigh, E.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donegall, M.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Downshire, M.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Dubs, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Paul, L.

Feldman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Flather, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gainford, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Reay, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ridley, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Romney, E.

Gray, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Rowallan, L.

Haig, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Haslam, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayman, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hemphill, L.

Sewel, L.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Holderness, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Somerset, D.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stewartby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Keyes, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kitchener, E.

Terrington, L.

Knutsford, V.

Teviot, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trefgame, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsay, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lucas, L.

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wharton, B.

Luke, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lyell, L.

Whitty, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

McConnell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Winston, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wolfson, L.

Wynford, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 206 Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Addison, V.

Downshire, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Dubs, L.

Ailsa, M.

Dundee, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eatwell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elles, B.

Astor, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Attlee, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Flather, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Berners, B.

Geddes, L.

Blaker, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Blatch, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Bradford, E.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Bramall, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brightman, L.

Gray, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Haig, E.

Byford, B.

Halsbury, E.

Cadman, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Caithness, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haslam, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L.

Hemphill, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Henley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Chorley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Howe, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ilchester, E.

Clinton, L.

Inchyra, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Inglewood, L.

Courtown, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Keyes, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kimball, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kitchener, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Knutsford, V.

Crook, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cross, V.

Leathers, V.

Cuckney, L.

Leigh, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lucas, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denham, L.

Luke, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lyell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Donegall, M.

McConnell, L.

787

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Rees, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Renton, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Richard, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Romney, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rowallan, L.

Marsh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Merrivale, L.

Selsdon, L.

Middleton, L.

Sewel, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sharples, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somerset, D.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Swinfen, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Swinton, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Norrie, L.

Terrington, L.

Northesk, E.

Teviot, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Trefgame, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wharton, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Pym, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Quinton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wise, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hooson, L.

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hughes, L.

Avebury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Barnett, L.

Hylton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blyth, L.

Kennet, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bridges, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lane, L.

Calverley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlisle, E.

Longford, E.

Chalfont, L.

McNair, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cobbold, L.

Meston, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monson, L.

Devonport, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ogmore, L.

Exmouth, V.

Palmer, L.

Ezra, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Gillmore of Thamesfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Hayter, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hindlip, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

788

Shaughnessy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Simon, V.

Tope, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Stallard, L.

Varley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Walpole, L.

Taverne, L.

Warnock, B.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tenby, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
4.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 14th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
4.34 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Mandatory life sentence for second serious offence]:
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("other than any offence in respect of which the offender is a rehabilitated person for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clause 2 of the Bill which provides that on the second conviction of various offences a person should be sentenced to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment. As I have always accepted, the objective of the clause is somewhat different from the mandatory provisions of Clauses 3 and 4. It is argued that the purpose of the clause, to make mandatory life sentences, is not so much to deal with the length of time that the person spends inside prison—it is proposed that the Government should still have the power to make a tariff order as to the length of time a person should stay—but to cover the release of that person back into society. To that extent I accept that this clause is different from the two clauses on mandatory sentences on burglary and drugs as regards which this House has already debated amendments to provide that no mandatory sentence needs to be passed if it is against the interests of justice.
Having accepted that, I still believe that there are major objections to the clause. First, it has the effect of increasing enormously the number of cases where a person is to be given a mandatory life sentence. Secondly, it is ironic in a Bill which claims to deal with

789
honesty in sentencing that the intention of the Government is that the court will have to pass a life sentence and say, "But that doesn't mean that you will serve life". Instead the court will say, "You will go to prison for life and serve a sentence of two years". That sounds to me a recipe for bringing the courts into disrepute.
Thirdly, since the tariff system is without regard to the provisions on early release, it means that none of those people—many of them, according to the Minister, dangerous people convicted of a second offence of a serious or sexual nature—will have any incentive for good behaviour in prison. The Minister may answer that the parole review will decide whether the individual comes out. But that will be assessed on risk. Although one of the assessments may be good behaviour, the provision to encourage people to behave well in prison will have no effect on those people because they will serve the tariff in full, irrespective of whether or not they behave well.
I see the Minister shakes her head. I shall of course give way. However, I asked her that specific question on the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part. She agreed that the provisions on early release would not relate to the tariff sentence recommended to be served.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shook my head simply because the noble Lord will hear—I invite him to discuss the amendments later—that behaviour will be taken into account by the Parole Board when considering release arrangements. The primary function is to consider the safety of the public.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, that is exactly what I said, with respect. While I concede that behaviour may be one of the matters taken into account in deciding whether a person should be released, certainly under the provisions for early release which the Government have now tabled it will not be the only condition; and there will not be the deliberate encouragement of good behaviour for those who are sentenced under Clause 2 that exists under the other provisions.
Finally, as has been said, for example, by bodies such as Women Against Rape, a mandatory life sentence will inevitably lead to a considerable reduction in pleas of guilty and a considerable increase, therefore, in the number of cases tried in which the victims will be required to give evidence. In addition, although I know that my noble friend the Minister disputed this at Committee stage, I have absolutely no doubt that it will lead to an enhanced degree of plea bargaining in a way which we have not had in this country. I believe that there are strong arguments against the mandatory provisions for a life sentence for a second offence as set out in Clause 2.
The purpose of my amendment is much smaller in range. It accepts the principle that there should be mandatory life sentences for those with a second conviction of a serious or sexual nature but that the earlier conviction should not count if it is a conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The purpose of that Act, passed in 1974 at a time when
790
the climate was perhaps different, with the support of the then Conservative Party and the recently retired Home Office Ministers, was that those who commit a crime, particularly at an early stage in their lives, should have the opportunity to live down that crime and to be rehabilitated. If they keep out of trouble in the future a stage would be reached when that conviction would be treated as spent and as if it no longer existed.
What are the periods involved? For anyone sentenced on the first offence to a term of imprisonment of longer than 30 months, the conviction never becomes spent. My noble friend the Minister says that she is concerned about the man or the woman committing serious offences. Under my amendment, if that first conviction produced a sentence of over 30 months it is never spent and the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill apply. On the other hand, if the sentence was of between six months and two and a half years, that conviction becomes spent once the person has kept out of any form of trouble for 10 years. If a person who has committed one of the offences to which Clause 1 applies has been given a sentence of imprisonment of less than two and a half years but more than six months and commits another offence of the nature set out in Clause 2 within 10 years, Clause 2 will apply as it stands. If, on the other hand, he or she has "gone straight" for over 10 years, that conviction will not be of effect for the purpose of this clause.
Perhaps I may take an example given by the Lord Chief Justice on an earlier occasion. If a youth of, let us say, 16 or 17 is convicted of having sexual intercourse with a girl of 12, for which he receives a custodial sentence of some nature, at the age of 40 becomes involved in a fight in which as a result of one blow struck by him the person he is fighting falls, hits his head on a pillar and is killed, and is charged with manslaughter, the earlier conviction would not be taken into account.
If the period of imprisonment is of up to six months, the conviction becomes spent after seven years. If the sentence is a fine, it becomes spent after five years. If the sentence is of conditional discharge or probation, it becomes spent at the end of that period of probation or conditional discharge. The whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to grade the periods during which the offence will be held against the person on the basis of the severity of the sentence, which itself will be based on the nature and severity of the offence. If we are to have a system whereby the commission of a second offence of a wide variety of natures—here one is talking not only of rape but also of manslaughter and wounding with intent, among other offences (Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act)—surely it is right that we should have a provision in the Bill similar to that in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act so that a conviction which is spent for all other purposes should be spent also for the purposes of the Bill.
Noble Lords may say that this is irrelevant and of little importance because, as the Government always tell us, this clause is aimed at the person who commits repeated dangerous offences. Therefore anyone who comes before the court for a second time save on a charge of rape, having originally been charged with one

791
of the other offences on the list, is almost bound to have received a sentence of over two and a half years' imprisonment and therefore would not be affected by my amendment. But that is not so. The figures given by the Home Office in the White Paper published last year show that in 1994—I am open to correction as to the year—35 per cent. of those convicted of one of the offences mentioned in Clause 2 received no custodial sentence at all, whereas for those who went to prison the average term of imprisonment was 4.1 years. That means that in 35 per cent. of cases coming before the courts where people are convicted for a first time of an offence among those listed the court which tries the case does not consider any form of imprisonment to be appropriate.
If that is so, can it really be right when after 10, 20 or 30 years a person commits one of the other offences referred to in the list, having many years ago committed an offence for which it was not thought appropriate that he should go to prison, he should receive an automatic life sentence? I cannot believe that the Government intend that to be so and I cannot believe that they have thought it through.
With great respect to my noble friend the Minister, from what she or others outside have said—and I mean this in no personal way against my noble friend—the implication has been that those who oppose the Bill are in some way soft on crime. It is not a question of being soft on crime. For a person convicted of any of the offences listed in Clause 2, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. If the court feels that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence, it may give it; and it may give it whether the person appears for a first occasion or for a second occasion with a spent conviction. This amendment simply seeks no mandatory requirement to impose a second conviction where the first conviction by the very nature of the sentence imposed was shown not to be of the greatest gravity.
This comes back to the fact that the offences under Clause 2 are extremely wide. I take the example of manslaughter. If in the course of a fight someone strikes a blow which tragically kills another and he then pleads guilty to manslaughter, is it to be said that he has to go to prison for life because at some stage in the past he had one previous conviction among that list? There are the examples that Women Against Rape has given. Suppose a woman who has suffered years of aggravated violence, eventually in desperation strikes out and wounds the person who has been violent towards her and is convicted of wounding with intent. If on a previous occasion several years ago in a similar situation she committed an act which led to such a conviction and the court felt that in all the circumstances due to the provocation and the life that she has lived it would be inappropriate to send her to prison, is it seriously to be said that she must go to prison for life on the second occasion?
I do not want to repeat the speeches made at Committee stage of the Bill. I merely make the point that one looks at the offences and says, "But this person is charged with rape"—or attempted rape or manslaughter and those offences sound and normally are
792
extremely grave. Within the degrees particularly of the manslaughter charge and the Section 18 charge there is such a wide degree of seriousness that there should be some recognition of that. I take what I believe to be the least recognition of all by saying that, when looking at the previous offence, if it is found to be one which has already been spent and the person has been rehabilitated for all other purposes, it should not count as a conviction for the purposes of Section 1.
I apologise to the House if my speech has been somewhat disjointed. I started it without knowing where my notes were and picked them up about half way through. I am not quite sure whether I have covered fully my intentions. But I believe very strongly that if this clause is to be carried with the mandatory sentence, the very least that we can do is ensure that spent convictions do not count. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It seems to me that there is an element of retrospection operating. After the person has been of good behaviour for a sufficiently long time, he having had a sentence of less than 30 months, it seems to me that he has achieved a status—the status of a rehabilitated offender. The Bill removes that status, because if he commits any of the so-called serious offences, even though the particular offence that he has committed is of a very minor kind on the facts, he has lost his rehabilitated status. On the face of it, that would seem to be quite contrary to the appropriate principle that the criminal law should not be retrospective or retroactive.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. First of all, let us take the statistic to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred; namely, that, in 1994, 35 per cent. of people convicted of the categories of crime listed as serious offences in subsection (5) of this clause did not receive a custodial sentence. What are we to take from that? Are we to take it that the judges failed and that the judges were soft on crime? If that is to be the inference to be drawn, what about the role of the Attorney-General, who has a right to appeal a sentence that he considers not to be sufficient? On how many occasions has the Attorney-General appealed the 35 per cent. of convictions? Are we to assume that in 1994 the Attorney-General failed in his duty and that he is soft on crime?
What that one statistic illustrates better than anything else is the diverse nature of the categories to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred. The danger is that the House will be blinded by the categorisation that appears in subsection (5). As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, under manslaughter the differences between one conviction for manslaughter and another are huge. A single punch outside a public house to a person who has an eggshell skull can result in a fatal injury. All those who have practised in the courts have experience of such cases.
The noble Lord also referred to the gravest provocation that can arise through domestic violence, which would reduce a murder charge to manslaughter

793
through the defence of provocation, and very frequently results in a battered wife receiving a non-custodial sentence, even though she has killed her husband in circumstances of provocation.
Another category that frequently arises is that of a person who is a fringe party to a joint enterprise. With other types of offence which are covered—for example, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent—there may be a group of people involved. One person strikes the blow but the others who happen to be with him are caught up in a joint enterprise of one kind or another and consequently their criminality is that much less. On very frequent occasions, they do not receive sentences of imprisonment above 30 months. Every single offence listed can be graver or less grave depending on the particular circumstances. That is what judges have traditionally been for—to sort out what is a serious offence and what is not a serious offence. But subsection (5) defines serious offences and categorises them in that way.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that rehabilitated offenders, those whose sentences originally were not more than 30 months and who have not received serious or long sentences of imprisonment, should not be caught by the mandatory sentences and life sentences that are now proposed. It is sensible that one should have regard to the sentence imposed on the first offence before one imposes a mandatory life sentence for something later. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment raises the important issue of qualifying convictions for the automatic life sentence provided by Clause 2 of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill provides that convictions for the serious offences covered by Clause 2 count as qualifying convictions irrespective of the time that has elapsed between them and irrespective of whether the qualifying convictions were received prior to commencement.
The effect of the amendments would be that convictions would not "count" as qualifying convictions if they were "spent" under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. No new points have been made by my learned friend in the course of discussing the amendment.
The purpose of the 1974 Act is to help those who have offended, who have served their sentence and then led a law abiding life, to go about their daily life and to obtain employment without being unfairly penalised or disadvantaged. It is an opportunity for someone who has truly reformed to wipe the slate clean and start again. That is fair and reasonable. But the 1974 Act does not mean that if someone commits a further offence, his original offence should be ignored in any future criminal proceedings. The 1974 Act expressly provides that previous convictions may be taken account of in criminal proceedings whether or not the conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of the Act.
It is already the case that previous convictions, whether spent or otherwise, can be taken into account by the courts in sentencing. Under provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 courts may take account of previous convictions when deciding the seriousness
794
of the offence for which they are sentencing. The only exception to that is in respect of convictions for which an absolute or conditional discharge is given. There is express statutory provision in Section 1C of the 1973 Powers of the Criminal Courts Act which makes clear that such discharges are not deemed to be convictions for any purpose except in certain limited circumstances. That reflects the fact that the court has taken the view that although an offence has been committed it is inexpedient to inflict punishment.
The provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill are consistent with that wider approach, as indeed are the mandatory sentence provisions in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which my noble friend does not seek to change. That is, I believe, the right approach. I see no reason at all why "spent" convictions should not be taken into account in respect of the mandatory minimum penalties in the Bill. The fact that a conviction was obtained several years ago does not necessarily mean that it is of no consequence or that it should be disregarded when the question of public safety is concerned.
The purpose of the automatic life sentence under Clause 2 is to provide greater protection for the public from serious violent or sexual offenders. The offences covered by Clause 2 of the Bill are some of the most dangerous offences—which put victims' health and well-being, and sometimes their very lives, at serious risk. The fact that the offender committed one of those offences several years ago and that on that occasion the judge did not see fit to impose a long prison sentence does not, to my mind, mean that the offender's first offence should automatically be ignored. Nor does it mean that we can assume that he is not a risk to the public.
It should be noted that convictions can become "spent" in as little as five years for most non-custodial sentences, seven years if the custodial sentence is not more than six months and 10 years if the custodial sentence is up to two-and-a-half years. It seems to me that the public should have the guarantee that someone who is, say, convicted of a serious wounding offence, for which he received 30 months' imprisonment, and is later convicted of attempted murder, will receive a life sentence even if the second offence is committed 10 years after the first conviction. If my noble friend's amendment was accepted that would not be the case. The courts would of course have the discretion to impose such a sentence. But, as I have said, in my view, unless there are exceptional circumstances about the case which the courts can of course take account of under the Bill, the public should have the assurance the automatic life sentence provides; that is, that an offender who has committed not just one but two serious offences will be detained unless he is judged not to be a risk to others.
A provision that required all spent convictions to be ignored not only introduces an element of uncertainty but could also lead to some anomalous outcomes. The question of whether an offender's previous convictions counted would depend on whether the second offence was, for example, committed 10 years and one day after conviction for the first offence or nine years and 364 days after the convictions. Clause 2 as it stands is

795
clear and straightforward. Excluding "spent" convictions from its scope would not improve the provisions and could considerably reduce the protection that Clause 2 is intended to provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the inoffensive single punch. The courts have at their disposal other ways of dealing legally with such cases. Section 18 of the 1861 Act, wounding with intent, is covered by Clause 2. However, as the noble Lord knows, Section 20 of the Act, wounding without intent is not covered by Clause 2.
Perhaps I might say to my noble friend to confirm my intervention that behaviour will be taken into account; of course it will not be the sole determinant for release. I was pressed by my noble friend Lord Belstead, and readily agreed to discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and amendments are coming forward in my name. They will confirm that behaviour will be taken into account. Indeed, that is the way in which the Parole Board works at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talks about someone being almost killed by a simple punch. If the simple punch is caught by the clause, it is with intent; he intended to harm. The simple punch may have seemed inoffensive at the time but, caught in the example given by the noble Lord, caused the person to be seriously injured. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sees such a punch as not being serious; but it is serious to the person who received it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I was referring to manslaughter caused by a single punch, where intent is not required. It may be a person who aims a swinging blow which connects, so long as he intends to aim the blow; he may not intend serious harm. It is the manslaughter cases to which I refer, not the cases of wounding with intent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are talking about with or without intent in relation to the particular qualifying offence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, manslaughter is a qualifying offence. My point is that in manslaughter the largest divisions, the greatest gradations, occur between very nearly murder or the simple punch to which we have been referring.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. If there had been an intent in the fatal case to which reference has been made, it would be murder. In a manslaughter case no intent is required except to inflict the specific violence complained of.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again the noble and learned Lord makes my point. The person may not have intended to kill somebody, but will certainly have intended to harm somebody. The fact that the single punch knocked somebody to the ground and they died as a result would mean that it is a matter for the courts to determine whether that person intended to kill and
796
therefore whether it was murder or manslaughter. However, the fact is that it is a violent offence and somebody was fatally wounded by the punch.
I come back to the principle. Noble Lords appear to be bent on finding ways of dealing more leniently with people who cause serious injury to members of the public. We are saying that repeated offences of violence, sexual or otherwise, should be regarded as extremely serious. My noble friend does not agree with Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and I respect that point. We agree to differ in that regard. But we regard violent and sexual offences as serious and believe that the minimum mandatory sentence is important and pertinent.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to automatic life sentences as being inconsistent with honesty in sentencing. Again, the tariff that is set to reflect the seriousness of the offence is announced in open court. Everyone will know what it is and exactly how long the offender must serve before being released. On release the offender will be supervised for life. That is the point of the clause.
There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that the public are properly protected from dangerous and persistent offenders and ensuring that the courts have some discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in certain circumstances. The Bill allows the courts to set aside the automatic life sentence in exceptional circumstances—which may include the circumstances of the previous offence, the current offence and any other relevant factors. I believe that this provides the necessary balance. I do not think the provisions would be improved by introducing uncertainty and what amounts to an element of luck on the part of the offender as to whether his previous conviction will count. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press the amendments.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am disappointed by that reply. I never suggested that because an offence was spent it should therefore be ignored for all purposes. Perhaps it was my fault for not making my position clear. Of course the courts can look at spent convictions. They can still look at spent convictions under my amendment. That is part of the history of the individual which they take into account when deciding what is the appropriate sentence. The purpose of my amendment was not—nor do I believe that, as drafted, it did it—to say that in future the courts should be oblivious of or ignore spent convictions. It was to say that if a conviction was spent, that should not automatically trigger a life sentence. Equally, with great respect, at the end of her remarks my noble friend the Minister came very near to saying that those of us who are critical of such Bills are in some way soft on crime. I repeat: I do not believe I am soft on crime. I have said that my amendment would not prevent the courts passing either a life sentence or a long determinate sentence, whichever they thought was appropriate, in a particular case. What I object to is the mandatory provisions which will interfere with the ability of the courts to do justice.

797
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend with great respect—this may have been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that the point I was making and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was making was that manslaughter does not require an intent to do serious bodily harm. The Minister insisted that those who kill with one blow, if they intend to do serious bodily harm, should take the consequences. That would be murder. The difference with manslaughter is the causing of the death unlawfully but without intent to do serious bodily harm. If two people agree voluntarily to enter into a fight and one strikes the other and tragically that other dies, that is the unlawful infliction of harm even if there was no intention whatever to do serious bodily harm. With the greatest respect, the Government do not enhance the credibility of their proposal by misunderstanding many of the objections that have been made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has reminisced on occasions, I wonder whether I might give one example. I prosecuted in a case at Lancaster Assizes which was defended, as it so happens—this is merely for background information—by my noble friend Lord Waddington, who is now in rather warmer climes than us in Bermuda. A wife was charged with wounding her husband with intent, the facts being that he had provoked her and provoked her until she eventually, in a fury, grabbed a carving knife and stabbed him. By the time the case came to trial the woman and her husband were reconciled. That wonderful judge, Mr. Justice Stable, who will be remembered by some of the learned Law Lords present, even said to the warder, "Take that lady out of the dock and let her come and sit in the witness box". On her plea of guilty to wounding with intent, to which she had no answer, he addressed her in a friendly manner, pointed out the possible disastrous consequences of what she had done and then told her to go home and live the rest of her married life in bliss with her husband. Is my noble friend really suggesting that instead he should have said, "You must go to prison for life"? Situations change so much.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. If the lady commits that offence again at some time in the future, or indeed had committed a similar violent offence at some time in the past, is he saying that it would be a one-off isolated case to be treated leniently in the courts?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, under the Bill it may not be necessary for it to be the same offence. It may be that a person at the age of 15 had been swept up as a look-out for a gang which was involved in a street robbery and even on that occasion may have been dealt with without being sent inside and then, 25 years later, appears in the circumstances which I have given. I realised, as I was making the analogy, that of course it is subject to there having been some other offence. But the purpose of the amendment is not to be weak on crime but to point out that the difference in degrees is such that one should have some flexibility in the courts. The amendment is an attempt to give the courts that flexibility.
798
I should have liked to press the amendment to a vote. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not only abandoned the support that he was prepared to give to the proposal in Committee but is not even here, and since New Labour appears to have lost all principle of any kind so far as concerns this Bill, it would be merely wasting the time of the House. I just say this to the Minister. I think it is tragic that the Home Office is not willing to consider any of the proposals that are put forward. I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches may choose to divide on the next amendment, which is wider in its interpretation than that which I moved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, after ("unless") insert (", in the interests of justice,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that five weeks ago, when the Bill was spending its first day in Committee on 13th February, it agreed significantly to amend what were then Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which are now Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendment was supported on all sides of the Committee. Perhaps I may remind the House of the key parts of it.
It removed from the clauses to which I referred the phrase "exceptional circumstances" and in its place said that the courts should have regard to the specific circumstances which would make,
"the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
I abbreviate the amendment slightly not to mislead your Lordships but simply to remind the House of the nature and purpose of the amendment to which it then agreed.
In essence, the amendments now before the House and standing in my name seek to do for what was Clause 1 and is now Clause 2 what was done in the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendments follow very closely the amendment which was tabled but not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, on that occasion. The issue raised by the amendments and by the clause were fully explored at Second Reading and in the discussion we had on Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, will allow me, because it may well be that he wishes to contribute later to the debate, to quote from some remarks he made at Second Reading. They are a very forceful expression indeed of the shortcomings of the clause. Of the provisions of the clause, the noble and learned Lord said—
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the column number of Hansard from which he is about to quote?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I normally give the column number after I have given the quotation. However, if it will help the noble Lord, I am

799
referring to col. 986 of Hansard of 27th January. I think the noble Lord will find that I very fairly quote—I would not want to do otherwise—what the noble and learned Lord said. He said that the solution contained in Clause 1 was "irremediably flawed", that it would give rise to "indefensible anomalies" and that those anomalies were symptoms of "a radically unsound approach". In addition, he said,
"To some extent measures of this kind are also self-defeating".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had a great deal to reply to in that debate. I do not believe that I am being unfair when I say that her references to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord were scattered throughout her reply at Second Reading. There were many other matters to discuss. I hope very much that she will take the opportunity today to reply in substance to these very important points.
Nothing much has changed since 27th January, except perhaps that the chairman of the Prison Governors' Association has expressed the deepest alarm at the growth of the prison population. That is something which was referred to by noble Lords on all sides of the House when they contemplated the possibility of this Bill adding between 10,500, which I believe was the Minister's figure, and 30,000 to the prison numbers. The chairman of the Prison Governors' Association, in a statement which seems to me to be without parallel, referred to the dangers which would come in terms of security because of overcrowding. As I say, that is in respect of the provisions of this Bill. He said in his remarks on Wednesday of last week,
"We can no longer cope with this unprecedented rise. No one in their right mind would seriously consider the introduction of prison ships and abandoned holiday camps as prison accommodation … The Prison Service has reached the crossroads where policy and operations meet".
In the debate on that occasion, I referred at length—perhaps at too great a length—to the alternative forms of prison accommodation then being anticipated. I said, as regards the additional prisoners who have to be accommodated,
"Are they to be accommodated in disused military camps, in a former Pontins holiday camp … or is the front runner still a prison ship? Can the Minister say categorically that police cells will not be regularly used?".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 982.]
The Minister will recall that she was unable to reply to these questions given the pressure of time. Perhaps I may anticipate what she might have said, if that inversion of time is possible in your Lordships' House. In response to,
"Are they to be accommodated in disused miliary camps?",
she might have said, "Possibly". In response to my question,
"in a former Pontin's holiday camp?",
she might have said, "If we can get planning permission". In answer to the question whether the accommodation would be in a prison ship, she might have answered, "Yes". But what would she have said about the possibility of accommodation in police cells? In replying to this particular group of amendments, I ask her to say something to your Lordships about whether she anticipates sooner or later that the overflow of
800
requirements for prison accommodation will involve stays in police cells. If the Minister is prepared to reply now I shall be very grateful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise because I am fascinated by the line of argument that the noble Lord is using. We are talking about Clause 2. The amendments are about setting aside the mandatory life sentence in more cases than are allowed for under the Bill. There is no question whatever of curtailing, changing, modifying or varying the tariff that will be imposed by the courts. Therefore, the impact on prisons is not affected one iota by Clause 2 of the Bill. The courts will give a tariff which entirely reflects the seriousness of the crime. No one is suggesting otherwise.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I shall turn very briefly to the question of the tariff in a minute. I make it absolutely clear that the present problem of overcrowded prisons cannot relate to this Bill. The noble Baroness is saying that it cannot relate to Clause 2 either. If that is her point I shall consider it. My understanding of the Bill, given her remarks about the tariff, is that the prospect of the provisions of Clause 2 will in due course add to the prison population. However, if the noble Baroness says I am wrong I am willing to consider it. But irrespective of that, I hope that she will reply to the specific point that I have raised. Will she say in the course of her reply on this occasion whether in the near future we shall find that the overcrowding of our prisons will lead to the use of police cells? It is a simple question and I ask the Minister to give a simple reply, irrespective of whether she believes it is relevant to the discussion about this clause.
As regards the tariff to which she referred and which, I believe, was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at one stage in the discussion on this clause, judges already have discretion in setting the minimum period to be served under the life sentence. It is very interesting to reflect on what was said about this in discussion in another place. The Minister's colleague, Mr. Maclean, said as regards the argument on tariffs,
"it will be entirely up to the judge to set up an appropriate tariff within the automatic life sentence, taking account of the seriousness of the assault for which the person has been found guilty under section 18".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 14/11/96; col. 66.]
Unless the Minister says otherwise, I assume that those sentiments are ones that the Minister herself will express. Surely it makes nonsense of the idea of honest sentencing and holds the whole system of sentencing up to disrepute, if indeed the judge has complete discretion under the tariff in the provisions of this clause.
I do not want to add anything further because I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House want to contribute. With respect to the Minister, I hope that she will not say, as she said in relation to amendments to what were then Clauses 2 and 3, that persons in fear of life sentences will rejoice in these amendments. That is not a sufficient case against them. I hope that neither

801
will she seek to speak "for the man on the top of the bus". To change the expression, I hope that she will not say, as the Home Secretary and the noble Baroness, I believe, have said, that these amendments will drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on the first day of Committee stage that they were not wrecking amendments. These are not wrecking amendments, even if some noble Lords might like them to be so. They should be judged on their merits. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I did not realise that the Minister was going to intervene quite so rapidly. I believe that some people on the Cross-Benches wish to speak. I hope that, after me, the Minister will wait in order to allow them to do so. I am a little bewildered by the Minister's references to the tariff. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank about how the imposition of a sentence which has nothing whatever to do with the tariff is compatible with honesty in sentencing. It is one that has puzzled me for quite some time.
I notice the noble Baroness registering—shall I say "dismay", if that is a sufficiently courteous way of putting it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I express dismay on two counts. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, did not speak to his amendments. His line of argument was entirely to do with the length of custody and not with the test for applying the automatic life sentence. I am also dismayed at the gratuitous insult just afforded to me by the noble Earl. I got up rather slowly then. I looked around and nobody seemed to be rising. In fact, the noble Earl rose from his seat rather slowly because I believe that he too was looking around the Chamber. I hope I have never had a reputation in this House for cutting people out of debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have always made sure that people who wish to speak in a debate do so.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I made no imputation at all in relation to the noble Baroness's motives. If she thought that she heard such an imputation, I am happy to withdraw it unreservedly.
But the point that she made about my noble friend's line of argument is rather more substantial and deserves rather more of a reply. As I understand her, she complains that my noble friend was talking about length of time served and not about length of sentence. Is the noble Baroness telling us that length of time served has no relationship to length of sentence? If she is telling us that, I really cannot see how that is compatible with any claim whatever to honesty in sentencing.
Indeed, the whole question of the relationship between the tariff and the sentence has been far too little explored during the course of the Bill. The specific
802
words of the amendment take out "exceptional circumstances" and instead insert "specific circumstances". In line 3, they insert after "unless in the interests of justice". Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert the words,
"would make the imposition of a life sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
Those are very much nearer to words which should be used in any Bill which purports to be concerned with the administration of justice. I have always been unhappy about the words "exceptional circumstances". I listened with great care to the words used about them at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill. There are two ways in which the words "exceptional circumstances" could be construed: either because you believe all cases are different, as I do, in which case you could construe all circumstances to be exceptional; or, as the noble and learned Lord assured us the courts are more likely to do, you could give a much stricter and tighter construction, as courts must obviously be inclined to do, and then find that very few circumstances are exceptional.
The word "exceptional" will mean that we shall find no end in wandering mazes lost. The word "specific" is what is needed if we are to make any attempt to do justice. If we are considering what is the right sentence in a particular case, we must consider what happened exactly in that particular case; in other words, the specific circumstances.
The noble Baroness is obviously not pleased with that idea but I cannot for a moment understand why. I cannot understand how anything else can purport to be just and I cannot understand how a mandatory sentence can purport to be just, whatever its length, even if it is the right length for that particular crime. Then it is, as the Italians say when two trains meet at a junction, coincidenza.
We are asked also in Amendment No. 4—and this is important—to consider whether the sentence would be unjust in all the circumstances. Here I should mention the briefing that we have received from Women Against Rape which deals particularly, among other things, with murders and manslaughters committed by people who have been victims of domestic violence. Those cases are capable of producing the most tragic injustice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, in the Ahluwhalia case has given a truly memorable judgment on that which I am pleased to see tends to be being widely followed; but it is not always. The Minister will remember the case of Sara Thornton which caused her department considerable perplexity in times past. I have written to her department on that case, which turned out to be more complicated that I then realised. I must apologise to the department for writing letters which were not always fully conversant with all the facts. But in making that apology to the Minister's department, I merely underline the basic point of my case: that until you know about all the specific circumstances of a particular offence, you cannot have the first idea about what type of punishment should be imposed.

803
In considering this amendment, we must consider also that we have not yet received any favourable response to the amendment moved right at the very end of the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and spoken to with great eloquence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, about the discount for guilty pleas. That also is a point of considerable concern to Women Against Rape because where there is no sufficient discount for guilty pleas, a rapist or, indeed, a burglar, detected by a night watchman is sometimes under temptation to kill in order to destroy the only possible witness. If we should make that more likely then, in my opinion, we should not be protecting the public. For those reasons, among others that I shall not list at present, I am happy to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, to impose a life sentence on any defendant in any circumstances is a solemn and serious thing. That is not because most such defendants spend the rest of their lives in prison; it is well known that they do not. Nevertheless, it is solemn and serious because when such a sentence is passed, the defendant potentially forfeits the rest of his life to the state.
In current circumstances, it is the most drastic penalty which society gives itself the power to impose. Unhappily, such sentences are sometimes necessary. I am not now concerned to argue against the mandatory life sentence for murder. I accept without qualification that such sentences are sometimes necessary for the protection of the public in other cases. None of that is controversial. No one this evening on these amendments is arguing against life sentences. As I understand it, these amendments seek merely to ensure that that solemn and serious step should not be taken where it is not in the interests of justice to take it or where it is unjust in all the circumstances to impose such a sentence.
I am not asking that the courts should be above the law. Throughout I have accepted the power of review and the right of the Attorney-General to go to the Court of Appeal and say, "A life sentence should have been imposed in this case and it was not. Please impose it". But I am bound to say to your Lordships that speaking purely for myself, I cannot see any rational ground for opposing these modest amendments.
How can it be contrary to good government or the administration of justice that those draconian sentences should not be imposed mandatorily where it is not in the interests of justice to impose them or where it is contrary to justice to do so? Faced with these amendments, I would expect the noble Baroness, who has been so patient in these debates, to say, "Yes, of course, it goes without saying. How could the Government wish mandatory life sentences to be imposed where it is contrary to the interests of justice?" Instead of that, we find implacable opposition to what is an obvious and very modest addition to the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to raise three particular separate matters and ask the noble Baroness for her assistance with regard to them.
804
The complaint has been made that in, I think, 1994, there were 217 cases in which there was a second conviction for one of those so-called serious offences. Out of the 217, only 10 were the subject matter of a life sentence. We are given no particulars of those cases but we do know that six of them were referred by the Attorney-General to the courts but he did not seek a life sentence in any of them.
The Attorney-General has a pretty traumatic existence. He is disliked by the press because it is his function to bring proceedings for contempt. He is constantly a target of one kind or another. But I do not see why he should be attacked sub silentio by the Government unless they justify that attack. It follows from the criticisms made in regard to those statistics upon which the Government rely so much that, out of the 207 cases, the Attorney-General should have referred, if not all, certainly a major proportion; otherwise, there is no justification for these provisions at all. As I have understood it, the justification is that the judiciary is not doing enough to protect the public and accordingly it must lose its discretion, right and duty to sentence in this type of case. But it means that if the judges were being unduly lenient, as is alleged, the Attorney-General failed in his statutory obligation to bring to the attention of the Court of Appeal cases of this kind where it was said that he had been unduly lenient.
Clearly, this matter gave the Home Secretary some concern. Correspondence was raised to this effect. He wrote in reply to the Sunday Telegraph on 23rd February—I read only the material part of the letter—
"Mr. Palmer asks why the Attorney General had not exercised his power to refer the other 207 cases to the Court of Appeal. The answer is that the Attorney General can only refer to the Court of Appeal if they are 'unduly lenient'. Long sentences are frequently imposed on offenders convicted of serious violent and sex offences—which cannot therefore he challenged as unduly lenient".
An intelligent first-year law student would have done better than that. The first thing that he would have been told to do would be to refer to the sentencing encyclopaedia and manual. There he would have found two quite recent cases brought by the Attorney-General in which the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had upheld his submissions that a long sentence (in one case 12 years) was unduly lenient and imposed a life sentence. Statistics on this subject were referred to in debate before the letter of Sunday 23rd November.
I therefore put to the noble Baroness the question that the Home Secretary so signally failed to answer. If she suggests that out of 207 cases the judges imposed unduly lenient sentences, (a) will she identify them, and (b) will she say why the Attorney-General has apparently failed in his statutory duty?
My second question arises in relation to the imposition of the false label "life imprisonment". It is a false label because the Government do not intend, save in a tiny minority of cases, that a person so sentenced should stay in prison all his life. That is a false label which involves all the paraphernalia of tariffs and parole. For over 20 years there has lain on the shelves of the Home Secretary an immensely detailed report of a committee presided over by Lord Butler dealing with

805
the problem of persons who have been convicted and given determinate sentences and then have been released when there is still a danger. He proposed that there should be offences dealt with in that way under a quite different heading. He suggested that they should be reviewable sentences. That involved medical evidence to establish that the offender was a danger and every two years consideration of the person's position. It also meant that if the person was discharged from prison there should be a licence that would last for the remainder of his life, subject always to review.
If there was a serious problem, why was that report never debated? It never was debated in either House. If there was a serious problem, why was not the suggestion in that report looked at? If there was a serious problem, why was it not referred to the Law Commission to see whether an up-to-date approach was appropriate? Why was it not realised that it had considerable advantages over the false label which in the interests of honesty in sentencing the Government insist upon?
Those advantages are at least the following. First, the reviewable sentence was not limited to a second offender. One could start right in, provided it was the appropriate category of offence. Secondly, it was not the restricted list in this case which covers all cases in which the maximum sentence is life. The appendix to that report set out two categories of case: one in which those who were sentenced had a sentence that was capable of being life and those which were not but which had to be a second offence following the life sentence type of case—so much wider. Thirdly, one had to have medical evidence.
There is no requirement for medical evidence in regard to the automatic life sentence proposed by the Government. They look with equanimity upon a judge saying to an individual, "I am obliged by Parliament to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on you. I am also obliged to explain to you precisely what I am doing, so do not be upset by the macabre sound of the words 'life sentence' because they do not mean what they say. In your case I am quite satisfied by the evidence that there is nothing that suggests you are a danger. The facts of the case, involving violence but in circumstances which are very special, oblige me in the exercise of my powers to specify that the element of the life sentence which should be looked upon as punishment and as a deterrent is 18 months. Because I have already indicated that I do not consider that you are in any way a danger, I have alerted the Parole Board, which must be satisfied in 18 months' time that you are no longer a danger so that it can put an entry into its diary and keep you in prison not a moment longer than your medical condition requires".
In Lord Butler's proposal one did not go through that charade. You had your medical evidence and you operated on that. The Minister was kind enough to say in the debate on 13th February when she was replying to an intervention of mine in which I raised the matter of the Butler Report:
"The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point. I can tell him that many hours were given over to the consideration of that option".—[Official Report, 13/2/97; co1.367.]
806
I should like to know what was the result of those many hours. First, why was not the Butler Report revealed to Parliament during the debate; and, secondly, why were we not told why the Butler option was not operated instead of the false label still under the heading of honesty in sentencing?
The third area of information for which I should be grateful relates to the 1990 White Paper, because this was not only my plea; it was the plea, to which I referred in terms today, of the former Home Secretary in the debate resulting from a Motion moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor in May last year. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, drew specific attention to the 1990 White Paper, and explained that the Government had gone totally in reverse. He said, as I have already quoted:
"I do not believe that in respect of such a vital matter the Government can just go into reverse in this way without explaining more deeply and clearly to us in Parliament and to the public as a whole why six years ago they were wrong—not just a little wrong but fundamentally wrong—and are now fundamentally right".—[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1051.]
We have never been told how that volte face came about. We have never been shown any research, and consideration. All we have is essentially the figure of 217 in regard to those serious crimes, unexplained, and clearly an indirect attack upon the Attorney-General.
That is all I propose to say in support of the amendment, save that in so far as the amendment seeks to ensure that the judge can do justice with regard to the offender before him, and in so far as the Government resist that amendment, the Government are clearly, by implication, on occasions obliging the judge to do injustice.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said succinctly everything that can be possibly and unanswerably said about the amendment. I rise only to ask my noble friend the Minister two matters with regard to the issues that have been raised and the relationship between the tariff and the life sentence. First, is it the Government's intention that in passing sentence, let us say, the judge will say, "You will go to prison for life and you will serve a period in my view of two years?" If that is so, in what way does that enhance the dignity of the court rather than undermine the importance of the life sentence?
Of course the judge pronounces the tariff in murder cases at the moment, but invariably in the 10s of years, 20s of years, or even further, or for life as a whole. But here, as has been accepted by my noble friend the Minister during the previous debate—I think accepted—the variety of offences that will be caught means inevitably that there will be cases where the judge will be saying,"You will go to prison for life and the tariff will be"—then something fairly modest. Does she believe that that will enhance the standing of the court in the eyes of the public?
Secondly, did my noble friend really mean it when she said to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the clause would in no way increase the prison population? I realise of course that she was saying that, since the person will not serve life, he or she will serve the tariff,

807
and that therefore, if the tariff equates to the other sentence, that in itself—I accept it and I accepted it in an earlier speech—will not affect the prison population. But as I understood it, the whole raison d'être of this clause as set out in Protecting the Public is that people will be able to be kept in prison beyond the end of the tariff sentence. That is the argument for it, and if that is not the argument, what is the argument?
Thirdly, will my noble friend tell us what thought the Government have given as to what the tariff should apply? Is the tariff intended to be the sentence that the judge would have given were he not required to impose a life sentence? Because if it is, and since she said that the provisions for early release will not affect the period of the tariff, that in itself will increase the length that the person spends in prison by anything up to 18 per cent.—because if you pass a sentence of three years on someone who has pleaded guilty to a glassing, and that person then obtains full remission, he or she will come out at three years less 18 per cent.
If there are two people together and you pass a sentence of life imprisonment for a second offence but say that the tariff shall be three years on the plea, that person will serve longer than the person to whom you have given the three years, because that person will serve the three years in full. Or is the intention—have the Government given thought to this—when deciding what the tariff is that the judges should not only first do the mental arithmetic job of reducing the existing sentence by 66 per cent. under Clause 23 so as to provide for the proposals for early release but that they should then reduce the sentence by a further 18 per cent. so as to achieve their purpose of not increasing the prison population? That is what my noble friend said. She said that it would not by one jot increase the size of the prison population.
Have the Government thought this through? Is it intended that the period of the tariff sentence should be less than the sentence that would otherwise be given if the provisions did not apply? If so, are we not in the rather ironic situation that with two people charged with the same offence one is sentenced for a first offence and is given six years by the judge, while the other is on his second offence and the judge gives him life; but is required instead of giving him six years to say, "You will go to prison for only five years"? It does not seem to me that that will enhance the standing of the courts in the eyes of the public.
6 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may provide the noble Baroness with the reference for which I was looking but could not find. It is in the Second Reading debate on 27th January 1997, at col. 987 of Hansard. The Lord Chief Justice said that during the calender years 1995 and 1996 the Court of Appeal, on references by the Attorney-General, reviewed the cases of 86 offenders in whose case a life sentence had been imposed and in only four of those cases did the Attorney-General ask the Court of Appeal to substitute a life sentence and in two cases the court did so, in two it did not, and in one other case it did so
808
although it had not been asked to do so. Therefore, the Home Secretary or his advisers would have known before he wrote the letter some months later that the Attorney-General had all the power in the world to refer wrong sentences for a life sentence on the grounds that they were too lenient.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lord, the false label to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, is emblazoned in the title to Part I of the Bill,
"Mandatory and minimum custodial sentences".
and in the marginal note to Clause 2, which reads:
"Mandatory life sentence for second serious offence".
The Government concede that it is not the intention to impose a life sentence—a sentence for the whole of a person's natural life. I cannot improve upon the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, has just advanced in which he pointed out that a judge who is required to announce the tariff—the punitive element of the sentence—may in appropriate circumstances be announcing a tariff of as little as two or three years and thereby devalue the whole concept of the expression "life sentence".
However, the Government also concede that it is not a mandatory sentence because they allow a judge to pass a different sentence in exceptional circumstances, as the clause is drafted. It is that expression, "exceptional circumstances", which is criticised. It is a vague phrase which has been used in relation to suspended sentences. It has been given a very limited meaning. I apologise for referring to an illustration which I gave at an earlier stage of a case in which I was involved in which a level-crossing keeper was convicted of manslaughter as a result of failing to close the barriers on the level crossing. As I recall, that was the last occasion in my experience when a suspended sentence was imposed—that being an "exceptional circumstance". In that case, the judge made it quite clear that it was very unlikely that he would ever pass a suspended sentence again, having regard to the guidance that he had received.
I have sought clarification of the phrase "exceptional circumstances" not only at the Committee stage of this Bill but also on the Bill relating to Scotland. In relation to the Scottish Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in terms that it is for judges to decide what are exceptional circumstances, and refused to illustrate or to give any further guidance on what he thought that the phrase "exceptional circumstances" meant in the Scottish Bill and in this Bill. If it is simply left to judges to decide, surely it must be implied that judges are required to exercise their own judgment as to what is just and what is unjust in a particular case. What are "exceptional circumstances"? Surely it is what is just or what is unjust.
The expression contained in the amendment—"unless in the interests of justice the court is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender which would make the imposition of a life sentence unjust in all the circumstances"—sets out the purpose of a different sentence being imposed—namely, that it be imposed in the interests of justice—and the reason why a different

809
sentence is imposed—namely, that a life sentence would be unjust. What is wrong in giving that specific guidance to judges, who, in a particular case, would be required when imposing the sentence to say what specific circumstances they had in mind and why it would be unjust to pass a life sentence in all the circumstances of the case?
I fear that this clause devalues the currency of the expression "life sentence" altogether. I support the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, that so far "life sentence" has meant a solemn sentence and, as he put it, a sentence which potentially forfeit the rest of the defendant's life to the state. A life sentence has always been regarded as something to fear, something of which one should be afraid. However, as used in this almost technical way in this clause, a "life sentence", coupled with the tariff of two, three or four years, will reduce the value of that expression entirely. I support the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened during the Report stage of this Bill. If I speak very quietly I hope that your Lordships can hear me and I hope that I shall not be speaking too loudly for my learned friend who is sitting on the Bench beside me—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not learned!
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful for that polite intervention.
I have expressed great concern about the course which your Lordships are now taking with regard to this Bill. I anticipated it last night and it was then that I spoke. Having listened to the whole of this debate—I shall not repeat a single argument that has been presented to your Lordships—I ask noble Lords seriously to consider the amendment. When the noble and learned Lord—I correctly describe him—the Lord Chief Justice, comes to your Lordships' House, as he has come again today, to advise us against the dangers in which we are placing ourselves by proceeding with these mandatory sentences without sufficient checks—or by proceeding with them at all—and when the noble and learned Lord his predecessor (who I am glad to see has been in the Chamber all day today) who bravely opened our debate on 23rd May last year, has also given that advice to your Lordships, advice which has not been available in another place, it is a matter of great concern to me that your Lordships should listen to that advice from members of the judiciary and to the advice of those with such experience in these matters as my noble friend Lord Carlisle. In considering the amendment, we should therefore press our case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the provision in Clause 2 is not to impose a more severe punishment on the offender—the court will set the appropriate tariff to reflect the gravity of the offence. Rather it is to ensure that when the tariff has been served, the offender—who, after all, is a repeat violent offender—is released only if the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. Unlike the tariff, this is not a decision which the trial
810
judge will normally be in a position to make when passing sentence. There is therefore an important conceptual difference, which I know those opposed to the Bill have recognised both in this House and another place, between the automatic life sentence in Clause 2 and the mandatory minimum prison sentences in Clauses 3 and 4.
There may, nevertheless, be cases in which it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the court to impose the automatic life sentence, and that is why subsection (2) provides discretion for the court not to impose a life sentence if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances relating to either of the qualifying offences or to the offender which justify doing so. Given the nature and purpose of Clause 2, this is a discretion which I would expect the court to exercise very sparingly indeed.
The effect of Amendment No. 2, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, would be to insert an additional proviso into the test which the court must apply when deciding whether to exercise its discretion. The court would be required to impose the life sentence,
"unless, in the interests of justice, it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender which justify its not doing so".
I have to say that, so far as I can see, the net result of the amendment would be to add a number of extra words and some confusion. The Bill as it stands makes it clear that there must be exceptional circumstances which are sufficient to justify not imposing the life sentence; and the proposed amendment would not change that. The Bill does not specify that in determining this the court should further consider the interests of justice because it is unnecessary to do so. If there are exceptional circumstances, and they are sufficient to justify not imposing the mandatory life sentence, then it could not possibly be in the interests of justice to do so.
Clause 2(2) as it stands provides a clear and straightforward test. The proposed amendment, in my view, is unnecessary and detracts rather than adds to the clarity of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will not press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which also stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, go much further. Taken together, they would allow the court to set aside the life sentence if it considers that there are specific circumstances relating to either of the qualifying offences or to the offender which would make the imposition of a life sentence,
"unjust in all the circumstances".
It is rather difficult to think of any relevant circumstances which are not specific and which do not relate either to the offence or the offender. The effect of these amendments would therefore be to leave the trial judge with an entirely open-ended discretion to set aside the automatic life sentence if he considered for whatever reason that it would be unjust. Our firm view is that where an offender has been convicted of two serious violent or sexual offences, he should not be released unless and until it is safe to do so. That is what the

811
automatic life sentence is designed to achieve. I hope that the House will agree that the trial judge should have discretion to set aside the life sentence, and the protection of the public which it affords, only in rare cases. That high threshold is what the "exceptional circumstances" test is designed to achieve.
Perhaps I may now refer to some of the points raised during the course of the debate. I turn first to the points made by my noble friend Lord Carlisle about the automatic life sentence. The period of custody, the tariff to be served, will be determined by the judge and should reflect the seriousness of the offence. I was asked whether that would increase the prison population. I cannot see why it would automatically do so, because it would be for the judge to determine the tariff period at the end of which the Parole Board would consider the safety of release of the offender. Therefore, that would be taken into account by the judge in court because the tariff period to be served is entirely related to the offence just as it is now. However, the difference is that the automatic life sentence is made, first, because it is a repeat offender—that is, someone who has repeated a violent or sexual offence more than once—and, therefore, there are proper arrangements for his release into the community. I want to continue with that point because it relates specifically to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend the Minister that my question was whether the tariff was meant to equate with the sentence that the judge would have passed if it were not a case that came within the mandatory life sentence. Alternatively, is the tariff meant to equate with the length of sentence which that person in practice would have served; in other words, is it to be equated with the sentence, less that which the person would get off for good remission? If not, it puts up the sentence by 18 per cent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal with my noble friend's points in a moment. However, I want now to refer to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, relating to medical advice. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which precludes the court taking any advice it needs, which would include medical advice, before passing sentence—or, in this case, it would be the tariff period. In determining the length of tariff to be served in custody as part of a life sentence, I cannot see why the courts should be precluded from taking any form of advice.
The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, provides a link with that made by my noble friend. I refer to the 207 cases of repeat violent offenders who were not subjected to a life sentence. The noble and learned Lord was concerned as to why it was that the Attorney-General did not make application to the Court of Appeal because of lenient sentences. The important point that we do not know about the 207 cases of repeat violent offenders is whether, when they were released from prison, they were in fact safe in the
812
community. We do not know how many of those people went out, having repeated an offence not just once but twice, and repeated yet again.
From those opposed to the Bill in this House, there appears to be a dogged determination not to accept that the purpose of the automatic life sentence for repeat violent and sexual offenders is that they should be subject to release arrangements which consider the protection of the public, because they are repeat offenders, and which provide life-long supervision for repeat violent and sexual offenders.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. However, the whole point of the Attorney-General intervening in a case where there is a long determinate sentence and arguing for a life sentence is to protect society. It is on the basis that the determinate sentence does not do that adequately that the Court of Appeal changes the determinate sentence to a life sentence. That is what happened in reported cases on the Attorney-General's reference. The fact that the Attorney-General has not sought to do so when all the material is there, I should have thought indicates that either the Attorney-General is grossly incompetent, which I do not accept, or that these are cases which were properly dealt with by the determinate sentence. It must be one thing or the other. If the Minister is complaining that some or all of the 207 cases should have received life sentences, then she is indirectly alleging that the Attorney-General has failed to carry out his statutory duty.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am doing no such thing in my response. The noble and learned Lord quite properly asked me why the Attorney-General did not refer 200 or more cases in 1994 involving serious violent or sexual offences. The answer is straightforward. Perhaps I may quote the judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, who held in 1989 that a sentence would be unduly lenient only,
"where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably have imposed".
That means that the Attorney-General may only refer cases which are outside the range of sentences. It is the tariff which reflects the seriousness of the sentence. The purpose of the automatic life sentence, as I keep having to repeat, is to ensure that a dangerous offender will be released only if and when it is safe to do so. There is no determinate sentence, however long, that can provide the protection for the public which is associated with a life sentence.
When a determinate sentence reaches the point where the prisoner is automatically released, he is released. I have visited prisons and spoken to prison officers who have looked me in the face and said, "Lady Blatch, I have to tell you that it is only a matter of when this person commits the next crime, not if he commits the next crime". They know that that person will be automatically released from prison when he is unsafe to be released into the community. We have made a proper response to this issue of the safety of the public. I make no apologies to the noble Lord,

813
Lord Thomas of Gresford, in respect of a man on top of a bus or in a market square. There is much community concern about the incidence of violence and in particular about repeat acts of violence. We shall continue to speak for those people against the learned voices in this House who have spent much time and energy to try to ensure that we make it more difficult to put in place measures that determine the safe release of prisoners into the community.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to give the noble Baroness, who is sitting down, two references—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage of this Bill. So far noble Lords have intervened as though it were the Committee stage.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I always understood that even on Report stage one can ask a question before the Minister sits down. I am not making a speech; I am asking a question in regard to the questions which I raised earlier. In view of her answer I was merely asking her to make sure that those advising her look at the Attorney-General's reference no. 34 of 1992 where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, then the Lord Chief Justice, substituted a life sentence at the suit of the Attorney-General, taking the view that the sentence was unduly lenient having regard to the danger which the offender posed.
The other case is that of the Attorney-General's reference no. 6 of 1993 where again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, said,
"Where the court is considering whether the sentence was wrong in principle in that it should have been a life sentence for the protection of the public, in our judgment the paramount consideration must be the risk to the public".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to take issue with the noble and learned Lord because I respect enormously his experience in these matters. However, he is missing the point. This matter is not about lenient sentences and it is not about appealing against lenient sentences. There is a concern in the mind of the public, and in particular in the mind of those people who have been at the receiving end of violence in the community. This measure is a response to those who repeatedly commit violent or sexual offences. The mechanism that has been put in place is not to give someone a longer period in custody but to ensure that a prisoner will not be released at the end of the tariff period until there has been a proper assessment of the risk he poses and it is considered safe to send him back into the community. If noble Lords who have supported these amendments get their way we shall again impose determinate sentences whereby at the automatic release point prison officers and probation officers knowingly release people back into the community who are repeat violent offenders without having conducted any proper risk assessment at all. The situation is even worse than that—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will allow me to finish this point. The situation is even
814
worse than that because if most noble Lords who have spoken had their way we would retain the provisions of the 1991 Act and there would be automatic release at the halfway or two-thirds point of a sentence. Repeat offenders would be sent back out into the community at that point. My noble friend shakes his head but that would be the consequence of all the amendments that my noble friend is supporting in this Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling us that she wishes to extend the process by which the—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that this is the Report stage of the Bill. No one must intervene unless he asks leave of the House. He may intervene only with the leave of the House and usually only in the form of a question.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness had sat down to give way to me. May I ask a question before the noble Baroness sits down?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling us that she is setting out a process by which the executive takes more and more control from the judiciary as regards the length of time people spend in prison, because if so not all of us find that reassuring?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I am certainly not. That is an absurd interpretation of what I have been saying and it is certainly an absurd interpretation of what is in the Bill. I have explained why in Clause 2 we are making a mandatory life sentence available to the courts with the caveat, of course, of exceptional circumstances. That is to ensure that those who repeat violent or sexual offences should be subject to proper release arrangements. The period to be spent in custody will be a matter for the courts. The courts determine guilt or innocence and the tariff period. The Parole Board will determine the release arrangements and set the conditions for recall following release arrangements. The Probation Service will manage the supervision period. There is no way in which one is removing the rights of the court. It is certainly not a case of the executive taking over. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord will welcome this, but I pray in aid the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on this point who said at the outset this afternoon that it is the right of Parliament, not the executive, to set the framework for the courts. The courts operate within the framework set down by Parliament.
I now discuss reviewable sentences and the Butler Report. As was made clear at Committee stage of this Bill, the Butler Report's proposals on reviewable sentences added nothing to discretionary life sentences which can currently be imposed for serious offences whether or not the offender has previous convictions. Its defect was that no part of the proposals provided for punishment and deterrence. Indeed, an amendment is tabled for later this evening which will bring us to that point; namely,

815
reviewable sentences and releasing people who are safe without considering punishment and deterrence. As for reviewable sentences being a more accurate label than life sentences, that is not the case, for reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. The noble and learned Lord said that under either sentence there is a lifelong liability to prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers referred to statistics on prisons. I refer him to the Official Report col. WA14 of 10th March 1997 where I gave a Written Answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the impact of this Bill on prison places. Some 8,900 places will be in place by the year 2000. That takes account of the natural growth in the prison population irrespective of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred also to the use of police cells. Every effort is being made to avoid the use of police cells. We are hopeful that we shall be successful in that. However, as I have openly admitted before in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, there is a tension in that regard.
I return to the tariff point. The tariff is the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. That is what has to be decided by the court. It should be broadly the same as the determinate sentence which the court would previously have imposed. In setting the tariff the court should apply the provisions of Clause 23 of the Bill. Once the tariff has been served, the question of whether to release the offender will be determined by the Parole Board and the normal early release arrangements do not apply.
It is perhaps worth pausing for a moment to reflect on what Clause 2 would provide if all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were accepted. I put all three together. A court would then be required to impose the automatic life sentence unless, in the interests of justice, it was of the opinion that there were specific circumstances relating either to the offences or the offender which would make the imposition of a life sentence unjust in all the circumstances. I hope that on reflection even the noble Lord himself would agree that such a formula is neither elegant nor a satisfactory way of providing guidance to the courts on parliamentary intentions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we will have to wait until 1st May to discover what the man on the top of the bus really believes, but I have greater respect for him than has the Minister.
If the Motion before the House, but not your Lordships' House, was that courts should impose a life sentence unless, in the interests of justice, there are specific circumstances which justify them not doing so, I believe that the man on the top of the bus would be in favour of it in the interests of justice. Were circumstances to be different, I would be very happy to debate that elsewhere.
If any attempt had been made to explain this clause and indeed this Bill to the public, and if the alternatives which we have ventilated in your Lordships' House had been placed in juxtaposition, I believe that the man in the street
816
would have understood something other than the policies embodied in this Bill and in a great deal more of the legislation which we have had from Her Majesty's Government. I believe, and this has been the view of successive Home Secretaries except the present one, that it is important to present to the public an alternative view to that which the public may in the first instant feel to be the case. Leadership of the public on these issues is important. It is not the duty of governments to follow. However, I do not believe that we can pursue these matters a great deal further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said that this would be an obvious and very modest addition to the Bill. I am prepared to accept that it is obvious and, in that case, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am prepared to believe that it is very modest, too. However, it is far too important an issue to leave undecided in your Lordships' House. Earlier this day we said that we believed that legislation—in particular, this Bill—should be properly scrutinised and that your Lordships could not abdicate that responsibility. Equally, we believe that there should be no unreasonable delay. To debate the amendments further might result in that, but I ask leave to test the opinion of the House.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Belstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bingham of Comhill, L.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lowry, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNally, L.

Byron, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Calverley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Norton, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Ogmore, L.

Clancarty, E.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Onslow, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Palmer, L.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rea, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hacking, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Simon, V.

Harrowby, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Hindlip, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Thurso, V.

817

Tope, L.

Warnock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Weatherill, L.

Varley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Keyes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kintore, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Knutsford, V.

Attlee, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Berners, B.

Luke, L.

Bethell, L.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

McConnell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bowness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Bradford, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brentford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridges, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Middleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Burnham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Byford, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cadman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Carnock, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Chadlington, L.

Northesk, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Reay, L.

Courtown, E.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renwick, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Romney, E.

Cross, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rowallan, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Saatchi, L.

Denbigh, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Sandford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Donegall, M.

Selsdon, L.

Downshire, M.

Sharples, B.

Erroll, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Haig, E.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Teynham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wharton, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence which falls within subsection (1) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify it not imposing a life sentence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall address your Lordships on Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I shall also address consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134.
When I moved this amendment and spoke to the other amendments in Committee, I described the amendments as being very important. Therefore I was pleased when the Minister replied that she was at least able on that point to come to an agreement with me. In her opening words, she said,
"This is an issue that we take very seriously indeed. It is an extremely important subject".—[Official Report, 13/2/97; col. 416.]
The fundamental issue that I now ask your Lordships to consider on Report is a disturbance of the principle that has been in English penal law for many years; that when a person is suffering from an identifiable psychiatric illness he is not punished but treated. In Committee I referred noble Lords to the Mental Health Act 1983. In that Act, and under previous mental health Acts, a clear position has been set out. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 there are clear procedures when a person is suffering from an identifiable psychiatric illness (based, in the court proceedings, on the evidence of two medical practitioners). Instead of sending that person to prison, he is made subject to a hospital order. When there is concern over the public safety, the court at the same time can apply restriction orders. That is under Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. There are further powers resting with the Secretary of State to make sure that the persons are not released when they are under a hospital order of indeterminate length; and under a restriction order of indeterminate length. These powers resting with the Secretary of State are that the person is not released from prison so long as there is concern relating to the safety of the public.
My noble friend having replied, I said that I should like to consider with care the speeches made in Committee and the speech of my noble friend. In reply, my noble friend said that,
"The amendments would have the effect of upsetting the balance that the Bill provides between the need to ensure that the public are protected from repeat offending and the need to enable effective medical treatment to be given to mentally disordered offenders".

819
With reference to the first of my amendments—it is in identical form to the amendment before the Committee—my noble friend said:
"The life sentence is needed to protect the public from further repetition of the most serious sexual and violent offences and to ensure that people who have a history of committing such offences repeatedly, for whatever reason, receive supervision for life". [Official Report, 13/2/97; col. 416.]
I thought the best way to approach the advice that my noble friend gave in Committee was to seek assistance from those outside your Lordships' House who have much more experience in these matters than I do. I therefore posed the question to the Penal Affairs Consortium: would not the public, as my noble friend suggested, be sufficiently protected under existing legislation, and, most specifically, under the provisions of the Mental Health Act? This is the Act to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention. If I may, I shall read the advice that I received:
"most offenders given hospital orders combined with restriction orders are detained in hospital for longer than they would otherwise have spent in prison. A restriction order can be made in cases where the court considers it necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Most restriction orders are made without limit of time. They subject the offender to indeterminate detention; decisions on release are made by a Mental Health Review Tribunal; and the patient is discharged under conditions which entail permanent liability to recall to hospital".
I thought that further advice should be sought. I sought it from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society which have a Mental Health and Disability Sub-committee. I shall read the advice that I received from that joint sub-committee of the Law Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I believe that it is important. It is as follows:
"While the Committee agrees that the public needs protection against persistent offenders, it believes that this will not be achieved by sending mentally disordered offenders to prison … Indeed, imprisonment is likely to have the opposite effect, since the mental health of the offender is likely to deteriorate while in prison, before being released untreated and unsupported into the community … Those mentally disordered prisoners who are eventually released are more likely to continue to pose a risk to the public, since their disorder may well have remained untreated during their imprisonment and it will prove far more difficult to ensure continuity of effective care from prison to the community, than from hospital to the community".
One of my concerns in the truncated proceedings that your Lordships are going through is that noble Lords have not taken the benefit of listening sufficiently to the advice from those who are very close to this matter; namely, members of the judiciary. Another of my concerns in taking a truncated course on this Bill is that your Lordships are not seeking to benefit sufficiently from a great deal of advice that has been received from persons who have immense experience in dealing with the issues arising from the Bill. I refer, for example, to the Royal College of Psychiatrists on those who are mentally disordered. It seems to me that your Lordships should equally well note the advice received in some excellent briefs. It has not been a question of round-robin letters being sent to us but of careful and considered advice received from a number of the concerned bodies. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has also received such advice.
820
Perhaps I could clear up one matter. My noble friend was able to say that a person suffering from a mental disorder would not fall under an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of the Bill. It therefore occurred to me after the amendment was passed by your Lordships' House resulting in Clause 1 of the Bill to wonder whether the position would in any way be changed. Unless any noble Lord takes a different view, it is my submission that the position is not changed and therefore it is as necessary at Report stage as it was at Committee that this amendment be agreed to.
My noble friend has shown her sympathy to this amendment. I hope that, having heard the detailed argument in Committee and having had the opportunity to read it, she will realise that it is fundamentally wrong for someone to be sent to prison who is found, on the evidence of two doctors given before the court, to have an identifiable psychiatric illness. Whatever the new provisions 45A and 45B of the Mental Health Act 1983, the problem is not solved. In the first place, the accused is sent to prison and in the second place the hospital direction, as it is called under the proposed new Section 45A, can only be used as long as there is a reasonable prospect of treatment providing benefit. That is not the case with certain psychiatric illnesses and therefore the only consequence of the Bill is that Section 45A will not keep in hospital those who have a psychiatric illness. Notwithstanding their psychiatric illness, they will be moved back to prison. We already have evidence that that will make matters worse rather than better.
One then looks to the release provisions. Although my noble friend advances the benefits of a supervision order after the period of imprisonment under a life sentence, it is nothing like as effective or as good as the existing and well-tried provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hacking has raised an extremely important matter and we must get it right. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will agree, for the reasons given by my noble friend, that we should accept these amendments. Before this debate she kindly drew my attention to Clause 45, but there are two problems there. The first is that it applies only in the case of a person convicted before the Crown Court of an offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law.
What is worrying is that the sentences under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill are to be fixed by law. Under Clause 2 it is to be a life sentence; under Clause 3 it is to be at least seven years' imprisonment, which comes near to being fixed by law; under Clause 4 it is at least three years' imprisonment, which seems to me to be fixed by law. Under Clause 2 there is no doubt whatever about the position. It is arguable that under Clauses 3 and 4 there is still a discretion on the part of the court, but it is a very limited discretion and to an extent fixed by law.

821
Be that as it may, my noble friend the Minister has invited my attention to a provision on page 32 in subsection (10) of new Section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983 which states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2) above to psychopathic disorder included a reference to a mental disorder of such other description as may be specified …"
That is very good; that gives the opportunity of applying the provisions of Clause 45 to, for example, mental handicap, people suffering from hallucinations, people who have no control over their willpower or perhaps even over their actions.
We are dealing here not with first offenders but, as my noble friend the Minister said, with people who have committed third or further offences. All the same, we must be very careful. I am worried about people suffering from mental impairment, mental handicap or, as it is euphemistically called, learning disability, and people suffering from other kinds of mental illness—I mentioned hallucinations, for example—because nothing can be done for such people in prison, where they will merely be the sport of other prisoners. They must be put in hospitals, for life if necessary. Mental illness is sometimes curable but it is a well-established medical proposition that no form of mental handicap is curable. I have some knowledge of this because I have a daughter who is severely handicapped and I am a past president of MENCAP.
We must get this right. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that, soon after the Bill comes into force, the Government will use their power to extend the application of Clause 45 to other kinds of mental disorder. However, because Clause 45 applies only to offences the sentence for which is not fixed by law, we must be very careful, especially with regard to Clause 2 under which the court has no discretion and the sentence has to be imprisonment for life.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support this group of amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hacking. I also support the points mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton. As he said, there are no facilities in prison for the treatment of those incarcerated who have a mental disorder. If they are the subject of orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 they can be treated in a secure hospital where their condition is likely to improve, as a result of which they are likely, upon final release, to be of little or no danger to the public. However, if they spend their time in gaol, their condition is likely to deteriorate. It certainly will not improve and they are likely, when they finally come out, to be of similar if not greater danger to the public.
Speaking about mentally disordered offenders, sentencing and discharge arrangements, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in a response to the Home Office and Department of Health discussion paper in 1996, said about mentally disturbed offenders being transferred back from hospital to gaol:
"Many clinicians will be unhappy about transferring such individuals back to prison because of the risks to mental health which follow such a transfer … It makes no clinical sense for
822
prisoner-patients to be transferred back to prison prior to release into the community; this will be entirely detrimental to their rehabilitation".
One of the reasons for gaoling offenders is to rehabilitate them. Therefore, I feel that we should take every step with mentally disordered offenders to ensure that rehabilitation takes place and is not destroyed by the way in which they are incarcerated.
7 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendments. I do so as president of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care and as the father of a mentally handicapped daughter. Therefore, I speak more on behalf of the 156,000 mentally handicapped people in this country than for the people who suffer from the other forms of mental disorder covered by the amendment.
I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the proposals in the Bill once again go directly against stated government policy. The Home Office/Department of Health guidance accompanying Home Office Circular 12/95 states that:
"those suffering from mental disorder who require specialist medical treatment or social support should receive it from the health and social services".
Again it states:
"Detention in prison is likely to be damaging to the mental health of a mentally disordered person, and the Prison Service is not equipped to provide treatment equivalent to that available in hospital".
Quite so. I have to say to my noble friend that the Government now appear less concerned with providing appropriate care and treatment but instead seek to hold all mentally disordered offenders fully legally culpable and responsible for their actions by imposing mandatory sentences.
The combined effect of Clause 2(2) and Schedule 4 paragraph 12(1) as drafted means that the court has no discretion to consider whether detention and treatment under the Mental Health Act, with or without restrictions, may be a more appropriate disposal. The court must impose a life sentence unless there are "exceptional circumstances". The definition of mental disorder under the Mental Health Act clearly includes mental illness, mental impairment and severe mental impairment, which I take to mean mentally handicapped people.
I have to agree with the comment of the Law Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists referred to by my noble friend Lord Hacking when he so ably moved the amendment that the imposition of a punitive element into the treatment of people with learning disabilities or mental handicap is morally repugnant and contrary to the values of a humane society.
As other noble Lords mentioned, the Government have argued that some of those concerns will be met by the introduction of the new hospital direction set out in Clause 45 of the Bill, which empowers the court, when imposing a prison sentence on an offender suffering from psychopathic disorder, to direct that the offender should first be detained in hospital. But as the Bill is

823
drafted, the hospital direction will apply only to people with psychopathic disorder, with the effect that only those offenders for whom the benefits of treatment are doubtful will get the chance to be treated. Other offenders with mental illness or learning disabilities will automatically be sentenced to imprisonment.
Further to what my noble friend Lord Renton so wisely said about the limitations of Section 45A, I refer my noble friend on the Front Bench to Section 45A(2)(c), where it is a condition of the offender being sent to hospital that the treatment:
"is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition".
As my noble friend Lord Renton said, that cannot possibly apply to the mentally handicapped, who are, by definition, incurable.
Summing up, the Government's proposals are certain to lead to a huge increase in the number of mentally disordered offenders, inappropriately placed in prison, making enormous demands on the Prison Service. As I mentioned at Committee stage, that very unfortunate situation is certain to be made still worse by the Government's community care policy, under which it is evicting mentally handicapped people from the long-stay institutions and forcing them to live, sometimes inappropriately, in an ordinary house in an ordinary street. Indeed, there are now only some 11,000 mentally handicapped people left in long-stay institutions, where they are waiting to be evicted and now, as this Bill is drafted, waiting to be sent to prison.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hacking. I speak with particular reference to the deaf. I have an interest to declare, in that I have a younger sister in her thirties who is totally deaf. The problem, whether it was deafness, brain damage or whatever, was not established until she was 10 years of age and went to various experts. It turned out to be deafness. On the strength of that, before he died my father and my stepmother started a charity, of which I am now a trustee. It is called SIGN and campaigns for deaf people and people with mental health problems. I am certainly no expert on this subject but I have had a little to do with it. We have started a number of small residential units in Manchester and London—at Balham, where we have taken over an old church. The ground floor houses a psychiatric unit, which is literally in the street. That all came out of Springfield Hospital. Upstairs is residential. People who have had problems perhaps go into the psychiatric unit on a day basis or a residential basis but there are long-term residents upstairs. We are also involved with deaf clubs.
That leads me to ask the Minister a question. I do not know whether she will be able to answer it. Understandably, people who are totally deaf have behavioural difficulties. They become very frustrated and do things out of sheer frustration. One might say that that is not a mental health problem but perhaps we can all relate to it. Through frustration, those people may end up doing something which would be caught by the present Bill. If somebody fell into that category, can the Minister say whether they would be sent to prison
824
for committing such an offence? I should sincerely hope not, because it would do no good. There would be no facilities for dealing with the deaf, who need specific treatment, medication and the relevant psychiatrists to help them. So I am greatly concerned that they might fall into that particular sphere.
Often, deaf people who have never heard a word, like my sister—and there must be many thousands of others—cannot speak either. They rely totally on sign language. In the deaf world there are two schools of thought: whether to lip read or whether to use sign language. But I know that there is a great shortage of people who are qualified at the top level to sign. When somebody who is totally deaf gets into difficulties and the police are involved, they have to find a qualified sign language expert to communicate with the deaf person, who is probably distressed, to find out what the problem is. There is a great shortage of those experts, which is just another problem. Perhaps the Minister could say whether deaf people come within the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to address many of the anxieties expressed by noble Lords and my noble friends. The amendments would have the effect of upsetting the balance which the Bill provides between the need to ensure that the public are protected from repeat offending and the need to enable effective medical treatment to be given to mentally disordered offenders. I repeat to my noble friend: it is an extremely important issue and it is essential that we get it right. The provisions in the Bill are not inconsistent with our concern for such people.
The first effect of the amendments would be to enable the courts to regard evidence of mental disorder as a reason for not applying the automatic life sentence provided by Clause 2. But again the life sentence is needed to protect the public from further repetition of the most serious sexual and violent offences; to ensure that people who have a history of committing such offences, for whatever reason, receive supervision for life. A disposal under the mental health legislation cannot achieve that. It would therefore frustrate the purpose of the mandatory sentence in protecting the public if evidence of a mental disorder could be regarded as an exceptional circumstance, thus enabling the life sentence to be avoided.
My noble friend may be concerned to ensure that mentally disordered offenders who come to be sentenced under the provision can receive treatment for their disorder. That can be achieved by way of the hospital direction power at Clause 45. Initially that will be available only for psychopathically disordered people, but there is a provision to extend its scope to all categories. Until that happens those people can be transferred to hospital by the Home Secretary if the doctors recommend it. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch was concerned about this point. If people fall outside that category, and before the extension powers are used, on advice from the medical professionals to the Home Secretary they can be removed to hospital.

825
Under Clauses 3 and 4 the courts need not apply the mandatory sentence if they think it inappropriate in the light of specific circumstances relating to the offender. The Bill also provides that they retain the power to make a hospital order as an alternative to the mandatory sentence. Paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 4 provides that the courts retain the power to make a hospital order as an alternative to the mandatory sentence. There is therefore no need for a mental disorder to be regarded as an exceptional circumstance if a hospital order appears to be the most appropriate sentence.
My noble friend Lord Renton thought that the test applied would be "exceptional circumstances" in the way we have been discussing hitherto. That is not the case. If the courts believe that the mandatory sentence should be set aside for these purposes, they have the power to do that and substitute the hospital order.
The final effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to enable the courts to substitute a guardianship order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for the mandatory sentences provided by Clauses 2 to 4. My noble friend did not speak to this amendment, but I am assuming that they are all in the same group. The guardianship order is a provision intended to ensure that vulnerable people receive care and support. It is in no way a custodial disposal nor one which provides any sanction over repeated criminal behaviour. A guardian order would be entirely inadequate to provide the public with protection from further repetition of the serious and distressing crimes with which the mandatory sentences are intended to deal. I say again that some psychopathic people are extremely dangerous and a guardianship order would not be appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Hacking referred to disturbing the principle that when a person is suffering from an identifiable psychiatric illness they should not be punished; they should be treated. Perhaps I may pose the following question to my noble friend. What happens if that person is a repeat violent offender who has either completed treatment or is untreatable, or the medical profession claims that treatment is having no effect whatever? Should that person, who may be dangerous, be released into the community?
If my noble friend is suggesting that hospital beds should be kept in cases where the medical profession says that a person is untreatable, cannot be treated further or that treatment is having no effect, he is suggesting that hospitals be turned into secure units for mentally disordered offenders. I have no doubt that my noble friend will respond to that. What is happening at the moment is that people are being released into the community who are dangerous; they are reoffending, and the Bill is attempting to answer that point. Under my noble friend's amendment, where the medical profession itself believes that the person cannot be treated further, he would be released back into the public domain if we did not have the provisions in Clause 2 and therefore the public would not be safe.
My noble friend referred to the fact that under a hospital direction the mentally disordered offender would be returned to prison. That will only be the case on the advice of the responsible medical officer that the
826
offender no longer needs to remain in hospital. Again, my noble friend misunderstands the purpose of the provision. He was suggesting that prison sentences for such people should involve only treatment and not punishment and deterrent. But some people who fall into that category are determined by the courts to be culpable for the crimes that they commit. If they are not culpable for the crimes that they commit, "exceptional circumstances" can be invoked by the courts.
On another point, my noble friend Lord Hacking said that it was fundamentally wrong for a mentally ill person to be sent to prison at all. Except for sentences passed under Clause 2, the court will retain the power and the option of making a hospital order under the Mental Health Act—a point I made for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Renton. Sentencing under Clause 2 is for repeat violent offences from which the public must be protected by supervision for life—it is supervision for life which is important in those circumstances—which cannot be provided by a Mental Health Act disposal.
The options under Clause 2 are that the courts must, for repeat offences, pass a life sentence. They may add a hospital direction under Clause 45 initially for psychopathically disordered offenders but there is the power to extend that. Even if it were not extended, the courts may recommend that the Home Secretary transfer to hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health 1983. Only if the court accepts other exceptional circumstances for not making a life sentence can it make a hospital order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Of itself, mental disorder is not an exceptional circumstance. It can be; but it is not of itself. The options under Clauses 3 and 4 are that the court may make a hospital order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983; it may pass the mandatory sentence and add a hospital direction under Clause 45; it may decide that mental disorder constitutes a specific circumstance which would make it inappropriate to pass a mandatory sentence; it may pass a mandatory sentence to recommend that the Home Secretary transfer to hospital again under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983; or it may simply pass a mandatory prison sentence. Again, it would depend on the court's determination of the culpability of the person.
One can only very much sympathise with the point made by my noble friend Lord Annaly about his sister who is profoundly deaf. However, someone who is profoundly deaf is rather different from the mentally disordered offenders about whom we are talking and to whom these amendments apply. My noble friend referred to behavioural difficulties. We are talking about people committing serious violent or sexual offences. Being profoundly deaf would not necessarily be a reason for exonerating someone in those circumstances. It would still be important for the courts to deal with that case. However, if, as my noble friend went on to say. there were medical needs to be met for that person, the options for the courts under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 would apply and hospital treatment would be afforded.

827
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch referred to proposals and said that they would lead to an increase in mentally disordered offenders being sent to prison. Given the flexibility of the provisions under the Bill as proposed, there is no reason why that should be so. The hospital order remains available for all offenders except those receiving a mandatory life sentence. Those sentenced under Clause 2, which is the mandatory life provision, can be sent to hospital under a hospital direction or, before it becomes available for categories other than psychopathic disorders, they can be transferred to hospital on the advice of the courts or the medical profession by warrant of the Home Secretary of the day.
I believe that what we have here is certainly more flexibility than we have in the courts at the moment. The provision prevents anyone being released into the community who is a repeat violent and/or sexual offender without having a proper assessment of risk. It is important that it ensures that the medical needs, whether they are mental health needs or physical needs, are properly met by the medical profession.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I have to say to her that she has addressed her remarks largely to psychopaths and mentally ill offenders. Perhaps she will briefly address herself to new Section 45A(2). It is absolutely clear that that cannot apply to mentally handicapped offenders. Mentally handicapped people are not suffering from a psychopathic disorder. The subsection states:
"that the mental disorder from which the offender is suffering is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment; and"—
the word "and" is important—
"that such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition".
None of that can apply to a mentally handicapped offender.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I have made to my noble friend is that under Clause 45 we have a power to extend to other categories; and it could be to the category that my noble friend is referring to. Under Clauses 3 and 4 we have said that the courts can set aside mandatory sentences and substitute a person going to hospital by using the Mental Health Act. If a hospital direction is not made or extended to other categories, it is also possible for the medical profession and/or the courts to recommend to the Home Secretary that a hospital provision is needed.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she can help the House on two matters arising out of what she has just told us. In the light of the answer that she has just given to my noble friend, is she able to give an undertaking relating to the proposed Section 45A(10) as to when the Secretary of State will bring in an order to extend the reference under subsection (2) beyond psychopathic disorder? It would certainly enormously help me if she
828
could give an answer to that. I have another subsidiary question but perhaps it would be easier if my noble friend answered that one first.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to come back to my noble friend. I cannot give him a specific date by which that power would be extended. What I can say to him is that in the meantime we would cover the concerns that my noble friend has, in that the courts could recommend to my right honourable friend that he directs to hospital in the absence of this extended power rather than the courts themselves using the hospital direction. Either way, if there were medical needs to be met, whether mental or physical, in the absence of the power being extended beyond those who have psychopathic disorders, it would be for the courts and/or the medical profession to recommend that the Home Secretary of the day should use his powers of direction.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend treats the House with her normal courtesy. I am grateful to her for answering that question before she sat down. Indeed, before she is too firmly in her seat, I have a second question which arises out of her remarks. This is an important question. I thought I heard my noble friend say that, in view of the amendment that your Lordships agreed to in Committee, which is now in Clause 1 of the Bill, those with mental illnesses would fall under the provision which says that the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances relating to the offender. If my noble friend was saying that, I should be grateful to know that before I reply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to say what, given the discussions that are going on at the moment, the fate of Clauses 2, 3 and 4, which were Clauses 1, 2 and 3 at the Committee stage of the Bill, will be. Therefore, I am unable to tell my noble friend that. What I would like to do is make a general point as opposed to the specific point relating to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. It would be for the courts to determine the degree of culpability where the mental condition of a person may actually have a direct bearing. If culpability is determined by the courts, the sentence follows. But it may well be that the actual condition of the person has a direct bearing on culpability and it may well fall—but it would be a decision for the court—into the category of exceptional circumstances.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, this is a difficult moment in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to those noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken in my favour. I greatly regret, looking towards the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I have not had support from his side of the House, although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is unavoidably absent. I greatly regret to say that it makes it a very frustrating experience for those in your Lordships' House who are still trying to improve the Bill and are still trying to obtain the support of the House in our efforts to improve the Bill that we no longer have support from the Labour Benches. I am very sorry, however these things are agreed among the usual channels, in which I have never taken part. that

829
the result has been that we have lost the support of the noble Lord from the Labour Front Bench and also of Peers who sit on the Benches behind him.
However, if I were to call a Division now, I have no doubt that there are sufficient Peers who are still in the Library, the Dining Room and other parts of the House who have not come to listen to the argument and who would therefore be voting ignorant of the argument. I have no doubt—I do not say this in a disrespectful sense—that a whole lot of ignorant Peers, ignorant only in the sense that they have not listened to the argument, would vote against it. Faced with that it seems that I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am hearing too many "Hear, hears" from the Government Front Bench, which does not encourage me to withdraw the amendment. If I hear any more "Hear, hears" from the Government Front Bench I shall divide the House. This is a very important matter. I believe that your Lordships have given the right advice to the Government. The Government are not following that advice. However, I reserve my right to come back on this matter at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out lines 33 and 34.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 8, 8A and 9. The automatic life sentence in Clause 2 of the Bill may be imposed on an offender convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual offence, whether the first conviction was in England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Clause 2 lists the relevant qualifying offences in each jurisdiction. Certain of the qualifying offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland are specified by reference to the corresponding statutory offence in England and Wales. However, a number of the Scottish offences are common law offences. Therefore, to avoid any possibility of debate about whether Clause 2, as drafted, has the intended effect in respect of Scottish qualifying offences, we have decided that each of the Scottish offences be listed separately in Clause 2 rather than specified by reference to the equivalent statutory offence in England and Wales. That is what Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 do.
Amendment No. 8A makes a minor and technical change to the description in Clause 2(6)(d) of one of the Scottish qualifying offences. At present, it refers to,
"sodomy, or an attempt to commit sodomy, where one of the parties does not consent".
Amendment No. 8A substitutes for the words,
"one of the parties does",
the words,
830
"the complainer"—
which is a very Scottish phrase—
"that is to say, the person against whom the offence was committed, did".
It is intended to make the same change to the relevant provision in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill as a result of debate at Committee stage of that Bill. Amendment No. 8A keeps the provision in the Bill in line with the Scottish Bill. The change does not alter the meaning of the subsection, but it makes it easy to understand. These amendments are simply for clarification and they do not change the intention of the clause.
I raise an informative additional note. I may be asked why the Northern Ireland offences are not listed. That is unnecessary because the statutory definition of the Northern Ireland offences, which are specified by reference to England and Wales, is the same as the definition of England and Wales offences and covered by the same legislation. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for a little clarification of this amendment. I apologise for doing so, but I hoped that a noble and learned Lord in the Scottish discipline would be in the Chamber, but he is not. Am I right in thinking that these amendments arise from the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, at Second Reading of this Bill? I believe that he drew attention to Clause 2(6)(f), which is the offence of,
"lewd, libidinous or indecent behaviour or practices".
If my recollection is correct, he pointed out that that may be tried in Scotland either in the lower or the higher court. He suggested that it should be the effect of this Bill that the mandatory sentence should be clocked up only by an offence dealt with in the higher court. Have the Government accepted that suggestion; have they taken any further thought about it and what action do they propose to take?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been an extensive discussion between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. He did have concerns, all of which have been met at this stage. These amendments refer to a different point from the one that the noble Earl referred to. That has also been discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My understanding is that he has accepted the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 8, 8A and 9:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("() attempted murder, incitement to commit murder or conspiracy to commit murder;
() rape or attempted rape;").
Page 2, line 37, leave out ('one of the panics does") and insert ("the complainer, that is to say, the person against whom the offence was committed, did").
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("() robbery where, at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968;
() an offence under section 16 (possession of a firearm with intent to injure). section 17 (use of a firearm to resist arrest) or section 18 (carrying a firearm with criminal intent) of that Act;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Birds (Registration Charges) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to Bill (79) as first printed for the Commons]
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING
(" . In section 56 of the 1995 Act (financial assistance for training), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(4) In providing assistance in accordance with this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the maintenance and development of the United Kingdom's merchant fleet and marine related business and for that purpose shall—

(a) keep under review all aspects of that fleet and business; and

(b) seek the advice of those who appear to him to have experience of that fleet or business.

(5) In this section, "marine related business" means any trade, business or other activity concerned with the manufacture of, or the provision of goods and services for, or the operation or use of, ships and includes maritime educational establishments, marine classification societies, marine equipment suppliers, marine surveyors, marine and naval architects, marine insurance companies, protection and indemnity clubs, providers of maritime financial or legal services, the operators of ports and harbours and shipbrokers.".").
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Bill was amended in another
832
place to include a clause placing on the Secretary of State new obligations concerning the review of the merchant fleet and marine-related business. The clause also contains a new duty for the Secretary of State to consult when providing financial assistance for training to take into account the effect of that assistance in maintaining and developing the UK merchant fleet and marine-related business, as defined in the new clause.
In the spirit of co-operation which has pervaded the consideration of all stages of this important Bill, which I greatly welcome and for which I thank all those involved, the Government were content to accept this amendment in the other place. I hope that the House will feel able to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister and his colleagues in the other place for having accepted this amendment. It is important to enhance the training facilities in relation to our merchant fleet. They are issues which touch on questions of efficiency, safety and the environment. As regards the Bill, I believe that although it would have been improved if we had had differential fines as between masters and ship owners—an omission which I believe might have been cured, but never mind—the Bill is a valuable one. The Minister is to be congratulated on having taken it through with a very receptive mind. Throughout our deliberations he was prepared to consider proposals put forward by this side of the House. I believe that the Bill emerges from its consideration in both Houses in a very much improved state. For that the Minister has to be congratulated.
Perhaps I may say, as I did somewhat flippantly at Question Time today, that I value the Minister's style, co-operation and courtesy. As one who has had quite a lot of experience in the field of merchant shipping, I believe that the Minister has done an excellent job. He has not been able to do all the things that I know in his heart he would have wanted to do for the merchant fleet, because sometimes that is in the hands of the Treasury. However, I know that he has been approachable. The industry has a view of him which is wholly constructive. I hope only that his successor in a few weeks' time will prove to be as diligent.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his very kind words. I am especially honoured, in view of the major contribution which the noble Lord himself played in the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I believe that the Bill has benefited from detailed consideration in both Houses. I agree with the noble Lord that training is of vital importance. It has been a very high priority indeed for the Government and it will continue to be so. Again, I thank the noble Lord for his very generous compliments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 30, page 24, leave out lines 14 to 17.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Health and Safety) Bill
7.40 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Luke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Rating Bill
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Relief from non-domestic rates for general stores etc. in rural settlements: England and Wales]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 19, line 17, at end insert ("or—
(ii) to have had a population of not more than 3,100 on the last 31st December before the beginning of the chargeable financial year in question and to have had a population of not more than 3,000 on the last 31st December before the beginning of the year immediately preceding the chargeable financial year in question,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is an attempt to meet comments made by the Minister in Grand Committee. At that stage my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I raised the need for stability. Perhaps I may explain. Small shopkeepers who will benefit from the provisions of this Bill may be in danger of benefiting only for a very limited period. There is a population cut-off point of 3,000 which applies to the settlements in which the shops are situated.
I am concerned to ensure that having gained the rating benefit, the ratepayer knows that that benefit will apply for at least two years, provided that there is no substantial change in the settlement in which the shop is situated. In Committee the Minister made the perfectly valid point that a line has to be drawn. He said that once the line is moved, it has to be moved for every area. I have attempted to meet that point by providing the two limits which appear in the Bill—not more than 3,000 the year before last, if I can put it in that way, and not more than 3,100 in the current year. In other words, one must always meet the 3,000 limit but if the settlement increases in size just a little bit, then the benefit would still apply.
Raising the point at this stage, although there are obviously practical difficulties, will give the Minister an opportunity to confirm further on the record how the
834
counts of population and settlements might be applied. In Committee he said that the local authority is not meant to be obliged to go on a head count and said also that the Government would consult local authorities on how to conduct a count of population sizes. I must say that I should be unhappy if I thought it was simply a question of turning a blind eye because that seemed to be the kind thing to do. If the Minister can give any more detailed information on that score or can comment on the objective—to provide continuity for the ratepayer in question—I should be most grateful. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Baroness is nothing if not tenacious. We had this discussion in Grand Committee and she has again raised the subject matter and is concerned about head counts and people turning a blind eye.
I shall do my best to explain the position to her and I hope to put her at ease. Her amendment seeks to provide a measure of protection for ratepayers in communities which may possibly grow above the 3,000 limit. It would ensure that once entered on a list, a settlement could not be removed until its population had grown to more than 3,100 in order to give a certain amount of leeway.
The noble Baroness is concerned to soften the impact of what she sees to be a purely arbitrary limit on the size of a settlement. She argues that the limits may create hard cases but the amendment itself also imposes arbitrary limits and may create hard cases. Perhaps I may give an example. The ratepayers in one village which had a population of 3,050 might find themselves eligible for relief under the terms of the amendment because the population has grown from 3,000. When it reached 3,000, the village was entered on the list. But ratepayers in a neighbouring village, which had always had a population of 3,050, would not be eligible for relief because it had never appeared at all on the settlement list. That is not fair.
The noble Baroness finds it difficult to accept that, if the scheme is to be targeted at small communities, we must draw a line somewhere and wherever that line is drawn, inevitably, some villages will fall on the wrong side of it. The noble Baroness is anxious that without her amendment, ratepayers will have insufficient warning of the removal of a village from the list. That is not so. Local authorities will have to give early warning of changes to the rural settlement list. If any changes are required, local authorities will have to draw up a new list for the following financial year and they would have to make available that list for inspection from 1st January. Therefore, ratepayers will have at least three months' notice of any withdrawal of relief.
But of course, in reality, they are likely to be aware of the possibility long before the local authority formally deposits the new list. For example, villagers will know whether their village is close to the 3,000 limit and will know of any new housing developments under construction. Therefore, the removal of the settlement

835
from the list is unlikely to come as a surprise to them and, as I explained before to the noble Baroness, there is no question of the local authority having to go on a head count every year to make quite sure of the position. As currently drafted, the Bill is phrased deliberately to ensure that the settlements are those which appear to the local authority to be of the figure of 3,000.
The Bill does not mean that communities will appear on a list on one year, disappear from it the year after and reappear the year after that, as the population fluctuates, and populations often do fluctuate. We do not intend—and the Bill does not require—authorities to chop and change the settlement list every time a villager is born or dies. But it requires local authorities to take account of significant changes in population such as, for example, the building of a housing estate.
The Bill has been drafted deliberately in order that local authorities can take ordinary common-sense decisions. We have talked to the local authority associations about how we can best apply the 3,000 threshold and we have asked them whether they would welcome any further guidance. They are considering that offer and if they come back to us to say that they would like further guidance, we shall be only too happy to provide it.
I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with that response. As the Bill is drafted, the whole purpose has been to try to make a common-sense arrangement. But wherever a line is drawn, there are bound to be some who fall on one side and some who fall on the other. We believe that, as it stands, the Bill is workable.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I suspected that we might not entirely see eye to eye but perhaps my sense is more common or less common of that of the noble Earl. My intention was not to challenge the settlement figure. I have not sought to alter the 3,000. My sole intention was to ensure that a shopkeeper who received the benefit knew where he or she was for a period of two years simply to further the aim of supporting small shopkeepers in communities where the continued existence of a shop was threatened. However, it is not practicable to pursue the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 20, line 42, after ("not") insert ("substantially").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This deals with a different point. During Committee stage there was some discussion of the position of a general store in a settlement where the local post office sold a few household goods. The noble Earl said that if there was a genuine store in the village that sold everything it should qualify but he asked whether, if the post office happened to sell a couple of tubes of toothpaste, that would ditch the store. He went on to answer his own question:
"The answer is that it would not ditch the store, but it would depend on the amount and quantity of what it was selling. If its job is primarily that of being a post office, then it would not prevent the other store from getting rate relief". [Official Report, 4/3/97; col. CWH 17.]
836
I thought it might be helpful to return to this point briefly to address an issue of drafting so that the matter was on the record. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides in the new subsection (6C)(a) that the qualifying general store must be a,
"business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale by retail of food…and general household goods…and (b) [that] such a trade or business is not carried on in any other hereditament".
I have tabled an amendment to test what is meant by "such a trade". My amendment proposes the insertion of the words "that such a business is not substantially carried on in any other hereditament". I believe that that reflects the Minister's words in Committee. But it may be that the Minister can confirm that in (b) the term "such a trade or business" imports the notion of "wholly or mainly" in (a); in other words, that such a trade is not simply a retail trade but a trade consisting wholly or mainly of that retail trade. That is intended to meet the question of what happens if the post office happens to sell a couple of tubes of toothpaste. If it would assist to expand on it I would be prepared to do so. I understand that it would not assist. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness quite rightly returns to a matter about which we had some discussion at Committee stage. There was doubt as to exactly where the limits lay in a post office which sold other things apart from those items which post offices normally sell. At present the Bill provides that mandatory relief is limited to the sole general store and/or the sole post office in a village. If a second general store opens in the village the special circumstances that merit mandatory relief to the first store no longer apply, and the relief is withdrawn at the end of the financial year.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that a genuine store that sells a range of goods and services should not be denied relief simply because another business in the village begins to stock a few items of food or household goods such as a post office which (as I suggested) sold a few razor blades and some toothpaste or a garage that sold fizzy drinks or potato crisps as well. The noble Baroness is concerned that in this situation the second business would also be considered to be a general store and then no one would get mandatory relief. Instead, her amendment would provide that the business would have to be substantially a general store before the relief ended.
I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that when I first saw her amendment I was attracted by it. Like Little Red Riding Hood I was nearly taken in by it. But then I realised that the wolf was there. I should probably end the simile at that point. If my memory serves me correctly, Little Red Riding Hood proceeded to describe the wolf's big eyes, big teeth and so on. I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to reflect on the noble Baroness in that way. But the fact is that her amendment is unnecessary because the Bill meets her concerns. The Bill defines a general store as,
"a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale by retail of both food for human consumption (excluding confectionary) and general household goods".

837
To have simply a few odd items on sale would not in our view be sufficient to constitute a separate trade or business—one that would be separate from the other activities carried on on the premises. To prevent the first general store from qualifying for mandatory relief, the second premises would have to include a distinct business which consisted wholly or mainly of the retailing of food and general household goods. In those circumstances if there were another general store there would be no justification for the mandatory relief scheme to apply because the village would be well provided with the services which both these stores offered.
We discussed the practical aspects of implementing these provisions with the local authority associations. They have concluded that guidance may be helpful. We will be talking further to local authorities about the precise points that they would like to see covered in that guidance. I believe that the noble Baroness asked whether "such" equalled "wholly or mainly". The answer is yes.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that the selling of additional items over and above what, for instance, a post office would normally sell would have to be done on such a scale as would amount to competition with the other store before that other store lost its relief.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what the noble Earl has said is helpful. I had not intended to be a wolf in sheep's clothing or a wolf in wolf's clothing in moving this amendment. I simply wish to clarify the point. The noble Earl's answer is useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government and Rating Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of today's date), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure. I suggest that the House reconvenes at 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.59 to 8.35 p.m.]

Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be appropriate if I make a further Statement and, in particular, refer to the progress of the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
The House has now been sitting for three hours on this Bill. The House has discussed only five of the 46 groups of amendments down for debate. There are a further 41 groups left to discuss. It has thus become clear that a determination exists in certain quarters in this House to prevent this Bill leaving the House before Prorogation.
I have discussed this situation with the Home Secretary. He has reached an agreement with the other parties that the Bill should return to the other place in its present state (including the Opposition amendments to Clauses 3 and 4) and with the remaining government amendments proposed to be made this evening. I should stress that the Government do not intend to overturn in the Commons the defeat suffered on this Bill.
The Government remain of the view that this situation is unsatisfactory, and we intend to reverse this as a matter of urgency after the general election. But in spite of the present unsatisfactory state of the Bill, the Bill nevertheless provides for automatic life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences; establishes the principle of mandatory minimum sentences for persistent drug offenders and domestic burglars; and provides for honesty in sentencing. It will therefore remain the most radical step-change in criminal justice policy this century.
I hope that the whole House will agree with me that this is a most satisfactory outcome and that this means that the usual channels are once again in step on this and other Bills. I hope that the House will also recognise that it is the will of all parties to secure all remaining stages of this Bill with expedition tonight.
I am pleased to say that a similar agreement has been reached in respect of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. A further announcement on that Bill will be made tomorrow.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Government on at last seeing some sense in relation to the Bill. We on these Benches are delighted that our amendments will be accepted by the Home Secretary, and that the Bill will therefore remain broadly in the form in which it will leave the House. We believe that that is sensible. We believe that it is right. We also believe that it is the will of the House. I congratulate the Government and all the usual channels on coming to what is clearly an angelic rather than a satanic arrangement, which will no doubt enable the Bill now to proceed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I shall forbear from teasing the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the fact that neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was responsible, but that on their behalf Mr. Jack Straw negotiated what was a totally inadequate agreement with which your Lordships were presented earlier today. I shall merely rejoice in the

839
remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He said that the Government do not propose to overturn in another place the defeats which the Bill suffered in this House. That is a major undertaking which we welcome.
Noble Lords may know that it was our proposal on these Benches to pursue the Bill throughout the night. We have our squads coming back at 10.30 in order to do so, and very unusually, because we felt strongly about the matter, we proposed to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. If, as a result, the Government had lost their business tomorrow and there had been further repercussions—I can see that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has his watch. I have one too. I have a similar watch. Mine is a mere Swatch watch. His is probably a Rolex. Neither my Swatch watch nor the noble Viscount's Rolex will prevent me from finishing my few modest words.
On these Benches we all welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said. We shall attempt to facilitate further progress on the Bill. It will be appropriate for there to be some discussion on Third Reading, mainly, no doubt, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the assistance she has given during the Bill's progress, but at the same time to make one or two passing remarks. Beyond that, we are glad to assist in the Bill's passage, although we think that it is a pretty awful Bill, even amended.
We on these Benches have put down an amendment to the Bill for tomorrow which corresponds to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to whom I wish to pay tribute, because it was his amendment that the Government are prepared not to overturn in the other place. We have put down such an amendment, and I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that it will be accepted in the course of tomorrow's debate.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, although anybody in any social gathering is unhappy about upsetting what is clearly thought by others to be a happy occasion, I have to say that I do not find this a happy occasion at all. I have not participated in the usual channels and what I still find before your Lordships is a Bill which in many features is highly unsatisfactory. In saying that your Lordships have, because of pressures outside your Lordships' House, acceded to agreeing to a Bill which remains deformed—I am sorry to use such strong language—in many of its parts, I am in no way critical of my noble friends on the Front Bench, let alone the Minister, as long as they do not intervene when I am trying to decide whether to move an amendment or to seek a Division.
However, this is an appalling Bill. We are allowing a Bill to go onto the statute book although it has caused concern not only throughout this House but outside the Chamber also, as I know from private conversations. The Bill has caused grave concern, yet we are still allowing it to go through in its tainted and deformed shape.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as someone who has participated as a reasonably major critic of the
840
Bill from this side of the House, perhaps I may say that I accept that what has now been said by the Chief Whip means that at least, to return to this afternoon's three scenarios, this is a compromise. It is not a compromise with which one is necessarily totally happy, but it is a compromise which one has to accept, in which at least the two major clauses which caused the greatest concern have been amended in a way that I believe will be acceptable to those of us on both sides of the House—and those who are not here—who have to try such cases.
I am slightly encouraged by the thought that Part II, in which I have a certain interest since I chaired the committee on the parole review which brought in that which is now being overturned, will in practice never be implemented, whoever wins the election. Therefore, on the basis that half a—I cannot think of the rest of the quotation—
Noble Lords: Half a loaf is better than nothing!
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, on the basis that half a loaf is better than nothing, I think that we have achieved something and I am therefore grateful to the Chief Whip for his comments.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may ask just a quick question because the Chief Whip did not come through with quite his usual clarity, but perhaps I am getting deaf. Am I correct in assuming that the government amendments will be moved fairly formally?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to my noble friend. The answer is yes, the government amendments will be moved and I am sure that they will be agreed because all the usual channels have already agreed them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am, as I frequently confess to your Lordships, a child in these matters. I enjoy these debates because they bring one back to the Bar, except they are a great deal more courteous than one finds in court. I have the sneaking feeling that the whole of this is academic because whichever party succeeds at the election, I do not believe that it will do anything about the Bill at all because, if it did, the whole of our coast would be ringed round with prison ships.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, has taken the words, and the bread, out of my mouth. He is, of course, quite right that half a loaf is better than no bread, but our problem has been to identify the quantity which constitutes that half loaf. We have made considerable progress on that, for which I warmly thank the Chief Whip. However, in respect for the sovereignty of Parliament, may I ask the Chief Whip to amend a single sentence of his statement? He said, "We will reverse this amendment after the next

841
election". Could the Chief Whip amend that to read, "We will attempt to reverse the amendment after the election"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on my statement, and particularly to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I am delighted to have their acceptance that this is the best deal and that, in the words of my noble friend Lord Carlisle, half a loaf is better than none.
I understand the regrets of my noble friend Lord Hacking with regard to the arrangement that has been struck but, as he has heard, the House is united, (including if I understood him correctly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner), that we should progress business as expeditiously as possible. I hope that when we reach my noble friend's amendments he will seek to move them, if he must, as briefly as possible.
Perhaps I may conclude with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to whom I always bow down because of the constitutional advice that he brings to your Lordships' House. We will attempt to overturn this decision when we come back after the general election.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
8.49 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 3 [Minimum of seven years for third class A drug trafficking offence]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("(3A) In the case of an offence which falls to be imposed under subsection (2) above, nothing in that subsection shall prevent the court, after taking into account any matter referred to in section 48(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, from imposing any sentence which is not less than two-thirds of that specified in that subsection.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked to be brief in my interventions and I can do so because I have been greatly assisted by the announcement that has just been made and because the amendments to Clause 1 now stand. We have frequently been told that Clause 1 has been visited by a coach and horses which have given back to the judges their discretion. We have, therefore, these two significant features: so far as the mandatory automatic life sentence is concerned, there is no restriction on the discount that can be awarded. The only difference is that the discount is featured in the tariff which the judge decides. The judge reflects in his tariff his evaluation of all the circumstances of the offence, including whether or not the accused has pleaded guilty, when he pleaded guilty, the nature of the assistance that he is given in pleading guilty, and so on. Therefore, in regard to an important section of the Bill, it is common ground that the discount which is available to a judge is in no way restricted by the legislation. So that is that—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will excuse me for interrupting
842
him, but can he say whether he is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 13 and 135 which, as I understand it, are grouped with Amendment No. 10?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. In the spirit of harmony which is now persisting, the answer is, certainly.
We now come to the other situation; namely, minimum sentences. The noble Baroness fought valiantly in Committee to maintain that the discounts should be limited so that the minimum sentences could be, as she thought they would be—though others doubted it—a warning to those intent on committing offences that that might be the result. But that was all done on the basis that Clause 1 was open to this reversal. However, as Clause 1 now stands, according to the good tidings that we have received, and accepting the noble Baroness's strictures, the judge now has his full discretion.
The restriction imposed by "exceptional circumstances" has gone and gone for good and all. I am quite content to accept the criticism that that has resulted in a coach and horses being driven through those two clauses—now Clauses 3 and 4. In that situation, there is not the slightest justification for imposing any restriction at all because we are back to where we came in. Therefore, in relation both to the automatic life sentence (where the Bill does not propose any restriction) and in regard to Clauses 3 and 4 (where the restriction of "exceptional circumstances" has gone, and the judge is back to where he was to begin with), there would not be the slightest justification in imposing the artificial concept of 20 per cent. with all its disadvantages. Those disadvantages were described in detail by the Lord Chief Justice and we are, therefore, in the happy position of being able, as we should have been right from the start, to accept the wise advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice; namely, to continue as hithertofore. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure from what the noble and learned Lord said whether he is moving the amendments or withdrawing them.
Lord Ackner: I am so sorry; I thought that I was moving them. I said that I was moving the amendments and that they were unanswerable. However, as I did not make it clear, I said they were unanswerable because, as they stood, they drew an artificial line between the automatic life sentence in regard to which there is no restriction and the automatic minimum sentence. It is only in relation to the automatic minimum sentence that the restriction to 20 per cent. operates. The justification was that the automatic minimum sentence was a deterrent and should not in any way be reduced by allowing a greater discount than 20 per cent. But the automatic minimum sentence has now, for all practical purposes, gone, in the sense that there is no restriction on the trial judge in the cases to which the provision

843
refers imposing such sentence as he considers just and, therefore, operating such discount as he considers just. I hope that I have now made the position clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that I asked. I listened to what the noble and learned Lord said, but I simply wanted to know whether he was moving the amendments. I was most interested in what he said. I was trying to argue with him that what he was doing was actually introducing a very wide discretion for the judges; and he argued against that view. However, the noble and learned Lord has just referred to the fact that we now have full discretion for the judges.
The Bill as it stands provides that a court may take a timely guilty plea into account, as long as the sentence posed is not more than 20 per cent. below the mandatory minimum. I know that it is accepted on all sides that there needs to be an incentive for defendants who are guilty to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, to save witnesses from having to give evidence unnecessarily and to avoid wasting the court's time. That is why the Bill as it stands makes statutory provision for a discount below the mandatory minimum.
At present, Section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that the courts may reduce sentences to take account of guilty pleas but does not specify the proportion. The Court of Appeal's guidelines indicate a range of 20 per cent. to one third, and that is no doubt why the amendments propose a maximum discount of one third in relation to the mandatory minimum sentences. But we must also bear in mind the need for the mandatory minimum sentence to be set at such a level, even in cases where the defendant pleads guilty, so as to provide a real deterrent for persistent offenders. It will, of course, be open for the courts to allow more than a 20 per cent. discount in cases where they would, other than for the guilty plea, have sentenced above the mandatory minimum.
Both burglary and drug dealing are crimes characterised by persistence. The aim of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure that burglars and drug dealers know that they will face a stiff sentence if they persist in offending. If the mandatory minimum is substantially reduced, I believe that we would run the risk of undermining the very purpose and rationale of Clauses 3 and 4.
There is, therefore, a balance to be struck. On the one hand, there needs to be a sufficient incentive to encourage those who are guilty to plead guilty; but, on the other hand, the mandatory penalty must be such as to provide a real deterrent and salutary punishment to persistent offenders. Our judgment is that that balance is struck at about a 20 per cent. discount, which represents the lower end of the normal range for guilty pleas. We believe that that strikes the right balance. For those reasons, and due to the fact that I have answered the unanswerable question, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong in regard to suggesting that I have ever done other than accept that the amendments which this House achieved gave back to the judge the discretion that the clause purported to take away. I have never argued against the horses for courses proposition. If the Minister refers to the final instalment on the fourth day of the Committee stage, she will find that I said in terms that we should proceed in regard to the merits of the amendment on the basis of the Bill as it stood amended.
With the deepest respect, I must tell the Minister—and this is not meant as any criticism of the noble Baroness, for whom I have an undying admiration for all she has achieved—that her brief is out of date. It is drawn on the basis that there was not the concession which we have heard announced. Her brief was drawn on the basis that Clauses 3 and 4 were still available to be amended. They are not. They have been amended and the consequence is that we are back where we started. The trial judge is there to do justice and the mandatory minimum sentences do not in any way bind him if he considers that to impose them would be other than doing justice. That was the whole purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I wish to say two things. First, I must protect my officials who have worked enormously hard on this Bill. I was drawing from my mind when I made the comments that I did to the noble and learned Lord. Therefore I am entirely culpable as regards the remarks I made. Even as amended, the amendments—as set out in what were Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and are now Clauses 2, 3 and 4—contain a presumption that the mandatory minimum sentences will be applied. What has changed, of course, is the test which the court must apply in order to set aside the mandatory penalties.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, all that I appreciate. The point I am seeking to make—apparently not successfully—is that the noble Baroness has not appreciated what have been the consequences of accepting that the amendment is there to stay. The result is that the amendment gives back to the judge the totality of his discretion. It will be an anomaly quite incapable of being justified to give him back his discretion as to the sentence that he can impose but say, "Ah, but your discretion with regard to discount remains limited". That is not giving him back his discretion; that is removing a tiny little corner of it. It has no justification because the basis of the contention of the noble Baroness throughout—which is quite understandable, if I may say so—was that the minimum sentences would operate in virtually every case and one would remove the deterrent of the minimum sentence so operating if one gave a discount as substantial as 30 per cent. It would be totally wrong in my respectful

845
submission to proceed as if this amendment had not been passed. Accordingly, I shall be obliged to test the view of the House.
9.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kintore, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Calverley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carlisle, E.

McNair, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Hacking, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thurso, V.

Hylton, L.

Tope, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Haig, E.

Attlee, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Bethell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blaker, L.

Keyes, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brentford, V.

Kitchener, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsay, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chaiker of Wallasey, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denbigh, E.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rennell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renwick, L.

Donegall, M.

Ridley, V.

Downshire, M.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rowallan, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

846

Sharples, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strange, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Crediting of periods of remand in custody]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert ("or a related offence, that is to say, any other offence the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I should explain to the House what has happened. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not moving his amendments. I shall be moving those which we now call the Belstead amendments, and they will come in their sequential order, which will be from Amendment No. 18. I hope that is helpful to the House.
Reverting to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, these three amendments to Clause 9 relate to the crediting of periods of remand in custody, and the effect of these amendments is to clarify, in certain circumstances, whether or not time spent on remand in custody should be credited towards sentence.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is to make it clear that, where an offender spends time on remand in custody for a particular offence, and the nature of the charges changes during the course of the proceedings, that remand time should be able to count towards any custodial sentence he receives in respect of the charge of which he is eventually convicted, as long as that charge is founded on the same facts or evidence as the original offence for which he was remanded in custody. An example may be helpful to illustrate this point. A person is found in possession of stolen goods, arrested for theft, charged with that offence and remanded in custody. It subsequently becomes clear that he could not, in fact, have been the thief and the charge of theft is dropped and replaced with a charge of handling stolen goods. He is later convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of the charge of handling stolen goods. The latter charge is based on the same facts as the offence of theft, for which the offender was initially remanded in custody. The same result should occur in respect of a person remanded and tried for murder but convicted of manslaughter. It should be possible therefore to credit all that remand time towards the sentence in respect of the substituted offence, subject of course to the discretion of the court under the terms of the clause. These amendments make this clear on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 enables provision to be made not to count remand time in circumstances in which an offender is on remand in custody and some or all of that remand period is concurrent with a sentence of

847
imprisonment which he is serving in respect of another offence. That time cannot be credited under existing legislation (Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which is to be repealed by the Bill). We do not wish to disturb that practice.
The amendment extends the rule-making power in subsection (4) to allow for rules to be made to provide that any period of time spent on remand in custody which is wholly or partly concurrent with a sentence of imprisonment served by the offender shall not be credited towards any sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence for which he spent that period on remand.
The amendments serve to clarify the position in respect of the crediting of remand time in these two sets of circumstances to ensure that existing arrangements are preserved and to remove the possibility of any inconsistency in the application of the new provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 6, line 9, after ("offence") insert ("or a related offence").
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
("(i) a remand in custody which is wholly or partly concurrent with a sentence of imprisonment; or
(ii),.)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Early release on compassionate grounds]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 4, at end insert—
("(2) Before releasing under subsection (1) above a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board, unless the circumstances are such as to render such consultation impracticable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 39, 42 to 44, 48 to 55, 112, 115 to 117, 121 to 124, 127 and 128.
These are the amendments which have become known as the Belstead amendments in honour of my noble friend Lord Belstead, who raised the subject at Committee stage on which I agreed to reflect. It is a large group of amendments. They relate to the new arrangements for early release set out in the Bill. With the agreement of the House, I simply speak to my own amendment and leave my noble friend to determine whether he will press his.
We have had a useful and constructive debate in Committee about the new arrangements for early release. It was argued by a number of noble Lords, but in particular by my noble friend Lord Belstead, that the abolition of parole, and therefore risk assessments by the Parole Board, meant that an important element of protection for the public against potentially dangerous offenders would be lost. I undertook to reflect on this point, which is entirely legitimate, and to consider
848
whether it would be possible to meet that concern within the framework for honesty in sentencing set out in Part II of the Bill.
Since then I have had useful meetings with my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Pilkington, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice. I am grateful for the constructive and helpful manner in which noble Lords have approached the issue.
I remain firmly of the view that the package of proposals set out in Part II, taken as a whole, offers real improvements on the present arrangements for early release and post-release supervision. I explained the reasons for that in detail in Committee. Therefore, I shall not go into them again now. However, I have concluded that it is indeed possible and desirable to provide for the release of long term prisoners on the basis of a risk assessment by the Parole Board; and that that is the purpose of this group of amendments.
I propose that prisoners who are sentenced to three years' imprisonment or more should no longer be eligible for earned early release, but should instead be able to apply to the Parole Board for release at the five-sixths point of sentence. That is equivalent to the maximum discount they would have been able to accumulate under the earned early release scheme.
Short term prisoners, who are defined as those sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment, will continue to be able to earn this maximum discount of up to 16 per cent. of their sentence under the earned early release scheme. The Parole Board would then carry out a risk assessment to determine whether it was safe to release the prisoner. In doing so, the Parole Board will take account of regular reviews and reports on the prisoner's behaviour while in prison. If the Parole Board recommended that he or she should be released, the Secretary of State would be under a duty to do so. If it did not, the prisoner would remain in custody subject to annual reviews by the Parole Board.
The conditions of supervision of prisoners who are released from a sentence of three years or more will be set in accordance with recommendations made by the Parole Board; and, following release, conditions will be varied on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
The amendments mean that for long term prisoners release will in future be dependent on a satisfactory risk assessment by the Parole Board. This will, I hope, go a long way towards meeting the concerns which were expressed by a number of noble Lords, and by my noble friend Lord Belstead in particular, about the abolition of parole. At the same time it retains the key principles of honesty in sentencing: that there should be no automatic release and that the sentence served should match more closely the sentence imposed by the court.
I believe that the amendments provide an important additional element of protection for the public within the framework for honesty in sentencing set out in

849
Part II of the Bill. In commending them to the House, I thank noble Lords for their forbearance in discussing these matters with me between Committee and Report stages.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for the amendments to which she has spoken. They accept the point that risk assessment is necessary in the interests both of the safety of the public and of the rehabilitation of the offender—and therefore, again, the safety of the public—before more serious or long term offenders can be released early, and that a record of good behaviour, taken by itself, is not enough to warrant the early release of those convicted of more serious crimes. My noble friend accepted these points after listening carefully and thinking deeply, for which I was grateful, and after negotiating and talking to me and to others, for which I and other noble Lords are grateful.
I have three questions. My noble friend mentioned two issues to which I should like to refer. One is the assessment of risk as being the method by which the reviews will be undertaken. The second is that the setting or variation of conditions will be done by the Parole Board. A third issue, which I do not think my noble friend mentioned, is that there is, as I see it, no longer a ceiling to the cases with which the Parole Board can deal. In other words, there is no longer a seven-year ceiling. In the case of a prisoner with a 15-year sentence, the Parole Board will, as I understand it, be completely responsible for deciding whether early release is appropriate, in very much the same way as with discretionary lifers. I do not find any of those three issues on the face of the Bill and my noble friend may prefer to write to me about them. Will they be in Parole Board rules? Will they be in delegated legislation? Am I right that they are not on the face of the Bill? I do not object; I just wanted to raise the point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to impede progress but these are important amendments which have not been debated before and presumably will not be debated again. I should like to place on record three points.
First, the Minister says that the amendments are an improvement on the present arrangements. We certainly do not agree with that. They are an improvement on the Bill as it stands at the moment and for that reason we shall not oppose them.
Secondly, the amendments are defective because they still only provide for this consideration to start after five-sixths of the sentence, whereas we firmly believe that the present arrangements, which allow for earlier consideration by the Parole Board, are superior to what is proposed now.
Thirdly, I believe they are unworkable. For purely ideological reasons, because of the slogan "honesty in sentencing", they provide that the sentence comes to an end when the prisoner is released, and therefore all of the post-release supervision, whether it is before or after the end of the originally imposed sentence, is not part of a sentence and the prisoner is not subject to recall, but the penalty for a breach of the post-supervision order
850
is in the form of the commission of an arrestable offence and the matter has to be brought before the court again. I cannot believe that that clumsy solution—which is brought forward only in order to preserve the fig-leaf of the Home Secretary following his promise to the Conservative Party Conference that people would serve the sentences they had been awarded—is the right one and I simply do not believe it is workable.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should have declared an interest: I am Chairman of the Parole Board. Secondly, I would have spoken to one other amendment in the group, namely Amendment No. 33, which relates to the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just spoken. I know my noble friend will not think that I am being grudging in my thanks to her when I say that I believe that I, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, are right about recalls and that the Government are wrong, but I do not intend to debate that matter this evening.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I believe we all know that my noble friend Lord Belstead is Chairman of the Parole Board. Having listened to his speech, I have to confess that he is rather more generous-minded towards the government amendments than I am. It is not that I do not welcome them as far as they go, but, with the greatest respect, and even at this hour when we are discussing a Bill which we have accepted should be amended in the way agreed, I nevertheless believe that one must raise some serious questions about what is proposed in this part of the Bill.
Let me say to my noble friend—I hope reasonably—that I welcome the fact that, as far as it goes, we are restoring the power of the Parole Board to make risk assessments in serious cases. I welcome in particular the fact that she has attempted to meet the spirit of Clause 23 of the Bill which says that once this Bill comes into force courts should only pass sentences two-thirds the length of those which they now pass. She has met that by saying that in future the distinction between long-term and short-term offences should be three years rather than four years. My noble friend, in reply to me in the general debate on Clause 7, was good enough to say that she would consider that and she has considered it.
But I am concerned that the amendment not only does not give as much as we have with the present situation but still raises many problems. All right: offenders given over three years will have the opportunity to obtain parole at five-sixths of their sentence. If they do not obtain parole, they serve 100 per cent. of their sentence. For them, there is no opportunity of early release on good behaviour, whether it is, as my honourable friend described it, "earned" early release or whether it is obtained by "not being badly behaved".
This situation creates potential troubles for the Prison Service in the future. When one adds all those offenders with sentences of three years or over to all those who now get life sentences under Section 1, all of whom will be serving a sentence which they cannot reduce by the early release mechanism that provides for lower

851
sentences, I fear that we are building up potential problems in the prisons for the future. We have heard very little about the concerns expressed by prison governors about the effects of these proposals. So that is one of my concerns.
My other concern is that, whether we like it or not, the Bill will increase enormously the size of the prison population. There will be release at five-sixths, which means that for those with sentences of over three years as against those with sentences of under three years, even if the courts carry out the wishes of the Government by reducing sentences by two-thirds—I am not going into that argument again as to whether the general pressure of public opinion and the Sun, which now supports the party opposite, will allow it to be achieved—the proposals in the Bill on early release and the proposals now on parole mean that everyone in prison will serve 11 per cent. longer than they are serving at the moment. So the prison population is being increased.
Then there are the problems about recall. We are told that the Bill is meant to equate the sentence passed by the court with the sentence that the person will in fact serve. But, with great respect, we are doing a fiddle. Rather than let the court decide the full length of the sentence and have both the period in custody and the period in the community under that provision, we are now providing that those with sentences of three years or more shall serve five-sixths (which I believe is 84 or 85 per cent.) of their sentence and then be subject to review for 25 per cent. So one is going beyond the sentence originally passed by the court.
If the court passed a sentence of six years, one is saying that the prisoner comes out at 85 per cent. of that sentence and has 18 months on parole. He therefore goes well beyond the six year sentence. To cover that, since the Government do not feel it possible to recall—as a parole board can do at the moment because it is within the terms passed by the courts—they are happy to say that any breach of the probation will be an arrestable offence. That again, to my mind, seems to be causing problems.
It seems to me therefore—while recognising that my noble friend has been totally true (as she would be) to what was said at Committee stage—that the way in which the amendment has been drafted still has the effect of increasing the size of the prison population. It will make recall more difficult and provide no incentive for good behaviour.
That situation has come about because of the total commitment of the Home Office to the fact that a person should not be released on any basis having served less than 86 per cent. of the sentence. If the Government would accept Amendment No. 25, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—it refers to five-sixths, say, three-quarters—all their problems would be avoided. First, believe it or not, we would achieve the stated aim of the Home Secretary and the White Paper that it was not the intention to increase the length of sentence anybody served in prison. That is a nonsense. The Bill as drafted increases that length. If the Government did not wish to increase that length, as
852
they say, and said that sentences shall be two-thirds and they will allow parole or release at one-quarter, they would achieve the same situation as exists at the moment.
My noble friend may say that that is the situation they are trying to avoid. But I understand that it is not. All the Government wish to avoid is a discrepancy between the sentence passed and the sentence served. They have achieved that by reducing it from 50 to 25 per cent. If the amendment is accepted, it would allow for parole at 25 per cent. and release for those sentenced to under three years at 25 per cent.; it would narrow the gap the Home Secretary wanted between the sentence passed and the sentence served. It would also achieve the end the Home Secretary wants of having no increase in the prison population as a result. It would achieve the result of still being able to provide an incentive for good behaviour by allowing for release, as is presently done for those who do not get parole, at an earlier stage than 100 per cent. It would achieve the result wanted by my noble friend Lord Belstead of being able to have recall under the parole system as recall, rather than as an arrestable offence.
Since we are now in a situation of having happily come to accord, perhaps we can be slightly more indiscreet than we might otherwise be. What is the great virtue in 85 per cent. rather than 75 per cent.? It is nothing more than trying to meet the sound bite of the Home Secretary on the party political platform in 1995 when he said, "No more half-time sentences for full-time crime". We all know that when he said that those who cheered him believed it meant that people would spend double the time in prison. He realised that that could not be achieved and is therefore hoping to reduce the length of the sentence to achieve a closer amalgamation between the two.
What I say next is not sour grapes, though it may sound like it. I chaired the committee which set up the present situation, which was accepted by both parties in 1991, implemented as from October 1992, and accepted as giving sense to sentences as a whole. I find it rather sad that those people on that committee—not myself, but the High Court judge, the chief constable and others—gave up a year of their life for little purpose, their proposals in the carefully considered report having been rejected within four years.
Finally, may I, as a plea, ask my noble friend not to talk about honesty in sentencing any more? It is not honesty in sentencing. It is whether we are having real-time sentencing. There was nothing dishonest in sentencing when there was the parole system allowing people out after one-third; there was nothing dishonest in sentencing when we recommended that a sentence should be clear and that the first half should be spent in prison and the second half in the community. It is not a question of honesty. It is a question of whether we move to real time sentencing, which is that a prisoner serves the whole of the time the judge says or he does not. That is the phraseology we ought to use.
I have spoken for longer than I should have, but I just wanted to say to my noble friend that, while I realise that she has nobly acceded to what she said she would, I for

853
one still believe that what we have been left with is a far less satisfactory situation than that which exists at the moment. I am comforted only by the thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, neither party will ever implement this when it comes to power.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I could not disagree more profoundly with my noble friend's comments. My noble friend talked about the halcyon days of the present system, of which I know my noble friend was an architect. What we have at the moment is wholly unacceptable. We have people who are the most dangerous—those people whom my noble friend Lord Belstead and his colleagues on the Parole Board would refuse parole on the ground that they are not safe to release. When they come to 66 per cent. of their sentence they are released—released knowing that the Parole Board says they are dangerous, the Prison Service says they are dangerous and the probation officers working with them say they are dangerous—and there is nothing anyone can do. For a very small window—between 66 per cent. and 75 per cent.—they are recallable. But beyond that 75 per cent. they have to commit another crime before they can be dealt with in the courts. That is wholly unsatisfactory. We also have a very large number of other prisoners who are released at the half-way point and at the two-thirds point with no proper risk assessment when they come to those automatic points of release. I cannot believe that my noble friend thinks that satisfactory.
I am sorry he does not agree with those noble Lords who have welcomed the amendments providing for a proper risk assessment over a longer period before people are released into the community. The package must be taken together. When the custodial part of the sentence is deemed to have been served we have a much tougher supervision arrangement, which is increased for sex offenders—from 50 per cent. of a sentence right up to a 10-year supervision period—and it will be increased for violent offenders, if my amendment is accepted later this evening. That is what is right. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle had their way with the amendments that they would wish to pass in the House, all the supervision period would be deemed to be within sentence, which would mean that prisoners would be eligible for release at least at the 50 per cent. point. If one is talking about a supervision period up to 10 years for sex offenders, how could that possibly be considered to be deemed within sentence? I really cannot disagree more profoundly with my noble friend.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I deliberately did not say anything because I support and welcome what has been said about the extended period of release for sex offenders. However, my noble friend said that under the present system people are released at 66 per cent. and that that is unacceptable. Since the proposal in the Bill is that in future sentences shall only be 66 per cent. of that which they are at the moment, surely they will still have to be released at that stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I argued that one should take the whole package. Therefore, the supervision period begins at that point. When it begins at that point it can be,
854
as I said, 50 per cent. of the sentence right up to a 10-year supervision period, during which time offenders do not have to commit an offence other than to breach conditions. That is very different from committing another act of violence, another burglary or drug-dealing offence. If they simply display the kind of behaviour that would constitute a breach of conditions, they can be brought back before the courts and dealt with again with a much bigger variety of disposals available to the court than at the moment. At present one can only return people to prison and there is no way in which minor breaches of conditions can be dealt with. Therefore, I argue most strongly that the package in this Bill is much more acceptable.
I now return to the other point. I have made no secret of the matter whatever. I have been entirely open with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and it is a matter to which I have already referred. I answered a Written Question in Hansard and I have referred to that today. There is an impact on prison places in this Bill which I virtually spelt out. Perhaps I may repeat that. It is estimated that there will be an eventual increase of around 11,000 places in the prison population some 12 years after implementation of Parts I and II of the Bill. On that basis, it is estimated that about 82 per cent. of that increase, which is 9,000 places, is attributable to Part I of the Bill and the remaining 18 per cent. (2,000 places) to Part II of the Bill. I was not hiding that or being dishonest about it. We have made that absolutely clear to the House from the beginning.
I now turn to the questions posed by my noble friend. The seven-year ceiling disappears. The effect of the Bill is that there will not be such a ceiling. There is no need to make provision in the Bill to make that clear. Conditions can be varied by a parole board after release. That is also the effect of the Bill by Amendment No. 35 as regards Clause 14(3)(b). The Parole Board will continue to assess risk under the existing powers, but there will be fresh instructions to the board. Again, I believe that that is welcome. My noble friend rightly identified a lacuna in the system and that is that there should be proper risk assessment before people are released from prison, particularly as regards long-term prisoners.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Award of early release days for good behaviour]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7. line 6, at end insert ("and less than three years").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) For—

(a) the period of two months beginning with the day on which he was sentenced, and

(b) each successive period of two months ending before his release,

a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more shall be awarded twelve early release days and a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years shall he awarded fifteen early release days.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that we have gone through this debate often enough in the course of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to attempt to meet the Home Secretary's stated intention in the White Paper; namely, that although the proportion of time that a prisoner should stay in prison is being changed, it was not intended thereby to increase it. Despite saying that in the White Paper and the Home Secretary's comments to that effect, a Bill has been brought in which has a different result, and this amendment would provide for the desired effect. As I say, it is clear—I hope without too much anger—that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and myself are in total disagreement over this matter. Therefore, I do not wish to pursue it further unless the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, wishes to speak. In that case I shall formally move the amendment to enable him to do so. For myself, I believe that we have been around this argument so long that only time will tell.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to move the amendment?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I formally move the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this amendment, but I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on all the hard work that he has put into this Bill, the views that he has expressed and his achievements in positively improving the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be brief. We are opposed to automatic release. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, I do not accept the phrase "automatic release". I believe that that is an unfair description. However, I do not wish to press the amendment further and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 19, at end insert—
("() Where at any time this section applies in place of section (Release on Parole Board recommendation), 25 or 26 below because a sentence is set aside or varied on appeal, then, for each assessment period for the purposes of this section beginning before that time, the prescribed person shall assume, for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above, that the prisoner's behaviour was such as to entitle him to the maximum number of early release days available under that subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
RELEASE ON PAROLE BOARD RECOMMENDATION
(" .—(1) This section applies where a prisoner is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.
(2) As soon as the prisoner has served five-sixths of his sentence, the Secretary of State shall, if recommended to do so by the Parole Board, release him.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 28:
Line 4, leave out ("five-sixths") and insert ("three-quarters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the arguments have been well rehearsed. I should have urged those who have the responsibility to implement this legislation, if it is ever implemented, to make sure that the courts set out clearly what sentencing is about.
One of the reasons that this legislation has come forward and one of the forces behind the so-called honesty in sentencing is that the Government have not given guidelines to judges to explain what are the current provisions. If that had been done, then perhaps all this legislation and these pieces of paper that we have been discussing would have been unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, merely for the progress of business, I should point out that this amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 18.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is correct but I oppose the amendment on the grounds that we do not support even earlier release than that proposed in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 28, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONAL EARLY RELEASE DAYS FOR REMAND PRISONERS
(" .—(1) This section applies where an accused is remanded in custody in connection with one or more offences—

(a) which are alleged to have been committed after the commencement of this Chapter: and

(b) in respect of which he would be liable, if convicted, to a life sentence or to imprisonment for a term of more than two months.

(2) For the purpose of enabling early release days to be awarded on a provisional basis, subsections (2) and (3) of section 11 above shall have effect as if—

(a) the accused had been convicted of, or of an offence related to, the offence or any of the offences, and had been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two months and less than three years, on the day on which he was remanded in custody;

857

(b) any days falling after that day for which he is not remanded in custody were disregarded; and

(c) references in that section to periods of two months were references to periods of 60 days.

(3) Subsections (4) to (6) below shall apply if, and only if, each of the following conditions is fulfilled, namely—

the accused is convicted of, or of an offence related to, the offence or any of the offences;

(b) he is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two months and less than three years; and

(c) a direction is given under section 9 above.

(4) For the purposes of section 11(4) above, any early release days provisionally awarded under subsection (2) above shall be treated as early release days awarded on the day on which the direction under section 9 above is given.
(5) For the purpose of securing that any days for which the accused was remanded in custody are taken into account in determining assessment periods for the purposes of section 11 above, that section shall have effect as if—

(a) the accused had been convicted and sentenced on the day on which he was remanded in custody;

(b) any days which fell before the day on which he was sentenced, and for which he was not remanded in custody, were disregarded; and

(c) references to periods of two months, in their application to periods beginning before that day, were references to periods of 60 days.

(6) If the direction under section 9 above is given in relation to a number of days less than that for which the accused was remanded in custody—

(a) subsection (4) above shall have effect as if the reference to any early release days provisionally awarded under subsection (2) above were a reference to the appropriate proportion of those days (rounded up to the nearest whole day); and

(b) subsection (5) above shall have effect as if the reference to days for which he was not remanded in custody included a reference to the complementary proportion of the days for which he was so remanded (rounded down to the nearest whole day).

(7) Where for any period the accused has been held in police detention, the prescribed person shall assume, for the purposes of section 11(2) and (3) above as modified by subsection (2) above. that during that period—

(a) the prisoner had been in prison; and

(b) his behaviour had attained, but not exceeded, the prescribed minimum standard for the purposes of that section.

(8) In this section—
"the appropriate proportion" means the proportion which the number of days in relation to which the direction under section 9 above is given bears to the number of days for which the accused was remanded in custody, and "the complementary proportion" shall be construed accordingly;
"life sentence" has the same meaning as in section 31 below;
"related", in relation to an offence, has the same meaning as in section 9 above;
and subsections (2), (9) and (10) of section 9 above shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Award of additional days for disciplinary offences]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("entitled to be released") and insert—

("(a) entitled to be released under section 11 above; or

858

(b) eligible to be released under section (Release on Parole Board recommendation) above,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provisional awards for remand prisoners]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 13, and insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONAL ADDITIONAL DAYS FOR REMAND PRISONERS
(" .—(1) This section applies where an accused is remanded in custody in connection with one or more offences—

(a) which are alleged to have been committed after the commencement of this Chapter; and

(b) in respect of which he would be liable, if convicted, to a life sentence or to imprisonment for a term of more than two months.

(2) For the purpose of enabling additional days to be awarded on a provisional basis, prison rules made by virtue of section 12(1) above shall have effect as if the accused—

(a) had been convicted of, or of an offence related to, the offence or any of the offences; and

(b) had been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two months, on the day on which he was remanded in custody.

(3) Subsections (4) and (5) below shall apply if, and only if, each of the following conditions is fulfilled, namely—

(a) the accused is convicted of, or of an offence related to, the offence or any of the offences;

(b) he is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two months; and

(c) a direction is given under section 9 above.

(4) For the purposes of section 12(2) and (3) above, any additional days provisionally awarded under subsection (2) above shall be treated as additional days awarded on the day on which the direction under section 9 above is given.
(5) If the direction under section 9 above is given in relation to a number of days less than that for which the accused was remanded in custody, subsection (4) above shall have effect as if the reference to any additional days provisionally awarded under subsection (2) above were a reference to the appropriate proportion of those days (rounded up to the nearest whole day).
(6) In this section—
"the appropriate proportion" has the same meaning as in section Provisional early release days for remand prisoners) above;
"life sentence" has the same meaning as in section 31 below;
"related", in relation to an offence, has the same meaning as in section 9 above;
and subsections (2), (9) and (10) of section 9 above shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Release supervision orders]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("served") and insert ("been liable to serve").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords this is a provision in the Bill which says that the Parole Board shall hold oral hearings in order to make recommendations to the

859
Home Secretary which, I think I am right in saying, shall be accepted concerning the imposition of either a curfew order condition or a probation hostel condition on release of a prisoner.
There has been a great deal which I have said and put in writing to the Minister, and my noble friend has kindly replied. Therefore, I make one point only. I feel that the most important piece of information which is lacking about this matter is exactly how many oral hearings there will be. In a letter from my noble friend which was full of information, for which I am most grateful, she said that she was not sure but that probably the number would run into hundreds. Putting my slightly wettened finger up in the air to see where the wind is coming from, my noble friend and those advising her may discover that that is an underestimate. I say that because on the number of oral hearings rests the costs and the timeliness of the proceedings. The timeliness of the proceedings will be very important, as I believe my noble friend knows. I believe that the Prison Service would do well to try to make an accurate assessment as soon as it can of the number of oral hearings that would occur if this provision were brought into effect. Certainly, the Parole Board would seek to co-operate in an assessment of that kind. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has been concerned for some time about how the Parole Board would be able to reach a decision on whether a recommendation to include these conditions was appropriate. I believe that these fears are unfounded. We have discussed this matter between Committee stage and today, but I believe that my noble friend would be assisted if I placed on record my response to his concerns.
The first question to answer is who is to decide whether an oral hearing is necessary. The supervising probation service is most likely to identify the need for additional conditions of supervision, including where curfew orders or residence in a hostel is required. The service would then make an application to the Parole Board explaining why the condition was required. It would be for the board then to arrange an oral hearing.
The important point is that the prisoner should have the opportunity to be heard, to be represented and to challenge witnesses. The oral hearing could be held by a panel or a single board member. This is something on which the Prison Service will consult the Parole Board. Of course, the board must have the necessary and most useful information available to it before reaching a decision. I would expect a similar range of information to he available as is now the case for decisions on parole suitability: for example, police reports, social services reports, sentence planning documentation, earned early release documentation, a pre-discharge report completed by the supervising service which would include a risk assessment and an application from the supervising service setting out why the special conditions were necessary.
These conditions are intended to offer an opportunity for increased monitoring and surveillance and an important way to enhance protection of the public in
860
suitable cases. They will be used where they are considered necessary to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, secure the rehabilitation of the offender and ultimately reduce the risk to the public. These criteria could be made available in additional directions to the Parole Board. I expect the board to supply written reasons for the decision in much the same way as now. They will all be subject to judicial review.
I cannot say exactly how many cases will occur each year but it is believed that the numbers are more likely to be hundreds rather than thousands. I note what my noble friend has said and that is on the record. I hope that my noble friend will understand that we will not be able to make a proper judgment as to that until the system is up and running. All I can say is that we will be conscious of the board's workload. It will be kept under review. No doubt the board will not be reticent in making its case to the Home Office should the workload and the costs incurred become an issue.
I want to ensure that we produce a system which is workable and effective. Sufficient time must be made available to put in place the necessary arrangements so that oral hearings work properly for all parties. We shall work closely with the board to develop a system which streamlines the process while maintaining the required flow of information. There is no absolute requirement to follow the existing arrangements which currently apply to other categories of offenders. We want these provisions to work and will ensure that the necessary consultation process does so within the outlines I have mentioned. In the light of those assurances, I hope my noble friend accepts that it is as well to put it on the record so that he has something to refer to in later months.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend does not believe that silence signifies assent to every single thing that she has said. Nonetheless, it is very helpful to have her comments on the record. I am grateful for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State—
(a) shall not specify any condition which—

(i) requires the offender to live in an approved probation hostel; or

(ii) makes such provision as is made by a curfew order,

except in accordance with recommendations of the Parole Board made after an oral hearing at which the offender had the opportunity to be heard or represented; and
(b) in the case of an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more, shall not specify any other condition except in accordance with recommendations of that Board.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Breach of conditions of release supervision order]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Young offenders]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("and 13") and insert (", (Provisional early release days for remand prisoners) and (Provisional additional days for remand prisoners)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("13") and insert ("(Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)").
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("(Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Sexual offenders]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 14, line 6, leave out ("served") and insert ("been liable to serve").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
VIOLENT OFFENDERS
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

(a) there is released under this Chapter an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter; and

(b) the court by which he was so sentenced gave a direction under subsection (3) below.

(2) Section 14 above shall have effect in relation to the offender as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection—
"(2) On his release, the offender shall be subject to a release supervision order—

(a) where he is released otherwise than under section 10 above, for such period as is specified in the direction under section (Violent offenders)(3) below;

(b) where he is released under section 10 above, for a period equal to the aggregate of—

(i) the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and
(ii) a period equal to so much of the remainder of his term as he would have been liable to serve hut for his release under section 10 above."
(3) Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term of three years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter, it may give a direction under this subsection if it considers a longer release supervision period necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation.
(4) A direction under subsection (3) above shall direct that the offender's release supervision period shall be such period, not more than 50 per cent of the offender's term of imprisonment, as is specified in the direction.
(5) In this section "violent offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1991 Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 61, 110, 113, 114, 118, 119, 130 and 131. This group of amendments would increase
862
the period of post-release supervision for some violent offenders sentenced to three years or more. It would mean that, following their release from prison, such offenders would be supervised for a period greater than 25 per cent. but not exceeding 50 per cent. of their sentence if the court had directed this at point of sentence.
The House will recall that a similar amendment was proposed by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Williams, in Committee and they have tabled another for consideration today. Following the debate in Committee I was sympathetic to the amendments and undertook to give the question of extended supervision for violent offenders further consideration, and I have given the matter a good deal of thought. I share the views expressed by all Members of this House that the law should provide greater protection for the public from the most serious offenders. By giving the courts that flexibility we believe that that will be achieved.
The provisions within the Bill for an automatic life sentence for those who commit a serious violent (or sexual) offence for a second time, together with the provisions for extended supervision of sex offenders, will go a long way towards achieving that aim. But I accept that there may be a small number of very serious offenders who would not fall within the scope of those provisions and for whom the standard rate of post-release supervision, set at 25 per cent. of the sentence length for offenders sentenced to 12 months or more, may not be sufficient to prevent their reoffending and secure their rehabilitation.
This group of amendments will address that shortcoming; the provisions for extended supervision of some violent offenders will complement the full package of measures already included in the Bill. The courts will be able to direct at point of sentence that any offender who is sentenced to three years or more in respect of a violent offence should be subject to an extended period of post-release supervision on release. The supervision period would be greater than the standard rate of 25 per cent. but would not exceed 50 per cent. of the sentence length. A violent offence is defined using the definition set out in Section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991:
"an offence which leads, or is intended to lead, to a person's death or to physical injury to a person, and includes an offence which is required to be charged as arson (whether or not it would otherwise fall within this definition)".
In making a direction the court would need to be satisfied that an extended period of supervision is necessary to prevent the commission of further offences by the offender and to secure his or her rehabilitation. This provision will provide flexibility to the courts which I believe will be welcomed. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is similar to the amendments in my name. However, I believe that there is just a slight difference between us; that is, that the government amendment gives additional clarification for the courts by providing for a test against which the new provision should be used. I believe that

863
the courts will welcome that and would encourage support of the Government's amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that my Amendment No. 47 is better than the government amendment, but I cannot for the life of me work out in what way it is better. Of course I am grateful to the Minister for the action that she has taken in response to the debate in Committee. We support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Mentally disordered offenders]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 54:
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("13") insert ("(Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)").
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("13") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)").
Page 15, line 9, leave out from ("if") to end of line 10.
Page 15, line 12, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)(2)").
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)(2)").
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("and").
Page 15, line 30, at end insert ("and (d) subsection (4)(b) were omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Persons liable to removal from the United Kingdom]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15, line 42, after ("Kingdom") insert—

("(a) section (Release on Parole Board recommendation) above shall have effect as if, in subsection (2), for the words "shall, if recommended to do so by the Parole Board," there were substituted the word "may": and

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Continuity of sentencing]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 17, line 16, at end insert ("or in respect of which the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of the obligation in Clause 23 upon a judge in future, once the Bill becomes law, to impose a sentence two-thirds of that which he would have imposed immediately before the commencement of the Act. As the clause is drafted, there will be frozen for all time the sentence which is appropriate for any given crime because the two-thirds is to apply to the sentence that would have been imposed immediately before the coming into force of the Act. That is clearly wrong because there will be alterations as a result of different perceptions in relation to categories of crime. Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, for instance, is now looked upon as a great deal more serious than it
864
was some five or 10 years ago. Rape is another very good example—if you go back 20 years, the sentence will have about doubled. Therefore, you cannot freeze the position at the point when the Act comes into force.
Accordingly, we have proposed in subsection (3)(b) to insert the words,
"or … the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed",
because the only let-out that is given is where the maximum sentence in prison has been varied after the commencement, and the maximum may not be varied at all; it is the approach within the maximum which may have altered. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Government should realise—I am sure that they do—that the Court of Appeal publishes guidelines on sentencing from time to time and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has pointed out, those guidelines change. One area in which I think that they have changed dramatically, in addition to those to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred, is in relation to drugs. Convictions for drug offences have been taken much more seriously as the problem has grown within the country. It would be wrong to fossilise the sentences that are being passed now because new problems may well emerge, just as has happened in relation to drugs and the other areas to which the noble and learned Lord referred. If fresh problems arise, the sentences will change. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 23 of the Bill requires the courts to adjust the sentences they pass after the commencement of Part I to take account of the abolition of parole and the changes in early release arrangements. The intention is, of course, to ensure that offenders serve approximately the same time in prison as they do at present. However, there are certain circumstances in which it is not necessary for the courts to adjust their sentences and these are spelt out in subsection (3). Where the offence in question did not exist prior to commencement, or was not punishable by imprisonment, or the maximum penalty has been varied, it will not be necessary for the court to apply the formula set out in Clause 23.
The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would add a further rider to subsection (3), to the effect that Clause 23 should not apply in relation to offences for which the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed.
I understand the reasons which lie behind this amendment, which the noble and learned Lord has explained. However, I do not believe that it is necessary; indeed I think it would serve only to complicate matters. For one thing, the amendment implies a somewhat greater degree of formality about the nature of Court of Appeal guideline judgments than is perhaps the case. Every Court of Appeal judgment relates primarily to the individual case in question. Some of them will also contain guidance of more general application. But it is not necessarily self-evident which Court of Appeal judgments are to be regarded as "guideline judgments";

865
nor will it necessarily be self-evident whether previous guidelines have "materially changed". I am afraid that the terms of the amendment are therefore somewhat vague and nebulous for statutory purposes, particularly when they relate to such an important matter as whether the court should apply the formula set out in Clause 23.
I believe the concern which may lie behind the amendment is that the effect of Clause 23 would be to freeze sentencing guidelines at their present level indefinitely. I can assure the House that that is neither the purpose nor the effect of Clause 23. It will remain open to the Court of Appeal, as it is at present, to issue guidelines on the proper range of sentences for particular categories of offence. Any such guidelines will of course be applicable to lower courts, exactly as they are now. In the fullness of time, it may be that Clause 23 in effect withers on the vine, as sentences across the spectrum of offences settle at a new level. It may eventually no longer be necessary to require judges to go through the process set out in subsection (2). For the present, however, I believe that the amendment is neither necessary nor helpful.
In the light of what I said about the variable patchwork of decisions which come from the Court of Appeal relating to very specific cases, and the individual cases that appear before it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find the Minister's response wholly unsatisfactory. It overlooks how guidelines are established. The Court of Appeal does not take a single case and then say, "This is the guideline". As soon as it becomes apparent that there is a line of cases where the punishment is inadequate, or has not been sufficiently detailed, there are collected together in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) half a dozen of such cases and then the court sets about clearly stating what should be the range of sentences, and what are the mitigating and aggravating factors. Indeed, we have provided examples.
For instance, the courts have said on occasions, especially in regard to death by dangerous or reckless driving, that the level of sentences is too low and that it must be increased. This is the way in which one goes about it. I just do not know how the noble Baroness can suggest that that can be reflected where you have a statutory obligation to impose the same sentence as you would have imposed immediately before the Act came into existence and you have subsection (3) which is the only let-out but which does not cover the situation. I do not understand why the Home Office is so resistant to any step being taken to improve the Bill. However, apparently the tradition at this stage is not to move any amendment to the extent of a Division. I shall, therefore, leave the matter on the record for the Government, or their successors, to face up to the problems about which they have had a full warning. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("13,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The amendment corrects a single drafting error in the Bill. Clause 24 (the interpretation clause for Chapter 1, Part II) refers to the definition of a "court" in various other clauses, including Clause 13. However, Clause 13 does not contain any reference to a court. The amendment, therefore, deletes the reference to Clause 13 in Clause 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 17, line 39, after ("18(3)") insert ("or (Violent offenders)(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved, as a manuscript amendment, Amendment No. 61A:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION OF TRIAL JUDGE IN MURDER CASES
(". An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against a recommendation by the trial judge to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 as to the minimum period which should elapse before the release on licence of a person convicted of murder.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am seeking to bring back to the House an amendment which was put into the 1994 criminal justice Bill. In a way this is an orthopaedic amendment because it is designed to test whether the Opposition have any backbone at all. The amendment was passed by a large majority in this House and it was then reversed in the Commons. But after it was reversed in the Commons the all-party Home Affairs Committee recognised the wisdom of this provision, because what it does is to give the right of appeal to a convicted person against the recommendation by the trial judge as to the tariff in relation to a murder case. There is a right of appeal in the discretionary case where the judge says what the tariff should be. This is helpful because, if he has it wrong, the Court of Appeal puts him right. It also means that he gives his reasons for the tariff.
All that is sought to do here is in the case of a murder—as opposed to those offences which carry only a discretionary life sentence—where the life sentence is automatic, the same position arises and the right of appeal is given in the same way. It in no way binds the Home Secretary. As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out, it gives the Home Secretary the advantage of having put before him a recommendation which has either not been challenged because it is clearly a sound one, or a recommendation which has been challenged with the result that it has been upheld or has been amended as the Court of Appeal thinks appropriate. It makes the whole process much more open, much more transparent, and it provides a greater accuracy and improved quality of precision. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord was a bit unkind to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Far be it from me to come to his aid, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would not have chosen to be in this position on this Bill. I am sure he would give a great deal to be able to discuss it at greater length.

867
We are at the tail end of a Parliament and we are therefore subject to special provisions. It is the Government who should take any criticism rather than the noble Lord.
The House debated this clause at some length during the passage of the Criminal Appeal Bill—as it was—in 1995. I must indicate that, now as then, the Government cannot agree to this new clause. The new clause would create a considerable anomaly if there were to be no change in existing judicial practice when it comes to making minimum recommendations in open court in murder cases. For example, if a judge made a minimum recommendation under the terms of Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the convicted murderer would have a right of appeal. But if the trial judge chose not to make such a recommendation in open court, then no such right of appeal would exist. In those cases, the trial judge would still make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the period to be served in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, but it would not be appealable.
Even if this flaw could be remedied, we could not accept the argument that a right of appeal ought to exist against the trial judge's recommendation. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence they are, almost without exception, in cases where the court has the final word on the subject and where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, the then Lord Chief Justice, confirmed that there was indeed a right of appeal against the "relevant part" specified by the trial judge in the case of a discretionary life sentence, he referred to the acid test being that there,
"was no modification, revision or alternative which could be substituted for that by the Minister".
This is clearly not the case with a minimum recommendation made by the trial judge in the case of a mandatory life sentence. It is only a recommendation. Parliament has not chosen to give the judiciary in the case of the mandatory life sentence anything more than this role in considering the penal element.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said during the course of the Doody judgment:
"Parliament has not by statute conferred on the judges any role, even as advisers, at the time when the penal element of a mandatory sentence is fixed".
Given that the minimum recommendation is just that—a recommendation and not a decision—there can be no case for building an appeal procedure about it. It would mean that the element in the tariff-setting procedure alone would be subject to appeal.
The minimum recommendation made in court is not the end of the matter. There may be no right of appeal against the recommendation, but there is opportunity for a further judicial view. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary places considerable value on the views expressed as to tariff by the Lord Chief Justice under the current procedures. However, Parliament has decreed that, ultimately, the length of a mandatory life sentence prisoner's tariff is the Home Secretary's decision.
868
The view of the judiciary on the requirements of retribution and deterrence is one important factor taken into consideration, but other factors such as the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice are also relevant. Tariff setting can go wider than normal judicial considerations. This being so, the value of Court of Appeal consideration must be doubtful.
The issues relating to a right of appeal against the judicial recommendation in mandatory life sentences are complex. I have only skimmed the surface of them. To raise this issue at this stage in the passage of a Bill through Parliament, even in normal conditions if it were the tail end of the Bill, and at this stage in the life of the Parliament is not the best time for such arguments to be aired. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in a Bill which has been praised by the Government for its radical proposals, something as mild as this can hardly justify the indignation that the noble Baroness has shown. What is being proposed was carried in this House on 26th June 1995 by 142 votes to 126. Of course, among many other members of the Opposition was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. That is why I thought we might get a little support from that quarter, but the orthopaedic test has been carried out and we know the consequences.
The noble Baroness overlooks the observations of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee and has commented on the fact that this amendment was carried and then was subsequently reversed in this House. The report stated:
"We see an inconsistency in that both defence and prosecution have a right of appeal against the 'relevant part' of a discretionary life sentence, but not against the tariff of a mandatory life sentence. It might be argued that there is no need to provide for a right of appeal for the Attorney-General, acting of behalf of the Crown, against a judge's tariff recommendation if the final decision were to rest with the Home Secretary, another Minister of the Crown. We maintain, however, that a right of appeal under such circumstances would be invaluable, as it would enable the Home Secretary to make his final decision on the basis of a more fully considered judicial view. We believe that a right of appeal would not just act in the interests of an offender, but could also be in the public interest".
That is clearly a further endorsement of what appeared previously in your Lordships' House. I merely raise it for the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Duty to release certain life prisoners]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 18, leave out lines 18 and 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals essentially again with the question of the Home Secretary's powers in relation to setting the tariff. I have raised the issue because once again the All-Party Home Affairs Committee, having considered very carefully the question of the mandatory life sentence in murder in terms, concluded that although the mandatory sentence should continue the Home Secretary should play no part in it. It did so for the very simple reason that the time that a person spends in prison, the length of time that a person loses his liberty,

869
should be the result of a judicial process and not a decision taken by a politician. Again, I put the matter forward for the record. I shall be delighted to hear the current government response. It cannot be any longer that murder is a uniquely heinous situation because the noble Baroness did not adhere to that situation when we last discussed the matter in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's position on this has not changed. Perhaps I may say again that I do not believe at this stage of the Bill, and at this stage in the life of a Parliament, that we should be introducing this measure. I know and respect well the noble and learned Lord's position on this, and indeed of other noble Lords in the House. I simply oppose the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, looking into the future, there may be further and better opportunities. At present I do not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Duration and conditions of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Recall of life prisoners while on licence].
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 71 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 20, line 29, leave out from ("directs") to ("immediate") in line 32 and insert ("a life prisoner's")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think that the House will accuse me of having wasted much of its time during these meticulous discussions. I have spoken only briefly on two occasions. However, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I offer a few sentences of a general character before coming to the amendment.
At Second Reading I described this as the worst Bill that has been brought before the House in my 50 years here. I still say that, but the measure is somewhat better than it was as a result of the heroic effort of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Belstead, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others. But it is a bad Bill.
To put it very crudely, from a Labour Party point of view, it is in total contradiction of traditional Labour Party support for penal reform. I had the honour to be the chairman of a committee set up by Harold Wilson in 1964 which included six members of the subsequent Wilson Government. Various proposals were made, including the introduction of parole and the abolition of capital punishment, which later became law. It is also against the traditions—or recent traditions, at any rate—of the Conservative Party. There have been heroic Conservative reformers in the past. Lord Templewood and Lord Butler come to mind; more recently we have various noble Lords in this House. Mr. Hurd, a former Home Secretary, is now to become chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. That organisation represents a total contradiction of all that the present Home Secretary stands for.
Nevertheless, I feel like Mihailovich. Some noble Lords may remember him; he was before the time of some Members of your Lordships' House. He was executed after being swept away by the gales of the world. I am swept away by the news that a deal has been reached which apparently restricts discussion here for no reason whatever. I have talked to at least 12 noble Lords today and asked, "Can anyone tell me why we are not meeting next week?". No one has been able to provide an answer. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, for some stratospheric considerations, I have been swept away. A deal has been reached and I must come briefly to the immediate issue.
Frankly, my amendment is unintelligible as it stands, but I am informed by the experts that it does in fact carry out my purpose, which I indicated at Committee stage and which is a very simple one. It puts the position of those who are serving mandatory life sentences and are recalled to prison on the same footing in the process of consideration as those who are serving discretionary life sentences. It is quite simple. Everyone can see what the process is for discretionary life sentences. Everyone can see—or will, I hope, be able to see after I have explained the matter—what can happen to a mandatory life prisoner.
I will mention a prisoner's name. I did not mention it on the previous occasion, but, for reasons which I respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has mentioned it. His name is David Rundle. I have visited this gentleman in various situations for perhaps 17 years. He was recalled to prison on the say-so of a probation officer. He was not recalled because any court decided on that course, he was not charged with a criminal offence, but the probation officer considered that his conduct was unsatisfactory and so he was recalled. That same probation officer, with whom I have been in touch, now considers that he should he released, which of course will not happen. This gentleman was recalled to prison and has been there for three years. He has now been told that he will go to an open prison—so far so good, that will certainly be better than where he is now—for at least another year. He will have been in prison for four years without ever appearing before, or being represented before, a tribunal.
That is the essential difference between the position of a mandatory life prisoner and that of a discretionary life prisoner. If he were a discretionary life prisoner he would go before a tribunal—a panel of the Parole Board would be the usual situation, I think—and the finding of that tribunal would be binding on the Home Secretary.
This gentleman's case has twice been before the Parole Board. He himself has not been allowed to appear before the Parole Board, of course. On the first occasion, the Parole Board recommended that he should go to an open prison but was overruled. I went to see the Minister of State responsible for prisons at the time and had a long discussion. He was very polite, but no reason was given as to why the Parole Board was overruled by the Minister. That is what can happen to a mandatory life prisoner.
That situation is scandalous and unjust to a large class of prisoners. After all, there are 3,000 people in prison now serving mandatory life sentences. They should be

871
put on the same footing as discretionary life prisoners. I accept that it is unlikely that the Government will be able to agree to that tonight. I am sure that in the end, whoever is in power, will accept this proposal. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl is prompted by the circumstances of a particular individual. I went over that case in some detail on 20th February and I do not wish to add very much more to that now, except to say that the initial recommendation of the Parole Board to transfer Mr Rundle to open conditions was rejected in January 1995 because the circumstances which had led to Mr Rundle's recall to prison had revealed clear concerns over his potential risk and his serious breach of trust as a life licensee. It was considered unacceptable—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Baroness, that is a general remark. There was no evidence whatever produced of that.
Baroness Blatch: I think, my Lords, that it would be unseemly for me to have an argument with the noble Earl across the Chamber. But, in the absence of knowing all the facts, the noble Earl must give some credence to the information that is provided by the Prison Service, the probation officers and those who are in constant contact with the person. All those things would have been considered and put before the prisons Minister for consideration.
It was considered unacceptable, as I said, to return him so soon after recall to the relative freedom of an open prison, untested as to risk. His behaviour on life licence did not bode well in terms of his possible risk of absconding from open conditions. He was informed of the reasons for the rejection of the Board's recommendation on 17th January 1995. However, a subsequent Parole Board recommendation in June 1996 for open conditions was accepted by Ministers. The noble Earl will be pleased to know that Mr Rundle will be moving on very shortly.
The important point is that not only do recalls to prison involve the independent Parole Board, but, if the prisoner remains dissatisfied about the decision, he may pursue the case by way of an application for judicial review. Mr. Rundle did in fact do that, but he subsequently withdrew his application. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Earl of Longford: Well, of course, my Lords, that answer was totally unsatisfactory. The noble Baroness, in the nature of things, knows nothing whatever about this case. I know a great deal about this gentleman, having visited him over a period of 17 years. Just to take one aspect of her reply which was very unsatisfactory, in June the Parole Board recommended that he should go to an open prison. Now we are in March and I believe that he is just about setting off to go to one. That shows the way in which he has been
872
treated. It is quite abominable. But I withdraw the amendment, intending, of course, to bring it up very soon when we have a new and very much better government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Fine defaulters: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 82 not moved.]
Clause 34: [Persistent petty offenders]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Offenders]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 26, line 41, after ("offence") insert ("connected with the use of a vehicle").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that, when we considered this clause in Committee, my noble friend the Minister took us on a journey around Cambridgeshire in a police car, trying to find some connection between the offence and the punishment.
In order to hasten our proceedings I intend to comment upon Amendments Nos. 88 and 91 and would invite the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to speak on Amendments Nos. 89 and 92, which cover the same subject, which is mainly Clause 36 of the Bill. In Committee, full arguments were presented about the difficulties of rehabilitating prisoners, particularly persons who, when they come out of prison, could, under the provisions of this Bill, face a disqualification order. I need not repeat the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who took us carefully through these issues at Committee.
The purpose of Amendment No. 87 is very simple; it is to connect the offence with the punishment. I merely seek in that amendment to provide a proper causal connection between the offence and the punishment.
Your Lordships should be aware that for many years there has been on the statute book, in Section 44 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, when a motor vehicle has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a crime, the power for the court to deprive the offender of the right to drive; to disqualify him. That is already on the statute book and I merely suggest, in Amendment No. 87, that if we are to bring this matter back to the statute book, in a slightly different form, there must be some connection between the offence and the punishment.
Amendments Nos. 88 and 91 deal more directly with offenders who have been in receipt of a mandatory sentence under the provisions of this Bill. In those circumstances, each of those offenders will be coming out of gaol at the end of their period of mandatory sentence in order to rehabilitate into the community. Nothing could be more counterproductive, for the reasons advanced in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, than for those persons to face a disqualification order. That is the basis of my decision to table each of those amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say a few words in support of this

873
amendment. I appreciate the case that the noble Baroness makes for looking for other forms of punishment. But I should like to ask her (or whoever else may be at the Home Office when this Bill comes into effect) not to make use of the clause without attempting to calculate the cost it may involve for the social security budget. We all agree that that budget needs to be brought down. In punishing offenders, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am strongly in favour of the rehabilitation of offenders into normal society. I support this group of amendments because the Bill as drafted is likely to bear harshly on offenders who happen to come from rural areas where public transport is poor or non-existent. That involves a considerable number of people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can take the final point first. I am strongly in favour of the punishment fitting the crime, but I am also in favour of the rehabilitation of offenders. As someone responsible for the probation service, that has been an important factor in my portfolio.
Amendment No. 87 would prevent a court from imposing disqualification from driving for an offence unless it were connected with the use of a motor vehicle. The purpose of Clause 36 is to extend the court's powers to impose disqualification for any offence. My noble friend made a powerful case that disqualification will be particularly appropriate in cases involving the use of a vehicle. I do not seek to deny that. But we believe that denying people the freedom to drive is an effective punishment for any offence. It is a restriction on liberty in the same way that a fine is a restriction of an offender's financial liberty and a community service order restricts his freedom to do what he wants with his time.
We do not know exactly what use courts will make of this power. That is one of the reasons we have always made it clear that we will introduce these provisions by way of pilots in selected areas. However, we believe that we should give the courts the maximum flexibility to impose disqualification as a sentence. They will no doubt develop their own sentencing guidelines in the light of the practical experience of the pilot schemes. The House will know that we have put a limit of 12 months on the length of disqualification period that can be imposed by a court.
I invited my noble friend to couple these amendments with Amendments Nos. 88 and 91. He did not want to couple them together but has now spoken to them, so I hope that he will forgive me if I also address Amendments Nos. 88 and 91. The amendments would prevent the courts imposing a disqualification from driving on offenders who receive an automatic life sentence under Clause 2 or a mandatory minimum penalty under Clauses 3 or 4 of the Bill. The reason that there is specific mention of the mandatory minimum penalties in this clause is that we wish to make it clear that it will not be open to the courts to impose a period of disqualification instead of an automatic life sentence or a mandatory minimum sentence. However, it would
874
be open to them to impose disqualification as well as the automatic life or mandatory minimum sentence. I do not think it is likely that a court which has imposed a long mandatory prison sentence on a repeat offender will often feel the need to impose further punishment by way of removing his freedom to drive for a certain period, but I do not think that now is the right time to come to a final judgment that they will never do that.
As the Bill is framed, there is no possibility of amending the court's powers under these provisions in the light of the pilots. I accordingly think that it would be right to give the courts flexibility at this stage. Nothing in the clause as it stands forces the courts to impose a disqualification for non-driving offences. It is a matter for them to decide in each individual case which of the range of sentences that Parliament has made available to them would be the most appropriate. Where the courts did impose a mixture of sentence—custodial plus some driving disqualification time—the sentence as a whole must not breach the policy that the punishment should fit the crime and not be excessive.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend provided the comfort I needed when she said that the courts will not be forced to impose these penalties and that it is a matter for the courts. I happen to have some confidence in the courts being sensible about this. I happen to have confidence that the courts will want to apply their mind to punishment fitting the crime. Therefore, I have the comfort that, although this unhappy clause will become a section in the Act, the likelihood is that the courts will not use it. Indeed, even if the courts did use it, I would hope that when the matter was taken on appeal, because there was no connection between the offence and the punishment, the Court of Appeal would take the view that it was an inappropriate sentence and would allow the appeal.
I say nothing about the Act as a whole. I used fairly censorious language earlier on, but one is also comforted by the expectation that the Act will never be brought into force by any government, whether the present Government, which I hope will be returned at the next election, or another government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 26, line 47, at end insert—
("() Where a court orders a person to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence under this section, the degree of punishment inflicted by the order, or by the combination of the order and any other order or orders made in respect of the offence, shall be such as in the opinion of the court are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 91. The noble Baroness said that she believes in punishment fitting the crime and compared the disqualification from driving with the restrictions on time or the restrictions

875
on money which are imposed by the courts by way of imprisonment or fine. It is an entirely different matter to remove from someone the right to drive a motor vehicle for an offence which has nothing to do with driving.
A few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said he was confident that the courts would not use a power like this. Amendment No. 89 inserts into the clause a requirement for proportionality. My fear is that the courts will use it but in different parts of the country. This is exactly the kind of provision which will become popular in one magistrates' court in one part of the county but not be used somewhere else. It is the kind of power that becomes fashionable in areas and consequently will be misused in no uncertain way.
On 20th February last the Minister said that she did not disagree in principle with the intention behind the amendment to introduce proportionality into this clause, but she thought that it was unnecessary. She suggested that non-statutory guidance on the use of disqualification for non-driving offences might be necessary and could perhaps be developed by the Magistrates' Association and the senior judiciary.
In all other types of sentencing—custody, community sentences and fines—Parliament has imposed on the courts a statutory requirement for proportionality to ensure that they do adhere to the requirement that the seriousness of the offence is matched by the sentence passed. I advance this amendment in order to ensure that the same sort of proportionality in sentencing is involved in this proposed driving disqualification.
In Amendment No. 91 I oppose the whole concept of using driving disqualification in this way. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that I advanced in Committee on 20th February when the Minister reminded us of her trips around Cambridgeshire in a police car. She said at that time that she was impressed by the fact that a lot of people who were up to no good were driving around in motorcars and that disqualification could be used as a punishment to keep some people off the road. She thought that that would be a good thing. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has pointed out, powers already exist to disqualify offenders who are actually committing offences, driving around carrying out burglaries or motoring offences. Therefore, that particular argument does not constitute a valid one in favour of the clause.
For disqualification to be an appropriate punishment, there really has to be a connection with driving badly or using a vehicle to commit offences. If offences are unconnected with driving altogether, then all disqualification will do is remove from offenders the chance of rehabilitation, from other people the opportunity to travel to work and from yet others the possibility of obtaining driving jobs. The provision will impinge on different people in different ways. It will be a very unfair provision. As I say, I am fearful that this
876
sort of power will be fashionable in one area of the country and will not be used in another. I wholly oppose the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as a layman I am bound to say that I believe this to be one matter the Government have got absolutely right. Surely, we are all agreed that prison is extremely expensive, as well as being the university of crime. If one can punish people not only by community service and fines, which people may be unable to pay, but in some other manner which is not expensive to the taxpayer and which does not teach potential criminals the tricks of the trade, it must be worth while. For that reason I believe that the Government are right on this matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I agree with him that disqualification is a useful additional method of disposal for the courts and it genuinely does something about keeping people out of prison. It is a very novel addition and we hope that it will keep some people attending their work, looking after their families and not becoming a cost to the social security system.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, whether he is seriously suggesting that on the face of the Bill, in primary legislation, we should add an amendment to the effect that the courts should pass sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. I expect courts to do that and I do not expect to put amendments on the face of the Bill to require them to do it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my answer to that is that the requirement of proportionality is within the statutes of primary legislation in respect of other means of disposal. Therefore, I see no reason for drawing a distinction on that ground. However, I have made my point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It simply tidies up a reference to the order-making power in Clause 36 to match a similar one in Clause 37 which cross-refers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Fine defaulters]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("determinate period") and insert ("period not exceeding twelve months").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. Clause 37 provides for the courts to impose a period of disqualification from driving on fine defaulters instead of a period of imprisonment. During our debate on this clause in Committee, I undertook to bring forward

877
amendments on Report to provide that magistrates could not impose disqualification for longer than 12 months. That is what the amendment achieves. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 27, line 47, at end insert—
("(4A) 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."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Disclosure of pre-sentence reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 99:
Transpose Clause 38 to after Clause 48.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 129. The amendments fulfil the undertaking given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in Committee that we would reflect on his amendment to increase the maximum penalty for indecent conduct towards a child to seven years and bring forward our own proposals.
I said in Committee that no right-thinking person can regard indecent conduct towards a child with anything other than complete revulsion. We have considered carefully whether the penalty should be increased to seven years, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proposed, or 10 years.
As I said during the debate in Committee, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which is also before your Lordships' House, will increase the maximum penalty for the broadly comparable offence in Scotland to 10 years. On balance, we are persuaded that it would be preferable to follow the Scottish precedent. Accordingly, we increase the maximum penalty for this offence from two years to 10 years' imprisonment.
The other amendments are consequential, technical drafting amendments and I wish them to be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Committals for sentence]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Transpose Clause 39 to after Clause 48.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Curfew orders]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Power to make hospital and limitation directions]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 31, line 25, leave out ("is likely to") and insert ("may")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in those happy co-operative days in Committee, this matter was considered on the fourth day and it was no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who argued from the Front Bench in favour of the principle of the amendment as then drafted. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord because, unfortunately, I had to be away in the United States of America and was not able to be here on the fourth day of Committee.
This amendment has been brought back in a revised form—and I hope that my noble friend has noted that—to deal with some of the concerns that were expressed by her and some other noble Lords in Committee when the amendment was moved. The proposed hospital direction is based on the premise that the offender, having been initially treated in hospital, will be transferred to prison to serve the rest of his or her sentence as the appropriate punishment for the crime. However, there is concern on the part of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others that the lack of any appropriate after care and support services in prisons for people with mental disorders will result in a subsequent deterioration in their condition, often necessitating transfer back to hospital. This revolving door effect is not only contrary to the notion of continuity of care; it also conveys conflicting and confusing messages to offenders by alternatively being treated for their disorder and then punished for suffering from it. It will also prove to be far more difficult to ensure continuity of effective care from prison to the community than from hospital to the community, thus posing greater risks to the public when the offender is eventually released from prison. I made that point when speaking to earlier amendments relating to those suffering from psychiatric illness.
The proposed amendment will enable the person to continue to be dealt with as if he was subject to a hospital order with a restriction order under Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (to which provisions I referred when moving earlier amendments). This would continue the restrictions on the person's discharge from hospital and require the Home Secretary's consent before leave of absence or discharge from hospital could be granted. While the person would have the right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Act imposes strict criteria on which the tribunal must be satisfied before the patient can be discharged. Indeed, there is evidence to show that offenders subject to restriction orders are detained in hospital for longer than they would otherwise have spent in prison. Therefore, there is little risk of premature discharge in appropriate cases. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find it difficult to give a very great response to my noble friend. We have

879
discussed mentally disordered offenders at some length. We believe that the package of proposals set out in the Bill offers the courts great flexibility. It ensures that proper provision is made for mentally disordered offenders. If hospital is required, then this is made possible by the Bill's provisions. I can add absolutely nothing to what has already been said. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lord, I assure my noble friend at once that I do not intend to press the amendment. There is no purpose, and no likelihood of success, in doing so. I am concerned that my noble friend is not able to answer the precise points that I have raised. I hope that in one way or another this matter will be kept under consideration, because it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. When I first moved the amendment I was speaking also to Amendment No. 104, which I shall not move. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
INCREASED PENALTY FOR OFFENCE OF INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN
(" . In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 not moved.]
Clause 50 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("and 18") and insert (", 18 and (Violent offenders)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Transfer of prisoners within the British Islands]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 119:
Page 40, line 23, after ("10,") insert ("(Release on Parole Board recommendation)").
Page 40, line 24, after ("(2),") insert ("(Violent offenders)(1) and (2)").
Page 40, line 37, after ("(2),") insert (", (Violent offenders)(1) and (2)").
Page 41, leave out lines 6 and 7.
Page 41, line 16, leave out ("section 13 of this Act shall apply to him as if it") insert ("sections (Provisional early release days for remand prisoners) and (Provisional additional days for remand prisoners) of this Act shall apply to him as if they").
Page 41, line 23, after first ("to") insert ("(Release on Parole Board recommendation),").
Page 41, line 24, after ("(2),") insert ("(Violent offenders)(1) and (2)").
Page 41, line 38, after ("(2),") insert (",(Violent offenders)(1) and (2)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 112 to 119 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 42, line 27, after ("30(5)") insert ("31,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 120, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 141 to 146. The amendments are consequential on the decision that those serving sentences of three years or more should not earn early release but should instead be considered by the Parole Board for release at the five-sixths point in their sentence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 124:
Page 43, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
("(6) Any reference in—

(a) sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) above to sections 15, 18 and 19 of the 1993 Act is a reference to those sections so far as relating to supervised release orders;

(b) in the said sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) to section 31 of the 1997 Act includes a reference to any rules under section 39 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 made by virtue of subsections (13) to (16) of that section; and
(ii) to section 36 of that Act is a reference to that section so far as it relates to section 34 of that Act.").
Page 43, leave out lines 14 to 18.
Page 44, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("sub-paragraph") in line 8.
Page 44, leave out lines 21 to 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 48, line 37, leave out ("what would be an equivalent sentence") and insert ("the time which is to be served in respect of an equivalent sentence treated as").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment correcting an oversight in the original drafting. It will ensure that a transferred prisoner will continue to receive credit for any benefits accruing in the sentence jurisdiction and that he will continue to be treated on transfer to another jurisdiction with regard to the length of his original sentence. This will avoid difficulties in changes to sentence length and therefore in the appropriate administration of different portions of the sentence which would otherwise arise. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 48, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert (", being either—

("(i) periods by which his sentence falls to be reduced; or

(ii) periods").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is also a minor drafting amendment, designed to ensure that prisoners transferred between jurisdictions are not

881
disadvantaged by slight differences in practie between Scotland, England and Wales with reference to the taking into account of remand time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repatriation of prisoners to the British Islands]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
Page 50, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,").
Page 50, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) The question whether—

(a) section 11 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (award of early release days for good behaviour); or

(b) section (Release on Parole Board recommendation) of that Act (release on Parole Board recommendation),

applies in the case of the prisoner shall be determined by reference to the length of the sentence imposed in the country or territory from which he is transferred.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 60, line 20, after ("18(3)") insert ("or (Violent offenders)(3)").
Page 60, line 21, after ("sexual") insert ("or violent").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 135 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 67, line 42, at end insert—
("Transfers of prisoners: general
In relation to any person serving a determinate custodial sentence in respect of an offence committed before the commencement of Chapter I of Part II of this Act, paragraph 6 of Schedule I to this Act shall have effect as if, in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph, for the words "recalled to prison under the licence" there were substituted the words "recalled or returned to prison".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 and 140. These amendments ensure that, for the transitional period before the commencement of Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, the law of England and Wales can be applied to offenders transferred to Northern Ireland for recall purposes. It has been necessary to make express provision to ensure that those offenders who are convicted of an offence during the licence period can be returned to prison under Section 40 of the 1991 Act. They also rectify an error concerning the application of Section 40 to restricted transferees to Northern Ireland. Section 40 applies to determinate sentence prisoners only and these amendments ensure that it is not applied incorrectly to lifers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 138 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 139 and 140.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 68, leave out lines 21 to 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely probing amendment. Its purpose is to demystify paragraph 9 of Schedule 5. As the paragraph refers to one chapter of two schedules to the Bill and to many sections and schedules of two other Acts, it becomes virtually unintelligible to any lay person.
It so happens that there is a significant number of laymen and others, both in England and in Ireland (North and South), who take a positive interest in the transferring of prisoners from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am inviting the Minister to repeat to the House, so that it can go on the record, the substance of her letter to me on this subject of 26th February which was extremely helpful and for which I am most grateful. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble Lord. For the record, the question of interjurisdictional transfers was the subject of an interdepartmental review, the Ferrers Report. The resulting report recognised the difficulties in transferring prisoners between jurisdictions which operated different sentencing policies. In particular, it was recognised that permanent transfers to Northern Ireland (which operates significantly different release arrangements from the rest of the United Kingdom) could lead to unacceptable reductions in time to serve, and that this could not be overcome save by making changes to existing legislative provision.
Accepting the recommendations contained in the report, the Government undertook to consider how the existing legislation might be amended to overcome the difficulties identified. In the meantime, increased use has been made of temporary transfers to Northern Ireland, for extended periods, for those prisoners who would otherwise benefit from a substantial reduction in time to serve if granted a permanent transfer.
Although this interim solution has been of benefit to prisoners and their families, the situation is unsatisfactory because of the need for such prisoners to apply at regular intervals for renewal of temporary periods of transfer, and for officials to reassess each such application against the transfer criteria announced to Parliament in November 1992.
The Crime (Sentences) Bill provides the first convenient opportunity to amend the existing transfer provisions (contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1961). Schedule 1 contains provisions which replace the current system of permanent and temporary transfers with one of unrestricted and restricted transfers.
Under the new system, a prisoner transferred on an unrestricted basis would become subject to the legislation applying in the receiving jurisdiction. Where,

883
because of differing sentencing arrangements, an unrestricted transfer is inappropriate, a prisoner may be transferred on a restricted basis. Such a prisoner transferred from England and Wales to another jurisdiction will remain subject to the provisions of English law set out in paragraph 8(2) (for prisoners transferred to Scotland) and in paragraph 9(2) (for prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland). These provisions relate to the detention, release and any supervision conditions applicable to prisoners in England and Wales.
The new arrangements will make it possible for prisoners sentenced in one jurisdiction to serve out their sentences in another, without the need to make renewed applications to remaining the second jurisdiction. However, the arrangements will ensure that the integrity of the original sentence is preserved.
We believe it important that the current transfer provisions are replaced as quickly as possible and it is therefore intended that Schedule 1 should be brought into effect as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Part II of Schedule 1 is framed with reference to the provisions contained in the Crime (Sentences) Bill. These will be applicable only after the coming into effect of Chapter I of Part II of the Bill. Transitional provisions are therefore contained in paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 5. These will enable transfers to take place under the arrangements set out in Schedule 1, but with reference to the application of existing legislation. Prisoners transferred from England and Wales to another jurisdiction on a restricted basis will therefore remain subject to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Without these transitional amendments it would not be possible to effect any restricted transfers to Northern Ireland between the implementation of Schedule 1 and the coming into effect of Part II of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord is happy to have that on the record.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I am sure a number of us will study with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 146:
Page 68, line 42, leave out ("40(1), (2), (3)(b) and (4)").
Page 68, line 46, leave out ("40(1), (2), (3)(b) and (4)").
Page 69, line 8, after ("30(5),") insert ("31,").
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 30(5) and").
Page 69, line 22, after ("30(5),") insert ("31,").
Page 69, line 27, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 30(5) and").
Page 69, line 53, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 30(5) and").
Page 70, line 18, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 30(5) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 70, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 36(1), the words "or under Part III".

In section 38, in subsection (3), the words "of Part III and" and, in subsection (6), the words "and of any enactment referred to in Part III of this Act".

In section 39, in subsection (1), the definitions of "appropriate institution" and "responsible Minister", and subsection (1A). In section 42, in subsection (1), the words "Part III except section thirty-three" and, in subsection (2), the words "Part III".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another minor, technical amendment to ensure internal consistency in existing legislation. With the deletion of the whole of Part III of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, it is appropriate to delete subsequent references to that part of the Act which appear in Part IV of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, that is what the amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148:
Page 71, column 3, leave out line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is yet another minor and technical amendment. All it seeks to do is retain the parole and remission provisions of the 1991 Act. If the Minister will promise not to tell the Home Secretary that it has been passed, then I shall not do so. Unfortunately I see that the noble Baroness will not agree. In the circumstances, therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended, (pursuant to Resolution of today's date):
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
I shall not detain the House other than to say that I have been enormously sustained despite the liveliness of the discussions in what was, sometimes, rather a tense atmosphere. I am grateful to all noble Lords on all sides of the House, some of whom felt very strongly about the Bill in one way or another, for their participation. I am so very grateful for the support that I have received from my own Benches, especially from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and my

885
wonderful Whip who, as I said, keeps me supplied with glasses of lemonade and, from time to time, with a "Polo" mint or, if I am lucky, a chocolate. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord Thomas of Gresford and, indeed, to all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would rather not have the Bill at all; indeed, I would certainly rather not have it under these circumstances. I do not think that there is any way of concealing my opposition to very large parts of the Bill. Of course, there are sections in Part III of the Bill which are extremely valuable in that they provide a greater range of non-custodial sentences and will have a benefit in reducing the prison population. However, if we go back to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill and we realise that the Bill as originally drafted would have meant an increase in the prison population by the time that the process was complete—admittedly in 12 years—of 11,000 prisoners and an increased revenue expenditure, let alone capital expenditure, of between £375 million and £425 million a year, it will be understood why I quoted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate earlier this afternoon. No government could implement the Bill unless there were an assurance of the resources to house and finance the increased prison population. Indeed, there is no need for me to say it if the Government have already acknowledged that fact.
I shall not make any triumphalist predictions about what will happen on 1st May, or what the situation will be thereafter. I do not think that that is appropriate in this House. However, over the four-and-a-half years in which I have been involved in Home Office matters and, in the more recent part of those years, when I have faced the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, over the Dispatch Box, I have had cause to express very strong disagreement with her about issues and occasionally about procedures; but I have never had any reason to doubt her courtesy and the scrupulous honesty with which she has approached the duty that she has to perform. Whatever may be the future for the noble Baroness after the election, I wish her well. I should add that the Minister has been ably supported in the proceedings on the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and, indeed, by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, to whom I also pay tribute.
Of course, during the course of the debates on the Bill, the Minister has been faced with strong and effective opposition from all parts of the House. I am sorry that none of the judges are here with us at this late hour but their contribution to our debates has been remarkable as, indeed, have been the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Liberal Democrat party has maintained its principle of civil libertarianism, if I may say so, in a relentless way—and I do not mean that in anything other than an admiring sense. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and all of his colleagues for their contributions to the Bill.
886
It is an unhappy situation that we have to let this Bill through in this way. The issues which the Bill raises will involve considerable heart searching after the election. I still do not know whether that will be done in statutory form, but something will have to be done about the provisions of this Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I shall not say much further at this late hour, which is nevertheless a much earlier hour than we anticipated at one stage. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I quote from the beginning of my speech at Second Reading when I said I thought this was,
"a had Bill with few redeeming features, foolishly conceived, wrong in principle and deceptive in its relevance to the real fight against crime".[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 980.]
I have to say that nothing between Second Reading and Third Reading makes me resile from that view.
It is a better Bill for the debates we have had and the amendments we have made. It would have been better still had we been able to make more amendments and indeed been able to scrutinise the Bill with the attention it deserved. What its future is is not for me to say, and all of us can speculate, but I hope it does not represent a major change in penal policy and that we shall revert in due course to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, called a more libertarian view—because I think it is a more realistic one—of how we should deal with these matters.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in that I, too, have admired, as always, the formidable persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She is a tough customer in the best possible way and a loyal and unwavering servant of her colleague the Home Secretary. He is fortunate that she has represented him here.
I admired, on this Bill as on others, the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—at least until today. He was quite right to draw attention to the part played in the progress of the Bill by some who are not present. He mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am sure he was right to mention the remarkable contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and the persistence—to use the word again—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. They and others have contributed to interesting debates which we now have to bring to a conclusion.
I have been immensely grateful for the assistance given by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Russell, who played a notable part in this Bill. We shall see what the future holds, but at least we have debated some important issues and I hope that in the Official Report our deliberations will be read in memory of what we have done.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I shall remember for all time this brief debate on Third Reading in that I believe I have not only been promoted to the hereditary peerage by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh,

887
but apparently made an Earl as well. I am grateful, but that obviously means he wishes to get rid of me as quickly as possible should Labour win the next election.
As someone who has been involved in this Bill and has—I accept—been a thorn in the side of my party, I hope those on my Front Bench will accept that my views on this Bill have been sincere and genuinely held. I hope my noble friend the Minister will not have thought at any time that my remarks were meant personally against her. I have tremendous admiration for the way she has had to carry not only this Bill but several other controversial Home Office Bills through the final few months of this Parliament.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I cannot pretend I am persuaded that this Bill is right. However, I am grateful for the courtesy that my noble friend has shown to us throughout in the debates we have had.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I begin my brief words by joining my noble friend Lord Carlisle in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for elevating me as an hereditary Peer to an earldom, and I graciously accept the elevation.
I am also grateful for the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was also a great supporter and admirer of him until today and, no doubt, my admiration and support will return on other days. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not been able to show us his great parliamentary skills today in arguing so many of the amendments that we would have wished him to argue with us.
I wish particularly to direct my comments to the Minister. It has been my painful and indeed awkward task during the course of this Bill frequently to disagree with my noble friend and with many provisions in the Bill. Spurred by great hilarity at an earlier stage in our proceedings, I used rather stronger language about the Bill than I would do now. It is a Bill with which I am not happy, and I wish that it had been considered much further. I hope my noble friend will accept that the concerns I have expressed, whether I have used temperate or intemperate language, have been real and genuine concerns. Nobody who has sat throughout this debate, as have I and other noble Lords, could have failed to notice the meticulous care that my noble friend paid to every single amendment and, indeed, how extremely well she was briefed. She even noticed that I had decoupled some amendments last night when speaking to her office and then coupled them together again in the debate today. That transgression did not pass the eyes of my noble friend, and is one example of the meticulous care and courtesy that she has shown throughout the proceedings.
I have only one other observation to make, and I am invited to do so by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, the Lord Privy Seal, who said that this was the stage at which to comment upon the application of the Motion that your Lordships carried earlier today to enable us to truncate our proceedings on this Bill, so that now we are speaking on Third Reading although, a few minutes earlier, we were still dealing with the Report stage.
888
I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House and indeed the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will read these observations. I have been in your Lordships' House as an hereditary Peer for some time, and I can say quite clearly that, while the Motion itself is not unprecedented, what has been quite unprecedented is the volume and complexity of Bills that have been swept in under this Motion, and many of those Bills are highly controversial.
I have a very clear memory of the end of the Conservative Government in 1974. At that time, several heavy Public Bills were being considered by either this House or another place. I remember particularly the road traffic Bill. There was no attempt whatever in taking any heavy Public Bills through on any truncated system, and any arrangements which were then made through the usual channels did not involve that. Indeed, I well remember that with the road traffic Bill the Conservative Government of the day allowed it to drop, although it was a big Bill. Then a Labour Government succeeded and they actually picked up that Bill to such a point that I can almost hear the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who was then the Minister, through the mouth of the Labour Minister, who was then picking up the brief of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
I also have a very clear recollection of 1979, when again a government ended. I have a very clear recollection that no heavy Bills were taken through on the nod and no controversial Bills were taken through. The only agreement that was made between our House and the other place through the usual channels was to take uncontroversial Bills. I remember that particularly well because the Arbitration Bill was before your Lordships' House at that time and, as part of the agreement through the usual channels, the House of Commons did not consider the Arbitration Bill at all. I believe that the Arbitration Bill was a great deal better for its having been considered only by your Lordships.
I am fearful about a precedent being created by what has occurred today. I hope that noble Lords and leaders of both sides of the House will read my observations. My memory is accurate about the events in 1974 and 1979. I hope that this will never be repeated. It is a thoroughly bad precedent.
I emphasise that noble Lords on the Front Benches had this problem dumped on them from another place. I hope that these matters will not be dumped on us again and that this will be a one-off and not a precedent.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is somewhat ironic that this is the first time I have spoken tonight. But for certain developments during the day, I think that we would have been discussing amendments. However, I may make up for that during discussion on the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
I congratulate the noble Baroness and the Front Bench team. I wondered quite what was in the lemonade on occasions. I have two points. First, I believe that the early release scheme will be difficult to sell to prisoners. They will take a lot of persuasion that the provision may

889
not be as bad as it looks. Secondly, on a more hopeful note, the search for better and more effective community sentences must go on.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in this business, as in tennis, one of the things that really matters is one's relationship with the player the other side of the net. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I have been delighted to have her the other side of the net. Every time we are opposite each other, my respect for her integrity, her persistence, her determination and her attention to the business rises. The noble Baroness said tonight that those of us who were opposed to the Bill had shown a dogged determination. Perhaps I may pay her the compliment of saying that I believe we are not alone in that. I believe that no one will expect me to say any good word about the Bill. It is a much worse Bill than I thought when we first embarked upon it at Second Reading. I do not believe that it will protect the public but rather the opposite. If it ever comes into effect, I believe that its cost will be exorbitant—far greater than any of the estimates which have been put before us. As do others, I believe that it is highly unlikely that the Bill will ever come into effect. I wonder, therefore, exactly what purpose has been served in rushing it through this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was worried about his intemperate use of language. Worse language was used in this House in 1610 by none other than the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who expressed a wish that the Bill before the House be committed to the pit of hell. I shall not follow him down that path.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were not content with the deal which we reached earlier this evening. My noble friends believed, and I believe, that it was the best available in the circumstances and, therefore, that there was a strong case for reaching it. I should like to repeat my thanks to all those—they are more numerous than I can now mention—who were involved in reaching it. It is at least something solid. I am sorry that there is disagreement between us, but in any matter of judgment that is, I think, inevitable. However, I will say to the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, and through him his noble friends, and honourable friends, and friends in other places, that the mere fact that this deal has been improved shows that they did not try hard enough. As a pure hypothesis, let us suppose that in five years' time they are sitting opposite where I now stand. I wonder whether they will find the Opposition quite so forbearing in the last week of the next Parliament. Personally, I should be a little surprised. I do not think they tried.
I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, down the path of discussing in detail the deal which was reached, but I believe that in any future deals we must ensure that this House, including the Cross-Benches, has a much fuller input into any agreement reached than it appears to have had on this occasion. I wondered earlier this afternoon whether it had done as much to diminish the standing of this House as anything proposed by the Opposition. I am thankful that at least some of that has been put right.
890
On these Benches I have been extremely glad to have enjoyed the co-operation of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. This is his first very big Bill; it will not be the last. Welcome.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who has had as distinguished a session as any I can remember enjoyed by anyone on these Benches, not just on this Bill but all the way through the session.
My noble friend the Earl of Mar and Kellie has always been there, has always known about the detail of the obscurest point we have been discussing and has been a tower of strength throughout.
I should like to thank all others who have taken part—most notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill—for the intellectual distinction which, from every part of the House and from every angle, they have brought to the debates. I for one remain proud to have taken part in them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of expressing my complete admiration for the Minister for the hard work which she has put into this Bill and her attention to detail. I have appreciated the way in which she has dealt with some perhaps impetuous interruptions from me. I congratulate her on the way she has steered the Bill through the House.
I have also been much impressed by the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Hacking, from the Government Benches. They have put forward their point of view with great courage in the position in which they found themselves and have supported amendments which have been pressed upon the Government from all sides of the House.
It has been a particular pleasure for me to work with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to listen to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who, I thought, gave the best speeches I have heard in this House since I so recently arrived.
I have also been much impressed by the hard work put in by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I regret that he was not with us all the way to the bitter end, but certainly his contribution has been immense.
Perhaps I may say to those with whom I have worked on these Benches that I am very grateful to have been a member of the team so ably led by my noble friend Lord Rodgers, supported by the noble Earls, Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Russell. I have been much instructed in the 17th century by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I am sure that that will stand me in good stead.
Finally, perhaps I may offer my personal thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for the assistance that he has given to me from time to time, putting me right when I have got things wrong.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may thank all noble Lords for their most generous comments. I hope they will forgive me if I couple with those comments my officials, who have also burned a great deal of midnight oil, not only in serving me but also in making sure that all noble Lords were properly informed on some of their more technical points.

891
I believe that this is an important Bill. It addresses some very serious concerns in the community about violent offences, dealing in Class A drugs and persistent burglaries. I wish it well. At least it will now go on the Statute Book, I believe, as a result of the accommodation reached by all noble Lords and those in another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Architects Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  East Jerusalem: Landholding Statistics
  East Jerusalem: Landholding Statistics
  NATO
  NATO
  Dena Import-Export Ltd.
  Dena Import-Export Ltd.
  Marine Navigation Aids
  Marine Navigation Aids
  Salisbury Bypass: Highways Agency Report
  Salisbury Bypass: Highways Agency Report
  "Pescado" Sinking: Report
  "Pescado" Sinking: Report
  Sandeels: TAC Proposal
  Sandeels: TAC Proposal
  BSE
  BSE
  Variable Pesticide Residues
  Variable Pesticide Residues
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Support
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Support
  House of Commons Medal Collection
  House of Commons Medal Collection
  Environment Agency Charging Schemes
  Environment Agency Charging Schemes
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Community Alarm Systems
  Community Alarm Systems
  Access Fund Payments to Students: Child Maintenance Liability
  Access Fund Payments to Students: Child Maintenance Liability
  Lloyd's: Tax Charged and Repaid
  Lloyd's: Tax Charged and Repaid