Sitting of 3 November 1997

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

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Swayne: If he will make a statement on the role of the Territorial Army. [11734]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The primary role of the Territorial Army is to act as a general reserve for the Regular Army and to provide a framework for full mobilisation in times of national emergency. The TA also helps to maintain a link between the military and civilian communities throughout the country. The role of the TA is being fully considered, along with those of the other reserve forces, as part of the Government's strategic defence review.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the decision to withdraw the series III Land Rover falls disproportionately heavily on the Territorial Army. Are replacement vehicles being delayed up by
    2
    Ministers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Territorial Army has vehicles with which to train on 2 January next year?
    Dr. Reid: I noticed that this was one of the more constructive questions asked by the hon. Gentleman during an otherwise non-constructive speech in the House a few days ago. The answer to his first question is no and the answer to his second question is that everything possible will be done to make sure that the Territorial Army can meet its training obligations not only at local level but at regimental and battle group level.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that, if we are to sustain a reasonable, good and active Territorial Army, it must be led by professional people in cities and towns throughout the country? In my area, the King's Own Yorkshire Yeomanry, which used to be the King's Own Light Infantry, is a good and well-maintained territorial unit, but I fear that unless we retain full-time professional people to train, there will be a reduction in the efficiency and appropriateness of the Territorial Army.
    Dr. Reid: The strategic defence review will take into account the strength that the volunteer reserve brings to the armed forces and to our regular service men and women. The immense contribution made by the Territorial Army is recognised by the Government, particularly its contribution to our operations in Bosnia in recent times. As my hon. Friend makes clear, a vital part of ensuring that we can meet such operational capability is ensuring that training is carried out professionally and with appropriate resources. That matter will be addressed during the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister aware that no other country in the English-speaking world has less than a quarter of its total armed forces in the form of volunteer reserves? Who is carrying out the studies advising the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State on the future

    3
    of the reserve forces? Are they regular officers and civil servants, or are some serving territorials directly involved?
    Dr. Reid: The strategic defence review will take into account a range of views from a range of contributors, not least the hon. Gentleman in his published material. The examination will be carried out by Ministers presiding over a range of inputs, including those that are in the Library, and those from the regular forces. We will consult reservist representatives during that process.
    Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend commend the concern of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the effectiveness of the Territorial Army? Will my hon. Friend invite him to show similar concern for the effectiveness of the Regular Army by withdrawing the disgraceful remarks he made in last week's defence debate, which constituted a slur on the professionalism of men and women in our armed forces?
    Dr. Reid: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman must defend his position. I have no intention of doing that, but I echo her remarks about the contribution that the regular forces and the Territorial Army in particular make to our defence effort, and it will not have slipped her notice that in the TA all posts are open to women.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on Britain's independent nuclear capability. [11735]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Following the announcement of the strategic defence review, we have received many written submissions concerning our nuclear deterrent. We have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of those submissions where authors have agreed that we should do so.
    Mr. Amess: In the light of the sincere views that the present leader of the Labour party held when he was first elected to Parliament in 1983 in opposing all nuclear weapons, and as those views are held sincerely today by many other Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament, is the strategic defence review considering in any way the abandonment of Trident?
    Mr. Robertson: No, it is not.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Who are these nuclear weapons aimed at? Who is the enemy? Would my right hon. Friend be willing to press the button to involve this country in a nuclear confrontation?
    Mr. Robertson: Since 1994. the nuclear weapons of this country as well as of America and Russia have been de-targeted. They are not, therefore, pointed at anyone at present. The decision whether the nuclear deterrent would or should be used would not be taken by the Secretary of State for Defence, but I remind my hon. Friend that, like
    4
    all Labour Members, he fought a general election campaign on a manifesto that said that we would retain Trident.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will it cost or save money if the Government decide, as a result of the strategic defence review, to reduce the warheads on Trident? If, as I suspect, it will cost money to take off the existing nose cones and put on new ones with fewer warheads, is that not a terrible waste of scarce defence resources?
    Mr. Robertson: The strategic defence review will be based on the foreign policy priorities of the Government and indeed of this country, and we will assess what changes can be made in this country's nuclear posture that are compatible with maintaining a minimum credible deterrent.

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mr. Rapson: When he plans to publish his plans for a defence diversification agency. [11736]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We hope to publish a Green Paper on defence diversification before Christmas.
    Mr. Rapson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, traditionally. Great Britain has been a world leader in the development of new technology in the defence sector, that we are much less successful when it comes to exploiting those industries commercially, and that there is a need to facilitate a transfer of technology from the defence sector to the defence industry? When the new defence diversification agency is eventually set up, will both those factors be taken into account?
    Mr. Spellar: We recognise the increasing interchange of technology between the civil and defence sectors. That is also recognised by industry. We hope that, through the defence diversification agency, we can ensure that technology is disseminated far more widely into the civil sector so that we can continue to build, indeed rebuild, Britain's industrial base.
    Mr. Viggers: Is it not true that the record of defence contractors—of which Vosper Thornycroft and Basys Technology are two very good examples from the constituencies of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and me—clearly shows that they have been extremely successful in using the skills that have developed in the defence area and deploying them for civilian use? Does the Minister agree that the last thing those skilled managements need are so-called experts offering to help them?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has introduced an aunt Sally that would not be recognised by industry. In fact, there is considerable interest from the defence industry in dissemination—not so much among the prime contractors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as among many of the small and medium enterprises that are looking forward to using the technology. There is also considerable interest in faster dissemination to industry of the very good technical and scientific work in our

    5
    Government laboratories. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to find how much genuine interest there is within industry.

    Bosnia (Implementation Force)
    Mr. Winnick: If he will make a statement on the future of IFOR in Bosnia. [11737]
    Mr. George Robertson: The NATO-led stabilisation force, SFOR, will remain in Bosnia until the completion of its mission in June 1998.
    Mr. Winnick: First, I pay tribute to the way in which the IFOR contingent, including British Army personnel, has carried out its duties. In certain circumstances, will the mandate be extended, bearing in mind the situation that existed up to the time IFOR went into the former Yugoslavia? Since my right hon. Friend's last statement to the House, has he had any further information about the two notorious criminals and mass murderers who remain free?
    Mr. Robertson: It is too early to talk of post-SFOR options, but our view remains that any follow-on force can only be NATO-led, with the risks and burdens shared equally by all allies.
    I was in Bosnia last week, and having seen the superb job being done by our armed forces with the other 33 countries involved in the alliance, I doubt whether anybody in this country would want Bosnia ever again to degenerate into the genocide and ethnic cleansing that existed before intervention.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, the United Kingdom, with the rest of the international community, remains determined to ensure that all indictees indicted on war crimes are sent to The Hague for trial. What happened at Prijedor in July this year is proof of our national resolve. The responsibility for handing over indicted persons to the tribunal lies with the Bosnian authorities. We therefore very much welcome the recent decision of 10 Croat indictees to hand themselves over for trial at The Hague.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Will the Secretary of State assure us that he is studying what the possible consequences might be of a withdrawal if it is decided not to renew SFOR in June next year?
    Mr. Robertson: I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that that matter is being looked at on an almost daily basis. We take it extremely seriously. What matters now is what progress is being made in Bosnia. During my visit it became obvious that substantial progress was being made in creating some new democratic institutions in that country. The existence of a renewed debate, especially in Republika Srpska, between the two elements is encouraging. There is also a growing realisation by people throughout the country that there is no military solution to the problems in Bosnia and that foreign forces cannot remain there indefinitely.
    I repeat that I do not believe that the people of this country or of the wider international community want Bosnia to degenerate yet again into the sort of ethnic brutality that characterised the period after the fall of the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Key: Most people agree that our excellent Bosnia operation is very good value for money, the cost being
    6
    more than £200 million. In future, however, where will the burden of that cost fall? It is currently met by the contingency reserve, but will it in future fall fully on the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Robertson: It is too early in the financial year to establish the precise cost of the Bosnia operation to the defence budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is exactly the same answer as was given by my predecessor in the previous Conservative Government. As and when we know the precise cost to the UK of the Bosnia operation we will determine how much of that cost can be absorbed by the Ministry of Defence; anything over that sum will have to be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me. I have no intention of starting that discussion at the Dispatch Box.
    Madam Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
    Mr. Mackinlay: He has dealt with the point, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: How splendid; in that case, I call the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

    NATO Enlargement
    Mr. Tyrie: If he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [11738]
    Mr. George Robertson: The Madrid NATO summit invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. NATO's goal is to sign the accession protocol in December. At the same time, NATO is working with the three countries concerned to facilitate their effective military and political integration into the alliance.
    Mr. Tyrie: What will the cost of NATO enlargement be? I note that, after the NATO summit, the Prime Minister said that the cost would be zero. There have been reports in the press, however, that the Pentagon and the NATO military command estimate that the cost will be between £3 billion and £6 billion. What will be the United Kingdom's share of that cost?
    Mr. Robertson: Those are not NATO figures. A variety of sources have produced a number of figures, few of which we consider reliable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that the cost would be zero; he said that it would be manageable. The cost of NATO enlargement will emerge from the detailed plans that are being produced, based on the decisions made at Madrid. It would be misleading to present figures at this stage. A good indication of where the costs are likely to fall should be ready for NATO Ministers when they meet in December.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State say what assessment his Department has made of the costs of NATO enlargement to the new member states in raised taxation or cuts in their social programmes, and what

    7
    estimate he has made of the likely defence expenditure increase in Russia—which feels that it has a new enemy on its borders and is therefore likely to rearm?
    Mr. Robertson: Immediately after today's Question Time, I am going to Russia to meet my opposite number, General Sergeyev. The Russians' opinion is not that they have a new enemy on their borders and the NATO-Russia founding charter was a new chapter in the developing relationships between NATO and Russia. We do not believe that the new applicant countries will have to pay a price that will have to come out of their social expenditure.
    We will not allow expansion to bankrupt the expanding economies of the applicant countries, because their continued economic health and market economies are an important element in European security. We expect that there will be costs to them—of course there will be—and that they will have responsibilities, but we and the applicant countries believe that every penny that has been spent on NATO has been worth it and that any necessary future expenditure will be in their and Europe's interest.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State advise the House how critical the issue of the NATO nuclear capability has been in those discussions?
    Mr. Robertson: Given that there is absolutely no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the new members, it can be taken that that was not a major factor in the discussions on NATO enlargement.

    Strategic Exports
    Mr. Ian Taylor: When he will publish the first annual report on UK strategic exports. [11739]
    Mr. Spellar: The content and timing of the publication of the first annual report on the state of strategic export controls and their application is currently under discussion between the Departments concerned. An announcement will be made in due course.
    May I, Madam Speaker, take this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly remarks I made about the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) during the defence policy debate last week when responding to his point about delays in the issuing of defence export licences? I very much regret that I was misinformed about representations my Department had received on this matter. I have, of course, already written to the hon. Gentleman to apologise, but I wanted to take the earliest opportunity to correct my inadvertent error on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Taylor: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I thank the Minister for his personal statement and clarification, which the House will welcome. We are grateful to him. Nevertheless, will he clarify for the benefit of the Defence Manufacturers Association why there is such a delay in the granting of export licences? Export orders are massively important for British business and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm just how important the defence industry is to British export performance.
    Mr. Spellar: The defence industry is a substantial exporter, which is why we stressed its importance so
    8
    much in our election manifesto and why we are holding regular meetings with defence manufacturers. Some of the delays have inevitably arisen because of the Government's review of the criteria to be considered when issuing licences for the export of conventional arms. My Department has provided staff to other Departments involved in the licensing process to assist in clearing the backlog. Our aim is to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible to deal with urgent cases. Officials are well aware that undue delay in the clearance of licence applications could result in lost orders or, equally important, in damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that previous Governments did not invest sufficiently in research and development to enhance strategic exports? What plans have our Government to invest in this vital sphere?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is well aware from previous answers that we are examining the interchange between the civil and defence sectors in defence manufacturing and the interchange of research that that involves. We are also considering much wider dissemination of the work undertaken by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. We understand that much of the benefit that we are now deriving stems from previous research and we appreciate the need for future research to sustain our industry.
    Sir George Young: The House will have heard and welcomed the Minister's apology for his unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—no doubt that particular weapons system will not be deployed again from the Government Front Bench. In view of the implications for jobs and, indeed, for foreign exchange, is the Minister able to give the House a date by which the Government will have reached the previous Government's target for processing export licences?
    Mr. Spellar: As I told the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), we are working with other Departments and taking up the matter with them urgently to ensure that there are no undue delays—we are seized of the potential difficulties, which I outlined, if we are not able to improve matters. We certainly take the issue seriously and are taking action on it.

    RAF Procurement
    Mr. Borrow: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's strategic defence review in respect of policy on RAF procurement. [11740]
    Mr. Spellar: One of the aims of the strategic defence review is to ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. The review will consider what procurement policies are necessary to obtain the best possible output from defence resources for all three services. We will be seeking to establish a mutually beneficial partnership with the defence industry to achieve this end.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank the Government for their continued support for the Eurofighter project and its

    9
    exclusion from the defence review. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence sought in the House last Monday to undermine the previous Government's commitment to the project by arguing that it should be included in the defence review? Does the Minister agree that the voters of Lancashire were prudent on 1 May to vote for Labour candidates committed to the project rather than for Conservative candidates whose commitment now seems somewhat shaky?
    Mr. Spellar: I presume that my hon. Friend was referring to the following words of the shadow Secretary of State last Monday:
    "The second flaw is mentioned again in today's edition of The Guardian. Excluding defence equipment from the review poses a risk that the equipment will dictate defence policy, rather than the choice of equipment being dictated by policy."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 623.]
    That article in The Guardian dealt almost exclusively with Eurofighter. Only two items are excluded from the review. One is Trident, which I presume the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to. The other is Eurofighter, which is enormously important for the future of our armed forces and the RAF and is at a delicate stage of discussion in Germany. Members of the Defence Committee have been in Germany pressing the case for Eurofighter. We welcome their success and believe that all hon. Members should be four square behind Eurofighter, which is important for the Air Force and for the defence industry.
    Mr. Evans: Unlike the Labour party, we have not changed our policies just because we have moved to the other side of the House. Our support for the European fighter aircraft is 100 per cent. We want an assurance from the Minister that the RAF will be able to do the tasks that we ask of it after the strategic defence review. Those who think that we can ask industries such as British Aerospace to diversify their Hawks into hoovers, their Tornados into teapots or their EFAs into fridges must realise that that cannot happen. We need to keep our skilled personnel together in factories such as those of British Aerospace.
    Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that our domestic market co-operates with the defence manufacturing industries in Europe and the United States? Does he also agree that that is possible only if the Government ensure strong domestic demand?
    Mr. Spellar: The Conservatives may not have changed their policy, but they have changed their entire defence team. The hon. Gentleman's silly comments about diversification are countered by the experience of British Aerospace, which has done a great deal of work on establishing industrial parks near its sites to build up its supplier base, which includes many dual-use suppliers. That, not the strange picture painted by the hon. Gentleman, is the reality of diversification.
    In opposition and in government we have consistently reaffirmed our support for Eurofighter—not just in words, but in actions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to Germany to urge support for Eurofighter and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the issue with the German Chancellor. Much of the movement on the issue in Germany is down to this Government's resolution.

    Comprehensive Spending Review
    Mr. Keith Simpson: If he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to Her Majesty's Government's comprehensive spending review. [11741]
    Mr. George Robertson: The strategic defence review is my Department's contribution to the comprehensive spending review. There will therefore be one coherent review of defence.
    Mr. Simpson: Given that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the aim of the comprehensive spending review is to identify savings in all Departments, will the Secretary of State tell the House the extent of the savings that defence will make over the next few years—3 per cent? Five per cent? What is his base line for cuts below which he will resign?
    Mr. Robertson: In the great history of brass necks in politics, I suppose that the hon. Gentleman does not shine out, but savings in this year's defence budget will have to be made to fill the holes in capability that his hon. Friends left. In addition to that, we inherited a 3 per cent. efficiency savings target from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the previous Administration, so he knows a little about random, ad hoc, arbitrary cutting of defence budgets. Perhaps he should apologise to the House rather than boast.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives are in no position to lecture him on defence cuts, when defence expenditure was cut by one third in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. They have no justification for lecturing us. Whereas we made specific promises, which we shall keep, they made promises about defence strength that contrast with their record of cutting defence expenditure by one third in real terms in the past decade.
    Mr. Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that the good and ambitious programme of jointery, which was started by his predecessor, is well worth continuing? Does he accept that substantial savings can be achieved by jointery, and by undertaking further joint operations and much greater joint support work? I am sure that he will be supported in those efforts by the Opposition.
    What we cannot and will not support, however, are cuts where mergers are made just for the sake of mergers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the integrity of the single-service structure, even within the framework of enhanced jointery, remains at the core of defence policy?
    Mr. Robertson: I can easily give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall keep the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army. Like the previous Government, we shall want to look closely at how the three services co-operate, the better to improve the operations and procurement side of our defence. That makes absolute common sense and it is one of the key areas that we are looking at in the strategic defence review.

    11
    The word "jointery" is a jargon expression which is virtually meaningless to the outside world. The ability of the three services, with a long and proud history, to work more closely together in an increasingly complicated and changing world is, however, something that most people would regard as common sense. I am glad to keep any tradition that makes common sense for the defence of this country.
    Sir George Young: For the record, our support for Eurofighter is total and unqualified.
    In the strategic defence review, the Secretary of State has laid particular emphasis on two considerations: first, the search for consensus and, secondly, openness. Will he now admit that his search for those two goals has been fatally undermined by his failure to publish the foreign policy baselines?
    Mr. Robertson: We are all glad that the shadow Defence Secretary has belatedly given his full-hearted support for Eurofighter. It did not sound as if that was the case last week. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in coming to the support of anything that starts with the word "Euro" at this time. We all wish him well in bigger fights than those across the Dispatch Box—fights to see whether he will be sitting on the Front Bench at the next Defence Question Time and whether he will be there on his own terms.
    I made it clear to the House last week that the Government would outline the foreign policy guidelines that would predicate our discussions of phase 2 of the strategic defence review through a series of speeches that I would make. I made a major speech at the English Speaking Union and a major speech, which I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read, at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. That outlined clearly the Government's foreign policy priorities, from which we shall design the rest of the defence review.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Olner: If he will make a statement on the future of the Eurofighter programme. [11742]
    Mr. George Robertson: The Government remain strongly committed to the Eurofighter programme. The development phase is proceeding very satisfactorily. We are ready to sign the memoranda of understanding for the production and support phases and I hope that as a result of the positive decision by the German Cabinet on 8 October final German approval will be secured in the Bundestag later this month to proceed to the next phases. The aim of the four partner nations is to sign the memoranda of understanding for these phases in December 1997 and the relevant contracts very soon thereafter.
    Mr. Olner: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that reply, but for his earlier replies which show the Government's support for Eurofighter. That contrasts strongly with the views of the previous Government, who fought a general election campaign on the basis that, if the Labour party formed a Government, it would scrap this wonderful aeroplane. That was not true and what the Secretary of State has said has proved that.
    12
    Will my right hon. Friend give a further assurance that he will not listen to the siren voices on the Opposition Benches or to the shadow Secretary of State? Will he give my constituents at the Rolls-Royce aero-engine plant in Coventry the assurance that they and others working on Eurofighter will have the Government's full support?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend and put on record my gratitude for his robust support for a project that is important not just in defence terms, but in terms of the degree of European co-operation that we can find in respect of the most effective combat aircraft to meet the needs of the RAF and other European air forces. As a multi-role weapons system, it offers the operational flexibility necessary to meet the uncertain challenges of the next century. That is why the previous Government backed it and the present Government will continue to support it. I hope that all hon. Members will realise its value.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the strategic defence review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, should there be any cost overruns on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project ever undertaken—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Soames—that is not our custom. They may be pretty girls, but we do not hold conversations with officials in the box. You may talk to me. Mr. Soames.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, any overrun on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project every undertaken by the Ministry of Defence—will not be allowed to skew the rest of the defence programme, but will be charged to the reserve?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not know why you are so intolerant, Madam Speaker. I thought that bonding was the only thing that united the Conservative party at present.
    Unlike the previous Government, we intend to keep a tight grip on all procurement projects. The House may be interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence under the previous Administration, so if anyone knows about cost overruns and in-service dates that have yet to appear, he should be the expert.

    Armistice Day
    Mr. St. Aubyn: What are his plans for commemorating armistice day. [11743]
    Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, as will I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. This is the formal national occasion for remembering all those, whether in a military or a civilian capacity, who made the supreme sacrifice.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister join Conservative Members in supporting the British Legion and its proposal

    13
    that a two-minutes silence should be observed on Tuesday 11 November? If so, how does the Minister propose to build on the success of the previous Government a year ago in promoting that idea?
    Dr. Reid: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to ensuring that Remembrance Sunday and the two-minute silence on that day are not forgotten, but observed with full dignity, respect and honour. He will realise, of course, that the observance of a period of silence either on Remembrance Sunday or on 11 November must be a personal decision. Indeed, one of the freedoms for which those who fell fought was the right of individuals to make that decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers, including myself, and their officials will be observing that silence on both those dates.
    Mr. Grocott: Amid the many and varied ways in which different communities commemorate Armistice Day, may I tell my hon. Friend about a very moving ceremony which takes place every year in my constituency and, no doubt, elsewhere? It is called the Ceremony of Light, when 100 names of people who have given their lives in wars this century are read out and for each name a candle is lit, usually by a young person in the constituency. Although I attend the ceremony every year, each year is deeply moving—not least because it involves people of all generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all generations—especially young people as they grow older—understand the awesome sacrifices that were made and the reasons why they were made to defend our freedoms?
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am sure that the House will have found his description as important and moving as I did. It is absolutely essential that young people not only formally remember but recognise those who fell for this country—first because many of those who fell gave up their youth for succeeding generations, and secondly because, unless the torch of freedom and the sacrifices made are passed from generation to generation, we shall not retain the will power to stand up for democracy and freedom. That is what the people who died in the second world war died for. All of us and any future generation will forget that to the peril of the very democracies and freedoms for which previous generations fell.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister, like most hon. Members present, is wearing a poppy. Will he comment on the behaviour of the management of Coates Viyella Ltd. in Londonderry, which has sent home and suspended more than a dozen workers for wearing poppies and has even compelled visiting executives from England to remove poppies while on the plant? Does the Minister agree that a perverted interpretation of legislation is being used to support that outrageous action, and that the legislation should be clarified so that no person will be penalised in future for wearing a poppy?
    Dr. Reid: I recognise the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman brings to the matter not only because of Remembrance Sunday, which is coming up, but because yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the terrible massacre in Enniskillen, which was a dastardly act by any
    14
    standards. I had the privilege of attending a ceremony held by representatives of the Enniskillen British Legion yesterday and presented them with a wreath from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take back to Enniskillen.
    The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will understand that, due to the nature of discussions that we are having on Remembrance Sunday and exchanges across the Dispatch Box, I do not want to address that particular instance on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I am sure that we could meet on this subject and I could give him satisfaction.

    Gulf War Illness
    Mr. Todd: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy relating to Gulf war illnesses. [11744]
    Dr. Reid: The Government are committed to dealing openly, honestly and sympathetically with the concerns of Gulf veterans who are ill. We shall continue to give the issue the highest priority.
    Mr. Todd: I thank the Minister for that answer on behalf of constituents of mine who have raised the issue. Are we taking steps to gain access to American research on the subject?
    Dr. Reid: I assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping in close touch with our American colleagues. In fact, I was in Washington a fortnight ago having a meeting with the joint inter-agencies which are handling the issue. We are also extending to the Americans any information that we receive—from fact finding and reports that have recently been published and from any future research discoveries that we might make. The American assistance is particularly useful with regard to chemical weapons. As in all other spheres of information, I should make it plain that we will release that information—as well as all other information—for the benefit of veterans.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister has just acknowledged, exposure to chemical weapons from the regime of Saddam Hussein is a possible cause of Gulf war syndrome. Is it not therefore all the more chilling to learn that Saddam Hussein is persisting in the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially the nerve agent VX4, and is declining to allow United Nations inspectors access, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, to inspect the plants where the development is taking place? Can the Minister confirm that the Government stand four square behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions which authorise—if all else fails—the use of proportionate force?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and take this opportunity to make it plain that Saddam' s actions in relation to the United Nations Special Commission are completely unacceptable and he must now comply with the United Nations Security Council presidential statement of 29 October. We shall give our full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the problem and we are in close contact with our allies on that issue. Since the hon. and

    15
    learned Gentleman asks the question, I confirm that we do not advocate the use of force, but we do not rule it out if Saddam fails to comply.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister told the House during last week's two-day defence debate that, despite the best endeavours of his Department, he still has not been able to find out precisely what mixture of chemicals was given to how many soldiers serving in the Gulf. What further investigations has he made since then? In particular, what batches of chemicals were purchased from which chemical manufacturers, and on what day were they given to which units? Surely it is possible to arrive at a realistic conclusion.
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say, with all due respect, that I have done more in six months on that matter than was done in the previous six years. I issued a detailed paper on organophosphates five days ago, and a detailed paper on the vaccines used has also been issued, warts and all, including information about decisions that hon. Members may find questionable. I have also doubled the resources allotted to the research side, put more people through the medical assessment in the past six months than were assessed in the previous four years, and established a fact-finding group to ascertain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    I pledge again that the Government are committed, out of a duty of honour, to making all the information available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to those who served their country in the Gulf. If I cannot make up for all the mistakes of the previous six years in my first six months, I shall do my damnedest to do so in my first year.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funds available for the National Audit Office. [11769]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1998-99 to 2002-03 showed an increase in net cash resources from £39.8 million to £41.5 million in real terms over the next five years. There will be considerable increases in work load in this period as a result of the introduction of resource accounting, greater examination of regularity and propriety issues and involvement in accounting and tendering procedures in public-private partnerships. The cost of the extra work will be partly offset by continuing efficiency savings.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that he is indeed a right hon. Gentleman because he certainly should be by now—for that answer. Does he agree that the National Audit Office gives good value for money and that its reports often lead to further savings?
    16
    However, will the Public Accounts Commission consider whether we should put more funds into checking what is happening in local government? District auditors are supposed to ensure that the correct procedures are followed, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they sometimes get too close to local authorities and that many problems seem to be missed? Is it not time that we got to the bottom of what is happening in local government?
    Mr. Sheldon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value for money that is obtained by the National Audit Office. It is one of the great ventures of the House, and since its introduction in 1983, it has succeeded in meeting all the aims of the National Audit Act 1983.
    Local government is a matter for the Audit Commission. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I have co-operated with the commission, but local government is entirely a matter for it, as are any proposals that it may make to the National Audit Office or to the PAC.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the excellent statement on public-private finance in the annual report of the NAO is drawn to the attention of all hon. Members so that they do not forget that the taxpayer has a vested interest when looking at all alternatives to the use of taxpayers' money to find out whether better value might be provided by remaining within the state system?
    Mr. Sheldon: The private finance initiative report by the NAO is very important and will be considered by the PAC in due course. We await that examination.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Millennium
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans the Church Commissioners have to mark the millennium. [11770]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The Church Commissioners are conscious that the millennium is both an inclusive national celebration and a significant Christian anniversary, and the Church is seeking to ensure that the religious and spiritual nature of the year can be appropriately reflected within the context of the new millennium experience.
    The Church is planning to give special millennium candles to every household and to encourage people to take them with them wherever they go on millennium eve—just as individuals took candles to Wembley stadium in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales, following her tragic death. There could then be a major moment of national reflection in silence as people stand together and light their candles, one from another. This is intended as the churches' gift to their local communities and something that everyone can take part in if they wish.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While welcoming that statement, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that

    17
    the churches lobby so that they are at the very centre of the millennium experience—not least because the very name "millennium" is based upon the perceived birth of Christ? Will he use his unique position—linking, as he does, his fellow commissioners with Government Ministers—to help to ensure that we celebrate the millennium by ensuring that our glorious ecclesiastical architectural heritage is maintained into the next millennium? I am referring to cathedrals, churches and chapels of all faiths throughout the United Kingdom. An example of this work, incidentally, is the initiative successfully announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the previous Heritage Secretary.
    Mr. Bell: I am glad to see the right hon. Lady in her place and I am happy to endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I should add that every church bell in the land will be rung at noon on Saturday 1 January 2000 for five minutes, followed by 10 minutes of prayer which will be open to all. In relation to the architecture to which he referred, these buildings are a testament to the Church, and as commissioners we shall work with Ministers to ensure that that remains the case.
    Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend thought through the proposition that everyone could carry a candle? Is he aware that, if the so-called hundreds of thousands turn up at the dome with lighted candles, they might set fire to it?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend and I share a common heritage—we both come from mining families and our fathers went to work with candles. The dome is in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—capable hands, but not those of the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commissioners to throw their weight about with regard to what the state and the Church will do at the time of the millennium? First, will he make sure that we do not spend unnecessary money on a temporary construction at Greenwich when we could invest in more beneficial activities for the longer term—perhaps for people at the bottom of the social scale?
    Secondly, will he try to persuade the state to encourage the international community to write off international debt—a real jubilee for poorer countries, who would be liberated for the next millennium? Finally, is he aware
    18
    that—as at Canterbury cathedral and, increasingly, Westminster abbey—the great churches of the land are either closed or too expensive to get in?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The Church Commissioners are in touch with the Minister without Portfolio about the dome. We are seeking to have a chapel in the dome to celebrate the millennium with an appropriate exhibition. With the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, we are also seeking to ensure that while it is a Christian anniversary it is also shared on a multi-faith basis so that there is a proper spread throughout our land of celebrations on the millennium. The other points are for other Ministers and I will ensure that they reach them.

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. Pike: What representations he has received regarding changes in funding for clergy pensions. [11771]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The commissioners have been engaged in extensive correspondence with the parishes protection group on a wide range of issues relating to its work—in particular, the proposals for the future financing of clergy pensions. The group has made a number of assertions that the commissioners do not accept, and they have made their position clear to the group. I have invited my hon. Friend to see me about those matters and I look forward to his taking me up on that offer.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that the pensions scheme as it is structured is actuarially sound for present and future members and that the parishes are not being asked to bear an onerous burden that they cannot meet?
    Mr. Bell: The commissioners' actuaries have confirmed that sufficient funds are available to meet the past service liability for pensions. Future service is a matter for the pensions board and its actuaries, but dioceses are aware of the extent of their liability and are confident that the necessary funds can be raised.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Would it not be beneficial for the fund and ease the burdens on it if clergy could be encouraged to continue serving as parish priests or in other capacities beyond the normal retirement age? In many spheres of activity, clergymen even in their early 70s could perform useful functions, perhaps on more modest stipends. As few people are coming into the ministry, is that not the sort of thing that the Church Commissioners should support?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I should like to pass on to others.

Breast Cancer Screening
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on cancer screening.
In June this year, it was revealed that 12 women in Devon who had not been referred for treatment after being screened for breast cancer had subsequently developed cancer, and two of them had died.
On 9 June, in response to a private notice question from the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is not here because he is in hospital, I reported what I had then been able to find out about this awful situation. I announced that I had asked the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, to establish the facts about the breast cancer service in Exeter and to review the breast cancer screening programme nationwide in the light of what was revealed in Exeter.
The chief medical officer was assisted by a small team of people with specialised knowledge of various aspects of breast cancer. Their initial inquiries revealed wide-ranging shortcomings in Exeter and in regional and national aspects of the breast cancer screening programme. With my agreement, Sir Kenneth Calman asked the retiring chief medical officer for Wales, Dame Deirdre Hine, to lead a small team to review the national and regional arrangements for delivering quality assurance for breast screening.
Professor A. R. M. Wilson, the director of the national breast screening training centre in Nottingham, was asked to conduct an independent expert audit of 1,920 mammograms of all women who had been called back for further investigation after screening in Exeter and of all women who had developed cancers in the period between screenings in the past two years.
Completion of the chief medical officer's report was held up by the need to complete the audit of mammograms and, most recently, by a legal challenge from one of the doctors concerned. The report was completed last Friday afternoon. I am publishing it today.
The report covers three aspects: the independent assessment of the technical competence of breast screening in Exeter, based on the audit of mammograms; the examination of the organisational, managerial and quality control arrangements in the Exeter breast cancer unit; the review of national and regional arrangements for quality assurance of the breast cancer screening service. The report concludes that there were serious faults in all three.
The audit of mammograms concluded that there was evidence of failure on the part of the two radiologists involved to provide care to the standard expected of consultants involved in mammographic screening. That had not been picked up or tackled by the management of the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS trust over a number of years. It had been aware of questions of professional behaviour and other concerns about the operation of the breast unit, but no action had been taken. Management structures were confused. Lines of accountability were unclear. There was concern among staff and a lack of multi-disciplinary working. Some patients had complained about the attitude shown to them. Staff felt that their views had been ignored by management. They were right.
20
Responsibility for making sure that all breast screening units operated to a high national standard and that any shortcomings were spotted and dealt with promptly and effectively used to rest with national health service regions, but when regional health authorities were abolished, responsibilities for quality assurance for breast cancer screening were split. In the south-west, the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly health authority took on the role of lead purchaser for breast screening quality assurance. The changes left the regional staff with some quality assurance duties, but neither the resources nor the authority to do the job. That situation applies throughout the country. Lead purchasing has failed the breast cancer screening service. The quality assurance system does not work.
As a result of all this, disciplinary proceedings have been instituted by the Royal Devon and Exeter trust against Dr. Brennan, the doctor in charge of the breast unit, who has been suspended. The other radiologist, Dr. Graham Urquhart, is employed by the South Devon trust, which has commissioned an audit of all his radiological work. Neither doctor is now involved in breast imaging.
Of the 1,920 women whose mammograms were reviewed in the audit, 229 were judged to need further assessment. All the women affected have been contacted, and the last one is due to be seen by clinicians on 10 November.
I know that all women in the Exeter area will be worried about whether they can rely on their screening result. The professional advice that I have received is that no other women in the area need be recalled or rescreened. The main problem was not in spotting possible cancers but in dealing with them appropriately, once identified. I am advised that all the women who needed to be recalled have been recalled. All women should, of course, continue to attend for routine screening appointments.
The report contains many detailed recommendations that will need to be carefully considered. I can announce today, however, the following action that is already being taken to implement the main recommendations: the Royal Devon and Exeter trust is taking action to make sure that the breast unit is properly managed in future and that arrangements are in place for staff to be able to report when things are going wrong; I am placing an explicit requirement on health authorities and trusts to commission and deliver breast cancer screening to national standards; all NHS trusts with breast cancer screening units are being told to review their arrangements to make sure that they deliver a high-quality service, and they must report the outcome of their reviews by the end of January 1998; all health authorities, trusts and regional offices will be expected to agree action plans by the end of February 1998 to ensure that all screening programmes meet national standards.
By 1 April 1998, responsibility and resources for breast screening quality assurance will be removed from lead purchasers and restored to NHS regional officers, who will be given all the necessary authority to secure quality assurance. In the last resort, they will be able to close down screening units that fail to meet national standards.
The shortcomings that the inquiry has revealed and the recommendations that it makes very much parallel the recent report and recommendations made by Sir William

21
Wells following his inquiry into the failures of the cervical cancer screening service provided by the Kent and Canterbury NHS trust. He singled out the failure of lead purchasing, the ineffectiveness of local management, the failure of arrangements for staff to report what was going on, and the absence of effective quality assurance.
Many of the problems at Exeter and Canterbury sprang from the shortcomings of the internal market, which included the absence of arrangements to secure high and uniform standards, even for cancer screening systems that were supposed to be national; legal obstacles to intervening in the affairs of trusts that are falling down on the job; staff not being able to speak their minds. All that must be changed, and the new Government will make the necessary changes. Our forthcoming White Paper on the future of the national health service will spell out proposals to improve the quality of treatment and care by setting high standards and putting in place machinery to ensure that the agreed standards are met. We have already announced the end of gagging clauses in staff contracts.
Cancer screening has two purposes: to identify patients who need treatment and to reassure patients who do not. The breast cancer screening service in Exeter and the cervical cancer screening service in Canterbury failed on both counts. They failed to ensure prompt treatment for women with cancer. For other women with cancer they gave false reassurance. They left thousands of other women not knowing one way or the other. They were a disgrace.
The failure to have in place a system that could identify promptly things that were going wrong and then put them right was also a disgrace. The final disgrace would be if those deplorable failures were to undermine the faith of women in this country in the value of cancer screening. Therefore, I urge all women to continue to attend for screening for both breast and cervical cancer, because, despite what has gone wrong, screening remains the best way of identifying breast and cervical cancers and pre-cancers in time to make possible early and, therefore, more effective treatment.
Finally, I offer my deepest sympathy to all the women who have suffered as a result of these failures and to their families. We owe it to them all to put things right, and we will.
Mr. John Maples: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I know that this is a subject in which he has taken a very serious interest for a long time. In particular, he has campaigned for better cervical smear testing and breast cancer screening. I join him in expressing my sympathy for the women concerned. This is a simply dreadful disease, and the uncertainty must have been really terrible.
The breast cancer arrangements in Exeter and East Devon failed to ensure proper treatment for breast cancer, and they gave false reassurance. I very much hope—I join the Secretary of State in this—that the inquiry will finally put matters right. I remind the House that it was the last Conservative Government—the first EU country and one of the first in the world—who introduced a nationwide breast screening programme based on computerised call and recall and who introduced the Calman-Hine recommendations, which were praised by the Macmillan Fund cancer relief briefing, which said that the Government had an excellent record on them.
22
This matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in a private notice question in June, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in an Adjournment debate in the same month. They are not here today, unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend is in hospital and my hon. Friend, I am afraid, is stuck in a traffic jam.
The Secretary of State sought in part to blame what happened on the internal market, but was it not a failure of two individual consultants? The report blames them quite clearly. If the Secretary of State is saying that there is a far more widespread failure across the country, perhaps he will tell us. Is everything being done for the approximately 1,900 women who are directly affected?
The right hon. Gentleman told us about the women who have been recalled, but have those who have not been recalled been given a reassurance that they do not need to be? He told us what is being done at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, but are there wider lessons that he feels have been learnt across the country which are not just the failure of individual consultants? Does he have reason to believe that similar errors are being made elsewhere? In particular, can he confirm that absolutely nothing that has arisen out of the inquiry is being withheld or not being published?
Should there be a revised national protocol on screening to promote best practice? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the existing protocol contained in the NHS executive letter of 23 January 1995 is working satisfactorily? That executive letter expires on 28 January next year. Do the results of the inquiry require any change to those protocols? Referrals in the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital seemed to be solely to radiologists. Even doubtful cases were not referred to surgeons for a second opinion. Is that right, or should such practices change?
I apologise to the Secretary of State if those questions are answered in the report, but I received a copy of his statement only at a quarter past 3, and, although I managed to read that, I did not manage to read the whole report.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the commitments on cancer treatment made by his party before the election still stand, and will he tell us the time scale for their implementation? I shall remind him what they were. In April this year, the Minister for Public Health said:
"The waiting time to see a specialist and receive a diagnosis should end. If a woman has discovered a breast problem and is concerned, she should be able to see her GP, and be seen without delay by a specialist team at a breast cancer clinic, who can carry out the essential tests on one day."
What progress has been made, and when does the Secretary of State expect to be able to fulfil that pledge?
In September 1996, the Labour party announced that the first £30 million of the first £100 million saved by cutting down on red tape would be used to reduce waiting times for cancer surgery. What progress has been made with that money, and when does the Secretary of State expect it to be fully committed?
In a statement in June this year, the Secretary of State said that, as a result of the decision to postpone the eighth wave of fundholding, £20 million would be saved, of which the first £10 million would be available to breast cancer specialist centres throughout the country. Will he tell the House whether that has happened?

23
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Health Service Journal reported that many health authorities had already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds equipping potential GPs? Quite a lot of GPs are becoming fundholders next year, so it would appear that the eighth wave has not been totally postponed.
I notice that the Secretary is not taking a single note of any of these questions, which perhaps shows the regard he has for the importance of reporting to the House on his duties. These are serious questions, and people outside the House have an interest in having them answered. He apparently does not share that view.
Has the postponement of the eighth wave of fundholding saved £20 million? That seems unlikely. If £10 million has been spent on breast cancer services, from where has that money come? What other national health service budget has been reduced to fund the service? Is an extra £30 million actually being spent on cancer services? Since June, when the Secretary of State made the promise, has £10 million been spent on improving breast cancer services?
The Secretary of State mentioned his forthcoming White Paper. We were led to expect it in September, and then in October, so he is obviously having some difficulty with it. Will he tell us when it will be published?
Mr. Dobson: I shall deal briefly with the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State that are irrelevant to breast cancer screening. To the best of my knowledge, we never said that we would produce a White Paper in September: we expect that it will be produced this month.
The hon. Gentleman asked about extra spending on breast cancer services. We announced the postponement of the eighth wave of fundholding, which released £20 million, £10 million of which has already been spent in cancer centres all over the country to improve the service provided for women with cancer, although it is not to do with screening. I emphasise that that money has not merely been released: it is being spent now in various parts of the country.
An NHS executive letter is going out today spelling out the changes that we require. No doubt further executive letters will go out when we have had time to consider the more detailed recommendations in the report, which was completed only on Friday. It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this matter springs only from the shortcomings of two radiologists in Exeter. Headlines in the report say:
"Lead purchasing has failed the breast screening programme"
and:
"Lack of expertise and resource in lead purchaser Health Authorities"
and:
"The result: a quality assurance service that is unable to take effective action".
The basis of my statement is that there is no point in trying just to blame two radiologists: there will always be things that go wrong with the reading of mammographs and the reading of cervical cancer slides. The object is to have a system that identifies things when they go wrong, and puts people in positions of authority to do something about it. The system that we inherited from the last
24
Government, which probably was not too strong in the first place, was seriously weakened by the changes that occurred when regional health authorities were abolished, and that has meant that the quality assurance system throughout the country is weak. It needs to be strengthened, and we will strengthen it.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and thank Sir Kenneth Calman and his team for their excellent report. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the swift and firm action that he has taken today, which is in contrast to the activities of Conservative Governments over the past 18 years. Will he confirm, however, that the report has not been watered down or toned down in any way as a result of the threat of legal action by one of the consultants concerned?
Mr. Dobson: I am not sure whether I am supposed to say this, but I will, because I think that the House is entitled to know.
We were challenged in the High Court by Dr. John Brennan on Friday, and both the chief medical officer and I agreed to three minor changes in the text of the report. As far as I could see, those changes did not really change the meaning of even the sentences in which they were included, let alone the general drift of the report; but that apparently satisfied Dr. Brennan, his lawyers and the judges, and I thought it better to agree to those three minor changes than not to present the report to the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I approve of both his concern for action to be taken, and the action that has been announced. It is important that we have in the national health service a standard of care that is enforced so that it is applicable across the country, and does not become a lottery that depends on where people live.
In that context, will the Secretary of State reassure us that the regional officers system of monitoring is the best? Would it not be worth considering the idea of a national inspectorate for services such as those that we are discussing, which could do its job wherever and whenever it was required to do so? Are we sure that we have enough radiographers and radiologists around the country, both in practice and in training? Are we sure that we have the resources not just to deal with routine screening, but to ensure that particularly vulnerable people are not missed in the efforts to deal with the volume of people who pass through the very desirable screening process?
Mr. Dobson: There are possible shortages of radiologists and radiographers, which will take a long time to address. We cannot just snatch radiographers out of the air. We will, however, do what we can to make available any resources that are necessary.
The small group of extremely expert people who were under the guidance of Dame Deirdre Hine considered whether local, regional or national quality assurance would be the best option, and came down firmly in favour of the regional option as being the most practical, and bringing the surveillance and monitoring as near as sensibly possible to the people actually doing the work. I am sure that everyone will want to consider that, but,

25
given the circumstances and the need to get on with things, I have told the national health service that it must adopt that option.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speedy way in which he has reacted to a tragic and serious situation. The women who suffer from this killer disease—the real foot soldiers—realise that the situation exposes the stupidity of introducing an internal market in the national health service.
Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the pilot studies being conducted on bringing older women into the recall system? As my right hon. Friend knows, Age Concern and many other agencies representing older people are pressing for that and think that it would be worth while.
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, who has done a great deal of sterling work in this sphere. The studies into the practicability and health gain from screening women over 65 are continuing, as are parallel studies about the merits or otherwise of screening younger women. I am not in a position to report on the state of progress on either of them.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As I was the Secretary of State who commissioned and began the implementation of the Calman report, I obviously take a special interest. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, increasingly, the general public will be more demanding and discerning about quality assurance, and one of his challenges will be how he can deliver and meet that growing expectation. I urge him to visit the Jarvis centre in Guildford, a breast screening service of great excellence, and one of the early centres.
I detect an encouraging sign. With the delay in the publication of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, I note a softening of his approach towards NHS managers, whom he initially appeared to be regarding only with contempt. It seems that he is beginning to see that they have some merit.
Mr. Dobson: In answer to the right hon. Lady's final point, I have always been in favour of good managers in the national health service, who manage to the level that one might expect from the salaries that they receive. I applaud the good managers, but I do not applaud the mismanagement that went on or the Ministers who introduced a system that made it more and more difficult to manage quality assurance in breast cancer screening, as has been made obvious not by me but by Dame Deirdre Hine, the former chief medical officer for Wales.
The right hon. Lady asked about expectations, but we are not speaking about rising expectations. Women have been entitled to expect top-quality services in every part of the country and a system that spotted things that were going wrong and did something about them. We are talking about the failure of management, clinicians and politicians to deliver the standards that people could reasonably have expected in the past, let alone higher expectations in future. I have visited a number of breast screening centres, including the one in Cardiff which has been so brilliantly successful under the encouragement of Dame Deirdre Hine.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the speedy and
26
comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the specific cases in the south-west, but on the way in which money has been transferred to breast cancer care. He hits the core of the problem when he speaks about the internal market. Will he continue his deliberations on scrapping the internal market as quickly as possible? Will he say to hospital trusts that have the opportunity to merge and develop to stop sticking their feet out and put patient care first?
Mr. Dobson: We are progressing as quickly as we can with removing the internal market. In view of the failures of the lead purchaser system in relation to both cervical and breast cancer, we are reviewing the whole concept of lead purchasers in any part of the country, because, on the evidence that is available to us so far, it is not working.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Given the level of anxiety about this matter in Devon, I thank the Secretary of State for the speed and, dare I say, decisiveness with which he has acted in this case. I hope that the suffering of women in the west country will not be used as an opportunity to score political points. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that should extra resources be needed to make the breast cancer unit at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital a viable, efficient and successful unit, he will treat it as a priority and make sure that that excellent hospital receives extra resources?
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that any extra resources that are needed to make the hospital work properly can and will be found, but the general point is that to do things clinically badly and to manage things badly is frequently more expensive and more demanding on resources than doing them properly. If it can be done properly in other areas, it should be done properly in Exeter. I pay tribute to the relatively new chief executive in Exeter, who, as soon as this was drawn to her attention, started sorting it out, in marked contrast to her predecessors, some of whom have gone on to promotion in other parts of the NHS.
Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for presenting the report, especially just after the end of a month in which breast cancer awareness has been at the top of the agenda—last week, I was happy to publicise that with women Members on both sides of the House. Does he agree that, in their lifetime, one in 12 women may be affected by breast cancer? Only recently, he opened the Jasmine centre at Doncaster royal infirmary, which shows the way ahead in dealing with the problem. It offers one-day, one-stop testing and diagnosis. That is how we should treat and deal with the problem for the 21st century. The centre has got off the ground only with money from this Government after the general election.
Mr. Dobson: I was very pleased to open the Jasmine centre, whose combined characteristics women would expect in these circumstances. It has state-of-the-art equipment, but it is also furnished, upholstered and generally laid out in a comfortable and homely way; much waiting and hanging about are involved in screening. It is, therefore, a place where people get the best of high-tech combined with tender loving care. That is what people want from the health service, not just for screening, but for everything else.
Mr. John Burnett: We are grateful for the speed with which the report has been

27
produced. Did the inquiry or report address any possible conflict between consultants' duties and responsibilities to the NHS and their duties elsewhere, in the private sector?
Mr. Dobson: The report does not deal with that, so I cannot comment. All I can say is that what went on when the consultants were there was the problem, not what did not go on when they were not there.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government had three measures of success in the health service—the novelty of management techniques, the total amount of money that was spent and the total number of procedures that were carried out-to the almost complete neglect of the quality of service? We often find that, when more money is spent and more procedures are carried out, there is a proportional decrease in the quality of the service.
We are all grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said and for what he has done throughout his period as Secretary of State: he is putting the emphasis on quality and on the outcome of procedures. He must root out from the health service all the incompetence that is around. Of course, it is not universal—he rightly paid tribute to what is happening in Cardiff and elsewhere—but where there is poor-quality work and incompetence at the top and lower level in the health service, it becomes literally a matter of life or death.
Mr. Dobson: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend has said. Our White Paper aims to have an NHS that is geared to having quality standards and a system that delivers those standards. I am confident that we will be able to carry the clinical professions with us because they are showing much enthusiasm for the proposals that we are discussing with them before they go in the White Paper. It would appear that the only people who are not up to speed on what NHS patients and staff want are the official Opposition, whoever they may be.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his very positive statement this afternoon. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that breast cancer screening was a matter of life and death. Indeed it is.
The assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has given, following the failures in Exeter and Canterbury, will provide great reassurance to the women of this country, who rightly expect the national health service to provide them with the quality service that we all want, wherever we sit in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman announced a change in the system. Will he assure me that the new system, which I support, will be continually monitored to ensure that no further failures occur?
Mr. Dobson: We cannot ensure that no further failures occur in the clinics. Failures will occur from time to time, because it is not a precise science. We need a system that
28
does not fail to pick up things that are going wrong. I am confident that the measures that we are putting in place at local, regional and national levels should deliver what the hon. Gentleman and I want.
Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts over the years to sustain the national health service and work for top-quality services.
Mr. Peter Viggers: In examining a tragic local problem, the Secretary of State has also identified much more comprehensive difficulties. It is clear from what he said that he intends to devote considerably more resources to, and place greater emphasis on, breast cancer screening. I welcome the extra resources for that area, where the staff involved are highly skilled. It is a stressful area, as I know because my wife works in it as a doctor. What extra costs will fall on the NHS, and from which budget will they come?
Mr. Dobson: At this moment, I am not promising any extra resources. I said that I want to change the system so that the present resources are deployed to greater effect and so that we produce top quality. If, in the end, people make a convincing case that they cannot do that without additional resources, I will be prepared to listen and see what I can do—but they will have to make a convincing case. As I said earlier, badly run places frequently cost more than well-run ones.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The terms of the Secretary of State's statement will give rise to obvious concerns about the quality and standards of breast cancer screening throughout the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to headlines in the report. Will he outline the proportionate difficulty experienced around the country by referring to the evidence in the report, rather than to the headlines derived from the evidence? In that way, those listening to his statement—as hon. Members will have done carefully—will be able to see the matter in its proper proportions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the abolition of the internal market and the centralisation of quality assurance services. Does he agree that, for the time being, it remains the responsibility of purchasers to obtain those services on behalf of patients? Does it make sense for quality assurance to be separated from the purchasing function, as, to my mind, quality assurance and purchasing form part of the same function?
Mr. Dobson: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, there is a basic philosophical and management division of opinion. Unless I am misreading the Calman-Hine report, it suggests that it is probably best to separate the quality assurance function from the purchasing function. However, I am prepared to look carefully at that matter to determine whether the opposite case is more convincing.
In fact, quality assurance was not centralised; it was first balkanised and then virtually abandoned, so that there was no one in the system—nationally, regionally or locally—who had the responsibility, resources and authority to do anything about quality assurance. The split for breast cancer screening was introduced with the abolition of the regional health authorities.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of North Wales and the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to

Orders of the Day
  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Firearms (Amendment) Bill

    After Clause 1
    4.9 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The Government are not prepared to allow exemptions to the general handgun prohibition proposed by the Bill. We considered very carefully before introducing the Bill, and reconsidered over the summer, whether there was any way in which we could allow pistol target shooting to continue for both disabled and able-bodied shooters. We concluded that there was not. Small-calibre pistols can be as lethal as those used by the killers at Dunblane and at Hungerford, and, in most cases, they would be just as easy to conceal by someone who is determined to perpetrate an outrage.
    We have not avoided the Bill's consequences. We have made it clear from the start what the effect will be, and we have made no attempt to conceal that effect. The way in which the Bill affects disabled shooters is a regrettable consequence, but we thought that a total handgun ban was necessary in the interests of public safety. We accept that the exceptions to the ban that are already in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which are largely occupational, should remain. We do not accept, however, that any other group of shooters should be exempt from the ban.
    During the Bill's passage, an equally plausible case has been made for other groups of shooters. There is no reason why any one of those groups is any more deserving than the others, and to allow exceptions for them all would make a nonsense of the handgun ban.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I may have misheard what my hon. Friend the Minister said,

    31
    but perhaps he will clear the matter up. He is not saying that disabled shooters represent some threat to public safety, is he? Will he, please, take it on board that, because of their disabilities, many shooters with disabilities, and especially those who use wheelchairs, cannot use an alternative firearm, such as a shotgun or a rifle. That is the case that is being argued. Will he deal with that issue, please? Those shooters have no alternative way in which to continue shooting.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to say that I did not suggest that disabled shooters pose a threat to public safety. However, exemptions that would allow handgun ownership among members of the public, whether disabled or able-bodied, would drive a coach and horses through the Bill and pose a danger to public safety. That is precisely the point that I made. The point is not about individuals but about handgun availability and possession by members of the public.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like to make a slightly different point from that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Did not the Minister just say that, in this matter, no group of people is more deserving than another? Is he not incorrect in saying that? Surely we must be concerned for the group mentioned by the hon. Member for Erdington: disabled people.
    Pistol shooting is probably the only meaningful sport in which disabled people can participate and have any real social life. Will the Minister not examine that point very seriously, and agree that disabled shooters form a group that is very deserving, and more deserving than most other groups, if not all others?
    Mr. Michael: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, at issue is not the characteristics of the group of individuals but the possibility of creating an exemption that will leave handguns in the possession of individual members of the public. There is a danger.
    In the last year for which full information is available, there were 398 incidents of theft of legally held handguns. In that year, therefore, there was more than one incident per day—sometimes involving more than one weapon—of guns going from legal to illegal possession. That figure should give pause for thought to anyone who thinks that it is safe to leave handguns in the possession of members of the public.
    I make it clear that there is no attempt in the Bill to disadvantage disabled shooters particularly. Disabled shooters will be treated in the same manner as any other target shooters, and will still be able to shoot air weapons, shotguns or rifles.
    New clause 2 proposes that disabled people should be able to shoot with small-calibre pistols, which is something that able-bodied people may not do. How would this work in practice? According to the amendment, only registered disabled persons with firearms certificates may use small-calibre pistols. This would cause particular problems for able-bodied supervisors and trainers who would be caught by the ban and unable actively to assist disabled shooters.
    32
    4.15 pm
    As for rehabilitation, I accept that shooting may form an important part of the process, but I do not accept that that means that only handguns are suitable for the purpose. Other firearms may still be legally held and used by the disabled and others for therapeutic reasons.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have here a letter from the Home Secretary to the British Paraplegic Shooting Association, in which the right hon. Gentleman also says that rifles may be used by disabled people. However, is the Minister aware that a person in a wheelchair would find it very difficult to use a target rifle, because, almost of necessity, one needs to lie on one's stomach to use such a weapon? It is possible to use a rest, but it is not so effective. For someone in a wheelchair, a pistol is easy to use, because one needs only one's hands.
    Mr. Michael: The letter from which the hon. Gentleman quotes goes on to say:
    "We have considered the points made in support of the two Lords amendments …very carefully indeed but remain of the view that it would be inconsistent to allow individual groups of shooters an exemption from the ban. To do so would undermine the principle embodied in the Bill that there should be a complete ban on handguns."
    Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to develop the issue of security. If the firearms are to be stored at a designated site, they become a potential target for criminals. I will not go over the arguments we had about licensed pistol clubs in debates on the previous Bill, but there is a substantial risk of theft whenever a potential source of guns is created.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
    Mr. Michael: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I am saying in order to explain policy, rather than intervening in a manner that suggests that he is not listening to the strong case that I am making.
    Mr. Grieve: I hope that I always listen to the Minister with courtesy. He raises the great fear of theft of .22 pistols. Is he aware—I think he is—that, if people wish to use .22 pistols for an illegal or nefarious purpose, they can purchase them across the counter in France and readily import them into this country, a process that is likely to be much easier for those wishing to perpetrate offences than breaking into a heavily guarded shooting club, which meets the exigencies of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Michael: I not sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening or has listened with care—his courtesy is not in question—to the arguments made in previous debates as well as in this one. There is a serious public danger in the private possession of handguns. That is precisely why the previous Government introduced legislation to ban larger-calibre handguns, and why this Government fulfilled an election pledge to give the House an opportunity to vote on the banning of .22 handguns. That danger is very real, as shown by the use of .22 handguns to kill people.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raises the matter of illegally held handguns. It is certainly the Government's intention to do all they can to combat the

    33
    availability and possession of handguns, illegal and legal. However, it is a fact that legally held handguns were used at, for instance, Dunblane, which is why, before and after Lord Cullen's report, all the consideration was of how to deal with legally held handguns.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Surely the thrust of the Cullen report was that, in order to deal with the problem, weapons should not be held at home. We are now considering whether disabled people should have access to weapons held at secure centres because of the reasons that justify an exception being made for them.
    Mr. Michael: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that point was widely considered in the debates on the legislation introduced by the previous Government and in the earlier discussions on this Bill. We strongly took the view—as did the previous Government—that such exemptions did not undermine the general principle that a ban on handguns was necessary.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right about the contents of the Cullen report, but we reached the same conclusion as the previous Government—which was widely supported on both sides—that, in the interests of public safety, we should go further than Lord Cullen's recommendations. That remains our view. The amendment would unacceptably undermine the underlying principles of the Bill.
    If the weapons are stored at a designated site, it becomes a potential target for criminals. We dealt with that issue in our debates on licensed pistol clubs when we considered the previous Bill. We must accept that there is a substantial risk of theft when a potential source of guns is created.
    We are sorry that it has not been possible to find a way to allow cartridge target pistol shooting to continue. We considered the issue carefully before introducing the Bill, and we have reconsidered it over the summer. Our conclusion remains that a complete ban is the only safe option. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Beith: The Minister has advanced a case that many of us find worrying. We should be united on the deserving character of the disabled people to whom the amendment refers. If any exception is justified, surely we should consider this one. The Home Secretary's letter to the British Olympic Association, which was echoed by the Minister this afternoon, said:
    "It is very difficult to justify isolating one group of individuals, such as … disabled shooters".
    I disagree. I do not think that it is difficult to justify isolating that group, because there are particular reasons why they cannot transfer as readily to another sport as able-bodied people can. If an exception can be made safely, there is a case for making it.
    The Minister referred to the dangers of theft. The other exceptions that he has found necessary—mainly, but not entirely, occupational exceptions—involve handguns being held at home or in a workplace. If there is a risk of theft, it will lie more in those exceptions than in allowing guns to be held in special centres in limited numbers for the limited purpose and limited group of people specified in the amendment.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a greater chance of
    34
    small-calibre handguns being smuggled into this country from the continent, where they are freely available across the counter, than there is of a break-in at a centre of excellence, which would have to meet the safety standards laid down by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Beith: Indeed, attempting to break in to Bisley would be an inefficient way for a criminal to attempt to obtain a handgun. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to set all the safety conditions to his satisfaction.
    I do not want to enter into the wider arguments about the Bill. We are considering a specific exemption for a specific group. It is unreasonable of the Minister to argue that the danger of theft is so great. Using theft statistics based on the holding of handguns at home to argue against a system under which they would no longer be held at home is not reasonable. Although he separated his figures in the end, he included in his statistics thefts of guns already being held illegally. Thefts from private homes, however, which the Minister had in mind, cannot take place when guns can be held only in specified centres which meet conditions set by him.
    Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his comments about not all stolen guns being legally held?
    Mr. Beith: The Minister quoted figures for thefts of handguns, which I assumed included thefts of guns that were not legally held in the first place. If I heard him correctly, he seemed to separate out incidents of guns being stolen which had been legally held in the first place. Once the legislation is passed, it will not be possible to steal a legally held gun from someone's home, because guns will not be kept there—unless, of course, that person is covered by one of the other exemptions which the Minister has defended.
    Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me. Can he explain his curious assumption that the figures I gave included handguns that were held illegally? Is he suggesting that people who held handguns illegally would wander into a police station and report their theft?
    Mr. Beith: The police would come to know of guns that had been acquired illegally not because somebody reported them, but because, when they eventually caught up with someone who was holding guns illegally, they would trace where they had come from in the first place. I thought that that was why the Minister made a distinction in the figures.
    The Minister is trying to dodge the main point, which is that it is not reasonable to use figures from a time when handguns could be held at home, and assume that they will apply when handguns cannot be held at home.
    The amendment would not introduce a widespread exemption. The exemption relates to a small and particularly deserving group of people for whom it is not possible to transfer to other forms of shooting from which they can gain the same satisfaction and the same levels of skill.
    The Bill is a free-vote issue throughout the House; my right hon. and hon. Friends certainly have a free vote. [Laughter.] I do not know why Conservative Members

    35
    are laughing. I assume that they have a free vote, and there is supposed to be a free vote for Labour Members. One or two Labour Members have spoken out with considerable independence during proceedings on the Bill on these and other aspects of it.
    Even those of us who believe that a total ban is, in principle, desirable should realise that no ban can be total, as the Government themselves recognise. They have already made some exceptions on occupational grounds. I can think of no more deserving exception than the one proposed in the amendment for disabled people, given the strict conditions that have been set for its operation.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I want to deal first with the theft of handguns. I prefer to call them small firearms, because I do not like the term "handguns". I think that I heard the Minister say that 398 legally held weapons had been stolen. I find that figure difficult to accept, because I have seen the results of a survey done by the Metropolitan police a couple of years ago. They recovered more than 600 guns from criminals—people who were using them in the course of their trade. Only one of those 600 weapons had been licensed in the United Kingdom, and not by the individual who had used it to perpetrate his nefarious crimes. There is a great disparity between the two sets of figures. 1 believe that we should look at the matter a good deal more closely, rather than use such sloppy logic, which creates a dodgy base on which to pass any legislation.
    In the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that he did not want to single out the disabled, because he wanted to treat them like everyone else. That was most laudable, as far as it went, but can we say that disabled people are just like everyone else? The noble Lord went on to say that disabled people could take up another sport. Of course they could. I suppose that someone confined to a wheelchair could take up bingo, housey-housey or tombola, if he or she wanted to compete with able-bodied people.
    Disabled shooters compete with able-bodied shooters. Let me ask hon. Members, regardless of party affiliation, how they felt on 2 May when they got the results that guaranteed either their return to the House or their introduction to it. Did they feel a degree of pride?
    4.30 pm
    When Daley Thompson or our ex-colleague Sebastian Coe stood on the rostrum to receive their medals, I am sure that they felt pride. Was that pride justified? Bob Everitt, the Welsh pistol champion, is severely disabled—he has only one arm—yet he is in the Great Britain able-bodied squad. He is in line to represent Great Britain or Wales—according to whether it is at the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games—and depending on the decisions that we make this afternoon.
    Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in respect of Mr. Everitt and people confined to wheelchairs, it was patronising in the extreme for the Home Secretary to write:
    "rifles and shotguns … would, in the absence of … pistols, still be available for use by disabled people for … sporting purposes?"
    36
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was unfortunate, to put it mildly, for the Home Secretary to write in those terms?
    Mr. Cook: I would rather do a body swerve to that question. Whether or not it is patronising, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point.
    The announcement was made when I was at the Labour party conference in Brighton. People said to me, "There you are, Frank. They have gathered them all in." I replied, "Yes, they have, but who have they gathered them from?" When they asked what I meant, I said that they had gathered in weapons from people who had complied with the law because they were law-abiding citizens.
    That evening, I heard the television newscaster interviewing a police superintendent who said that people did not use handguns to rob banks or post offices—they used shotguns. He said, "Nobody would try to run off a security van with a .22 pistol. They would be out of their tiny minds." I thought, "Just a minute—we have an informed professional telling us that we are banning weapons that should not be banned and identifying shotguns."
    What did that tell me? I am not a very clever person; I am quite simple really, but that does not mean that I am stupid. That policeman was talking about shotguns being the danger, and people are talking about that now. If the Minister tells me that a person in a wheelchair can use a rifle or a shotgun, I have to ask him, for how long and when will the next move be made?
    To return to disability, what are we to say to Bob Everitt from Wales, and to Ian Horn, the European 1500 unclassified 1995 champion who won the expert silver medal in 1997 and has severe spinal injuries? Should we tell them to go and play golf or to have a game of five-a-side football in their spare time? Such people have worked for years and spent fortunes on specialist equipment and special weaponry—not the variety that is used on the street. It would be a waste of time a criminal carrying such a weapon.
    Such disabled sportsmen have spent a lot of time, money and effort getting some tribute for this country. If we do not accept the Lords amendment, we are denying them that right. I do not think that we have the right to deny them that right.
    A competition called the Pistol Anno Domini, in which disabled shooters used to take part, used to be held at Bisley—until legislation was introduced. Not only disabled shooters took part; each year there were 5,000 competitors—with their families—all of whom arrived with their pistols suitably boxed, cleaned, oiled and ready to take part in the competition. It was the biggest event of the year.
    I would like the House to know how many police officers were required to supervise the competition each year. Does any hon. Member care to make a guess? The answer is: one. Does the House know why? There was one police officer because he was participating in the competition. There was not one official policeman on duty to supervise the event. That is the kind of threat that we are talking about quelling. That is the kind of sloppy logic that is being used.
    How do we justify the sloppy logic? My guess is that the public opinion argument is used to justify it. I understood the surge of concern and anger when Thomas

    37
    Hamilton committed that barbaric act, bearing in mind that his first certificate was illegally held and that his initial weapon was illegally procured. Every subsequent deal was therefore ruled out under the law—if the police had taken the trouble to apply the law.
    I could understand the public opinion. I, like everybody else, was sickened, just as I was sickened after Hungerford, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) served for the Opposition on that travesty of a Bill, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. We made a mess of the legislation then, and we are making a mess of it now. We have had a perfect opportunity to take the whole legislative framework relating to shooting and weaponry and make sense of it, and we have not done so. We are dealing with it in a piecemeal way, and that is foolish.
    I return to the issue of public opinion, the driving force, the promises that were made and the media-driven propaganda that has been put out. I have the results of a MORI poll that was conducted between 24 and 26 October—so it does not have whiskers on it. The question asked was:
    "Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think should be excluded from a ban on small-calibre handguns and so be allowed to have them?"
    The first group cited was:
    "Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols by disabled people in cases where it can be medically proven their disability means they cannot take part in other types of competitive sport."
    I suggest that that relates directly to the Lords amendment.
    Only 1 per cent. of those asked responded "Don't know", 5 per cent. responded "Depends"—it could depend on anything—and 56 per cent. said that the first group should be excluded from the ban. That is akin to the figure used in the newspaper today to justify Government support for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I suggest that if 57 per cent. in a survey in the press is enough to support that measure, 56 per cent. in a survey on the street should be sufficient to support the amendment. I have other figures, which I will come to later because they relate to the other amendment.
    I sympathise with the Minister, because he has been talked into a corner by members of his party and the Government. The inclusion of the disabled is unenforceable and unnecessary, and there is no justification for it. They will suffer a double condemnation, because they have worked so hard, done so well, and represented their country so well. They have brought back some national pride, which we seem sadly to be losing at the moment. I know that the Minister has problems, but I appeal to him not to oppose the Lords amendment for the sake of trying to make everybody the same. That is not justified, because everybody is not the same.
    The Bill will stop me, as the captain of the Palace of Westminster rifle club, going elsewhere to shoot. In fact, the law of the land does not apply here. We do not abide by licensing rules in Crown buildings. The rifle club will continue because it is Black Rod's property. Once the ban applies, if I go elsewhere, I will have to do something like gymnastics. [Interruption.] I was trying to find out whether hon. Members were awake. It seems that they are, but only to the funny side.
    38
    The matter is not funny. People have worked hard to gain the pride that Daley Thompson and Seb Coe felt in competition, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, felt when you were elected. I am sure that you were proud, as I was, that the people maintained their faith in you. There is a place for pride. Let us allow the disabled to keep it, for God's sake.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). No one in the House has fought harder for good sense in the legislation. His knowledge is unequalled and the research that he has undertaken has been magnificent. I regret only that the House is not prepared to listen to him.
    I have been a Member of Parliament for some years, and I have seen legislation introduced as a knee-jerk reaction; the Bill is another example of such a reaction. It is extraordinary that people with a disability who have achieved excellence in shooting small-calibre handguns will be forced to go abroad to follow their interest in their sport. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Stockton, North about the Minister, who has been pushed into a corner. To say that the disabled must be treated like any other group is wrong.
    The amendment makes it clear that the small-calibre handguns in question would be stored at and used only at the centres of excellence and would—as the British Olympic Association states in a letter to the Home Secretary—only be
    "transferred to and used at premises at which … competition is taking place".
    To suggest that the amendment would open up the centres of excellence to risk or make them vulnerable to people who might break in, as the Minister suggested, is stretching the imagination a bit too far.
    4.45 pm
    As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, it would be easier for someone who wished to carry out an offence with a small handgun to take a day trip to France to purchase it across the counter and bring it back. They would, of course, have to go through customs, but their chances of managing that are pretty good and it would be easier than breaking in to Bisley or one of the other centres of excellence.
    The exemption for disabled people was added to the Bill in another place. My study of the voting on the amendment shows that support was found in all political parties, including the Labour party. The British Olympic Association also points out in its letter:
    "The exemption for disabled people, who would be able to use such centres, is also important since cartridge pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which disabled people can take part"—
    the next few words are important—
    "on equal terms with able-bodied competitors.
    Disabled people"—
    as the Minister must be aware—
    "are specifically presented with pistol shooting"—
    as doctors and others will confirm—
    "as a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport."
    That should be recognised and it is tragic that the Government are opposing a reasonable amendment to the Bill, which could be policed with a 100 per cent. chance of success.

    39
    As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, the statistics gathered by the Metropolitan police show that only one weapon had been used in some 600-plus cases involving weapons. That is a telling statistic.
    Mr. Frank Cook rose—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman most willingly.
    Mr. Cook: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The Metropolitan police said that only one of the 600-plus weapons that they had taken from criminals had been licensed in the United Kingdom—and it had not been licensed by the perpetrator. All the weapons had probably been used.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which makes my comments even more valid, since the Minister and his colleagues are not prepared to give credence to that important statistic. Facts speak louder than words, and the statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman should carry weight. It is tragic that this debate is not a debate at all, because people are not listening to the argument. If they were, the case put by the hon. Gentleman would carry weight with the Minister and he would accept the Lords amendment.
    It has been said before that, although resisting the amendment may appear to be the brave option, the brave option would in truth be to listen to the good sense of the noble Lords who supported the amendment in another place and to the views expressed this afternoon in the Chamber, not least from the Government Benches. I plead with the Minister not to inflict on the disabled shooters of this country a total ban that will take away so much from their lives, making them less satisfactory and meaningful than in the past.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in applauding the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), a doughty defender of the right of the bona fide citizens of this country to use licensed firearms. The House will not have been impressed by the justification given by the Minister for refusing to accept the amendment, and we must hear from him exactly how accepting the amendment would endanger the public.
    The Minister stressed that the Government must do all they can to combat illegally held handguns, and the public will want to know specifically how he proposes to remove such handguns from society. He must give greater consideration to the amendment, which insists only that a tiny number of disadvantaged and disabled people be allowed to continue their sport.
    It is a mean-spirited Government who cannot accept the argument so ably advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. They, like me, cannot accept that a complete ban is the only safe option for the public. Other lethal weapons, which can be bought openly today without a licence, are perfectly capable of inflicting just as much damage as handguns, if not more. Home Office Ministers should pay attention to those weapons, rather
    40
    than continuing with their mean-spirited measure to rub out a sport for people who cannot enjoy other sports and who suffer severe disability.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North talked about public opinion. We all know the history of the Bill—it has its origins in the Government's wish to respond to public opinion. However, the House is not here simply to respond to every whim of public opinion. We are here to defend the freedoms and the liberty of the British people. One cannot rub out at a stroke the rights, freedoms and liberties of British people to do things within the law, and changing the law in this respect is, in my opinion—an opinion shared by other hon. Members—quite wrong.
    We know how we got here. "We must do everything we can to make safety paramount," says the Minister. Many years ago, when I was chairman of a local education authority, I laid the foundation stone for an infants school in Wolverhampton. Not many weeks after the awful events at Dunblane, a man ran amok at that school with a machete, causing anguish, pain and injury to young people and their parents in my home town of Wolverhampton. It is interesting that we are not talking about banning machetes. Events at that school, St. Luke's, showed that a machete in the hands of the wrong person is dangerous, just as a gun in the hands of the wrong person was dangerous at Dunblane. However, there has not been a reaction against machetes, knives and other dangerous weapons, as there has been against handguns.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North made the point that many of us suspect that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that, although the Government are intent on proscribing handguns at this stage, the time is fast approaching when they will introduce measures to ban all other firearms. The House must realise that that is the hidden agenda, and I wish to take this opportunity to make sure that that message goes out to the British people. We are in danger of misunderstanding what the Government are doing today. I repeat—rejecting the amendment is mean-spirited. In his winding-up speech, the Minister should tell the House how many handguns would be involved if this small section of society were allowed to continue their sport.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: This is something of a phenomenon: I intend to speak against the amendment, and it is unusual in this Parliament for a Labour Member to find himself in a tiny minority in the Chamber. I now know how Opposition Members feel every day.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) well knows, he and I take entirely opposite views on this important issue. He knows that well, because he knows that I have campaigned for many years for the total abolition of handguns. It was a matter of great joy to those of us who have campaigned on that issue when that abolition became a reality.
    I have always listened with great respect to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North has said, and I have immense respect for his statistical knowledge and views. I know that he respects my views, too. Those of us who have campaigned on this issue for many years know that the issue raised by the amendment is the only one that has given us serious pause for thought. We have no right to stop people's recreation—particularly if it leads to a recognition of the abilities of the disabled—unless to do so serves a greater good.

    41
    I have never found comfort in the statistical analysis of this matter, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that the number of disabled people holding firearms is small. However, an important principle has been raised in this House. In banning handguns, the House set its face once and for all against the culture of handgun ownership. I refer not to the handguns themselves or to their number or to the numbers to be handed in but to the culture that lies behind the ownership of a weapon whose only designated purpose is the taking of human life. That is the basis on which the House has acted and will act.
    I am speaking for two reasons. First, I want to make it clear why many of us will vote against the amendment. Secondly, while I know that I am in a small minority in the House, I am here to demonstrate that those of us who have campaigned on the issue are here to listen—
    Mr. Corbett: I am certainly not arguing over the principle of the Bill, but will my hon. and learned Friend at least acknowledge that 999 of every 1,000 shooters who are to lose the right to hold handguns have alternatives available in the form of rifles and shotguns? The tiny proportion who are people with disabilities do not have that choice. They either take part in competition pistol shooting or they have to get out of the sport altogether. Can he persuade me, as the Minister has failed to do, that allowing that small group of disabled shooters the right to continue to take part in pistol shooting would represent any threat to public safety?
    5 pm
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said and I will say what I have, in effect, said already—we are faced with a matter of balance. I acknowledge immediately that, given the small number of handguns that would be held, the risk to public safety would be very small. That is not an issue. The importance of this measure is its cultural nature—setting one's face 100 per cent. against and saying that there are no exceptions to this law. As a sportsman, I take no pleasure in taking sport away from anyone, particularly from disabled people who have no other raft. That is why the matter has been strongly debated within the campaign of which I have been a part, and why the opposition that we are articulating is not meaningless.
    Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that this is a cultural measure and that there can therefore be no exceptions. He says that that is so because of the nature of the weapon. Does it not then follow that rifles are in the same genre and that shotguns are the same? Is that to be the next cultural step? Will he give an honest response to that question?
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I would not dream of giving my hon. Friend any other response under any circumstances. I will simply tell him this. There is a significant difference between the handgun and other forms of firearm. As he well knows, the handgun is the only weapon that has only one specific designation—the taking of human life. That is why those of us who have campaigned have campaigned against handguns alone.
    42
    I can give my hon. Friend this assurance. Those of us who have campaigned in that way have no targets over and above the legislation that we are now pursuing.
    Mr. Grieve: I listened carefully to the Minister of State, as he asked me to, and to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The two views expressed point up neatly—we went over this when the Bill first came before the House—the fact that the Minister's position is irrational and untenable.
    While the hon. and learned Member for Medway has attacked certain cultural values that he wants to suppress and to supplant with a new era of righteousness, which is at least comprehensible even though I find it abhorrent, the position of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, as expressly spelled out over and again in earlier debates, was that this was a pragmatic move and that its every aspect was to be judged, not as an attempt to get at the gun culture—that had nothing to do with it—but to deal with specific problems. Yet a rational amendment from another place, which has no prospect beyond the absolutely minimal of increasing the risk to the public, is being rejected by the Minister of State, who is unable to give a reason. My only assumption is that his reason is that he is under pressure from hon. Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway, but feels unable to admit it.
    Let us try to apply a little common sense. First and foremost, there is not a blanket ban along the cultural lines that the hon. and learned Member for Medway wants. The armed forces and the police will retain the use of the weapons. The statistical evidence, which will be known to the Minister of State, is that there have been occasions in the past decade — very few—when weapons in the armed forces' possession have been stolen and misused. The same is true with the police. Indeed, I regret to say that there have even been instances when those weapons have been misused by members of the armed forces or the police. We cannot get away from such minimalism.
    For reasons that I will not go over again as they are so coherent and cogent, the Lords amendment seeks to allow people who would not otherwise be able to do so to enjoy a legitimate sport. I detect that the hon. and learned Member for Medway is thinking, "Ah ha! But I do not like the cultural values underpinning it." However, it is no place of the House to look at people's cultural values. That is the same road that would take us to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran—[Laughter.] It is precisely the same route, because, instead of judging matters on their merits, we would be judging them according to our own cultural values. In fairness, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have consistently avoided that pitfall.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman has overstated his case.
    Mr. Grieve: I do not think that I have. When I first came to the House, I listened carefully to Labour Members and, in particular, the Minister of State. I tried to fathom whether they were trying to act on objective or on emotional grounds—the latter is something that the House should be wary of doing. Although it may be a small step, I nevertheless consider that, when one starts to take such decisions without objective justification, it is the first step down the road to the Ayatollah Khomeini's

    43
    Iran, because one is foisting one's own moral values on others when there are no objective grounds for doing so for the protection of others.
    Mrs. Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that nearly 1 million people signed the Snowdrop campaign's petition, which asked the House to consider a ban on all handguns without any exceptions?
    Mr. Grieve: I recognise that. As was said earlier, it is for the House to apply objective analysis and to ensure that people who may have strong emotions are nevertheless not allowed to dominate and remove the freedoms of others for no good reason.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in some doubt about the grounds on which the Government have approached these issues. They have done so coolly and clinically, judging what is in the best interests of public safety. I can assure him on that point.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful, and I know that the Minister means that, because he and the Secretary of State have said it often. On that basis, his measure is completely and totally irrational. For that reason, the amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. John Greenway: Our debate today brings to an end a long process, lasting more than a year and a half, aimed at strengthening our legal controls over the ownership and possession of handguns following the appalling tragedy at Dunblane in March last year.
    Everyone in the House is agreed that such a shocking and horrific incident, in which so many young children and one of their teachers were so brutally murdered, must never happen again. We are united in our resolution to put in place the most appropriate measures to achieve that. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) again demonstrated this afternoon that people who shoot for sport feel as passionately and strongly about that as anyone else.
    The process of reform on which we embarked all that time ago required a cool-headed and dispassionate examination of the risks posed by certain categories of handgun and the recognition that there are legitimate uses for some guns, but that the greater risk to society is posed by guns that are illegally held or easily obtained by criminals. Above all, there is the need to balance conflicting interests in a way that does not compromise public safety. Such considerations go to the heart of the amendment agreed to in another place, which we are now asked to consider.
    Since the Dunblane tragedy, each one of us has had ample opportunity throughout the parliamentary process to express our personal point of view. The House will recall that, last summer, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was then a member, considered in some detail the existing framework of the law controlling the ownership and possession of handguns. The Committee took detailed evidence on how that framework might be improved.
    44
    It is now a matter of record that the Committee divided on party lines. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I took the view that a complete ban on all handguns was impracticable because there were various genuine and legitimate uses that posed no real threat to public safety. Even the Bill recognises the requirement that guns should be used, for example, in the course of animal welfare and husbandry.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will care to compare the views that were expressed during the sittings of the Select Committee with the recommendations that were published in Lord Cullen's report.
    Mr. Greenway: I had not intended to do that. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, however, that there was a great deal more symmetry between what was proposed in the majority report and what Lord Cullen proposed, he is right. The previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government have taken a much more stringent view than the one taken by Lord Cullen or the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
    I took the view, as did my colleagues who were members of the Select Committee, that there were—and there remain—legitimate uses of handguns that pose no real threat to public safety. Time has already shown—and will show increasingly in future-that that was the correct judgment.
    The sport of competition shooting, which is increasingly popular among disabled groups, was a use of pistols that we had in mind when recommending that an outright ban on all handguns was inappropriate. In our inquiry, we did not seek to differentiate between various categories of handgun, but we noted the destructive potential of recently developed high-calibre, multi-shot pistols.
    The previous Government went beyond Lord Cullen's report, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North has said, and concluded that such high-powered, multi-shot, high-calibre weapons had no legitimate place in our society, but that the interests of shooting sportsmen could be accommodated by restricting the use of handguns to .22 calibre pistols kept only in the most secure gun club premises.
    The two amendments passed in the other place at the instigation of senior Government Back-Bench peers, not of senior Conservative peers, show that the Conservative Government was entirely right to make such a distinction and that the new Labour Government's decision to seek legislative approval through the Bill for a blanket ban on all handguns is wrong.
    An absolute ban is entirely indiscriminate in its application and as a consequence fails to recognise that there are circumstances in which handguns can and do have an honest and beneficial use which, properly regulated, poses no threat to public safety. Arguably there is no better example of this than the sport of competitive shooting by disabled sportsmen. To suggest that the genuine pursuit of their sport represents a danger or menace to the community at large is thoughtless, insensitive, insulting and offensive to the many disabled people who take part in competitive shooting, who have so successfully represented their country, for example, in the paralympics, and to all disabled people.

    45
    At the most recent paralympic championships in 1996, disabled shooters from Britain won gold and silver medals and set a new paralympic record. Medals have also been won in recent years by our disabled sportsmen in both the European championships and the world disabled shooting championships.
    5.15 pm
    Without the amendment, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Britain to host paralympic championships in future. The host nation must be capable of staging all the events that make up the Olympic, games. The paralympics are parallel Olympics, and all the events must be capable of being staged. If pistol-shooting disciplines are excluded, how can Britain convince other countries of its ability to meet the staging requirement, and therefore host the games?
    Pistol shooting is a popular sport for the disabled because it is practical and allows a disabled person to compete on more or less equal terms with the able-bodied in a way that is clearly impossible in most sports, which demand physical fitness. Pistol shooting can also have a considerable therapeutic effect—enabling, for example, someone rebuilding his life after a serious accident to improve his balance and co-ordination of hands, eye and bodily movements. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made precisely that point.
    Speaking in another place when introducing the amendment that is before us, Lord Howell —a much respected former Minister with responsibilities for sport—suggested that about 100 clubs belonging to the British Sports Association for the Disabled provide shooting facilities for people suffering from a wide range of disabilities, and not only those confined to wheelchairs. Also included are people who are deaf, or even blind, or those who have had limbs amputated or have restricted movement, for example. Some are disabled as a result of injuries sustained in serious accidents, and others have been disabled since birth.
    Aided by the development of modern technology, shooting for the blind is a relatively recent phenomenon. I was surprised to hear that it was possible, but what a miraculous thing that it is. Only last year a blind team from Britain won a gold medal in the Dutch open disabled championships. Surely the House should endeavour to safeguard the pleasure and opportunity that pistol shooting brings to those less fortunate than us. That is the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made in an intervention.
    Some disabled shooters are able to take part in rifle and shotgun shooting for sport, but they are the exceptions. The House will appreciate that the recoil from a shotgun would make its use impossible for most disabled sportsmen. It is surprising, to say the least, that, when opposing the amendment on behalf of the Government in the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn actively suggested that shotguns would be an appropriate alternative. It is such patronising ignorance of the practicalities involved that has offended many disabled people who shoot for sport.
    In reality, for the vast majority, the problems of balance and physical strength and being confined to a wheelchair or having only one arm—the hon. Member for Stockton, North reminded us of Bob Everitt, the Welsh pistol champion—pistol shooting is eminently sensible, suitable and appropriate.
    46
    Ministers have argued that disabled shooters could find an alternative in air pistol shooting. That argument was made by Lord Williams of Mostyn in the other place. But where would they do this?
    In practice, the Bill will close all pistol clubs in this country. Even clubs that provide rifle shooting are unlikely to survive, as the majority of members shoot pistols. The only solution is to provide, through the amendment, special arrangements to allow disabled pistol shooters to continue their sport, but subject only to the most stringent conditions.
    Those who would qualify for exemption from the general ban on all handguns are closely defined in the amendment as those who do not just have a physical disability but are "registered disabled persons" under the criteria set out in the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972—not much room for doubt whom we are talking about.
    More important, the exemption also provides strict measures of control. Shooters will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. What greater safeguard could there be than that? They will be able to shoot and use .22 calibre Olympic pistols only in designated premises, and possession of the weapons outside such premises would be permitted only under the strictest conditions, which the Secretary of State himself would specify.
    Where is the risk of theft? As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, it is more imagined than real. It suits the Government's arguments, but has no basis. Even under existing arrangements, there is not a shred of evidence that disabled shooters pose the slightest threat to the community. The rigid and exacting framework of controls contained in the amendment surely should remove any possible doubt that granting this exemption would compromise public safety.
    Despite such overwhelming arguments, it seems from what we have heard today that the Government remain implacably opposed to granting any exemption to their preferred blanket ban on all handguns on—wait for it—a point of principle. Let us examine that argument a little more closely. Surely "principle" demands that Government be required to protect the interests of minority groups, let alone a group so vulnerable and deserving of our special dispensation as those with disabilities. By rejecting the amendment, the interests of one deserving minority are being set aside and crushed in pursuit of the interests of another.
    Mrs. Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after Hungerford, an opportunity was not taken, in the interests of safeguarding minority rights, and because of that we had Dunblane?
    Mr. Greenway: If there are any lessons to be learned about the legislative changes that took place after Hungerford—in many respects they go to the heart of what we are considering today—it is that we concentrated far too much on deciding that certain weapons posed a greater danger than others and not enough on ensuring that the people who by their own actions, by their own behaviour, posed a threat. It is not the gun that kills —it is the person who pulls the trigger. The House has lost sight of that fact in many of our recent debates on these matters.

    47
    As I was saying, by rejecting the amendment, the interests of one deserving minority will be set aside and crushed in pursuit of the interests of another. There is always a danger that, in seeking to respond positively to inevitable public demands for legislative action following such awful events as those at Dunblane, government will overstep the mark and go beyond what is necessary or justified. Just count how many amending Bills we have had in the 10 years that I have been here in which we have tried to put right mistakes made by knee-jerk reaction legislation.
    For the community in Dunblane and the many thousands—a million was mentioned earlier; I do not know the exact figure, but I concede that it was a lot—who supported the Snowdrop campaign, which prompted the present Government to accept demands for a total ban on all handguns, such is their understandable sense of revulsion and concern that only a total ban will suffice. However, the backing of the wider public, mobilised by media comment, for the banning of all handguns was undeniably based on rather less conviction.
    The most telling point today was made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, who said that a recent public opinion survey showed that 56 per cent. of people believe that it would be wrong for the ban to apply to disabled groups. I do not believe that public opinion would have been quite so apparently in favour of a complete ban if they had realised, for example, that people in wheelchairs, or blind sportsmen, would be denied their pleasure and sport. The House must seriously consider that matter when deciding how to treat the amendment.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
    Mr. Frank Cook rose—
    Mr. Greenway: I give way to the hon. Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman asserts that the interests of one deserving minority are being crushed for the benefit of another. Will he define the other deserving minority whose benefits are being safeguarded?
    Mr. Greenway: Yes—I have already made that clear. The point that I am making is that that is what the people who signed the Snowdrop campaign and those who called for a complete ban—to which the Government responded when in opposition—feel. From the many letters that I have received, and from much of the media comment that my Conservative colleagues and I on the Home Affairs Committee received as a result of our report last year, one would think that somehow we were evil because we stood in the way, as far as they were concerned, of a total ban. They concluded that, for them, only a total ban will do. My point is simply that if one accepts that, one equally accepts that the interests of another deserving minority—the disabled, people in wheelchairs, the blind, who shoot for sport, in all innocence—will be set at naught.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman expressed interest in the 56 per cent. of the generous random sample who were supportive of the disabled still being able to
    48
    participate in shooting sports with small weapons. He may be interested to know that supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols in shooting clubs for disabled or able-bodied was supported by 54 per cent.—only 2 per cent. less.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Greenway: Doubtless we shall make use of that statistic when we consider Lords amendment No. 3.
    As I said at the outset, any rational assessment of a ban on or prohibition of ownership and possession of handguns would have to provide for exemptions, and the Bill does that. It is the view of Opposition Members that protecting the interests of disabled people who take part in competition shooting should be one such exempt group. That is why their Lordships were right to agree this amendment, and why this House would be wrong to reject it.
    It is not too late for Labour Members to save the day. The Labour manifesto promised them a free vote on whether to ban all handguns. Comments have been made about whether they will have a free vote, but as I do not receive the Labour Whip, and have no intention of ever doing so—
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Greenway: No, I am about to finish.
    I have no intention of receiving the Labour Whip, but I understand that there may be a free vote. The crucial point is that free votes are always associated with matters of principle or conscience. This is a matter of principle. The principle is not that only a blanket ban will do, but that the interests of minorities should come before the interests of big government, dogma and plain pigheadedness. Supporting the amendment will not wreck the Bill, but voting against it and overturning it will wreck the interests of disabled people who shoot for sport.
    Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to begin by welcoming the fact that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) reminded us of the unity of the House in our determination to do everything we can to prevent a repeat of the massacre at Dunblane. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) reminded us of the plea of the Snowdrop campaigners, who put a passionate, rational and dignified case to the House and to the general public. That is how we should deal with these issues. I praised the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but I was surprised by the rather hysterical ending to his speech.
    There is no suggestion that disabled people are a danger, and the suggestion that our amendment is an affront to them is patently absurd. I welcome Conservative Members' interest in the rights of disabled people, because it was Labour Members who, over the years, defended the rights of the disabled when the Conservative Government failed to do so.

    49
    We have not lost sight of the culpability of a killer—the person whose finger pulls the trigger—in saying that it is important to remove the risks that are increased by the availability of handguns. That is what the legislation introduced by the previous Government and this Bill are all about.
    The hon. Gentleman introduced another red herring when he referred to the Olympic games and the paraplegic Olympics. The Home Secretary and I have repeatedly reminded hon. Members of the powers of the Secretary of State in that respect, and I shall not go further than that, because they may be discussed when we consider later amendments.
    Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend made the point that legally certified weapons could be used for crime. Of course they could, if they were purloined by others. However, the police had some control over a proportion of the firearms that were held previously, whereas now they have no control at all because they are illegal. The effect of the Bill will be that that control will be removed.
    Mr. Michael: I do not follow my hon. Friend's logic, because legally held handguns will no longer exist. A large number of them are no longer in the public domain: they are not in homes, or on the streets, because large-calibre handguns and a considerable number of a lower calibre have been handed in.
    The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that the amendment deals with a limited number of people. It is not that simple. He also referred to the problem of pistols that have been smuggled in from abroad. The Government take that issue seriously, but we are not discussing that today. There is a big difference between security at Bisley, to which he referred, and storage and security at other gun clubs. In the past, guns were held in homes and thus were largely anonymous, whereas designated sites would be well known and thus more vulnerable. That issue was discussed more widely in earlier debates on the Bill.
    In response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I must point out that the main problem with the amendment is that it would allow a number of guns to be stored at a site, which would make them a more attractive target for criminals.
    The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that this legislation was a knee-jerk reaction. It is not. Although he made occasional references to disabled people, he returned to the arguments on the principle of the Bill. With respect to him and to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), it is they who have failed to listen to the arguments for the Bill, whereas the Government have listened to and considered carefully and judiciously every argument that has been put to them.
    The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about rights and freedoms in relation to handguns, and he referred to machetes. We have a problem not just with machetes, but with knives generally, which is why we pressed for legislation, moved amendments to a series of Bills and succeeded in getting the Knives Act 1997 through
    50
    Parliament and implemented it as quickly as we were able. The problem is that such implements have a purpose, whereas a pistol has two uses: target shooting, and to injure, maim or kill.
    I take the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North very seriously indeed. I respect them, although I disagree with them. He cast doubt on the figures on the theft of handguns. They are authentic, because they come from chapter 3 of the 1995 "Criminal Statistics", which is in the Library.
    I do not accept that this measure is the denial of a right: it is a limitation on a privilege that is allowed in law in the United Kingdom in specific circumstances. My hon. Friend argued with passion that we have been pushed into making our decisions. I disagree with him. When we saw the mess that was made after Hungerford, we thought long and hard before supporting the previous Government's legislation on large-calibre handguns, and going further, as we promised, to allow the House to decide to ban .22 handguns. Public opinion on the exclusion of groups from the ban was measured in terms of which group "if any", and I suggest that "if any" is a significant part of the question.
    I think that my hon. Friend intended to be kind when he said that I had been talked into a corner on this matter. I assure him that I believe that there is every justification for banning .22 handguns and that there is no case for this exemption. I respect my hon. Friend's passion, but I think that he is wrong.
    The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) descended to insult and absurdity. I ask him to apply common sense. The use of handguns by the police and the armed forces is entirely different from the use by any group specifically for sport. We must be alert to the dangers of misuse by any individuals who are authorised by law to possess handguns, but there is a difference between those groups.
    I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who said that we are combating the culture of handguns. As a number of hon. Members have said, we must of course deal with illegal weapons and the wider culture of violence; but those issues are not before us today. What is before us today is an amendment that would cause problems for the legislation which received such overwhelming support from the House.
    We remain of the view that it would be inconsistent to undermine the principle embodied in the Bill that there should be a complete ban on handguns. We consider that only a complete ban on handguns will provide the necessary degree of public safety. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made that clear on a number of occasions. It is significant that there has not been the sort of representation from disabled people that would have been expected if the issue were as major as a number of those contributing to the debate have suggested. I believe that those contributions came from people who do not accept that the House has declared its will on the banning of .22 handguns. For that reason, the Government seek to overturn the amendment.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 155.

    Division No. 77]

    [5.40 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Ainger, Nick

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Denham, John

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Dobbin, Jim

    Ashton, Joe

    Doran, Frank

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dowd, Jim

    Austin, John

    Drew, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Battle, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Beard, Nigel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Edwards, Huw

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Benton, Joe

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fatchett, Derek

    Berry, Roger

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Best, Harold

    Fisher, Mark

    Betts, Clive

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flint, Caroline

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Flynn, Paul

    Borrow, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foulkes, George

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Fyfe, Maria

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Burgon, Colin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Byers, Stephen

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Caborn, Richard

    Godman, Norman A

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Grocott, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Grogan, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gunnell, John

    Casale, Roger

    Hain, Peter

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Healey, John

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hill, Keith

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Coleman, Iain

    Home Robertson, John

    Colman, Tony

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Hope, Phil

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cranston, Ross

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Crausby, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    (Copeland)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    52

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Pearson, Ian

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Ms Jennifer

    Pollard, Kerry

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pope, Greg

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Pound, Stephen

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kemp, Fraser

    Purchase, Ken

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kidney, David

    Radice, Giles

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rapson, Syd

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Rogers, Allan

    Laxton, Bob

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lepper, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruane, Chris

    Levitt, Tom

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Sawford, Phil

    Linton, Martin

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Livingstone, Ken

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Lock, David

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McAllion, John

    Singh, Marsha

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Macdonald, Calum

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Soley, Clive

    McLeish, Henry

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    MacShane, Denis

    Stevenson, George

    McWalter, Tony

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stott, Roger

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Maxton, John

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Meale, Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Merron, Gillian

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Michael, Alun

    (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Milburn, Alan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Miller, Andrew

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Timms, Stephen

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Touhig, Don

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Trickett, Jon

    Morley, Elliot

    Truswell, Paul

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mountford, Kali

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mudie, George

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Mullin, Chris

    Vaz, Keith

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Norris, Dan

    Ward, Ms Claire

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Watts, David

    O'Hara, Eddie

    White, Brian

    Olner, Bill

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Wicks, Malcolm

    53

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Wray, James

    (Swansea W)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wood, Mike

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Woolas, Phil

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Harvey, Nick

    Amess, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hoey, Kate

    Baldry, Tony

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Barnes, Harry

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Hunter, Andrew

    Bercow, John

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Boswell, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Johnson Smith,

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Brady, Graham

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Brake, Tom

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Breed, Colin

    Key, Robert

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Burnett, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Burns, Simon

    Letwin, Oliver

    Burstow, Paul

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Butterfill, John

    Lidington, David

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Cash, William

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Loughton, Tim

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Luff, Peter

    Chidgey, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Chope, Christopher

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clappison, James

    MacKay, Andrew

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Collins, Tim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Madel, Sir David

    Corbett, Robin

    Malins, Humfrey

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Maples, John

    Cotter, Brian

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ottaway, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Paice, James

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Pickles, Eric

    Evans, Nigel

    Prior, David

    Faber, David

    Randall, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Rendel, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Ruffley, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gale, Roger

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Garnier, Edward

    Sanders, Adrian

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gibb, Nick

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Soames, Nicholas

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spring, Richard

    Gorrie, Donald

    Steen, Anthony

    Green, Damian

    Streeter, Gary

    Greenway, John

    Stunell, Andrew

    Grieve, Dominic

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    54

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wells, Bowen

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Wills, Phil

    Tredinnick, David

    Wilshire, David

    Trend, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tyler, Paul

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Woodward, Shaun

    Viggers, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Walter, Robert

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wardle, Charles

    Waterson, Nigel

    Tellers For the Noes:

    Webb, Steve

    Mr. James Cran and

    Mr. Oliver Heald.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.

    After Clause 1
      DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION.
      Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause—

      DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION
      (".—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(l)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to whom subsection (2) applies to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim—fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (3) below.
      (2) A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State.
      (3) A certificate granted under subsection (2) above shall be subject to the condition that—

      (a) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

      (b) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.")

    Clause 2

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND APPEALS
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 15 to 21.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.
      Mr. Michael: The amendment will make the compensation arrangements for small-calibre pistols subject to the same affirmative resolution procedure as for the large-calibre scheme so that a draft of the scheme will need to be debated by both Houses before it can be formally made by the Secretary of State. The amendment was introduced on the recommendation of the Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I ask the House to support the amendment.
      Mr. Beith: I thank the Government for accepting an amendment which they showed such reluctance to accept during the debate in the other place. It is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider the compensation scheme on the basis of an affirmative resolution. We are glad that, in the end, the Government conceded the amendment.
      Mr. Greenway: I was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We agree with the amendment, but I want to make a brief comment. My understanding is that the amendment was supported by the Opposition in the other place. We can agree on the amendment if on nothing else, because it clearly makes sense to have similarity of treatment.
      Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

  After Clause 2

    COMPETITION PISTOLS
    Lords amendment: No. 3, to insert the following new clause—
    " —(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
    (2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

    (a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and

    (b) the pistol is used by a person approved by the Secretary of State and on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport; and

    (c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

    (d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify."

    6 pm
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    As I have said, we do not believe that a case can be made for exempting any group of target shooters. Again, I cannot support new clause 4, which would apply to competition shooters. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth games and any future Olympic or paralympic games could be held in this country. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has sought to cast doubt on that. It does not do anyone any favours to suggest doubt where none exists.
    As has been explained, both in the House and in another place, a contract has been signed for the 2002 games at Manchester. That can be broken only because of natural disaster or a lack of proper organisation. The Home Secretary can use his powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to grant special dispensation to competitors to take part in shooting competitions in this country. Dispensation could be granted to any competitor, whether from this country or elsewhere.
    We have already shown that those powers can be used successfully. In September, the Home Secretary granted his authority under section 5 to allow visiting overseas competitors to take part in the 14th European police and pistol championships at Bisley. In that instance, it was not necessary to grant authority to British competitors, as the competition took place before the 1997 Act came fully into force, and home competitors were able to shoot under their firearm certificates.
    Nor do I accept that the passing of the Bill will mean that Britain will never again host an Olympic games. Provided that all the sports can be held—and, as I have just explained, they can be—there will be no difficulty in Britain bidding for future games. The British Olympic Association has said that it is not possible to predict accurately how great the impact will be on any future bid. Potential competitors might try to exploit the fact that a few of the sports were banned to our sports men and women, but that will be a small price to pay in the interests of the far greater priority of public safety.
    It is not a prerequisite of the games that the host nation has to participate in all events. It is true that, in the past three Olympic games at least—Atlanta, Barcelona and Seoul —the host nation did compete in every event. However, in the last Olympic games, Britain did not compete in baseball, basketball, handball and softball. I do not know whether we would have teams ready for those events for any future games, but whether we did or not would not affect our ability to bid for future games.
    56
    It is important to remember that the Bill will affect just six of the 28 Commonwealth shooting competitions, three of the 15 Olympic shooting competitions, and two the 15 paralympic shooting competitions. That leaves a wide range of events in which British teams can take part. As I have said, we believe that, in the interests of public safety, a complete ban is the only safe option. That is why I ask the House to reject the amendment.
    It may help the House to refer to the success of the three-month hand-in arrangements under the 1997 Act. Those arrangements ended on 30 September. From the latest information available, police forces in England, Wales and Scotland have received just over 142,000 handguns. Of those, nearly 116,000 were large-calibre handguns that were prohibited by the 1997 Act and 26,000 were small-calibre pistols which were handed in voluntarily. I have placed in the Library a detailed breakdown of those figures by forces.
    Those are encouraging figures. Nevertheless, it may be worth adding some explanation. The original estimate of the number of legally permitted handguns—produced by police forces quickly and submitted as evidence for Lord Cullen's inquiry—was 200,490 in England, Wales and Scotland, of which approximately 160,000 were believed to have been large calibre. That number related only to certificate holders and not to dealers. No precise estimates of dealers' handgun stocks were produced, although, for the purpose of estimating costs, we assumed a notional figure of 10,000 nationally, which was based on a very small sample of forces.
    The original estimates provided by forces are certainly maximum estimates, produced at short notice. Some forces will have inadvertently included among their estimates other lawfully held firearms such as rifles and shotguns. The figures would also have been distorted by forces using the number of handgun certificate holders who had been authorised to acquire or to possess, rather than the number who actually possessed, which is, of course, lower. Some forces may have included an estimate of their dealers' stocks.
    The lack of accurate details from forces about numbers is also a consequence of the absence of any statutory requirement on certificate holders to notify forces of when a firearm is sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of. That weakness has been remedied since 1 October by sections 32 to 35 of the 1997 Act. The eventual setting up of a central database of firearms owners will enable such exercises to be conducted quickly and accurately.
    There are further explanations for the difference in the estimate and the number of guns actually handed in. First, some handguns are being retained lawfully under the various exemptions allowed by the 1997 Act. Secondly, some certificate holders have taken their guns abroad and, in some cases, joined target shooting clubs abroad. Thirdly, since 21 September 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry has granted 3,455 small arms export licences, and each licence could apply to more than one firearm. Export licences are not required by individuals taking their firearms abroad for storage and use. Finally, the previous national amnesty was held in June 1996 and it is possible that some owners may have surrendered their weapons without wishing to await compensation.

    57
    Over coming weeks, forces are expected routinely to follow up each certificate holder recorded on their systems who has not been in touch with them. That double check by the police will establish cases of illegal possession.
    Assuming that 40,000 remains the estimate of the number of small-calibre pistols, with 26,000 already handed in voluntarily, it is likely that no more than 14,000 pistols will still be lawfully held. I look forward to those further guns being removed as soon as possible. I hope that, after we have dealt with today's amendments, the Bill will proceed into legislation very quickly.
    Mr. Beith: The amendment reminds me of a whimsical Flanders and Swann song, which extolled the virtues of the English, especially their somewhat lackadaisical attitude to sport, and which said of foreigners that they practised beforehand, which ruined the fun.
    The object of the amendment is to allow British competitors to train and practise to the same high levels as people in other countries with whom they compete, which is now commonplace in all sports. The Bill would make that impossible, except if people went abroad to do so, which the Government seem, by their turn of phrase, almost to be encouraging. It is odd that, although the Government will make provision for these major events to be held when it is Britain's turn to hold them, British competitors will have to go abroad to train for them.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman call to mind the fact that the National Rifle Association was first formed and established at Wimbledon because we had sent shooters to South Africa, who had turned out to be so poor that they had to undertake tuition?
    Mr. Beith: With his capacious knowledge of the subject, the hon. Gentleman further underlines the fact that we have moved on since the days of Flanders and Swann to an era where people think it right to train to proper standards for sports in which they are allowed to compete.
    I recommended my right hon. and hon. Friends, who had a free vote, to support, if they could, the previous amendment, on the strongly, indeed passionately, held ground that we were doing a terrible disservice to disabled people not to make provision for them. My advice on this amendment is based much more on logic: it just does not seem reasonable that, having conceded that these events should be held in Britain, we have made no provision for our competitors to train in Britain.
    On both the amendments, Ministers have argued that there is a total ban and that any modification we make will have the fatal effect of removing the totality of the ban. There is no total ban because exemptions are made for guns to be held for occupational purposes and because the Government have made, and said that they will make, exemptions, so that Olympic and Commonwealth competitions can be held in Britain. Therefore, we are not arguing about whether there is a total ban. All our debates are about what the exemptions should be.
    I simply submit that it would be reasonable, given the House's determination not to allow any general availability of handguns, even in specially controlled and secure premises, to make some provision for British contestants to train in this country for sporting events,
    58
    some of which will be held here. That is a reasonable plea, which would not in any way change the character of the ban—which, for the reasons I have given, cannot be a total ban and need not be so in this respect.
    Kate Hoey: I support everything said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The amendment is reasonable and the House should support it. I opposed a total ban on guns because I felt that we should have given the Cullen report a great deal more thought. I also felt that it would do nothing to deal with the problem in my constituency—and, indeed, other constituencies—of the constant use of large numbers of illegally held weapons.
    I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited my borough and spoken to many people in Lambeth. He has launched a one-month gun amnesty for Lambeth, which is currently under way. Clearly we must tackle the problem of illegal weapons, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his initiative—although, in fact, the amnesty was called for by the community, not by the police or the Government.
    As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there is not a total ban; there are exceptions. Surely we should be able to make exceptions for our Olympic sports men and women-both able-bodied and disabled—so that they can practise their sport in safe surroundings, with all the very stringent conditions contained in the amendment, with the approval of specialist centres and the rules on the storage of weapons. Everything possible will be done to ensure that the weapons cannot be used illegally, so surely we are taking the Bill one step too far.
    It could be made clear that the possession of weapons outside designated premises would not be allowed. We have all sorts of ways to enforce that. The British Olympic Association —a body not known for its radical thinking—would not support the amendment if it did not believe that it could make the system work.
    People talk about shooters going abroad to practise, but we should not forget that there is still a part of the United Kingdom where target shooting will continue to be allowed— Northern Ireland, which is exempt from the Bill. Presumably many Northern Ireland people will now become part of the British Olympic target shooting team because it will be the only place where people can practise. In fact, therefore, people will not have to go abroad because they can go to Northern Ireland—which shows the anomalies in the Bill.
    Mr. George Stevenson: They could go to the Channel islands as well.
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right.
    I appeal to the Minister not to get hung up on this fetish about not allowing any exceptions. There is a perfectly legitimate exception that could be monitored and scrutinised, and which would give our Olympic sports men and women the opportunity to compete properly, rather than going into a competition with their hands tied behind their backs. I hope that the House will think about the issue and not just go along with what has seemed, from the beginning, to be a feeling that, if we did not support a total ban, we would be evil people. I do not think that I am an evil person. I have never supported a

    59
    total ban, and I certainly do not think that we shall feel proud of this measure if we allow it to get on the statute book.
    Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is not an evil person. She shows a great deal of logical thinking, and certainly more than some of her Front-Bench colleagues.
    This is the final debate on the Bill, if everything goes according to Government plans, which is likely. Therefore, today we are witnessing the annihilation of pistol shooting as a sport. I regret that; indeed, I regret the whole history of the issue, including the previous Government's decision to go further than the Cullen recommendations. I especially regret what is happening now, because it is mean-minded and in the spirit of a nanny state.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)— I hope that I am not stealing his thunder—said that the National Rifle Association was set up after the Boer war because our so-called sharpshooters were so hopeless. I hope that we will not be in a similar position when we need highly trained soldiers who can fire rifles. It is bizarre that we should be preventing perfectly harmless people from continuing with a perfectly harmless sport.
    6.15 pm
    The Bill is illogical. The Home Secretary's letter to the British Olympic Association, a copy of which I received this morning, said that competitors could go abroad to practise. His exacts words were:
    "Dispensation could be granted to any competitors"—
    that is, in pistol shooting—
    "to shoot in Britain at something like the Manchester Olympics, although British competitors would have to train elsewhere."
    That is an extraordinary, twisted logic and, frankly, the right hon. Gentleman should regret that. This is an awful measure, which is being defended by awful logic.
    Mr. Frank Cook: This will be the last debate on the Bill. From here, it will go to the other place, and that will be the last that we see of it until it is placed firmly on the statute book. For that reason, I am most grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, showed leniency in allowing the Minister to tell us about the number of weapons that had been handed in — something not strictly in accordance with the amendment under discussion.
    It is a great pity that you were not asked to show the same leniency in our attempt to find out about the payment of compensation for weapons that have been handed in. I am getting a huge amount of correspondence from people who, having complied with the law, are sick and tired of waiting for the payment to which they feel entitled and which they were led to believe they would get. They are still led to believe that they will get it, but they do not know when.
    Mr. Michael: We have always said that it would be problematic to deal with the number of claims involved, and that the process would take some time. We said that we would deal with the claims as quickly as possible, but that it was impossible to set a deadline. The civil servants and police involved are making great efforts to expedite the process, and that will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. However, I feel compelled to remind him
    60
    that the timetable for handing in weapons was set by the Government—indeed, by both the previous Government and this Government. Surely any hand-in timetable should take account of assessing the value and handing over the cash. It is not sufficient to say, "We have a difficult job." We know that—it was a difficult job that was thought about in the first place, but not for long enough.
    Mr. Michael: With respect to my hon. Friend, it was the will of the House during the previous Parliament that the process should apply to large-calibre handguns. The House willed a difficult job to be done. In my view, it has been done well by the police and others. Of course, many claims and assessments have to be dealt with, but we spelled that out when the Bill was before the House and when the order was laid earlier this year. It is something of a diversion to come back to us about a delay, when that delay has always been predicted because of the size of the job to be done.
    Mr. Cook: I simply repeat that any timetable for handing in should have taken account of the process of valuation and handing across any compensation. To my mind, those are simple considerations—but I am a simple person.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State paid tribute to my passion and beliefs, but he went on to say, "But he is wrong." He never tells me why I am wrong. It is useless for me to offer arguments and what I consider to be logic if no one offers me the "anti-logic", thereby loosening my opinions and convincing me of the righteousness of the legislation. Currently, I cannot discern that righteousness.
    Mr. Michael: I accept that, at least most of the time, my hon. Friend tries coolly and reasonably to explain his viewpoint, and I do the same. I think that I have offered him sense and logic on each of the arguments that he and I have exchanged. The simple fact is that he does not agree with me, and I do not agree with him.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has tempted me to put him to the test. When I raised the issue of Olympic and Commonwealth games, he told me that he had had consultations with the associations and that there was no problem. I believed him. I am not suggesting for one moment that he told me an untruth; he may well have thought that he was accurately informing me. If the information was accurate then, however, the situation has changed a bit since.
    On 24 October 1997, I received from the British Olympic Association the only circular that I have received on shooting issues. It may interest hon. Members to know that I have three filing cabinet drawers crammed to the gunnels—not neatly filed in fanfold order, but packed full—with correspondence on firearms legislation. My colleagues sometimes tell me that they are receiving a heavy mail, but I promise the House that I know how heavy the mail can be.
    How many of those letters—all of which were individually written—expressed disagreement with my stance? Of three drawers full of letters, only five letters

    61
    disagree with my stance. The circular from the British Olympic Association is addressed to all Labour Members. I will not read the entire letter, but it states:
    "We are writing to ask your help…
    The amendment would enable our .22 Olympic pistol shooters to train and compete for international competitions in established Centres of Excellence and avoid the embarrassing situation at the Manchester Games 2002 whereby English, Scottish and Welsh competitors will be able to take part but not train for the .22 pistol events. The safeguards contained in the amendment are absolute. The Centres of Excellence would be approved by the Secretary of State as secure sites. The shooters would be vetted by the Chief Constable,"—
    I hope a little better than they were in Dunblane—
    "would then be vetted and recommended by the governing bodies of the Olympic sport and finally, would need the special approval of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the .22 Olympic pistols would be stored and used at the Centres of Excellence, only being transferred to and used at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic or Commonwealth Games."
    The letter expresses the British Olympic Association's current attitude, which varies considerably from the impression that was given to me by the Minister in previous debates in the House.
    I do not want to sound as if I am booting the Minister, because I am not. He was very helpful when the European 1500 championship, which is a pan-European competition, was held at Bisley. As we were getting very close to the date of the competition, there was some doubt about whether it could be held. People were coming from the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium and Norway, and from heaven knows where else, but no one knew whether the competition would be held.
    During the summer recess, I approached my hon. Friend the Minister, and he was very kind. He telephoned me from his home, we discussed the problem, and he very diligently applied himself to finding a solution. He said, "We will grant a dispensation." Nevertheless, the situation provided an example of the United Kingdom hosting an international competition to which outside shooters brought their weapons so that they could participate, whereas the Brits were rather half in and half out of the competition.
    Half the British shooters had retained their .22s, because the date to surrender them had not yet arrived, whereas the other half—who were extra-law-abiding—had handed in their weapons early. Some very good competitors who normally participate in such events had weapons, but some very good competitors who normally participate in such events and represent their country had no weapons. The question inevitably arose whether competitors without weapons would be able to borrow weapons from those who had them. As helpful as the Minister had been with the overall event—which could then take place—he was unable to grant a dispensation to those who had already handed in their weapons.
    The event was something of a debacle. Some of our best shooters were without their best weaponry, whereas other shooters—who are probably just as good as our best shooters—were demoralised because their team had been carved up. I suggest that that event provides a technical example of what might happen in future Commonwealth and Olympic games.
    The House has already talked about pride, and I have mentioned the pride of people winning elections. I mentioned Daley Thompson and Sebastian Coe. Many
    62
    British pistol, rifle and shotgun shooters have brought home the gold and the silver, and we were very proud to welcome them and poured praise on their heads for holding up the flag. Now, however, we are in the crazy situation of saying, "You can take part in a shooting event, as long as you bugger off to the continent or somewhere else to train for it. And don't forget to bring back your stuff." Such a situation is apparently justified by public opinion.
    In the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, I quoted from a MORI poll. Unsurprisingly, the same poll questioned public attitudes towards shooting in Olympic and Commonwealth games. As I said, 54 per cent. of the generous sample of people questioned agreed that
    "Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols in shooting clubs for able-bodied or disabled people"
    should be permitted.
    Moreover, 56 per cent. of those asked agreed that
    "Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols by disabled people in cases where it can be medically proven their disability means they cannot take part in other types of competitive sport"
    should be excluded from the ban. Of those questioned, 61 per cent. thought that
    "Supervised training sessions with .22 calibre pistols by the British teams (able bodied and disabled) for the Commonwealth and Olympic games, and other similar events"
    should be excluded from the ban. That is public opinion—based on a random, scientifically compiled sample—as recently as last week.
    Many competitors have had to relinquish their preferred weapon—some of which were custom-made and cost anything from £2,500 to £6,000 each, which is not the type of weapon that the ordinary Jack the lad would use in trying to knock off a post office —and resort to black powder shooting as a form of competition.
    I shall quickly explain what black powder shooting involves. It means putting a cap on the end of a combustion chamber, filling the chamber with a form of black powder—very carefully measured—tamping it down with a waxed wad and inserting a ball shot. It then involves shooting at a target—people want to do no more than they did before—to put a hole in a piece of card at a distance of about 25 m. That is the sport of target shooting and that is how dangerous it is—and it is supervised.
    6.30 pm
    I know how long it takes to load such a weapon, because I did it at Bisley during the Trafalgar meeting three weeks ago. It takes a long time, but I am told that Laura Collins of The Sun, who had no official range licence, who was not licensed to use a section 1 firearm and who therefore held the gun illegally, apparently used one to shoot at a melon. Her article tells how quickly she was able to load the gun, but that has to be an untruth. Furthermore, the melon at which she pointed the gun was an unlicensed target— [Laughter.] It may sound funny, but a melon is an illegal target—one can use only authorised targets. We ought to find this a serious matter and not be facetious.
    I am talking about someone who broke the law. Indeed, she was not the only one who broke the law. So did the person who lent her the weapon to perform the foul deed, and her editor, who was either an accessory before the fact, in instructing her to perform the deed, or an accessory after the fact, in allowing her to report it.

    63
    There is no doubt—[Interruption.] I thought that someone was calling time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It does not help our proceedings if audible devices are brought into the Chamber.
    Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise you that my phone is switched off. It was not me, but I am unable to declare who was responsible for the interruption.
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: It was someone on the Opposition side.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend says that it was someone on the other side, which reminds me of something that happened earlier this afternoon and which graphically illustrates the sad state we are in with this legislation. Much earlier today, one of my hon. Friends said, "Frank, I realise that we are on opposite sides in this matter, but how long are you going to take?" That person is not in the Chamber now. I thought that it was rather sad, as I am on the side of the disabled and of the sportsman.
    I am also on the side of law and order. The reporter to whom I referred broke the law, but she was paid by an editor who allowed and probably encouraged her. I should like to know what the Home Office did about it, whether any charges have been preferred and whether any action is to be taken; because it is unfair to apply the law so stringently to people who have very little defence and who have been willing to be compliant but allow others to parade and publicise their law-breaking activities in a national newspaper.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be very brief. I was not in the Chamber for the debate on the previous amendment because of Select Committee business, so I do not know how many Labour Members were present to put their boot into the disabled. However, I notice that very few are here now to explain why we do not trust those of our compatriots whose ability is such that they are capable of representing their country at their chosen sport.
    One of my favourite quotations comes from Sir Winston Churchill in his "Life of the Duke of Marlborough". He said of the Margrave of Baden that his military epitaph for all time must be that the two greatest captains of his age thought his absence from a crucial field well worth 15,000 men.
    Mr. Michael: As these remarks go on the record in Hansard, I must in fairness point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are more Labour Members here than Conservative Members.
    Mr. Brooke: The Minister is perfectly capable of doing that arithmetic, as I am, but he also knows what proportion of Labour Members are present and what proportion voted in the Division.
    I listened to the Minister's reference to a complete ban. Foreigners in competition are excepted from that ban and are thus treated and trusted above our own people.
    64
    When I was elected to the House, I never thought that I would sit here and hear the Government argue such a proposition. Nevertheless, I have chosen to be present on this occasion because of my sense of embarrassment and guilt at such a proposition coming from the Government.
    Mrs. McGuire: I had not intended to speak, but, having listened to what has been said, I should like to make a few comments in view of the fact that this will, we hope, be the last occasion that we discuss firearms for a long time.
    I have heard a great deal this afternoon about random samples and unlicensed targets. The children of Dunblane were unlicensed targets—
    Mr. James Gray: That is a cheap comment.
    Mrs. McGuire: It is not a cheap comment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come and say that in the small city of Dunblane in my constituency.
    Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. McGuire: No, I will not give way.
    Mr. Gray: I come from Dunblane.
    Mrs. McGuire: I represent the people of Dunblane.
    This is the final part of the chapter that will deal with the gun culture in our communities. We have heard much about the liberty of individual groups and about exceptions. The history of the past 100 years or so is littered with instances of individual liberties having to be restrained so that the unfettered pursuit of happiness was not undertaken at the expense of other people. Yes, it is unfortunate that Olympic sportspersons cannot take up shooting, but they still have their life choices.
    According to the opinion polls, 54 per cent. of people believe that the sport of shooting should continue. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) might think this is a cheap comment, but if we conducted an opinion poll in Hungerford, 100 per cent. of the people there would ask for a total ban on handguns. I know that 100 per cent. of the children and parents of Dunblane would ask for the same.
    The Snowdrop campaign galvanised opinion in this country, and it is incumbent on the House to see the end of the chapter through this evening and reject the amendment. We must recognise that the liberty of the children of Dunblane and that of the people of Hungerford is far more important than the pursuit of any gold medal in the Olympic games.
    Mr. Grieve: I wish to pick up just one point at this stage of the debate. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and then reply, so that I can understand the reasons behind the approach that he has taken.
    Let us forget for a moment whether the people coming to compete in this country are foreign or not. The fact is that, having applied their mind to the matter, the Government have decided that it is proper to make an exception to allow certain members of the public— members of the public who, by virtue of being foreign,

    65
    will never have been vetted for a firearms licence—to come to this country and use a .22 pistol for competition purposes. I am sure that the Minister will readily agree that he cannot wholly eliminate the possibility that that firearm might be misused. Somebody might go berserk—someone of whose record we have no knowledge.
    The Government have decided, on balance, that that is allowable. That is different from the position of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) or the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). In that case, why does the Minister not deem it allowable for Olympic sportsmen to train in this country? There can be no justification for the Government's position. The Minister has come off the moral high ground—from what he said earlier, he was never on it—down to pragmatism, so he must be judged pragmatically on his proposals.
    The amendment would introduce a simple, logical exception, just like the exception requested for the disabled. Will the Minister please explain why it cannot be allowed? I can see no logical grounds for the Government's decision, in view of the position that they have adopted.
    Mr. Greenway: As I said on amendment No. 1, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made it clear when the previous Government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Bill in November last year that one of the key objectives was to protect the interests of British sportsmen who compete in pistol shooting in international championships such as the Olympics and the Commonwealth games. That was supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
    Some .32 calibre pistols have been used in Commonwealth games competitions, but the low-calibre .22 pistol has been traditional in Olympic pistol shooting. Target shooting with high-calibre handguns was removed from Olympic competition because those guns were recognised as more dangerous. The amendment would give British pistol shooting competitors the opportunity to practise in Britain for international competition by creating centres of excellence. The plans would require the granting of a certificate, subject to the most stringent conditions.
    Such arrangements are vital. If the amendment is overturned, our pistol shooting sportsmen will have to go abroad or to Northern Ireland to train. In practice, they will be banned from international shooting competitions in the country that invented the sport of pistol shooting more than 100 years ago, and has dominated the sport ever since. It has been one of our sporting success stories for a long time. In the past 10 years, British competitors have won 23 medals in Commonwealth games.
    As hon. Members know, the next but one Commonwealth games will be held in Manchester in 2002. The Home Secretary has made clear—the Minister repeated it this evening—his intention to use his powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to grant the special dispensations needed to allow competitors to take part in those games, but there are no provisions to allow our pistol shooting competitors to train in this country before those games.
    In a letter of 27 October to the chief executive of the British Olympic Association—a letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred—the Home Secretary acknowledged that, while a
    66
    dispensation could be granted to any competitor, British competitors would have to train elsewhere. What a ridiculous state of affairs!
    Usually a Government stumble into such a mess by accident, but not this time. In the aforementioned letter, the Home Secretary stated:
    "We have recognised since the introduction of the Bill, and made clear in Parliament, that the effect of the Bill will be that British competitors will no longer be able to train in this country."
    Let there be no doubt—that was the intention all along. Foreign competitors can compete here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said a moment ago, so why cannot British competitors be allowed to train here?
    The Government appear not to care about the interests of British competitors in international pistol shooting championships. Ministers have repeatedly been asked—including tonight —to demonstrate how and why those sportsmen pose a threat to public safety. They have been unable to do so, because no evidence exists.
    6.45 pm
    The amendment would give the Secretary of State absolute control over who could use the shooting centres, and would add further controls by requiring that any applicant must first earn the recommendation of the governing bodies for competitive target shooting in the United Kingdom. The .22 calibre pistols would also have to be stored and used at premises designated by the Home Secretary.
    Surely those safeguards guarantee that the special secure centres will be used only by genuine sportsmen, as recognised by the Home Secretary. Such arrangements have been successfully introduced in Japan to ensure public safety, which is our aim. The Government are usually keen to bring best practice from overseas to Britain, but not on this occasion.
    Surely the Government can consider the controls needed on legitimate sportsmen who give up their time to practise to win medals and bring honour and prestige to this country in Olympic competition to be different from those required for public safety. The Government are driven by dogma, for the reasons that we have heard today. They are opposed to any exemptions to a total ban on the grounds, we are told, of principle, and in the mistaken belief that only a complete ban will provide the necessary safety for the public.
    That might be a more understandable point of view if a total ban would comprehensively rid society of all handguns, but that is clearly unachievable. However much effort the police, customs and courts put into tackling the problems of illegally held firearms, handguns can easily be obtained illegally, not just on the nearby continent, but among the criminal fraternity in this country.
    Firearms amnesties have been successful. The majority of previously legally held large-calibre handguns, banned by the legislation passed by Parliament earlier this year, have been surrendered, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said. There is no reason to doubt that the ban on .22 calibre pistols will not be similarly respected by the law-abiding majority, however much they disagree with it.

    67
    Surely the enforced surrender of .22 calibre pistols by our international shooting sportsmen will make a difference to public safety only if those giving up their guns pose a threat to the community. They pose no threat, and no evidence of such a threat has been forthcoming.
    Surely the Government's refusal to accept the amendment must be justified on the ground of public safety and not simply on a point of principle. It is a poor principle that imposes burdens and restrictions on people for no good reason except to appear unyielding. I am sure that those who have listened to our debate this evening agree that we have heard no such justification from the Minister.
    If the issue of principle has any real bearing on the matter, it surely points in the opposite direction from the one taken by the Government. English law has always followed the general tenet that everything is permitted unless the public interest demands its prohibition. The Government have failed miserably to show why competition shooting poses such a threat to the community that its complete suppression is warranted. If the amendment is defeated, the Bill will go completely against the grain of every principle on which our law generally has been established.
    Conservative Members have concluded that the Government's stand on the matter tells us rather more about their character than it does about any sensible, coherent attitude towards gun control. Minority interests simply do not count if, as in this case, they get in the way of the Government's declared intentions, no matter how much their policy objectives are shown to be unnecessary and distinctly unfair.
    Increasingly, the Government appear bossy, dictatorial, authoritarian and tyrannical. Any of their Back Benchers who have different points of view are sidelined or silenced. That is true whether we are talking about a referendum on a Welsh Assembly, tuition fees for university students, cold weather payments, the tax on pension funds, the withdrawal of tax relief on medical insurance for pensioners, or assisted places for working-class children in private schools. If the Government do not agree with people, they may as well save their breath, for all the notice the Government will take.
    As the hon. Member for Stockton, North has shown, public support for a complete ban is already waning. Let us make no mistake: unless action is taken along the lines suggested in the amendment, the issue will return to haunt the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary when it becomes increasingly obvious that, by their stubborn refusal to compromise and their high-handed and dismissive attitude towards the views and interests of others, they have single-handedly confined our pistol competitors to the third division of also-rans in international shooting competition.
    What will happen when Britain bids to hold a future Olympic games? The answer is obvious. It is all very well for the Minister to say that dispensations are available. Other countries will use the ridiculous ban on pistol
    68
    shooting to undermine the British case. It is an absolute gift. That is not my view, but the view expressed by Lord Howell, a much-respected former Minister with responsibility for sport, when he supported the amendment in another place. He said:
    "There is no doubt in my mind that if we cannot say that at an Olympic shooting event British shooters will compete on equal terms with everyone else, that will be held against us." —[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1997; Vol. 582, c. 589.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote non-ministerial Members of the other place.
    Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder.
    The House must recognise that there are senior members of the Labour party who have great experience of negotiating to bring international competitions to this country and who express their views in no uncertain terms. Their arguments are compelling. They have explained that it is not enough simply to say that there will be a dispensation. The real issue is that, in view of the way things work in such negotiations, our attempts to bring prestigious games to this country will be undermined. That view will become increasingly common. The Government are keen that we should host the Olympic games in future. When they try to do so, they will come up against the problems I have outlined.
    That point leads me to ask what the Minister for Sport intends to do. How will he vote tonight? Will he agree with Lord Howell, the former Minister, who backed the amendment in another place?
    Mr. Beith: Is he here?
    Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) steals my thunder by asking whether the Minister for Sport is even here. Will he be here for the vote? We shall have to check the voting record in tomorrow's Hansard.
    This is a bipartisan issue. More than one former Minister for Sport in the other place clearly supports the amendment. My noble Friend Lord Moynihan joined forces with Lord Howell to ensure that the amendment was passed in the other place. [Interruption.] Colleagues may barrack. I suspect that history will show that the two former Ministers for Sport, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan, have performed rather better in their task than the present Minister for Sport, who, in his own words, regards himself as something of a bar-room sage. Where does he stand on the amendment?
    We can begin to conjecture about what will happen in the run-up to the Commonwealth games —not in 2002, but next year when they will be held in Kuala Lumpur—or about what will happen in the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. Our pistol-shooting competitors will not be able to train or prepare in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Stockton, North used the word "embarrassment". I can see The Sun editorial now. It will say, "What half-baked Minister thought this one up?"
    When, two or three years ago, we pressed Treasury Ministers to do something about what was called the Dublin trip, whereby horses went to Dublin to avoid high rates of VAT, we quickly persuaded them that the position

    69
    was indefensible. What sort of trip will our shooting sportsmen have to undertake to train for their sports? The problem will arise next year and in 2000, not just in 2002.
    One of the lessons Conservative Members have had to learn is the extent to which tabloid editorial writers appear to have short memories. The day of reckoning will come. The public and the tabloid press may have supported a total ban, but when the consequences begin to be seen, Ministers will find themselves in an embarrassing position.
    There is an alternative for Ministers to consider tonight. The Government could admit here and now that they have got the legislation totally wrong. They could accept the amendment, and their Back Benchers could use their free vote to support it. Alternatively—I know the way these things work—they could give an undertaking to take the issue away and to come back with a new proposal to give effect to what our shooting sportsmen deserve and need, and to accommodate the needs of the disabled, about which we talked earlier.
    Either way, they can rest assured that the House is certain to pursue the issue again, because the ban is unprincipled, unnecessary, unjustified and unworthy of a tolerant and enlightened society, which, without any compromise on public safety, nevertheless should recognise its responsibilities to minority interests. The Government failed that test in another place two weeks ago and they deserve to be defeated again tonight.
    7 pm
    Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, let me say that I thought that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a rather sad speech. It is clear that he has an awful lot to learn about effective opposition. He must know in his heart of hearts that, however much he may disagree with our view, we are doing what we believe is right, and not merely what we believe is popular. We are dealing with important issues, and an important Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman made himself totally absurd when he tried to say that the Government were being tyrannical and then went on to quote the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and Lord Howell in another place —three Labour Members who have engaged in debate on the issues. Quite frankly, rational debate is alive and well on the Government Benches, and seems to be completely dead within the ranks of the Conservative party.
    The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that there were inconsistencies. His view is consistent only if he does not want any ban on handguns. That is a reasonable view, but the issue was decided before the recess, when the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on .22 handguns.
    The hon. Gentleman accepted that we can and will allow overseas shooters to use pistols in order to participate in Olympic and Commonwealth competition. It is rather sad that he then went on almost to give succour to those who might argue against the ability of the United Kingdom to stage those events. His was hardly a patriotic approach.
    Mr. Grieve: In two sentences, one following the other, the Minister contradicted himself. He stressed the great need to ban handguns, and then he said that he would
    70
    tolerate the exception in respect of certain sportsmen from abroad. Having accepted that, how does he then justify not providing another exception allowing Olympic sportsmen to train?
    Mr. Michael: Once again, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. It has become rather a habit of his. I was responding to the hon. Member for Ryedale.
    Quite simply, we have accepted that the ability of Britain to stage the Olympic and Commonwealth games justifies making an exception—as we have agreed to do in respect of Manchester—in order that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be excluded from the possibility of participating in games hosted in Britain. We have always made that quite clear.
    We have also made it clear that we shall not extend that exception, which is why we cannot accept the amendment. We have always been perfectly honest and open about the implications of the decision that we have taken. In theory, we could refuse to use those powers in the interests of the consistency that so interests the hon. Gentleman, but it seems pragmatic and sensible to follow the course for which we have argued.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale, it is not a matter of being careless of the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. We started by considering whether such sports could be protected, and we reached the conclusion that they could not. It is not a matter of sportsmen posing a threat; it is merely that the amendment strikes at the heart of the legislation.
    We do not believe that keeping small-calibre pistols at designated sites, as envisaged by the Lords amendment, would provide sufficient protection for the public. We believe that it would create a dangerous loophole, and that no security system would guarantee that pistols were not removed from those places. Therefore, we consider that their continued possession cannot be allowed. We have always accepted that the implications for the sport are serious. We do so with regret, but openly and honestly.
    The question was raised about the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and I shall make the position clear. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—introduced by the previous Government—does not extend to Northern Ireland. Consequently, the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.
    Northern Ireland has had its own firearms legislation for a number of years. Lord Cullen's report was given separate consideration in Northern Ireland, in tandem with the review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
    The review of the legislation and the consideration of Lord Cullen's findings have now been completed, and separate recommendations on each have been passed to Ministers. They are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and a response to Lord Cullen's report, including the question of a handgun ban, together with proposals for the reform of the firearms legislation generally, will be announced as soon as decisions have been taken.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about the possible misuse of a handgun brought in for international sporting events within the Olympic and Commonwealth games. When discussing the exemption

    71
    that was made in September, I told my hon. Friends that we would have an opportunity to look at the lessons that needed to be learned in terms of controlling the admission of weapons into the country. However, we cannot isolate permission for Olympic or Commonwealth status. Who is to determine whether any individuals could rise to that skill and quality at some point in future, even if they have not reached that standard of competition now?
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that foreign visitors need a British visitor's permit, and that, in addition to the Secretary of State's authority to get a permit, the visitor must have a British sponsor. So safeguards are built into the requirements.
    The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) regretted the end of the sport of pistol shooting. His speech reflected the nature of this afternoon's debate. Basically, he did not accept the will of the House that there should be a ban on .22 handguns. To a great extent, that is what the debate has been about. We consider that the Bill is necessary and that the proposed exemption would have a serious and significant effect on the legislation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said that people were sick and tired of waiting for compensation. The problems of getting compensation through quickly and undertaking proper assessments of all the costs involved will be considerable, and we shall undertake that work as quickly as possible.
    My hon. Friend also raised the serious matter of an article in the press. I understand that the author is under police investigation as a result of the issues that he raised. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the law must be applied properly and without distinction.
    The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) seemed to display some embarrassment and guilt. I remind him that there were twice as many Labour Members present as Conservatives when he intervened. At best, his was an unfortunate intervention.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) spoke out for common sense and for the wishes of the House, as well as for her constituents, in favour of the ban on .22 weapons being carried into legislation without the proposed Lords amendment which the House should reject.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 160.

    Division No. 78]

    [7.8 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Benton, Joe

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Berry, Roger

    Ashton, Joe

    Best Harold

    Austin, John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Barron, Kevin

    Blizzard, Bob

    Battle, John

    Borrow, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    72

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grocott, Bruce

    (Dunfermline E)

    Gunnell, John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Hain, Peter

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Burgon, Colin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Byers, Stephen

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Healey, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Casale, Roger

    Heppell, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hill, Keith

    Chaytor, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hurst, Alan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hutton, John

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Connarty, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jamieson, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jenkins, Brian

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cranston, Ross

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Ms Jennifer

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    (Copeland)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Denham, John

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Khabra, Piara S

    Doran, Frank

    Kidney, David

    Drew, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Drown, Ms Julia

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Edwards, Huw

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Laxton, Bob

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Lepper, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Levitt, Tom

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flint, Caroline

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Follett, Barbara

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Foulkes, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Gapes, Mike

    Lock, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    McAllion, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Godman, Norman A

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Goggins, Paul

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McDonnell, John

    73

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Sawford, Phil

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McLeish, Henry

    Shaw, Jonathan

    MacShane, Denis

    Sheerman, Barry

    McWalter, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Singh, Marsha

    Mallaber, Judy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Meale, Alan

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Michael, Alun

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Milburn, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Miller, Andrew

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Stott, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Swinney, John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    (Dewsbury)

    Norris, Dan

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Timms, Stephen

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Todd, Mark

    Pearson, Ian

    Touhig, Don

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Trickett, Jon

    Pickthall, Colin

    Truswell, Paul

    Pike, Peter L

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pond, Chris

    Vaz, Keith

    Pope, Greg

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Watts, David

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Webb, Steve

    Primarolo, Dawn

    White, Brian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    (Swansea W)

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rapson, Syd

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Winnick, David

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wood, Mike

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Woolas, Phil

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Wray, James

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Rooney, Terry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Ruane, Chris

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Amess, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Brady, Graham

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brake, Tom

    Baldry, Tony

    Breed, Colin

    Barnes, Harry

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Bercow, John

    Burnett, John

    74

    Burns, Simon

    Luff, Peter

    Butterfill, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    MacKay, Andrew

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Chidgey, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Chope, Christopher

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Madel, Sir David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Malins, Humfrey

    Collins, Tim

    Maples, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Corbett, Robin

    Mates, Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Cotter, Brian

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Day, Stephen

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Paice, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Paterson, Owen

    Evans, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Faber, David

    Prior, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Randall, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Rendel, David

    Flight, Howard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Gale, Roger

    Ruffley, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gibb, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gill, Christopher

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Shepherd, Richard

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gorrie, Donald

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gray, James

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Green, Damian

    Spring, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Grieve, Dominic

    Streeter, Gary

    Grogan, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Harvey, Nick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Townend, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Tredinnick, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyler, Paul

    Hoey, Kate

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Wallace, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Wardle, Charles

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Wells, Bowen

    Johnson Smith,

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Whittingdale, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Wilkinson, John

    Key, Robert

    Willis, Phil

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Wilshire, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Woodward, Shaun

    Letwin, Oliver

    Yeo, Tim

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Lidington, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. Oliver Heald and

    Loughton, Tim

    Mr. James Cran.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not all the Division bells are working. I think that it is due to people not checking whether all the plugs have been put back in following building work during the summer recess. Could that be looked into, especially in relation to the Cloister Huts block? Some hon. Members could be substantially embarrassed by not knowing of the Division because—due to meetings—they do not have their television sets switched on. It is a matter of fact that not all the Division bells are working, and it is bad form.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to hear my response to his point of order?
    Mr. Mackinlay indicated assent.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to him for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I am sure that it has been noted by the Serjeant at Arms. If there appears to be any sign of difficulty, I may be a little generous in the time that I allow for the Division.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. James Cran, Mr. John Greenway, Jane Kennedy, Mr. Alun Michael and Mr. Colin Pickthall; three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Alun Michael.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Not amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Clause 2

    REGULATIONS TO PRESCRIBE CERTAIN TERMS OF STUDENT LOAN AGREEMENTS
    7.22 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26, after `repayments,' insert—
    '(ia) such terms relating to the interest to be borne by the loan,'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 5.
    Dr. Howells: This is a small technical amendment to a Bill that is already purely technical. It would require that loan agreements specify how and when inflation is measured in setting the annual interest rate payable on the loans. It involves no change in our policy towards borrowers, or towards the debt sale itself. For the borrowers, the key point remains that they will repay no more in real terms than they borrowed. Interest rates will continue to be pegged to the rate of inflation.
    The method used in calculating the annual interest rate already exists in the student loan regulations. The amendment will not change the method, the index used or the period over which inflation is measured. In line with our objectives for the rest of the Bill, we are simply transferring a provision in the loan regulations to loan agreements.
    The need for the amendment is straightforward. If we do not introduce it, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will continue to have discretion over the period in which inflation is measured and over which the index is used to measure inflation. We have been advised that even that limited discretion could create potentially significant levels of uncertainty on the part of those buying the loans. That uncertainty would be priced into the bids and would add to the Government's costs. Removing the uncertainty will increase the competitiveness of the bids.
    The change is entirely in line with the broad thrust of the Bill. Clause 2 already freezes the time and manner of repayment of the loans and the borrowers' right to deferment and cancellation. The amendment will freeze the method used to calculate the annual rate of interest. There will be no losers from the change. The Government will get more competitive bids, and borrowers and debt purchasers will know where they stand and that no adverse changes can be made at a later date. I urge the House to accept the amendment.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: We have no objections.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
    '(3A) For paragraph 1(4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
    "(4) Regulations made in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ia) above shall make such provision with respect to the rate of interest for the time being applicable to a public sector student loan as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amount of the loan.
    (5) The provision required by sub-paragraph (4) above shall be framed by reference to such index of prices as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations".'.
    No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out '1(3)' and insert
    `1(5) (as substituted by subsection (3A) above)'.
    No. 4, in page 2, line 33, leave out '(3A)' and insert '(6)'.
    No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out '1(3A)' and insert `1(6)'.—[Dr. Howells.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    7.26 pm
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I stress that the Bill does not deal with measures arising from the Dearing report or the Government's response to it. It relates solely to the student loan book and the debt that we intend to sell on to the private sector.
    As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in the Budget on 2 July, we intend to raise £1.6 billion from the sale of part of the student loans debt in this financial year, to be followed by a further £1.5 billion in the next financial year. We have ensured that the changes introduced by the Bill will not adversely affect students. The key terms of the loans will be frozen to protect student borrowers, and we shall retain an independent assessor to deal with any complaints from students. Because the loans will become commercial agreements, they will be subject to both consumer and data protection legislation. Minimum collection standards will be laid down in the sale agreement. Borrowers with a disability are presently treated as a special case, and that will continue.
    The Bill will protect students, and it also reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to sound public finance. The sale proceeds of more than £3 billion will be used to meet the Government's expenditure commitments, including those in higher education. The Bill will help to support our education plans based on raising standards, extending access and high quality provision. I commend it to the House.
    7.28 pm
    Mrs. Browning: I shall not detain the House long, because, as was outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, the Opposition recognise that the Government are building on a measure introduced by the previous Government. Therefore, we have no objections to the measures that the Minister has outlined tonight. I noticed, however, that his opening remarks about the Dearing report were somewhat defensive. Since we first debated the matter, the Government's response to Dearing has become clear and students'
    78
    loans will be much larger as a result. We await tomorrow with interest, because we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Government's response to Dearing in more detail. I have nothing more to add, so I shall not detain the House unnecessarily.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hate to break into this collusion between the Conservative party and the Labour Government but, as on Second Reading, the Bill has been allowed to slip through as if it does not matter. It does matter; far from helping students, the measure will be a great burden on future generations of students. I find it disgraceful that those of us who benefited from the grant system should be the very generation to impose massive debt problems on future generations of students.
    It is important to point out that the co-operation between the Government and the official Opposition is not accepted by every opposition party. The Scottish National party's view has remained unchanged throughout the Bill's passage—we are opposed in principle to student loans, whether in government or, as the Government wish, private hands. We see it as anathema that current and future debt should be transferred into the hands of private profiteers.
    The collusion between the two main parties will ensure that the Bill goes through this evening, as they have decided to get it through as quickly as possible. However, we must not forget that this is a Tory proposal from before the election, and the Bill is yet another example of the Labour Government doing the Tories' dirty work. I urge the Government to come clean on how they expect to redirect the resources that will arise from this latest sell-off.
    On 10 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Government's reasons for proceeding with the privatisation of the Student Loans Company. He said:
    "Given the tightness of our plans generally and in particular the priority we wish to give to education programmes, the Government have decided to proceed with the sale."—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 608.]
    Does this mean that the, as-yet undefined, resources released by the sale will be reinvested in education? How much do the Government expect to "save", in their own words'? Will the money be redirected? If so, will it be reinvested in higher education?
    I have a suggestion for how to spend £3 million to £5 million of the money. The House will be aware of the absurd position whereby Scottish students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years' tuition fees for their four-year courses, while English, Welsh and Northern Irish students studying in Scotland will pay for the full four years. The Scottish universities have suggested that the cost of removing this anomaly would be between £3 million and £5 million.
    I ask the Minister to give a guarantee this evening that the money raised from the sale will be used to remedy that outrageous situation. I am happy to give way to the Minister. As he does not rise, I presume that he does not have an answer, which is very enlightening, in terms of the Government's attitude. Many folk who voted for them will be shocked, as they will have expected more from the incoming Government—particularly given the nature of the Government they replaced.

    79
    The Minister will be aware also of recommendation 82 in the Dearing report, which stated:
    "We recommend to the Government that the Inland Revenue should he used as the principal route for the collection of income contingent contributions from graduates in work, on behalf of the Student Loans Company."
    To my mind, that is a clear sign that Sir Ron Dearing and his committee viewed their suggested reforms of student finance within a context of a state-owned and operated loans company. Are the Government considering using the good offices of the Inland Revenue to allow private companies to collect their debts? The House is entitled to hear the Government's view on that.
    The Bill forms the basis of the Government's other student finance reforms. The privatisation of the Student Loans Company—with one or two companies eager to win control of student debt—is a necessary first step towards expanding the level of student debt burden. To ease the way towards ever-higher loans for tuition fees and maintenance, the Government are prepared to hand over student debt to companies whose sole motivation is profit; profit at the expense of student need and in the face of student hardship. Under the private profiteers, student debt will quadruple.
    The average student will have no option but to take out those additional loans, but will do so with no real guarantee that their loan arrangements will not or cannot change in future. The Government have opened the door to future private exploitation of students and student debt, and that is the real failure of the measure. Student drop-out rates have increased by 12 per cent. under the state-owned Student Loans Company. I dread to think what that rate will be under the higher levels of private debt.
    The Bill represents a new dogma shared by the Labour and Conservative parties, and forms part of a cosy consensus between the parties. It is the first blow of many in a year that will hit students, universities and colleges with outrageous and, to my mind, unjustifiable changes to the established pattern of student finance. The Scottish National party opposes the Bill in principle, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the message from students the length and breadth of the country. Some 6,000 students gathered in Edinburgh to make clear their objection to what the Government are doing. Many of them voted Labour in the hope that there would be a change in philosophy and policy. They have been quite shocked to find that the Labour Government are carrying out a Tory policy.
    I will be interested to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say, although I notice that they accentuate their opposition to tuition fees while quietly forgetting student loans which—tonight and on Second Reading—they support. The Scottish National party is opposed not only to the privatisation of student loans but to the whole concept. It hits directly at the traditional philosophy of Scottish education—a system that is open to all according to ability and irrespective of wealth or any other consideration. The Labour Government have attacked that traditional Scottish outlook. Totally against the Scottish tradition, they will remove from a swathe of the population the ability to go on to further and higher education. That is why 1 am against the Bill and the consensus among the Labour, Conservative and—I presume—Liberal Democrat parties.
    80
    To put it mildly, this would not have been the first measure that we would have introduced to try to solve the problems. In our view, it will only deepen the crisis facing our students. For that and many other reasons, we shall vote against the Bill. I invite the Liberal Democrats to join us, but—as on Second Reading—they will no doubt support the Government. I find it objectionable that the measure has been rushed through. Nobody consulted my party, and we were excluded from the normal channels, which agreed to rush it through. If we had been consulted, we would have informed the Government of our opposition. Tonight, we shall vote against the Bill on principle. Labour Members ought to be ashamed of this unacceptable measure. If they do not believe me, they should ask the students who are up in arms about what they are trying to do.
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Phil Willis: I can assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh)—who is not party to Liberal Democrat deliberations—that it will become clear where we stand on this Bill as I speak for the next hour and a half.
    I find it extremely difficult to listen to Government and Conservative Members speaking with one voice. I can understand why the Minister wishes to rush the Bill through. It is increasingly evident that it is not the Government who are pushing through the Bill, but the ghosts of the previous Administration. As the Tory party tears itself apart and gives the appearance of a party in terminal decay, it continues to have an iron grip on education spending in this House.
    This sordid little Bill was conceived in Tory central office and born in Walworth road. It was sordid when the present Minister opposed the concept before the election, and it is sordid now. It is going through the House at the speed it is, not because Ministers believe in it, but because the proceeds are essential to the Chancellor's spending plans for this year and next.
    Before the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) turned on the Liberal Democrats, he made a good point. No student will benefit as a result of the passing of the Bill, and not a single penny extra will go to our universities. It is important for hon. Members on the Government Benches—and for those on the packed Conservative Benches—to understand that. It does not matter that the proposals are no different from the sales of other public assets that were so derided by the Government when in opposition.
    The student loan portfolio that is under the hammer today is a national asset. It is worth £3.1 billion and it is being offered to the City at a knockdown price. Can the Minister tell the House what is different about this sale to the City? What was so wrong about selling the National Grid or Railtrack at knockdown prices to the so-called City fat cats, but not this public asset? What is the difference? How does such a fire sale fit with the Government's proposals rightly to demand the test of best value on the awarding of local government contracts, for instance?

    81
    Can the Minister answer those two questions clearly, openly and without prevarication? Does he believe that the sale of those enormous public assets—on the terms you have agreed—represents the best value to taxpayers, yes or no? Secondly, if you say yes—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry. My apologies to the Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. He has now corrected himself. He has already made a number of speeches in the House, and that is a point of procedure that he should have absorbed by now.
    Mr. Willis: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the Minister. If he is prepared to say that this is best value to the taxpayers, will he be prepared to say what is the level of discount being sought by investors in order that the debt can be bought? I do not expect him to give me a precise figure, but the level of subsidy is directly relevant to the cost of selling this portfolio to the taxpayers.
    The Minister said, in his former life as Opposition spokesman, that any subsidy above 25 per cent. would be excessive for the sale of the student loan portfolio, when the former Government wanted to attract private sector lenders into the student loan market. Perhaps he will say whether he expects the subsidy to be greater or less than 50 per cent. of the total value of the loan portfolio.
    While Liberal Democrats understand the predicament that the Minister has been placed in by the Chancellor's commitment to the previous Government's tax and spend proposals for the next two years, he must understand the outrage felt on our Benches when we see what may be as much as a £1 billion subsidy paid to the private sector when our universities are experiencing the worst cash crisis in their history.
    In effect, the £1 billion that the Minister is potentially giving away would stave off for the lifetime of this Parliament the requirement to introduce tuition fees. The sum of money saved would be far more than the total amount of money that will go to our universities because of imposing tuition fees in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Minister disagrees with that assessment, can he say how much additional money will go to our universities in the lifetime of this Parliament from the imposition of tuition fees?
    Another issue is the redefinition of lending proposed by the Secretary of State for the future treatment of student loans. If the Secretary of State is successful in persuading the Chancellor to change the redefinition of lending, we shall support him in his efforts. Could that principle not be applied to the existing loan portfolio? In that case, would the Minister consider not proceeding with the second tranche of the £1.5 billion sale next year?
    Finally, I must ask the Minister whether at least one of the institutions that he expected to bid for the portfolio has already dropped out. Can he tell the House how many institutions are still actively bidding for the portfolio?
    82
    I must inform the hon. Member for Angus that, if a Division is called tonight, the Liberal Democrats will be opposing the Bill.
    7.44 pm
    Mr. Byers: I shall answer those points, many of which will be more appropriately debated tomorrow during the Conservative Opposition day debate on Dearing and the Government's response to it.
    To answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), we shall be publishing the names of those companies that are submitting for the portfolio. It would be inappropriate to give the information that he has requested tonight.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why?
    Mr. Byers: For the simple reason that we are in the process of running a strong competition to get the best deal for the taxpayer. It is the competition that will ensure that we get the best deal—a fact expressed by Opposition Members. I can give a guarantee that the details of those companies that are interested and are moving to the final stage of the process will be made public, as we made public the names of the 20 companies that entered the first phase of the competition.
    I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talk about the outrage on the Liberal Benches about this measure. It is a pretty recent outrage, because not one of them voted against it on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate we had when the previous Government introduced their attempt at a twin-track approach to student loans—a different approach from the one that we are proposing. It was in that context that we objected to the subsidy that was being offered. We have a strong competition in relation to the student loans book. We shall be receiving a number of substantial offers. It would be inappropriate this evening to reveal details of the discounts that we expect to be offered. Doing so would not get the best possible deal.
    On the points raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), the Prime Minister has committed the Government to extending access to further and higher education by an extra 500,000 places by the end of this Parliament—not rhetoric, but commitment to open up access. This measure will open up access, extend opportunities and ensure that we can continue to provide high-quality provision. On the basis of those three principles, I urge the House to vote for Third Reading.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 24.

    Division No. 79]

    [7.47 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Barron, Kevin

    Ainger, Nick

    Battle, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Beard, Nigel

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Austin, John

    Benton, Joe

    Barnes, Harry

    Bermingham, Gerald

    83

    Berry, Roger

    Foulkes, George

    Best, Harold

    Fyfe, Maria

    Betts, Clive

    Gapes, Mike

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Gardiner, Barry

    Blizzard, Bob

    Gerrard, Neil

    Borrow, David

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Godman, Norman A

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Goggins, Paul

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Grocott, Bruce

    Burden, Richard

    Grogan, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Gunnell, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Hain, Peter

    Caborn, Richard

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hanson, David

    Caplin, Ivor

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Casale, Roger

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Chaytor, David

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Heppell, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hill, Keith

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Hinchliffe, David

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hope, Phil

    Clelland, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clwyd, Ann

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Coleman, Iain

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hutton, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Illsley, Eric

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jamieson, David

    Crausby, David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cummings, John

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Ms Jennifer

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    (Wolverhton SW)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Denham, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Doran, Frank

    Kemp, Fraser

    Drew, David

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Edwards, Huw

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Efford, Clive

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Laxton, Bob

    Flint, Caroline

    Lepper, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Levitt, Tom

    84

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Linton, Martin

    Ruane, Chris

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Lock, David

    Salter, Martin

    McAllion, John

    Sawford, Phil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McDonnell, John

    Singh, Marsha

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Skinner, Dennis

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    McLeish, Henry

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McWatter, Tony

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Soley, Clive

    Marek, Dr John

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Martlew, Eric

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Maxton, John

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Meale, Alan

    Stott, Roger

    Merron, Gillian

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Milburn, Alan

    Stringer, Graham

    Miller, Andrew

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    (Dewsbury)

    Morley, Elliot

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mountford, Kali

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Mudie, George

    Timms, Stephen

    Mullin, Chris

    Todd, Mark

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Touhig, Don

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Trickett, Jon

    Norris, Dan

    Truswell, Paul

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Vaz, Keith

    Pearson, Ian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pike, Peter L

    Watts, David

    Plaskitt, James

    White, Brian

    Pollard, Kerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Pond, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pound, Stephen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Wills, Michael

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Winnick, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wood, Mike

    Purchase, Ken

    Woolas, Phil

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Worthington, Tony

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wray, James

    Rammell, Bill

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Rapson, Syd

    Wyatt Derek

    Raynsford, Nick

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mr. Greg Pope.

    NOES

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cotter, Brian

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Dafis, Cynog

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Breed, Colin

    Gorrie, Donald

    Burnett, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Chidgey, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    85

    Öpik, Lembit

    Webb, Steve

    Rendel, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Willis, Phil

    Sanders, Adrian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Swinney, John

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

    Tyler, Paul

    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee) (sittings)),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 18th November at half past Ten o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103, (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of North Wales and the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

SUPREME COURT (OFFICES) BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Supreme Court (Offices) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Unadopted Roads
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
8.1 pm
Caroline Flint: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the problems relating to unadopted roads, and by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to address the subject.
In raising this issue, I should like to draw attention to similar problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). As a Whip he does not have the opportunity to raise the matter in such a debate, but his constituency, too, is plagued by the existence of unadopted roads and the long-standing conflicts and upset that they create. I also thank my hon. Friend for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is now an Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and other colleagues who have raised this matter in the House. It is of some reassurance to me that this matter has vexed some of my colleagues over many years, just as it has troubled their constituents.
All too often, when roads are discussed in national forums or the media, the debate is dominated by the case for or against a new motorway or the bypassing of a town or village. Such debates invariably attract petitioners, professors and protesters who argue the merits of Government policy and trade statistics and traffic flows. The Minister will have become familiar with such well-organised lobbies in her first few months in post.
During my few months as the Member of Parliament for Don Valley, my mailbag and surgeries have made me aware of the fact that, for a large number of my constituents, roads are a major issue. They live in isolation, in quiet cul-de-sacs, traditional terraces and leafy lanes. This group is not organised under a national banner and has no PR officers or full-time lobbyists. This large group of protesters comprises the residents of unadopted roads—private roads that have never been taken into the responsibility of a local authority. They have their own story to tell, some going back generations.
They include a lady in Clifton terrace, Conisbrough, who told me that, as a result of increased traffic from a recently built crescent that surrounds her little road, there is now a drop of 1 ft from the edge of her property into the road. A funeral hearse could not enter the road, and the body had to be moved to another house to shorten the journey to the hearse.
There is the plight of residents in Ingleborough drive, Sprotbrough, who are threatening to close their road to parents who park their cars to drop off and collect their children from the school opposite. The residents of Ingleborough drive are furious that, although many other people use their road, worsening its condition, it is not publicly maintained. Ironically, while part of their road is adopted, most of it is not.
Then there is the example of the elderly lady in the adjoining Ingle grove who refuses to leave her home because she feels that the road is too dangerous and she might fall. Or there are the residents of Minney Moor lane in Conisbrough, a steep sloping track running off the main Doncaster road. The road is subject to flash flooding and, in winter, water pours off the main road, washing away

87
the top surface of the lane. The local archive reveals that the road was recognised as a private road as early as 1858. A letter from the borough engineer in 1959 appealed to residents to agree to improvements
"since without the approval of all the frontagers concerned the work cannot proceed."
The present residents of Minney Moor lane must feel that they are stuck in a time warp when they read such letters. The sad truth is that the present law for dealing with these problems is inoperable. We often hear of the concerns of the ambulance and fire services about traffic-calming measures hindering their progress. There is nothing like a rutted, potholed, unadopted road to enforce traffic calming—although when I am told that an ambulance driver collecting a patient who has experienced an angina attack is concerned that the bumpy journey may be doing more harm than good, "calming" is the last word that comes to mind. In several cases, I am informed, doctors will not drive along such roads.
The problem is not isolated or parochial. In Doncaster borough alone there are about 120 unadopted roads, plus a large number of unadopted service roads to the rear of terraced properties. There are an estimated 40,000 unadopted roads in Britain. That means that there are a lot of people left wanting a road policy that works for them. Private roads are largely historical accidents. In this day and age, no new private roads should be created. Modern planning law ensures that a developer makes up the roads to a suitable standard for adoption. Thereafter the roads are maintained by the local authority in the normal way.
However, the cost of making up existing unadopted roads for adoption is the responsibility of the affected residents, and that cost is usually prohibitive. In Doncaster, no road has been made up for adoption since 1986. Under present law, the local authority has the power to carry out emergency work to obviate danger to traffic, but with the capital constraints, even my own authority has ceased to undertake emergency work on unadopted roads, so roads become ever more neglected and, in some cases, extremely dangerous.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that residents of unadopted roads see other roads throughout their local authority area in Doncaster and Bradford, and cannot understand why moneys cannot be spent on their streets? They do not understand the difficulties that local authorities have in how they spend their money.
Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is quite right. People would like their sense of inequality and injustice put right. I hope that the Minister will address that today.
Where does all this leave the residents of private roads? The money to pay for the initial work must be funded from the authority's capital funds if it is to deal with this issue, but competing priorities—especially for those for which the authority has a statutory responsibility—will always take precedent.
Doncaster is not alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly points out. This problem is commonplace among local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country.
Judy Mallaber: I agree that there is a need for this issue to be taken seriously. Although my
88
own constituency does not have as many as 120 unadopted roads, I, like many other hon. Members, have a number of constituents who are concerned about the issue. It is often difficult to know who is responsible for which road. In cases where we are not sure whether the borough council or the county council is responsible for a road or whether it is private, it turns out to be unadopted.
My hon. Friend is right to say that sometimes there is a choice. Should a road be incapable of use by an ambulance just because it might otherwise be used by motor cycles speeding up and down it? The idea that a road that is full of potholes can be used for traffic calming rather than being in a fit state to be used by emergency vehicles and for people's ordinary transport is difficult to cope with. I hope that the Minister will take my hon. Friend's arguments very seriously. These matters are of great concern to those who feel that they cannot afford to finance the work needed to enable vehicles to use their road.
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
Where does all this leave the residents of private roads? They can club together to have the road made up, but at about £200 per metre of road they often face a bill of £2,000 or more per household. For that reason, some residents object, and the plan invariably fails to proceed.
I am advised that houses on such roads cost less, which sometimes leads to a lower council tax. At one extreme the price differential leaves houses in the same council tax band as their adopted neighbours, while at the other extreme a modest saving on the purchase price 10 or 20 years ago is more than offset by a complete blight on the sale today, as prospective buyers make their first bumpy journey to view the house, never to return. The problem may be historical, but the misery seems eternal. Private roads are a private nightmare.
In this short debate, I ask the Minister to investigate the possible medium and long-term solutions to the problem. In time, the adoption of private roads may become one of our national transport objectives. We should seek imaginative ways of overcoming the financial obstacles to the making up of roads for adoption, such as using private finance to avoid the local authority having to make an initial capital outlay. Householders and other bodies with frontages on such streets are liable for making up private roads. The cost could perhaps be spread over 10 years as a charge on their council tax, thereby spreading the financial impact for present and future householders.
Private, unadopted roads should be regarded in the same way as outside toilets and asbestos in buildings: a legacy of the past and not something that we should live with in the future.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She said that we should find inventive solutions. Some of the privatised utilities use unadopted roads, such as water companies for the drains and telecommunication companies. We should try to find alternative ways for them to work in partnership with residents and the local authority to come up with creative solutions.
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his further intervention. He is right. If householders, private utilities

89
that use the streets and the local authority worked together they could have fruitful discussions and find a solution for the future.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend have any experience of the hazards to women who have to walk along such streets? They face lighting and other problems, especially at night. In Norfolk, particularly in Norwich, refuse vehicles have problems getting down unadopted roads, and people do not get their refuse bins emptied. That creates terrible problems and makes it difficult to obtain contracts. Will my hon. Friend comment on the hazards to women and the problems of refuse collection in such areas?
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As a student of the university of East Anglia for three years, and having lived in one of the outlying villages, I know full well the problems in Norwich and Norfolk. I am pleased that so many of my hon. Friends are present to support me in what is clearly a national debate of major importance. This is not a parochial issue: it affects the rural parts of our constituencies.
On the subject of women, I have seen for myself that one takes one's life in one's hands when walking down such streets. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of the problems facing householders when someone falls off his bicycle having gone into a crater in one of these roads. Householders are liable for any damages that that person claims against the people who live in the street.
I hope that the Minister will deal with these issues of public health and safety. As we enter the next century, people should have the right to live on roads that are made up and fit to walk and travel on. It is not beyond our ambition and vision to consign unadopted roads to the past.
As the new Member of Parliament for Don Valley, I thought that this problem may have been brought up only in my surgeries. I welcome the fact that, as this debate has shown, many hon. Members consider this to be an important issue. Hon. Members are inundated with representations from organised lobbies putting forward their case on transport policy. When one considers how many people live in those 120 roads in the Doncaster area, one realises how many are affected every day by the dire situations in their streets and on their doorsteps.
Judy Mallaber: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the people who have these concerns are isolated and are not from organised groups, precisely because unadopted roads are often in rural areas, are unlit and isolated and do not have many people living on them? They come to our surgeries to ask for help, but it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, and they do not get support from many other people. Is that also the position in my hon. Friend's constituency?
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Yes, that is position. People come to me, as the Member of Parliament, for my help in putting their case. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have seen fit to participate in this debate and who, having done so, will be seen by their constituents as supporting them on this important issue.
90
On behalf of the many affected residents in Don Valley and the many other constituencies represented this evening, I thank the Minister for listening.
Mr. Fraser Kemp: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. This is an important issue, and the turnout of hon. Members shows the level of support. The problem affects tens of thousands of constituents throughout the country. In my constituency, every ward faces the serious problem of unadopted roads, which should be dealt with as part of the regeneration of the area. The problem is particularly acute in former mining constituencies, where British Coal assumed some responsibility in the past, but that is no longer the position.
This issue is about regeneration, improving the quality of life and giving people the dignity of a decent environment literally outside their front door. We can all talk about this problem in generalities, but I ask my hon. Friend to listen briefly to the case of a lady in my constituency, which I heard about at a public meeting. Mrs. Lily Earnshaw is 94 years young.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. I remind him that interventions should be reasonably brief.
Mr. Kemp: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the case of Mrs. Lily Earnshaw, who, at 94, suffered an accident and the ambulance had serious difficulties getting along her street. That problem is shared by many in the constituency. In life she wants dignity, but she had a tragic experience when her husband died last year. The cortege could not leave the family home, and had to be organised from the hospital direct to the cemetery. A 95-year-old man could not have that dignity. I spoke to my 94-year-old constituent, and she pointed out that her nephew is Sir Terence Burns, who is a permanent secretary at the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister could bear that in mind when she makes financial representations.
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank Lily for helping us to drop such an important name into the debate.
I ask the Minister to give this matter due consideration, and wish her every success in her efforts to help improve the quality of transport and the life of road users as we approach the millennium.
8.18 pm
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I am responding to the debate in place of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), and I apologise for her absence. As a fellow Minister in the Department, I hope that hon. Members will accept that we have discussed this issue and I am responding on behalf of the Department.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for raising this important issue. I am also grateful for the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for

91
Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp). This is a matter of great concern, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. I am a new Member, and I should like to know whether it is in order for a Minister who was not here at the beginning of the debate, when someone from the Department involved should have been present, to reply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is customary for the Minister responsible for the Department to be present at the beginning of the debate and to respond at the end. I think that the Minister of State has already apologised to the House.
Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unadopted roads are known in the legislation as private streets, and I shall use that term in my speech. People in the country will probably recognise it more easily.
The Government's involvement in private streets is very limited, and, as a consequence, so is our information about them. The latest reliable figures for the extent of private streets date from as long ago as 1972. At that time, there were some 40,000 private streets—totalling about 4,500 miles—throughout England and Wales. In 1990, it was estimated that it would cost over £2,000 million to make up all private streets for adoption. My best guess, in the absence of firm information, is that the number of private streets is gradually declining in extent, and that the real costs of making them up are declining accordingly, but I suspect that today's figures are not very different from those that I have quoted.
My hon. Friend kindly gave me notice of some of the main points she wanted to make, and I shall do my best to answer them. First, however, it may be helpful if I set out the background in law. A private street is a highway that is not maintainable at public expense by a highway authority. As with many aspects of highways legislation, there is a long history behind the law relating to road maintenance and adoption. My hon. Friend may be relieved to learn that I do not propose to rehearse the whole story now.
Suffice it to say that 1835 marked something of a watershed, as it was the Highway Act of that year that introduced a provision whereby, for a street to become publicly maintainable, the "responsible public authority" must deliberately resolve to adopt it. Nowadays, that authority will normally be the local highway authority—for example, Doncaster borough council for most of my hon. Friend's constituency.
In most cases, the responsibility for maintaining a private street will fall to the owners of the properties adjoining it—or the frontagers, as they are known in the language that is used—who are also legally liable to meet the expenses incurred by the council, as "street works authority", in making up the street for adoption.
The current law governing the adoption of private streets is contained in the Highways Act 1980. Part XI of that Act contains what is known as the private street works code. Under the code, a street works authority can
92
resolve to make up a private street at any time, and the frontagers have no legal veto over that decision—although most authorities are reluctant to proceed in the face of substantial opposition. After the works, the street is usually adopted. The authority can apportion the expenses of making up the street among the frontagers by reference to the frontage lengths of individual properties, but it may also modify those apportionments if it has resolved in advance to take account of the degree of benefit, if any, that individual properties derive from the works. In addition, the authority may, if it sees fit, contribute to the cost of the schemes itself.
There are opportunities to challenge apportionments. Any property owners who believe that they have a case can put objections to the authority, on any of a number of grounds set out in the Act, and any of the objections that remain unresolved between them can be determined by a magistrates court. The authority may then demand payment. Once that demand is made, there is, as a final safeguard, a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against the sum demanded. That strictly limited appellate jurisdiction is the extent of the Department's involvement in individual cases. The Secretary of State cannot, for example, direct an authority to make up or not make up any given private street.
That is not quite the end of the story. In the 1950s, to avoid the wholesale creation of new private street works liability—which had been such a feature of inter-war housing—the advance payments code was introduced. Under the code, a developer building a new property on land fronting a private street must deposit a sum equivalent to the authority's estimated private street works charge before building starts. That amount is set against the frontager's own eventual liability for street works charges, which is discharged to the extent of that sum plus accrued interest. The frontager then pays any shortfall, or receives a refund, as the case may be.
There is an alternative route to adoption. A developer can enter into an agreement with a highway authority for the adoption of a new estate road or other private street when it has been satisfactorily completed. In that case, the advance payments code does not apply, and the house buyer on a new estate has the assurance that there will be no street works charges to be paid later on. Those adoption agreements, as they are known, offer such obvious advantages to both the developer and the authority that that approach is often the preferred one.
That—as I am sure you will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—concludes my description of the ways in which street adoption can be achieved, and the protective provisions that exist to protect individual householders involved from unreasonable demands.
I shall now outline the discretion that local authorities have to contribute from their own resources. Local authorities have the power to moderate street works charges in four ways. First, as I have already said, they may take account of the degree of benefit received. They would typically use that power in order to reduce the charge payable by a householder with a long flank frontage who may receive little or no benefit from the works. They may make up the difference themselves, rather than reapportioning the cost among other frontagers. Secondly, they may allow payments by instalments. Thirdly, in cases of hardship, the authority can waive reimbursement of the principal sum due until the property is sold, and in the meantime recover from the

93
householder the interest on the outstanding charge only. Finally, local authorities have a general discretion to bear part or all of the costs of a scheme themselves.
In that context, it is worth noting that local authorities have the power to use a proportion of their capital receipts from the sale of assets—generally 25 per cent. in the case of council houses, and 50 per cent. in the case of most other receipts—on capital expenditure of any kind in any year. It is, of course, for authorities themselves to determine how those usable capital receipts are spent, in the light of local priorities and circumstances. I simply point out that the power exists.
Having said that local authorities have the power to make payments, I must add that there is an issue about whether it is right for them to do so. There is no doubt that many who live on private streets see the liability to pay private street works charges as unfair. That is particularly true of people whose houses have long frontages that make them liable to correspondingly high charges. While I sympathise with those to whom these charges represent some hardship, we should remember that the liability for street works appears in the local land charges register, and should therefore be taken into account in the purchase price of the house.
Many householders have paid for their own streets to be made up and may feel aggrieved by a decision to make the service free to future users, especially in residential roads where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by the householders and those who visit them, rather than by the public at large.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned the blighting effect of a street not being made up. She seemed to be saying that making up streets would produce an increase in house prices greater than the cost of the work. That is an additional argument for house owners, rather than local authorities, to bear the cost.
94
My hon. Friend spoke about the difficulties facing a council that wishes to make up a private street, and she mentioned in particular the need for consent, the problem of transitional finance, and the problem for some householders of meeting the costs. That may express itself in opposition to the making up.
On the need for consent, I hope that I have made it clear that there is no legal requirement for unanimity or, indeed, any consent by the frontagers, although a sensible council will, of course, take their views into account.
On transitional finance, my hon. Friend suggested the use of the private finance initiative. I fear that it is unlikely that PFI would be appropriate for this type of relatively small-scale transaction, although I have no objection to councils exploring it. I hope that I have explained the measures that a council may adopt in cases of hardship. Those measures may include payment by instalments.
As I have said, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling the House to consider this issue. There is enough flexibility in the existing system to allow sensible decisions to be taken, and I hope that what I have said will go a good way towards meeting my hon. Friend's concerns.
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister clearly read her words verbatim without rehearsal or prior knowledge. May we be assured that the discourtesy of switching briefs at the last minute to avoid embarrassment does not occur again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order in part. The way in which Ministers respond to debates is entirely a matter for them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India (Defence Sales)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice Ministers received on legal issues concerning the sale of Westland helicopters to the Indian Government within the terms of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980; what advice Ministers received concerning value for money likely to be achieved by the project; what representations were received from (i) the Government of India and (ii) non-governmental organisations about the project; when was Parliament informed of the decision to sell the helicopters; when concerns about the value of the helicopters to the Indian Government were first raised with(a) officials and (b) Ministers and by whom; and when concerns about the developmental value of the helicopters were first raised with (1) officials and (2) Ministers and by whom. [14044]

  Clare Short
  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of a report I commissioned which sets out the background to this project. The report does not include information about advice given to previous Ministers on the matter. The Government does not have access to such information concerning a previous Administration.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ask the Property Services Agency for a report on the expenditure on Archway Tower, Junction Road, London N19; and what plans they have for its future use or demolition. [13500]

  Dr. David Clark
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Locke to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 31 October 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your question about Archway Tower. You will be aware from previous letters from Mr Borrett of the level of rental and security costs. Since your last question it has become apparent that remedial works to the cladding are required and our agents estimate that this could cost up to £0.5m.
  Every effort has been made to surrender this property to the landlords for an economic cost however we have been unable to secure any agreement with them. The lease does not permit demolition.
  2
  The property continues to be marketed by our agents. We are receiving some interest now for office occupation and complete refurbishment proposals are being examined. I am afraid that this interest is still in the early stages and I am unable to predict whether it will lead to occupation.
  Archway Tower has also been considered for temporary use by the homeless, but was thought to be in the wrong position and too costly to convert.

  Unoccupied Government Properties
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Government-owned properties are currently unoccupied in the Reading, East constituency. [13382]

  Dr. David Clark
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Locke to Jane Griffiths, dated 31 October 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your question about vacant Government owned properties.
  There are 4 Government buildings which are currently unoccupied in the Reading East constituency:-

  Abbey Hall, Kings Road

  Atlas House, 1 Silver Street

  Monarch House, 77–79 Caversham Road

  47-57 Queens Road

  The properties are held on lease from commercial landlords and have a total floor area of 8,145 square metres. PACE is responsible for the disposal of these surplus offices and is marketing them through commercial agents.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Grants
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many state primary schools have received sports lottery funds; how much each received; and what percentage of the total sports lottery funding this represents. [13016]

  Mr. Fisher
  Details of awards made to primary schools by the English Sports Council are as follows:

  £

  Woollescote Primary School

  West Midlands

  92,696

  Godmanchester Primary School

  Cambridgeshire

  289,000

  Meadgate School

  Essex

  16,497

  Wootton Village School

  Oxfordshire

  51,260

  Seamer and Irton Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  8,400

  Haselor School

  Warwickshire

  10,000

  Laughton Primary School

  East Sussex

  199,605

  Lower Place Primary School

  Lancashire

  55,422

  Youth Sport Trust1

  7,755,000

  Total

  8,478,080

  Percentage of Lottery Sports Fund awarded to Primary Schools 1.30 per cent.

  1The award to the Youth Sport Trust will help with the costs for the provision of sports equipment to over 500 primary schools in England.
  3
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to alter the Sports Council lottery regulations regarding grants to primary schools. [13015]

  Mr. Fisher
  There are no Lottery regulations that apply solely to primary schools. The English Sports Council (ESC), the distributing body for sport-related projects in England, makes awards to all schools and colleges through its "School Community Sports Initiative."

  The ESC has developed two proposals as part of the process to help primary schools benefit further from Lottery funds. The first is through part of a new range of revenue programmes encompassing support to the development of talent identification and coaching and leadership for Young People through the World Class Start Programme. Secondly, it is anticipated that primary schools may be able to benefit more suitably through the development of the joint-distributor Community Projects programme currently under development.

  In addition, the White Paper "The People's Lottery", published in July, details the Government's proposals to changes and further improve the way in which the lottery operates. One of the most important proposals is the introduction of a new cause—The New Opportunities Fund—which will provide Lottery support for initiatives in education, health and the environment. Primary schools will be eligible to apply for funding from the New Opportunities Fund for out of school hours projects. The target is for at least half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools to be undertaking such projects and activities by 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Diana, Princess of Wales
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he requested on his constitutional role in the events surrounding the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales; what precedents were taken into account; and if he will make a statement. [13899]

  The Prime Minister
  I took such advice as I considered necessary. There were no precise precedents.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October,Official Report, columns 700-02, if he will place in the Library the terms of his letter to the Secretary General of the UN, the Arab League, and the Organisation of African Unity, requesting them to send a delegation to Scotland, to show them the Scottish judicial systems, and to discuss arrangements for a trial in Scotland with international observers. [13937]

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued the invitation on the 28 October. I have arranged for the text to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received relating to difficulties in the disclosure of evidence held by the US authorities in the event of a trial of Libyan suspects for the Lockerbie bombing in a neutral country. [13726]
  4
  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not received any such representation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October, Official Report, columns 700-02, if he will take steps to gauge public opinion in Scotland as to the desirability of trying the Libyan Lockerbie suspects in a neutral country under Scots law. [13933]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the oral answer that I gave the honourable Member on 28 October,Official Report, column 713.

  Security Services Tribunal
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many complaints to the Security Services Tribunal under section 5 of the Security Service Act 1989 have been upheld in each year since the inception of the Act. [13779]

  The Prime Minister
  The Security Service Tribunal has made no determination in favour of a complaint since its inception. The annual reports of the Security Service Commissioner which cover the work of the Tribunal are available in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the terms of reference of the Security Services Tribunal(a) to give reasons for its failure to make a determination in favour of a particular applicant and (b) to allow an applicant the opportunity to verify and correct information under consideration. [13780]

  The Prime Minister
  The Security Service Act 1989 provides that, where the tribunal does not uphold a complaint, it shall give notice to the complainant that no determination has been made in his favour, but that it shall not give the complainant any reasons for its determination. To provide reasons would risk compromising the operational effectiveness of the Security Service, to the detriment of national security. For similar reasons, it is not possible to allow individuals to have access to information held by the Service.

  Guyana Rainforest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October,Official Report, columns 700-02, what reports he has received relating to the activities of Asian-owned logging companies in the Guyana Atlantic rainforest; and what conditions have been set for the granting of United Kingdom aid. [13888]

  The Prime Minister
  In 1995, the Government of Guyana, in consultation with Britain and other donors, imposed a moratorium on logging concessions in order to allow time to improve its ability to manage its forests sustainability. We understand that some logging companies, including Asian-owned ones, have expressed interest in operating in Guyana but no logging concessions or exploratory permits have been awarded since then to any companies.

  As a result of this, the UK has been working with the Government of Guyana to strengthen the Guyanese Forestry Commission. The £3 million contribution to the Commonwealth's Iwokrama Rainforest Programme in Guyana, announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, will help conserve and sustainably manage 360,000 hectares of forest in Guyana and support

  5
  the efforts of the Guyanese Government to improve its forest management throughout the country. The specific conditions related to this grant are still under discussion.

  BSE (Judicial Inquiry)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to be able to announce his decision on a judicial inquiry into the BSE crisis. [13227]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government is considering the Question of a public inquiry into BSE very carefully. We shall make an announcement when we have reached a conclusion.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations have been made to him proposing a different form of parliamentary Committee to monitor the security services instead of the present arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [13357]

  The Prime Minster
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: From time to time, there have been suggestions that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be replaced by a Select Committee of Parliament.

  The current oversight arrangements were introduced in the Intelligence Services Act in 1994, as a means of achieving the necessary balance between openness and accountability and the need to maintain the secrecy necessary for the efficient operation of the intelligence and security services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance is given to Ministers regarding the time involved in reply to letters from hon. Members; what is the average time currently taken; and what is the policy regarding such replies being signed by a Minister. [13201]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Individual Ministers are responsible for determining how their departments' correspondence is handled, and for setting departmental targets in reply to letters from hon. Members. It has been customary for the Government to publish annual statistics showing departments' and agencies' performance against their targets for reply to ministerial correspondence. The 1996 figures were published on 17 June 1997, Official Report, columns 107–112.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Bayley
  What additional resources the Comptroller and Auditor General would require to enable the National Audit Office to respond to requests for studies from departmental Select Committees. [11776]

  Mr. Sheldon
  In the event of departmental select committees requesting studies from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office, the matter would need to be discussed with the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office wish to 6
  assist Parliament in any way possible, but it is important that any change should be consistent with the Comptroller and Auditor General statutory role.

  The resource implications of any such arrangements would depend entirely on the scope of the work proposed. It would be for Parliament to decide what additional resources to provide to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to support departmental select committeesinthisway.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning problems experienced by the Ulster folk and transport museum; and if she will make a statement on the steps her Department proposes to take. [12948]

  Mr. Worthington
  I have received representations from two Trustees of the Board of the Ulster Folk and Transport museum, who resigned in August, and from other Trustees. I am undertaking a series of meetings with these Trustees, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to clarify the position and to determine what action, if any, is appropriate. In the meantime, I have appointed three new Trustees to fill vacancies which have arisen on the Board.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is she will review the composition of the board of trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport museum; and if she will make a statement. [12947]

  Mr. Worthington
  No. The composition of the Boards of Trustees of both the Ulster Folk and Transport museum and the Ulster Museum is laid down in the museum (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Legislation, which is currently being prepared to merge these two institutions, will abolish the existing Boards of Trustees and create a single Boards of Trustees of the new merged institution.

  Southern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date was the most recent meeting of the Southern area health and social services board at which a decision was made on the flying of the Union flag at the Board headquarters in Armagh city. [12871]

  Mr. Worthington
  A letter was sent to all Health and Social Services Boards on 1 May 1997 advising them of the days in 1997 on which the Union Flag should be flown on Central Government Buildings. There is, however no requirement for the Boards to fly the Union flag on these dates. It is at the discretion of each organisation whether the flag should be flown on those buildings occupied by their staff.

  The issue of whether the Southern Health and Social Services Board should or should not fly the Union Flag has never been discussed at a meeting of the Board.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health effects of microwave radiation emitted from telecommunication masts. [12946]

  Mr. Worthington
  No specific research has been commissioned in relation to Northern Ireland. However, the Department of Health is currently supporting the following initiatives:

  1. the review of possible health effects of electromagnetic fields, including mobile phone (microwave) frequencies, being undertaken by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB):

  2. the World Health Organisation's study of electromagnetic fields; and

  3. the Department's own radiation protection research programme.

  In addition, a European Commission Expert Group has recommended a programme of scientific research to address the subject of mobile telephony and human health.

  The Government obtains advice from NRPB on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Field strengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone transmitters, at locations to which the public would normally have access, are below the limits of exposure recommended by the NRPB published in "Documents of the NRPB, Vol. 4, No. 5, 1993", a copy of which is in the library.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning the health effects of telecommunication masts. [12945]

  Mr. Worthington
  I have received representations from six MPs passing on concerns from 10 members of the public and two representations from local councillors.

  Local Manufacturers and Producers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often(a) she has and (b) other Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office have had meetings during the past three months with representatives of (i) Safeways, (ii) Marks and Spencer, (iii) Sainsburys and (iv) Tesco in order to encourage purchases from local Northern Ireland manufacturers and producers. [12873]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the past three months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not met representatives of Safeway, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury or Tesco to discuss local sourcing. I have held one such meeting with Tesco's Chief Executive and Lord Dubs has also highlighted the importance of local sourcing of foodstuffs during a meeting with Tesco on planning issues.

  Meetings with Tesco and Sainsbury have been held at official level, a first meeting with Safeway is scheduled for early November and I am being kept informed of significant developments.

  In addition, there is ongoing contact at official level with Marks and Spencer on matters of mutual interest, including local sourcing.

  School Enrolments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants were refused enrolment for the academic year beginning September 1997 at (i) Movilla high school, (ii) Region House grammar school, (iii) Dundonald primary school and (iv) Brooklands primary school. [12870]

  Mr. Worthington
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to him on 28 October,Official Report, column 799.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led to her Department deciding to disregard war widows' pensions and war pensions in their entirety when assessing entitlement to housing benefit and rent rebates in Northern Ireland. [13940]

  Mr. Worthington
  The decision to disregard war widows and war pensions fully was carried forward into the Housing benefit legislation from the previous rent rebate and allowances scheme. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Rate Collection Agency administer Housing Benefit for the whole of Northern Ireland. As neither has access to other resources to subsidise Housing Benefit expenditure it was decided that the policy and legislation in Northern Ireland should follow the practice in Great Britain where the substantial majority of local authorities exercised their discretionary power to allow a full disregard.

  Police Station, Coleraine
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she now expects work to begin on the new police station in Coleraine; and if she will make a statement. [14056]

  Mr. Ingram
  Future requirements for police buildings are currently being assessed against policing needs and availability of funding. No decision has yet been taken on the Coleraine project.

  Audit Review Group
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library copies of the follow-up report of the Audit Review Group. [14301]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Investments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to increase the returns from Church investments.[11772]

  Mr. Bell
  In terms of new proposals, the short answer to my hon. Friend is for the Church Commissioners to hold their nerve during recent stock market corrections
  9
  and to have sufficient cash in hand to take advantage of any bargains that have been presented as a consequence of good stocks falling lower than their true market value.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the investment priorities of the Commissioners for the coming year.[11775]

  Mr. Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The Commissioners' priorities are measured over the long term but we actively manage our asset portfolio to ensure that we hold the most appropriate investments to enable us to optimise our return on both capital and income.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Commissioners are taking to reorganise their investment portfolio as a result of the withdrawal of ACT credit. [11773]

  Mr. Bell
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance in Committee in moving the amendment on Clause 35 of the Finance Bill which dealt with the abolition of the tax credit for charities and which would, had the amendment been carried, have been of assistance to the Commissioners.

  The Commissioners welcome the time allowed by the Government for them to plan for the removal of ACT relief and the phasing of its impact between 1999 and 2004. We put our case to the Government after the changes announced in the Budget. As to investment policy in the light of the withdrawal of ACT credit, the Commissioners have decided that at least half of our portfolio should comprise investments in a wide range of United Kingdom commercial and industrial shares. We continue to think that these are appropriate assets to meet the needs of our beneficiaries within the Church of England and we are playing an active part in putting the case for full exemption from taxation to be restored to charities.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of compensation to the Church of England for the impact of the abolition of advance corporation tax credits on dividend income managed by the Commissioners. [11850]

  Mr. Bell
  The Commissioners put their case to the Government after the changes announced in the Budget and were active in briefing honourable Members in preparation for the debate on Clause 35 of the Finance Bill, which introduced the abolition of the tax credit for charities. They are contributing to the Government review of the taxation of charities. Submissions are being made by the Church Commissioners, the Churches Main Committee and other church organisations.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the Church Commissioners, what support the Church Commissioners receive from Her Majesty's Government to enable them to maintain redundant and under-utilised churches. [11777]

  Mr. Bell
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides 70 per cent. of the cost of the Churches Conservation Trust, which preserves redundant Church of England parish churches of particular historic and architectural quality. Churches which are open for public worship are the responsibility of their respective parochial Church Councils who have access through English Heritage to the Government's State Aid scheme. The Commissioners themselves receive no direct financial support from the Government for these purposes.

  Church Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Social Security Committee, fifth report (HC 340 Session 1995–96) relating to pension provision in the Church. [11778]

  Mr. Bell
  The Social Security Committee recommended that the Commissioners' power to spend capital in discharging their past service pension liability should initially be for a limited period and that the Pensions Measure should provide for the full application of the legislation passed by Parliament to regulate and control pension schemes. These recommendations were reflected in the Pensions Measure which received Royal Assent earlier this year.

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment he has carried out of the investment in Monsanto. [11774]

  Mr. Bell
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this at our last question time and for subsequently writing to me. The Commissioners have taken up his points with the Monsanto Chemical Company and I have written to him on the subject.

  Monsanto have assured the Commissioners that they are a life science company playing a pivotal role in improving the health and nutritional needs of future generations whilst being strongly committed to complying with various laws and Government regulations concerning environmental matters and employee safety and health.

  From an investment standpoint, Monsanto have showed excellent returns over recent years for their shareholders.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. Wallace
  To aks the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken
  11
  during the last three months to monitor allegations of human rights violations in Kazakhstan; and if he will make a statement. [12862]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our Embassy in Almaty constantly monitors the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. We take up specific cases with the Kazakh authorities when necessary.

  Our main concerns revolve around prison conditions and the high rate of capital punishment. In an effort to improve this situation, the UK has offered to support a proposal put forward by the United Nations Development Programme to help reform the penal system in Kazakhstan. We will continue to keep this under close review.

  Migration and Visa Unit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff vacancies there are in the migration and visa unit of his Department; and for each how long the post has been vacant. [13884]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no vacancies. Additional staff have been deployed in order to meet agreed targets for response to Members' correspondence.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current backlog of work in the migration and visa unit of his Department. [13883]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Between 1 May and 30 September, the MVCU received 4,801 letters from MPs, of which 307 had not been answered on 1 October.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the migration and visa unit of his Department last met the 15 days quality standard for replies to letters from hon. Members. [13885]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In May 1997, the quality standard was met in over 90 per cent. of cases. Following a substantial increase in correspondence after the election this percentage fell to 41.95 per cent. in September. Extra staff have been deployed to reestablish an acceptable standard as soon as possible.

  Visas
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests he and his Ministers have received from hon. Members since 1 May 1997 to discuss general issues of entry clearance and visas; and how many of these were responded to within(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) one month,(d) three months and (e) over three months. [13882]

  Mr. Fatchett
  To provide the information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  European Union
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November; and list major European Union events for the next six months. [14287]
  12
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is the monthly forecast of business for November 1997. The following Councils are scheduled:

  Venue

  Event

  3 November

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  5 November

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  10 November

  Brussels

  Research Council

  10 November

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  13 November

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  17–18 November

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19 November

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (tbc)

  20 November

  Brussels

  Education Council

  24 November

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  24–25 November

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  27 November

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  27 November

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  28 November

  Brussels

  Development Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:
  3 November: Consumer Council
  Adoption of the Agenda.
  Approval of the list of A items.
  Consumer Guarantees.
  General debate on Article 1–4, and possible political agreement.
  Green paper on Food Safety: open debate.
  European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System (EHLASS): possible debate.
  Consumer confidence in Financial Services: Commission presentation.
  Proposed Directive and amend Product Liability Directive; Commission presentation.
  Other Business.
  5 November: ECOFIN Council
  Approval of the Agenda.
  Approval of the list of A items.
  Employment guidelines.
  Other elements relevant for the extraordinary European council meeting on employment (possible item).
  Other business.
  6 November: Social Affairs Council
  Preparation for the European Council on Employment:
  21 November
  10 November: Research Council
  Adoption of the agenda.
  Approval of the list of A Items (possible item).
  Fifth Research Technology Development (RTD) Framework Programme: Discussion to identify Policy guidelines: Criteria.
  Scientific and Technological objectives and content.
  General objectives and Thematic Programmes.
  Horizontal theme: International cooperation.
  Horizontal theme: Innovation and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs).
  Horizontal theme: Improving human research potential and the Knowledge Base.
  Structure.
  Arrangements for financial participation.
  Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Committee (EAEC) for research and training activities:
  Policy debate.
  Nuclear Fusion.
  Controlled Thermo-nuclear Fusion.

  13
  Implementation and Management of Research Programmes.
  Proposal for a Council decision concerning the rules for participation and governing the dissemination of research results (possible item):
  presentation by the Commission.
  Working document on the specific programmes in the Fifth Framework Programme (possible item):
  Presentation by the Commission.
  Signature of the Scientific and Technological cooperation agreement with the United States (possible item).
  Other business:
  Eureka: Communication by the Portuguese delegation.
  10 November: General Affairs Council
  A Points.
  EP Resolutions.
  EU/ACP Relations: Orientation Debate.
  Agenda 2000.
  Post Amsterdam: Reports of Secretary General on: Planning Cell.
  Integration of Schengen Secretariat.
  Preparation of Special European Council on Employment.
  OCT Mid-term Review.
  Albania.
  Turkey.
  Middle East Peace Process.
  Former Yugoslavia.
  Any Other Business.
  13 November: Industry Council
  Approval of agenda.
  Approval of the list of A Points.
  The Steel Industry:
  8th Monitoring Report on aid to the Steel Industry: presentation by the Commission.
  Commission Communication on Financial Activities and the
  Expiry of the European Coal Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty: presentation by the Commission.
  Ship Building:
  Commission Communication towards a new ship building policy.
  Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing new rules to ship building:
  presentation by the Commission.
  State Aid:
  Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the application articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories horizontal state aid (the "block exemption" regulation):
  orientation debate.
  Competitiveness:
  Presidency Note on the Future Competitiveness Work Program "Research and Development" as a factor of competitiveness employment:
  to be taken over lunch with discussion based on a list of questions to be presented to Coreper on 5 November. The focus of the debate will be competitiveness not the Fifth Framework Programme.
  Communication by the Commission: The European aerospace industry meeting the global challenge:
  Presentation by the Commission.
  The Information Society:
  Action Plan for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Industries:
  Presentation by the Commission.
  14
  Communication by the Commission: A European Initiative in Electronic Commerce:
  Draft Council Conclusions.
  SMEs:
  Commission Recommendation of 22 April 1997 on improving and simplifying the environment for business start-ups. Communication by the Commission: European Capital Markets SMEs: prospects and potential obstacles to progress: Presentation by the Commission

  17–18 November: Agriculture Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  19 November: Fisheries Council (TBC)

  —Agenda not yet available

  20 November: Education Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  24 November: Culture Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  24–25 November: General Affairs Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  7 November: Budget Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  27 November: Internal Market Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  28 November: Development Council

  —Agenda not yet available

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current UK-Iran diplomatic relations. [13727]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Britain and Iran usually have fifteen full-time diplomatic staff in each other's capitals. Both Embassies are normally headed by a Chargé d'Affaires. However, after the Mykonos verdict in April, both the British and Iranian Chargés were temporarily withdrawn. Both Embassies are currently headed by acting Chargé d'Affaires.

  European Movement
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public funding has been made available to the European Movement in the current financial year.[14089]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No Government funding has been made available to the European Movement in the current financial year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department will reply to the hon. Member's letters of 22 September relating to Nasreen Akhtar (ref. GV100/35962), Mohammed Arif (ref. IMM/D6517) and Gurmail Kaur (ref. GV100/39454) and of 23 September relating to Sikander Mahmood (ref. GV100/39978). [13886]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Replies were sent to the hon. Member's letters of 22 September on 26 October with reference to cases GV100/41057 and GV100/39454 and on 29 October with reference to case GV 100 39454. Further information
  15
  is awaited from Islamabad on case GV100/35962 and the hon. Member will be sent a reply as soon as that information is received.

  Burma
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports the Government have received relating to the treatment of the Karen people by the Burma military Government; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on this issue. [13887]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned by human rights abuses against Karen and other ethnic minorities in Burma. We have received reports of torture, rapes, killings, forced conscription and relocations of villagers. We have strongly protested to the Burmese authorities in Rangoon and London. We continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees in Thailand.

TREASURY

  National Savings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies bidding to take over control of the administration of National Savings have indicated that they would be able to offer new work opportunities in the Blackpool area to any National Savings employees who might be deemed surplus to requirements at the time of their acquiring responsibility for National Savings administration. [13384]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the information provided to National Savings by the four candidates for a private sector partnership are commercially sensitive at this stage and must remain confidential.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's long-term policy in respect of National Savings. [13162]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Our policy is to find the Government's borrowing requirements as efficiently as possible. National Savings makes a valuable contribution to our funding strategy, and I expect it to continue to do so. I welcome the work which the Agency is doing to study the potential for greater efficiencies through improved marketing and the examination and possible involvement of a private sector partner in its operations.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he will take of local job-creation possibilities in deciding which company will take over the running of National Savings local administration in the Blackpool area. [13385]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The potential for creating new jobs to offset the anticipated continuing reduction in the Agency's manpower will be a key consideration as proposals for private sector involvement in the operations of National Savings are evaluated.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the conclusions of the study into the future accommodation requirements of National Savings. [13161]
  16
  Mrs. Liddell
  A study of the potential for private provision of National Savings accommodation is being conducted in parallel with work to explore the scope for private sector involvement in National Savings operations. I would not expect final conclusions before the Spring of 1998.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what changes took place in the Sterling/Deutschmark exchange rate between the opening and closing of the financial markets on Thursday 25 September; [13405]

  (2) what changes took place in the Sterling/Deutschmark exchange rate between noon and the closing of the financial markets on Thursday 25 September. [13401]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Sterling rose by 1.76 pfennigs to DM 2.8769 between the opening and closing of the financial markets on Thursday 25 September. Between noon and the close, it was virtually unchanged.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes took place in the Sterling/Deutschmark exchange rate between the opening and closing of the financial markets on Friday 17 October. [13381]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Sterling rose by 3 pfennigs to close at DM 2.8569.

  European Council
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 13 October. [13739]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 13 October, and at a formal dinner with Finance Ministers from the EFTA countries the previous evening.

  The Council welcomed the UK's Convergence Programme—in particular the Government's commitment to sound finances and stability-oriented monetary policy as a basis for economic growth and investment. The Council also noted with satisfaction the changed arrangements for the implementation of monetary policy, which have helped to lower inflation expectations in the UK. The Council also noted with approval the Welfare to Work initiative and the Employment Action Plan. The Council agreed Conclusions on the Programme and adopting a text for an Excessive Deficits Recommendation. The text of the Conclusions follows this answer.

  The dinner, on 12 October, was a useful opportunity to exchange views with the Finance Ministers of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, particularly on employment. I was pleased to see the support that my own approach to employment and employability enjoys both within the EU and EFTA.

  The Council discussed the Commission's Communication on Harmful Tax Competition in the EU, focusing on the Code of Conduct. The UK recognised that a voluntary Code might play a helpful role in tackling harmful tax competition, but would only agree to a Code

  17
  that respected Member States' continues competence in the field of tax. The UK, and other Member States, called for several changes to be made to the draft Code. Discussion on the Code will continue in the Taxation Policy Group.

  The Commission introduced its Communication on the Practical Aspects of the Euro. This was another useful exchange of views, with Ministers contributing their ideas on how to ensure the smoothest possible transition both for businesses and for public authorities in those countries joining the single currency in January 1999.

  The Council considered the liberalisation of capital movements in the context of the IMF. Discussion centred around the compatibility of possible new IMF articles with the Treaty. Council agreed that Monetary Committee should refine EU policy on IMF proposals but that Member States should continue to represent themselves in negotiating the new articles.

  The Council discussed a Commission Communication on Public-Private Partnerships in the sphere of Trans-European Networks. The Communication was the result of work by Commissioner Kinnock's High Level Group on the same subject and was welcomed.

  The Council took some agenda items over lunch. We discussed the Commission's proposals on enlargement as set out in their July proposals on Agenda 2000. For the UK, the key issues were that the 1999 Own Resources Ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of Community GNP is not raised for the period 2000–06, and that spending is set at levels much lower than this. Substantial policy reform is also necessary to make enlargement affordable and successful. The Council agreed to consider at the next ECOFIN the work to be carried forward on the development of economic coordination in Stage 3 of EMU. The Presidency described its preparations for the Jobs Summit on 20–21 November, and an extraordinary meeting of the ECOFIN Council was agreed for 5 November to do further work on this.

  Text of Council conclusions on UK convergence programme

  On 13 October 1997 the Council welcomed the new United Kingdom Convergence Programme. It noted the progress that had been made in reducing the government deficit and inflation under the previous programme and it welcomed the new government's ambitious but realistic programme to enhance the pace of adjustment.

  The Council welcomed, in particular, the government's commitment to sound finances and stability oriented monetary policy as a basis for economic growth and investment. Action has been taken to increase the pace of deficit reduction: the Council noted with satisfaction that the government deficit will be well below 3 per cent. of GDP in the calendar year 1997 while the debt ratio will remain below 60 per cent. of GDP. It noted that the continued commitment to tight expenditure control represented a sound basis for long term budgetary consolidation. The Council urged the UK authorities to make sure that continued borrowing over the economic cycle to finance investment represents an adequate medium term fiscal rule consistent with the objectives of the stability and growth pact.
  18
  The Council noted with satisfaction the changed arrangements for the implementation of monetary policy, which have helped to lower inflation expectation in the UK. The Council also encouraged the UK Government to recognise the role of the exchange rate in maintaining stability. The Council noted the UK inflation target of 2.5 per cent. and urged the UK Government to keep this under review in order to ensure that UK inflation remains low and compatible with inflation rates in other Member States.

  The Council noted with approval the broader social and economic objectives outlined in the programme and in particular, the concern to improve the opportunities for employment for the young and long-term unemployed. The Council noted that these issues are also dealt with the UK Employment Action Plan. The Council invited the Commission, in close cooperation with the Monetary Committee, to monitor the implementation of the Convergence Programme.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) official entertainment functions and (b) conferences which have been held at Dorneywood since May 1997. [12920]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: Since the beginning of May 1997, Dorneywood has been used for two sets of Ministerial conferences.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers, who have been admitted and not held since 1994, officials have subsequently been unable to trace.[13392]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the options he is considering to stem the flow of Czech and Slovak asylum seekers into the United Kingdom. [13400]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The firm line we have taken with abusive asylum seekers from these countries has already led to a substantial decrease in the numbers of new arrivals. Many recent arrivals have already been removed to France. Where appropriate, we have detained applicants. My right hon. Friend announced on 27 October a reduction from 28 to five days in the period allowed for post-interview representations in certain cases where claims are judged likely to be abusive. All applications continue to be considered individually, on their merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention. Policy options are constantly reviewed to ensure we maintain our firm line.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each establishment used by his Department to hold in custody asylum seekers under immigration laws the numbers currently held. [13502]
  19
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 September 1997, the most recent date for which information is available, a total of 772 persons who had sought asylum at some stage, were recorded as being detained solely under Immigration Act powers. I regret, however, that a reliable breakdown of these detainees, by location of detention, is not currently available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been received from Algerian nationals for each month since January 1996; and of these how many have had their application(a) granted, (b) refused but been allowed to remain and (c) refused and been removed from Britain. [13494]

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

  Decisions1 on applications2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and the removal or voluntary departure of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, for nationals of Algeria, January 1996 to September 19973,4

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications for asylum

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain

  Removals and voluntary departures

  January 1996

  100

  *

  —

  195

  15

  February 1996

  75

  *

  —

  160

  15

  March 1996

  100

  *

  *

  155

  15

  April 1996

  50

  *

  —

  160

  20

  May 1996

  40

  5

  *

  165

  25

  June 1996

  30

  *

  *

  145

  15

  July 1996

  85

  *

  —

  190

  15

  August 1996

  65

  *

  —

  125

  20

  September 1996

  35

  5

  *

  135

  20

  October 1996

  55

  *

  *

  170

  10

  November 1996

  40

  5

  5

  130

  10

  December 1996

  35

  5

  5

  100

  15

  January 1997

  55

  5

  —

  100

  15

  February 1997

  35

  5

  —

  75

  10

  March 1997

  45

  *

  —

  95

  20

  April 1997

  35

  5

  —

  65

  15

  May 1997

  55

  5

  —

  60

  25

  June 1997

  50

  5

  *

  85

  15

  July 1997

  60

  5

  —

  70

  20

  August 1997

  60

  5

  —

  60

  25

  September 1997

  60

  15

  —

  15

  5

  Total

  1,175

  80

  15

  2,455

  340

  1Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Applications and decisions on asylum applications may not relate to the same cases within each period.

  3 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  4 Application and decision figures for 1997 and removals for 1996 and 1997 are provisional.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been received in each of the last 12 months from(a) the Czech Republic and (b) the Slovak Republic; and how many people have been (i) granted asylum, (ii) refused but given leave to remain and (iii) removed from Britain. [13489]
  20
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Table 1: Decisions1 on applications2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, for nationals of the Czech Republic and Slovakia October 1996 to September 19973

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications for asylum

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain

  Czech Republic

  October 1996

  5

  —

  —

  5

  November 1996

  5

  —

  —

  5

  December 1996

  5

  —

  —

  5

  January 1997

  5

  —

  —

  5

  February 1997

  10

  —

  —

  10

  March 1997

  5

  —

  —

  10

  April 1997

  *

  —

  —

  *

  May 1997

  5

  —

  —

  5

  June 1997

  15

  —

  —

  15

  July 1997

  30

  —

  —

  20

  August 1997

  30

  —

  —

  35

  September 1997

  15

  —

  —

  5

  Total

  135

  —

  —

  115

  Slovakia

  October 1996

  5

  —

  —

  20

  November 1996

  10

  —

  —

  15

  December 1996

  10

  —

  —

  10

  January 1997

  *

  —

  —

  *

  February 1997

  *

  —

  —

  5

  March 1997

  5

  —

  —

  15

  April 1997

  5

  —

  —

  10

  May 1997

  *

  —

  —

  15

  June 1997

  25

  —

  —

  25

  July 1997

  20

  —

  —

  25

  August 1997

  50

  —

  —

  45

  September 1997

  55

  —

  —

  10

  Total

  190

  —

  —

  195

  Notes:

  1Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Applications and decisions on asylum applications may not relate to the same cases within each period.

  3 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  Figures for October 1997 are not yet available.

  Source:

  Immigration and General Unit, RSD.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were held in custody under immigration laws in month since Janaury 1996; and what was the average length of time of such detentions. [13493]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 11 June,Official Report column 441, which gives the available information on detained asylum seekers for selected dates in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. Information on the number held at the end of each month between May and September 1997 is given in the table.

  I regret that reliable information on the average length of detention could only be obtained by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, only available at disproportionate cost.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make additional resources available to North Wales constabulary to provide for a significant increase in the number of police officers on the beat. [13326]

  Mr. Michael
  The North Wales Police Authority's spending capacity for 1997–98 was increased by 3.9 per cent. (£2.7 million) to £72 million, which was above the national average. No final decisions have been taken about the allocation of funding to police authorities for 1998–99. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 removed decisions about police numbers from the hands of the Home Secretary.

  It is now for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of police officers in each force, having regard to the resources available to them. At the end of March 1997, North Wales Police had 62.4 per cent. of strength deployed to patrol duties. This is significantly better than the average for England and Wales of 57.6 per cent. This Government will do all that it can to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to allow chief constables to put more officers back on the beat.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the suppliers to his Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13548]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The Home Office and its agencies are required to pay all their bills within the agreed contract terms, or where no such terms exist, within 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later. Detailed information on payments to individual suppliers could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97.

  Pakistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the inclusion of Pakistan in the white list of countries designated free of persecution under the terms of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [13150]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are examining the general operation of the designated safe countries provision as part of our continuing review of asylum law and procedures.

  Border and Passport Controls
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of the spending review dealing with issues relating to immigration and to border and passport controls. [13399]
  22
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The terms of reference of the study of immigration controls at ports which forms part of the Home Office comprehensive spending review are:

  To review the cost effectiveness of United Kingdom immigration controls, with particular reference to the deployment of resources at ports of entry, taking into account:
  legal constraints following the Amsterdam summit;
  projected increases in the number of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom;
  projected changes in the numbers and nature of inadmissible and inadequately documented passengers arriving in the United Kingdom;
  new technology and consequent organisational changes in immigration clearance processes;
  the potential for close co-operation with other agencies, including carriers and port authorities;
  the scope and application of the Carriers' Liability Act;
  the scope for joint working with Customs and the police;
  the scope for charging for services and the attendant financial regime;
  the balance between pre, post and on-entry control, including the costs and benefits of more preventative activity.

  The study will have regard to other work, including the foreign and commonwealth office review of entry clearance, the study of asylum process, the appeals review, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) reviews of detention and enforcement strategy and the implications for the IND Casework Programme.

  Deportations
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens have in the past 12 months left the United Kingdom with their spouses as a result of a deportation order being served on the spouse; in how many cases the travel cost of the British citizen was paid out of public funds; and what was the total sum involved. [13305]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is our normal policy to offer a public expense departure to any dependants (spouse and minor children) who wish to accompany a deportee on removal from the United Kingdom.

  Details about British citizens who elect to leave the United Kingdom in this way are not recorded centrally and the costs of their travel are not distinguishable.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders have been made in each of the last four years against persons aged over 60 years; and how many such persons have been deported. [13346]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The numbers of deportation orders made, and the numbers of removals effected, against persons aged over 60 years when the relevant action was taken, are given in the table. The numbers deported do not include persons removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.

  23

  Action taken against persons aged over 60 years1 under the deportation process2 1994–19973

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19973

  Deportation orders made

  32

  65

  65

  17

  Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process2 4 5

  40

  62

  55

  28

  1Covers persons aged over 60 years when the relevant action took place.

  2 Excludes persons removed as illegal entrants.

  3 Provisional figures for January for September 1997.

  4 Includes voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

  5 Some removals relate to deportation orders made in previous years.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the requirement for all chairs of prison boards of visitors to be appointed directly by the Home Secretary. [13317]

  Ms Quin
  The procedure whereby the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Boards of Visitors are appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Board, follows a recommendation to that effect made in the 1995 report of the Ministerial Review of the Role of Boards of Visitors. The change in procedure was made to acknowledge the importance of these roles.

  Fire Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking in respect of fire safety levels in hotels within the EU. [12982]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My officials have written to their counterparts in other interested Departments and will shortly meet representatives of the tourist industry to discuss further the concerns they and others have raised with us about fire safety in hotel accommodation in some member states. In the light of those and other ongoing discussions, I intend to consult Ministerial colleagues to determine whether there is a need for us to press for an improvement in compliance with European Community recommendation 86/666/EEC—on fire safety in existing hotels—by other member states.

  Within the United Kingdom, we consider fire safety levels in hotels to be high, and our domestic legislation in this area already meets the principles of European Community recommendation 86/666/EEC on fire safety in existing hotels. We must therefore carefully weigh any perceived shortcomings in hotel fire safety in other member states against not only public safety but the possibility of unnecessarily imposing further legislation burdens on our own domestic tourist industry which would probably have no tangible safety benefit for hotel guests in the United Kingdom.

  Daylight Saving
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce Central European Time. [13759]
  24
  Mr. George Howarth
  None, but we shall continue to listen to all sides of the argument.

  Mr. Shayler
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure has so far been incurred in making inquiries over Mr. Shayler leaving M15. [13354]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The information requested is not available.

  Visitors' Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the visitors' visa regime. [13930]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our manifesto commits us to providing a streamlined right of appeal for visitors denied a visa. We are examining the options for doing this.

  Chief Constable of Manchester
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Manchester as to the cost of(a) damages and (b) legal fees paid in settlement of the case brought against him by Mr. Kevin Taylor; and if he will make a statement. [13966]

  Mr. Michael
  A settlement was concluded between the Greater Manchester Police and Mr. Kevin Taylor in June 1995. I understand that the terms of the settlement are a matter of confidentiality between the two parties involved.

  Firearms
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish his consultative document on firearms legislation; and what will be the latest date for submissions. [13910]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have made it clear that our first priority is to see the legislation to ban .22 handguns reach the statute book. Once the complete ban on handguns has been achieved, we will consider wether further steps are required to secure public safety. If we consider that further steps are necessary, we will consult widely with all interested parties, but no timescale has been set, either for our consideration or for consultation.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department in respect of hon. Members seeing their constituents who are in detention awaiting removal to another country. [13981]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Hon. Members will normally be given access to Immigration Service Detention Centres between the hours of 0800 and 2100, and outside these hours by prior arrangement. In Her Majesty's Prisons, hon. Members may visit detainees on production of a valid special visiting order issued by the governor, during the visiting hours specified. I understand that the hon. Member has also raised a question about his visit to Charles Street Police Station, Leicester, which is being replied to separately.

  Intelligence Services Act (Warrants)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants have been issued for each year under sections 5 and 6 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 since its inception; and of those how many were authorised by the Secretary of State and how many by civil servants. [13782]

  Mr. Straw
  For reasons of national security, information on the number of warrants issued under sections 5 and 6 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 is not published.

  Civil Servants do not authorise the issue of warrants. However, under the emergency procedure provided at section 6(1)(b) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, a warrant may be issued under the hand of an official of or above the rank of Assistant Under Secretary of State provided that the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue (typically by telephone), and a statement of that fact is endorsed on the warrant.

  Any such emergency warrant must be renewed within 2 days under the hand of the Secretary of State.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the names, qualifications and experience of the members of the Gaming Board; and what plans he has to review the membership. [13117]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The members of the Gaming Board are Lady Shirley Littler (Chairman), Lady Carolyn Trethowan JP, Mr. William Kirkpatrick, Mr. Bryan Austin and Mr. Donald Elliott CBE QPM.

  The members of the Board have diverse qualifications and experience. Lady Littler's background is in public administration and regulation, Lady Trethowan is a magistrate and a former member of a betting and gaming licensing bench. Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Austin both have business backgrounds and Mr. Elliott is a former chief constable.

  Lady Littler and Lady Trethowan are due to retire within the next year and competitions are currently being held to fill their posts. My right hon. Friend has no wider plans to review the membership of the Board.

  Volatile Substances
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of prohibiting the sale of the most dangerous and commonly abused volatile substances to those under 16 years of age. [13130]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 makes it an offence for retailers to sell substances to a person under the age of 18 if they have reason to believe that the young person intends to inhale them or their fumes for the purpose of intoxication. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs undertook a study into volatile substance abuse, the results of which were published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1995. A copy of their report "Volatile Substance Abuse" is in the Library. They concluded that there were no acceptable legislative changes which would do more than the Act already does to protect young people.

  Prisoner Repatriation
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make decisions on outstanding applications from prisoners convicted of terrorist offences for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland. [14430]

  Mr. Straw
  I have recently approved three applications for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland submitted by prisoners convicted of terrorist offences. These were approved on the basis that the Republic will continue to enforce the sentences imposed by the courts here in accordance with the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. Remaining repatriation applications are at various stages of consideration either here or in the Republic and will be determined as soon as possible.

  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, broken down by category of original application for each quarter since 1 January 1994. [13880]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is for those persons initially granted exceptional leave to remain on refusal of asylum. Information for persons granted exceptional leave without originally having applied for asylum is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  In the second and third quarters of 1997 respectively, 540 and 950 grants of exceptional leave on refusal of asylum, excluding dependants, were made. Equivalent information for each quarter of 1995, 1996 and the first quarter of 1997 can be found in table 1.4 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1996", issue 15/97. Issue 9/96 of the same publication provides the same information for each quarter of 1994. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Interception of Communications (Warrants)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants have been issued for each year under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 since its inception to(a) police and (b) the security services; and of those how many were authorised by the Secretary of State and how many by civil servants. [13783]

  Mr. Straw
  The following information is obtained from the Annual Reports of the Interception Commissioner. The Government support the policy, adopted by successive Commissioners, of not publishing a further breakdown of the figures, and of excluding numbers of warrants issued by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because it would be prejudicial to national security to do so.

  It is only the Secretary of State who may authorise the issue of a warrant. Civil servants do not authorise the issue of interception warrants. However, under the emergency procedure provided at section 4(1)(b) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, a warrant may be issued under the hand of an official of or above the rank of Assistant Under Secretary of State provided that the Secretary of

  27
  State has expressly authorised its issue and a statement of that fact is endorsed on the warrant. Any such emergency warrant must be renewed within 2 days under the hand of the Secretary of State.

  Romany People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the degree of violent hostility to Romany people in the Czech and Slovak Republics. [13490]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have access to a wide range of information about the situation of Roma in Eastern European countries, including information about instances of racially motivated violence and discrimination and about the response of the authorities in the countries concerned. This information is taken fully into account

  Population of remand prisoners in prisons in England and Wales on the last day of the month: October 1994 to September 1997

  On last day of month

  Untried

  Total

  Convicted unsentenced

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1994

  October

  8,832

  389

  9,221

  3,244

  141

  3,385

  November

  8,783

  363

  9,146

  3,295

  156

  3,451

  December

  8,387

  330

  8,717

  2,583

  126

  2,709

  1995

  January

  8,647

  378

  9,025

  3,352

  146

  3,498

  February

  8,320

  346

  8,666

  3,015

  165

  3,180

  March

  7,890

  349

  8,239

  2,843

  166

  3,009

  April

  7,913

  346

  8,259

  2,521

  150

  2,671

  May

  8,116

  339

  8,455

  2,580

  147

  2,727

  June

  7,613

  337

  7,950

  2,948

  158

  3,106

  July

  7,834

  313

  8,147

  2,650

  143

  2,793

  August

  8,049

  347

  8,396

  2,782

  130

  2,912

  September

  7,813

  349

  8,162

  2,867

  149

  3,016

  October

  8,092

  341

  8,433

  2,910

  158

  3,068

  November

  7,985

  352

  8,337

  2,904

  143

  3,047

  December

  7,829

  326

  8,155

  2,312

  109

  2,421

  1996

  January

  8,020

  325

  8,345

  3,042

  154

  3,196

  February

  7,914

  309

  8,223

  3,071

  157

  3,228

  March

  7,608

  325

  7,933

  2,934

  145

  3,079

  April

  7,795

  358

  8,153

  3,108

  158

  3,266

  May

  7,845

  364

  8,209

  2,957

  153

  3,110

  June

  8,028

  404

  8,432

  2,994

  142

  3,136

  July

  7,982

  397

  8,379

  3,013

  169

  3,182

  August

  8,006

  392

  8,398

  3,112

  168

  3,280

  September

  8,148

  375

  8,523

  3,243

  197

  3,440

  October

  8,232

  398

  8,630

  3,327

  197

  3,524

  November

  8,275

  412

  8,687

  3,264

  196

  3,460

  December

  8,192

  387

  8,579

  2,789

  167

  2,956

  1997

  January

  8,150

  389

  8,539

  3,431

  209

  3,640

  February

  7,989

  349

  8,338

  3,473

  187

  3,660

  March

  8,052

  361

  8,413

  3,217

  187

  3,404

  April

  7,981

  387

  8,368

  3,384

  205

  3,589

  May

  7,899

  370

  8,269

  3,238

  190

  3,428

  June

  8,134

  429

  8,563

  3,384

  158

  3,542

  July

  8,185

  413

  8,598

  3,341

  205

  3,546

  August

  8,288

  429

  8,717

  3,461

  199

  3,660

  September

  8,349

  426

  8,775

  3,450

  204

  3,654

  28
  when applications for asylum are considered, and all such applications are determined in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total number of(a) unconvicted prisoners on remand and (b) unsentenced prisoners on remand, by gender and in total, on the last day of each of the last 36 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [13722]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. Information on the male and female remand populations, by month, is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (table 1.2 of the 1996 edition, Cm 3732). Copies are in the library.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the immigration rules in respect of spouses where the sponsor is disabled and unable to work.[13877]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no such plans. The rules relating to maintenance and accommodation allow a person who is present and settled here to sponsor their spouse to come to the United Kingdom, providing there will be no additional recourse to public funds. This means that a sponsor may continue to receive benefits to which he is entitled in his own right.

  Police Service Targets
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the key objectives and key performance indicators for the police service in 1998–99. [14373]

  Mr. Straw
  I am arranging for copies of the Key Objectives and Key Performance Indicators for the police service in 1998–99 to be placed in the Library at 11.00 am tomorrow.

  Individual Cases (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests since 1 May he and his Ministers have received from hon. Members to discuss individual cases; and how many of these have been granted. [13879]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I could not say without consulting each individual file how many meeting requests I have received, but I will always be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss cases unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. Often a meeting proves to be unnecessary because the case is resolved to the Member's satisfaction, and if an individual is detained pending removal I will often prefer to handle representations in writing or by telephone in order to prevent delay.

  I have already held 25 such meetings at the Home Office, and have another 10 scheduled for the next month. I aim to respond promptly to such requests.

  Immigration Policy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he and his Ministers have received from hon. Members since 1 May 1997 to discuss general issues of immigration policy; and how many of these were responded to within(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) one month, (d) three months And (e) over three months. [13881]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not have the specific information my hon. Friend requests. Nevertheless, I am always happy to meet hon. Members to discuss issues of immigration policy and have held such discussions with at least 15 hon. Members since May.

  If my hon. Friend wishes to have such a meeting with me, perhaps he could contact my Private Office.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the occupancy level and age profile of prisoners within Lewes prison. [13784]

  Ms Quin
  Lewes prison has a Certified Normal Accommodation of 485 and an Operational Capacity of 496. On 31 October 1997 the prison held 487 inmates. An age breakdown for all prisoners held in the prison on 30 September is given in the table.

  Population in Lewes prison on 30 September 1997, by age1

  Age

  Number

  15–17

  25

  18-20

  382

  21-24

  98

  25-29

  93

  30-39

  120

  40-49

  63

  50-59

  25

  60 and over

  3

  Total

  489

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 All on remand.

  3 43 on remand.

  Irish Republic (British Subjects)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British passports have been received from persons born in the Irish Republic who are the children of British subjects, in the last six months. [14057]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency is unable to provide this information as the records that are kept do not differentiate between British subject passports issued to those born in or connected with the Irish Republic and those born in India who have that status by connection with former British India. The Agency can only confirm that 3,894 British subject passports were issued in the six month period May to October 1997. The status of British subject cannot be transmitted to a child born in the Irish Republic after 31 December 1948.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to ensure the proper preservation of war memorials in circumstances where the church or other building in which they are located is destroyed or converted to other use. [13692]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provision for the preservation or recording of memorials to the dead is contained in existing legislation concerning the development of burial grounds.

  Under the Pastoral Measure 1983, if a disused Church of England church and churchyard is made the subject of a redundancy scheme, there is a requirement to give notice of the manner in which memorials are proposed to be disposed of and to offer relatives or the Commonwealth War Graves Commission the opportunity to make separate arrangements.
  31
  Where the memorials are removed, details, including a copy of the inscription and the date and manner of disposal, are to be lodged with the local council and copied to the Registrar General.

  Hazardous Refuse
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to ensure that those who deposit syringes and other medical-related items of a potential health hazard in public places, or in domestic refuse containers, can be prosecuted.[13307]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under section 87 of the Environment Protection Act 1990, any person who drops and leaves litter in a public open space is committing a criminal offence and is liable to prosecution. Prosecutions may be brought by the Police or local authorities and upon conviction the litterer may face a maximum fine of £2,500. Local authorities may also issue fixed penalty notices to anyone who drops litter and refuses to dispose of it properly.

  The term litter has a wide interpretation and we have no reason to believe that it would not include syringes and medical items. The offence relates to what is done with the material rather than what it is.

  In addition, Section 46 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 enables local authorities to serve notice on householders requiring specified substances to be put in separate receptacles. Failure to comply with the provisions of this notice may lead to a summary conviction under section 46(6) of the Act.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Scientific Research and Development
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase investment in scientific research and development.[13027]

  Dr. Howells
  As part of our commitment to maintaining and enhancing research excellence in higher education, the funding package for higher education for 1998–99 announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 September will include an extra £125 million to maintain and improve quality and standards, and to make a start on the backlog of maintenance and equipment replacement for both teaching and research facilities.

  In the longer term, decisions on funding for research in higher education, having regard to the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, will be taken in the light of the comprehensive spending review.

  Classrooms
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many demountable classrooms or other temporary buildings are used for teaching at schools in the Colchester area; what is the age of the oldest such classroom; and what plans he has to replace them with permanent classrooms; [13697]
  32
  (2) how many schools in England and Wales are comprised solely of demountable classrooms; and if he will make a statement. [13698]

  Mr. Byers
  The information sought is not collected centrally.

  The Government is concerned about the condition of many school premises. We have already begun to address the repairs and maintenance backlog. The Prime Minister announced on 30 September that £115 million would be spent by the end of this financial year. Over 2,000 schools will benefit. By the end of this Parliament, we expect an additional £2 billion to be spent as a result of the New Deal for Schools.

  New Deal for Schools
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many schools were notified of new deal for school opportunities after the deadline for submitting bids was passed; [13742]

  (2) what remedies he proposes to offer schools which were notified of new deal for schools opportunities after the deadline had passed; and if he will make a statement; [13743]

  (3) if he will make special arrangements for those schools who received notification of New Deal for Schools money after the deadline for submitting bids had passed. [14096]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand that most schools received the Department's letter of 18 July about the New Deal for Schools (NDS) before the deadline. Schools were not being invited to bid, but were being informed that Local Education Authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) would be bidding on their behalf.

  The £83 million already distributed is only the first instalment of a larger programme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. We expect a further £2 billion will be available over the lifetime of this Parliament for schools in England. We will be issuing bidding guidance shortly on the arrangements for the second tranche of NDS funding. All schools, including those that did not receive funding in the first round, will be able to submit bids to their LEAs, or the FAS in the case of Grant Maintained schools.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the private sector to lead partnerships for the organisation and delivery of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds. [14449]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce the outcome of the competition to identify private sector organisation to lead partnerships for the organisations and delivery of the New Deal in both of the pathfinder districts of Hackney and City and South Humber. The successful organisation in Hackney and City is Reed Personnel Services and in South Humber, Action for Employment Ltd.
  33
  Because of the high quality responses within this competition, it has been decided that private sector organisations should be invited to lead the organisation and delivery of the New Deal in a total of ten locations—the two pathfinder districts and in eight new localities:

  Colchester

  Solihull

  Leicestershire

  Tyneside, North

  Exeter and East Devon

  Bridgend and the Glamorgan Valleys

  West Lancashire

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make an announcement on the remaining District in due course.

  Expressions of interest will be invited shortly, with a view to announcing the remaining lead private sector organisations to work with the Employment Service by the end of February.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average funding per student in further education for students in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in each of the last five years. [14209]

  Dr. Howells
  The average funding per FEFC funded full-time equivalent student in further education in England (in £ cash rounded to the nearest £10) over the last four years (the 1992–93 figure is not on a comparable basis) was as follows:

  1993–94: 2,820

  1994–95: 2,810

  1995–96: 2,670

  1996–97: 2,570

  Responsibility for further education matters in Scotland and Wales rests with my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Reception Classes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of four-year-olds in maintained reception classes had staffing ratios worse than 1 to 13 on 30 Janaury 1997. [14071]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about pupils and teachers in reception classes is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many four-year-olds were in(a) maintained reception classes, (b) maintained nursery classes or schools and (c) voluntary and private settings (i) on 23 September 1997 and (ii) in January 1996. [14073]
  34
  Mr. Byers
  The available information on four-year-olds in Janaury 1996 is shown in the following table.

  Pupils aged 4 years of age in schools in England: January 1996

  School type

  Pupils1

  Maintained nursery schools and nursery classes

  154,982

  Infant classes in Primary schools2

  343,436

  Independent schools3

  27,413

  1 Full-time and part-time pupils aged 4 years at 31 December 1995 (born between 1 January and 31 December 1991).

  2 Includes reception and other classes.

  3 Includes pupils in direct grant nursery schools.

  Information on four-year-olds in schools and private and voluntary provision on 23 September 1997 will be available towards the end of the year.

  "Excellence in Schools"
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the written representation he has received on his White Paper, "Excellence in Schools" from the Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils; [13906]

  (2) if he will list the parish and town councils from which he has received written representations in connection with his White Paper, "Excellence in Schools". [13907]

  Mr. Byers
  Our records show that, of the approximately 3,500 responses to the full version of the White Paper "Excellence in Schools", two were received from Parish and Town Councils or their representative bodies. The replies were from Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils (HAPTC) and Romsey Town Council.

  HAPTC' s response focused particularly on the principles of partnership and citizenship. Its contents have been taken into account as part of the analysis of all responses to the White Paper.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the total capital allocation for grant-maintained schools in England for each year since 1989. [13177]

  Mr. Byers
  The total capital allocations for grant maintained schools in England for each year since 1989 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Capital allocations (£ millions)

  1990–91

  8·5

  1991–92

  12·7

  1992–93

  32·2

  1993–94

  95·4

  1994–95

  122·0

  1995–96

  123·0

  1996–97

  138·0

  1997–98

  144·9

  Free School Milk
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy on the provision of free milk for children of primary school age; and if he will make a statement. [13152]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Where local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in England provide drinking milk for primary-age children, they must provide it free of charge to pupils whose parents receive Income Support or income-based job seeker's allowance. We have no current plans to change these arrangements.

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many proposals for diversion or closure orders of public footpaths have been made to local education authorities since the publication of the report of the working group on schools security in May 1996. [13109]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Proposals for the diversion or closure of public rights of way are considered by local highways authorities. Information about the number of such proposals submitted in respect of school premises is not collected centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the frequency with which national estimated daily intake calculations were performed for pesticide residues in each EU member state in each year since 1992. [13181]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimated daily intake—EDI—calculations have been carried out in the United Kingdom as part of the pesticide approvals process in those cases where it appears that the acceptable daily intake—ADI—of residues in a food crop might be exceeded. For example, EDI calculations were made for chronic risk assessment purposes in preparing the paper "Unit to Unit Variation of Pesticide Residues in Fruit and Vegetables" which the Pesticides Safety Directorate published in March this year. However, precise information on how frequently these calculations have been carried out since 1992 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the frequency with which other EU member states carry out national EDI calculations is not held by the UK.

  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fishing Rights
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial compensation has been provided by the European Community since 1987 for fishing rights in national waters of non-EC states; what total tonnage of fish and other stocks has been involved; what was the value of the stocks concerned at market levels; and what proportion of the tonnage was granted to British trawlers. [13852]
  36
  Mr. Morley
  Details of the cost to the EU budget of fisheries agreements with third countries are provided in the table:

  Cost of EU fisheries agreements with third countries

  ECU(million)

  1987

  81.9

  1988

  139.5

  1989

  161.5

  1990

  173.0

  1991

  171.4

  1992

  195.6

  1993

  188.9

  1994

  140.6

  1995

  158.1

  19961

  270.0

  19971

  246.3

  1 Budget appropriation. Final outturn expenditure figures not yet available.

  The manner in which the fishing opportunities obtained in third country waters is expressed varies from agreement to agreement. Total vessel capacity, numbers of licences, reference tonnage's and numerical quotas are used either singly or in combination to describe the fishing opportunities available to Community vessels. It is not therefore possible to assess the total tonnage of fish stocks involved, the market value of the stocks concerned or the proportion granted to UK vessels.

  On 30 October the Fisheries Council agreed a series of conclusions on future policy towards agreements with third countries, including the need for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Fisheries Council held on 30 October in Luxembourg.[14426]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 30 October, together with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Under each agenda item decisions were taken which will enhance fisheries conservation.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Denmark voting against, a wide ranging package of technical measures designed to conserve fish stocks by reducing catches of juvenile fish and discarding.

  Key features of the present arrangements, such as the areas closed to protect juvenile fish, will be maintained. The minimum mesh size for cod, haddock and other large-bodied species was confirmed at 100mm in the North Sea and North West of Scotland, and will increase, with special transitional arrangements, from 80mm to 100mm in other waters to the west and south of the United Kingdom. Other measures to increase the selectivity of fishing nets include a new requirement to use square mesh panels in nephrops nets and limits on twine thickness. In order to assist enforcement, there will also be limits on the number of nets of different mesh sizes that fishermen may use on a single trip, with the detailed rules on this aspect to be decided next year.
  37
  The rules on discarding will change in order to reduce the quantity of fish discarded. The minimum landing sizes of fish will be made more consistent with the mesh sizes used, again in order to reduce discarding. Minimum sizes have also been improved for shellfish stocks to give this sector added protection.

  The new conservation rules will come into effect on 1 January 2000 so as to give fishermen time to adapt their fishing gear and practices. The Government has worked closely with the fishing industry in discussing technical conservation measures and the new rules respond to many of their concerns. As well as securing conservation gains, we successfully resisted proposals which would have undermined effective enforcement at sea.

  The Council unanimously agreed conclusions on future policy towards fisheries agreements with third countries. As a result the European Commission will undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of these agreements. In the meantime the Council has called upon the Commission to explore ways of ensuring that the agreements are coherent with general development policy and involve fishing opportunities set at sustainable levels. The Council has also called upon the Commission to examine the funding arrangements and to provide full evaluations before expiring agreements are renewed or new agreements sought. I fully support these conclusions which lay the foundation for a more soundly based future policy.

  The Council unanimously adopted new rules on catch reporting in Western Waters to come into effect on 1 July 1998. These new rules make up the last enforcement element of the December 1994 Western Waters agreement on Spanish and Portuguese integration into the Common Fisheries Policy. They will strengthen enforcement but should not create significant additional burdens on fishermen because catch reports will be submitted along with the position reports which vessels have had to submit since 1996 when operating in Western Waters.

  I used the opportunity of the Council to draw attention to the need to make progress on the Commission's long-standing proposal to phase out the use of drift nets on the high seas. I made it clear that the United Kingdom would seek to reach an agreement during its Presidency of the European Union next year, taking account of both environmental concerns and the needs of the fishermen who have hitherto participated in the fishery.

  Arable Stewardship
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish details of the proposed pilot schemes for arable stewardship. [14047]

  Mr. Morley
  We will be publishing a leaflet which explains the objectives of the arable stewardship pilot scheme and gives brief details of the measures, the location of the two pilot areas and the project officer contacts in the middle of November. It will be sent to all farmers in the pilot areas, members of the National Agri-environment Forum and other interested organisations. The detailed scheme literature and application forms will be available from 5 January 1998 when we will open the scheme to applications.

  Pigs (Tail Docking)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ensure that the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 relating to the docking of pigs' tails is properly enforced by inspectors and veterinarians at abattoirs; and if he will make a statement; [13943]

  (2) how many farmers have been prosecuted under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 for the illegal docking of pigs' tails in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [13942]

  Mr. Morley
  I am keen to discourage the routine tail docking of piglets, a practice which is far too prevalent considering that the law only permits it in certain circumstances. I am considering how best to achieve this. No prosecutions relating to the docking of tails have been brought by MAFF under schedule 3 of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 during 1995–96 or 1996–97. Prosecutions brought by local authorities or other bodies are not recorded centrally.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the advice of the Forestry Commission on the hunting of foxes on Commission land; and if he will publish all the advice given. [14045]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission is reviewing its policy on hunting over commission land, and we expect to receive its advice soon. This is an internal review and the advice will therefore not be published.

  Pig Production
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the use of meat and bonemeal in continental pig production; and if he will make a statement. [14169]

  Mr. Rooker
  Representations have been received from UK pig farmers reflecting their disappointment at the differences between our own controls on feed and those imposed by our European partners.

  Farmers in other Member States are permitted to feed meat and bonemeal (MBM) to non-ruminant livestock. In the UK, mammalian MBM has been prohibited from all farmed livestock feed, including pig, since March 1996. This extension of our ban, which formerly only applied to ruminant feed, was introduced on the specific advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to avoid the risk of any cross-contamination between ruminant and non-ruminant feed. Such cross-contamination could lead to the perpetuation of the BSE epidemic in British cattle.

  The UK has had far more cases of BSE than other Member States, and that is why we have a range of measures here which go considerably further than those taken elsewhere.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invite the Committee on Toxicology of Chemicals in Food to reconsider the
  39
  research evidence on vitamin B6 in dietary supplements on which they based their advice, with special reference to the study by Dalton and Dalton; what assessment he has made of the criticism of the Committee's research evaluation; and if he will ensure that the members of the Committee have no interest which could be relevant to their advice. [14042]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has considered the data on the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two separate occasions. It is aware that the validity of some of the science on which its recommendation was based—including the study by Dalton and Dalton—has been questioned but it has not been persuaded that this issue needs to be looked at for a third time. The Government has every confidence in the rigour with which the COT reviewed the data and in the robustness of the recommendation it made. We see no reason to invite the Committee to reconsider the evidence.

  Members of the COT are appointed by the Chief Medical Officer as independent scientific and medical experts on the basis of special skills and knowledge. However, it is inevitable that most experts will have gained experience by applying scientific and toxicological skills to address questions of a commercial nature. In order to ensure that these commercial interests do not conflict with the need to obtain independent expert advice, members are required to declare any commercial interests on appointment and, again, during meetings if a topic arises in which they have an interest. Details of the interests declared by COT Members have been placed in the Library. The Government is wholly satisfied with the integrity of the members of the COT and with the independence of its advice.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Krebs report into the incidence of TB in the badger population and its impact on dairy and beef producers; and if he will publish the report in full. [14046]

  Mr. Rooker
  I expect to receive the report before the end of the year. The report will be published in full.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number and percentage of businesses in(a) Tamworth and (b) Staffordshire with between (i) 0–9 employees, (ii) 10–49 employees, (iii) 50–99 employees, (iv) 100–249 employees and (v) 250–500 employees; and how many people are employed in each size band. [13889]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not kept in the form requested by my hon. Friend. However, data from the Annual Employment Survey showing size band distributions of employment in Tamworth and in Staffordshire are set out in the tables. A unit does not correspond to the terms "firm, company" or; "business", by which employers are sometimes identified, but is roughly equivalent to a workplace.40

  Employment Size band

  Number of units

  Percentage of units

  Number of employees

  Percentage of employees

  Tamworth

  1-10

  501

  60.8

  1,999

  10.4

  11-49

  222

  26.9

  4,987

  26.0

  50-99

  55

  6.7

  3,850

  20.1

  100-199

  35

  4.2

  4,634

  24.2

  200-499

  9

  1.1

  2,543

  13.3

  500 or more

  2

  0.2

  1,155

  6.0

  Total

  824

  100.0

  19,168

  100.0

  Staffordshire

  1-10

  15,091

  72.9

  57,937

  16.3

  11-49

  4,386

  21.2

  97,718

  27.5

  50-99

  648

  3.1

  44,910

  12.6

  100-199

  350

  1.7

  47,790

  13.4

  200-499

  165

  0.8

  50,349

  14.2

  500 or more

  49

  0.2

  57,065

  16.0

  Total

  20,689

  100.0

  355,766

  100.0

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the growth and barriers to growth of small businesses; and what her Department has identified as the main barriers. [13892]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department has commissioned the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Business Research of the University of Cambridge and Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC), to carry out research on growth constraints on Small and Medium Firms.

  Management and employee development and expertise was found to be the key to sustained growth over a period of several years.

  Particular constraints were:
  the level and depth of internal management capability and human resource development;
  internal resource management, particularly in relation to budgeting, costing, invoicing and payment procedures;
  the firm's management systems;
  insufficient awareness of the range of facilities of computer based IT systems as a cost/time saving management tool;
  the need to address skill shortages through effective training or recruitment;
  a too narrow customer/product base;
  the need for external providers of finance to be an enabling rather than constraining forces (as many firms in the study perceived them to be).

  Coal
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the renewal of domestic coal contracts by the generating companies in 1998; and if she will make a statement. [13144]

  Mr. Battle
  I have received representations from one of the coal companies in respect of power station contracts being negotiated for the period beyond March 1998. The negotiations are primarily a matter for the private sector companies involved.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of late payment of debt she estimates is attributable to small businesses failing to pay other such businesses on time; and what research on this subject her Department have(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated; [13524]

  (2) what research her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to quantify the effect on small businesses of late payment of debt. [13523]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Recent research undertaken by NOP showed that late payment causes serious problems for all businesses in the UK. As a direct result of late payment, 72 per cent. of those businesses surveyed have cash flow difficulties, 62 per cent. are less profitable, 45 per cent. are unable to grow and 41 per cent. say that their very survival is threatened.

  The findings of a recent report undertaken by Trade Indemnity also showed that small businesses continue to suffer more from late payment than larger ones. Small businesses with a turnover of less than £1 million were found to have 29 per cent. of invoices outstanding compared to only 9 per cent. for businesses with turnover of £50 million.

  In addition surveys by Grant Thornton, Lloyds Bank, The British Chambers of Commerce, Experian and Dun and Bradstreet have all shown that large firms are the worst payers with Experian identifying that large companies were two and a half times more likely to pay their bills late than small companies.

  The Government is determined to promote a better payment culture in the UK. That is why we have responded to the calls from small businesses and announced a new package of measures to tackle late payment, including the introduction of legislation to provide a statutory right to claim interest on late payment of commercial debt.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the Ministers responsible for small businesses in each Government Department and the dates of their appointment, (b) the dates on which they have met and (c) the dates on which they are expected to meet during the next 12 months. [13522]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Firms employing fewer than 50 people contribute 99 per cent. of all UK businesses. All Government Ministers, therefore, have a responsibility to consider the impact on small firms of the policy and regulatory decisions made by their Department. As Minister with responsibility for small business, I deal directly with Ministers in a number of Government Departments on specific issues that are of particular concern to smaller firms.

  The Access Business Ministerial Group, of which I am a member, is chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service. This Group ensures that regulatory practise and advice and information, from both central and local government is as transparent, accessible and helpful as possible.
  42
  A Parliamentary Debate on small firms in Spring 1998 will provide an opportunity for all members to contribute their views on the role and importance of small businesses to the economy of the UK.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe sold his BP shares. [13216]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe announced his intention to dispose of his shareholdings in BP in his statement of 5 August. He immediately instructed his bank to make the necessary arrangements which have now been completed.

  Payment of Debts
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to establish a reference point from which improvements in payment times for small businesses would be measured under a statutory right for interest. [13107]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department will continue to monitor and analyse the findings of business surveys into payment times for small businesses. In addition my officials are discussing with the University of Bradford the establishment of a payment observatory which will monitor and report on payment trends including the lateness of payment. The observatory would also identify best practice in credit management so that small businesses can benchmark their own performance.

  The Government has made it clear that the Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill is just one of a package of new measures that it will bring forward to promote a better payment culture in the UK. Central and Local Government will be required to publish tables of their actual payment performance and the Government has welcomed the announcement by the Federation of Small Businesses that they will publish league tables of the average payment times of public companies and their large private subsidiaries.

  The Government fully recognises the importance of effective credit management procedures and is pleased that all the main small firms organisations have agreed to work with the Government to look at better payment practice.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when she intends to introduce support for clean coal technology via the non-fossil fuel obligation process; [13106]

  (2) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Commission over the legality of providing clean coal technology support through the non-fossil fuel obligation process. [13105]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is nearing completion of a major review of clean coal technology which has involved extensive discussions with industry, universities and a number of overseas organisations such as the International Energy Agency. The review covers future research,
  43
  development and demonstration requirements and has examined a range of funding options for such requirements, including the NFFO process. An announcement on the outcome of the review, our proposed future policy, and proposed consultation with the Commission, will be made once we have had time to consider the review's findings.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines her Department has issued to British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning future liabilities on overseas contracts.[13555]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: BNFL's commercial contracts with overseas customers for reprocessing services are underpinned by inter-Governmental agreements. Arrangements for implementing these contracts, including the accounting treatment, are a matter for the company. In relation to such contracts, I understand that the company, where applicable, makes prudent and appropriate provision for future liabilities that may arise, in accordance with generally accepted accounting policies. Full details of BNFL's accounting policies on, and provisions for, future liabilities are given in its Annual Report and Accounts.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the implications for nuclear safety of the projected merger between BNFL and Siemens. [13761]

  Mr. Battle
  Discussions between BNFL and Siemens concerning a possible joint venture company are at a preliminary stage. My Department is being kept fully informed of developments. Any undertakings concerned with nuclear operations will, of course, be subject to the applicable safety regulations.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statutory instruments have been made during the summer Adjournment by her Department. [13553]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: My Department made, and laid, the following Statutory Instruments during the summer adjournment:

  Statutory Instrument

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Short Range Devices) (Exemption) (Amendment)Regulations

  S.I. 1997/1996

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Network User Stations) (Exemption) Regulations

  S.I. 1997/2137

  The Public Telecommunication System Designation (ACC Long Distance UK Limited) (No.2) Order

  S.I. 1997/2177

  The Public Telecommunication System Designation (Coventry Cable Limited) Order

  S.I. 1997/2178

  The Public Telecommunication System Designation (Diamond Cable Communications (UK) Limited) Order

  S.I. 1997/2179

  The Public Telecommunication System Designation (Advanced Radio Telecom Limited) Order

  S.I. 1997/2180

  The Public Telecommunication System Designation (Radio Tel Systems Limited)Order

  S.I. 1997/2181

  44

  Statutory Instrument

  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations

  S.I. 1997/2294

  The Companies (Membership of Holding Company) (Dealers In Securities Regulations)

  S.I. 1997/2306

  The Gas Act 1986 (Exemption) Order

  S.I. 1997/2427

  In addition my Department made one further Statutory Instrument which is not subject to Parliamentary procedure:
  The Export of Goods (United Nations Sanctions) (Sierra Leone) Order: S.I. 1997/2464.

  Mixed Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of mixed oxide fuel have been transported from Sellafield to date for use in German nuclear power plants. [13740]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department's annual press release details the total exports of plutonium in the form of non-irradiated mixed oxide fuels. Copies of this, and previous releases, are available in the Library of the House. The most recent release, on July 31 1997, reported that 83 kg of plutonium were exported as MOX fuel, exclusively to Germany. Details of individual contracts remain commercially confidential.

  Cable Operators
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will encourage cable operators to offer wireless as well as wired telecommunications services. [13114]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 includes statutory provision for the use of wireless transmission by cable operators, and the licenses now being issued to franchise holders by the Independent Television Commission and my Department both allow this. The Government has allocated the 40.5–42.5 Ghz band for this purpose.

  The Government has allocated spectrum within the 2,3,4 and 10 Ghz bands to other wireless telecommunication operators. The ability to deliver broadband services to premises also has considerable potential for improving communications, particularly in rural areas, and the Government is considering the best way forward in further encouraging such networks, including the use of wireless.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current level of trade between Britain and India. [13922]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1996, trade in goods and services between Britain and India was worth £4.1 billion, 7 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The value of UK exports of goods and services increased by 1.5 per cent. to £2.1 billion while UK imports rose by 14 per cent. to £2.0 billion.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she next plans to visit India. [13925]
  45
  Mrs. Beckett
  I shall be visiting India from 16–18 November this year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of staffing at the India desk of her Department. [13923]

  Mrs. Roche
  Currently 13 people are allocated to the India desk.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate how many British firms have offices in India. [13924]

  Mrs. Roche
  Although no precise information is available, it is estimated that there are at least 300 British firms with offices in India.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current level of trade between Britain and Pakistan. [13926]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1996, trade in goods and services between Britain and Pakistan was worth £1.1 billion, 7 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The value of UK exports of goods and services increased by 6 per cent. to £590 million while UK imports rose by 8 per cent. to £545 million.

  Quadrant Catering
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the selling of Quadrant Catering by the Post Office; and if she will make a statement. [13668]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the future of Quadrant, the catering business of the Post Office, from members of the Communication Workers Union either directly or through Members of Parliament. Quadrant Catering Limited was established as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office on 29 September. My right hon. Friend's consent is required under the British Telecommunications Act 1981 to the sale of shares in Quadrant Catering Limited to a private sector partner to establish a joint venture operation.

  Telemarketing
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to eliminate the sending of unsolicited faxes from telemarketing companies. [13484]

  Mrs. Roche
  The EU Distance Selling Directive, which should be implemented by June 2000, will prohibit suppliers such as telemarketing companies from sending faxes to consumers without their prior consent. I will consult on implementation of this Directive early next year. In the meantime, people can register with the Fax Preference Service (FPS). The companies who subscribe to it undertake that they will not sent unsolicited faxes to any consumer who registers with the FPS.

  Export Credit Insurance
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the costs to public funds of the United Kingdom acceptance of the European Council directive on the harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export credit insurance for transactions with medium and long-term cover. [12513]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The ECGD has carried out a full and thorough assessment of the costs associated with implementing this Directive. Taken as a whole, the effects of the Directive as currently drafted are broadly cost neutral for the UK Government and will not result in any additional burden to UK tax payers. A detailed analysis of the costs involved is set out in Explanatory Memorandum 9507/97 COM (97) 264 which was submitted to the House of Commons and House of Lords Scrutiny Committees on 7 October.

SCOTLAND

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the suppliers to his Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13544]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: All Departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Such detailed information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dayell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider amending the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to permit a Scottish court to sit overseas to try those accused in respect of Lockerbie. [13213]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The Government remain committed to trial of the two Libyan accused in Scotland or the United States and it would therefor be inappropriate and unnecessary to amend the criminal procedure legislation.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of prescribing beta interferon in each year since 1995 for each health board. [13477]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information for Scotland for the financial years 1995–96 to 1997–98 is shown in the table.

  The costs shown for prescriptions dispensed through community pharmacies are based on the value of ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges.
  47
  In order not to disclose information that may relate to an individual patient, the data are presented on a national basis.

  Cost (£)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  April-August 19971

  Cost of prescriptions for beta interferon dispensed through community pharmacies:

  —

  27,465

  87,418

  Cost of prescriptions for beta interferon dispensed in hospitals:

  1,894

  171,462

  56,890

  Scotland

  1,894

  198,927

  144,308

  1 Provisional.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost to date of external consultancies associated with the specification of the proposed private finance initiative contract at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust; and from which budgets these costs have been met. [12746]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust has to date incurred £3.4 million for fees for external advice in connection with the New Royal Infirmary PFI project as detailed in the table. The costs have been met by the Trust from its own resources, including non-recurring revenue grants from The Scottish Office.

  Fees incurred for:

  £000

  Design

  1,455

  Financial

  398

  Legal

  1,258

  Others

  288

  Total

  3,399

  Community Care
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding future provision of community care; and if he will make a statement. [12701]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The successful delivery of community care services depends on effective joint working between health, social work and housing agencies and on their making the best use of resources available to them including, for example, purchasing from the private and voluntary sectors. We are reviewing the various elements of community care funding and the Government are setting up a Royal Commission to review the arrangements for funding the long-term care of the elderly. We are preparing improved guidance on procedures for assessing the needs of older people and will consult later this year on how best to promote and improve joint working.

  Local Government Electorate
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the electorate of each ward in each local authority area in Scotland. [12697]
  48
  Mr. Chisholm
  The electorate for local government elections in each ward of each local authority area in 1997, drawn from information held by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, is set out in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Post-operative Care
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the provision of post-operative care; and if he will make a statement. [12700]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Responsibility for determining the range of services needed to meet all the health care needs of their population rests with Health Boards. That general principle applies to post-operative care.

  The national clinical audit database lists more than 80 local audit projects on post-operative care from Health Boards and Trusts covering a wide range of specialties and professions. This information is available to all hospitals as a means of disseminating good practice and avoiding duplication of effort.

WALES

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact upon the economy of(a) Deeside and (b) North East Wales, of opening the new River Dee crossing. [13315]

  Mr. Hain
  None. Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates the new River Dee crossing will be open to public traffic; and when he expects the official opening will take place. [13313]

  Mr. Hain
  Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme. They estimate completion before Christmas.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost to date of building(a) the new River Dee crossing and (b) associated approach roads.[13314]

  Mr. Hain
  Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme. The Welsh Office has to date provided support of some £64 million under the Transport Grant arrangements.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the annual number of vehicles which will use the River Dee crossing; and if he will make a statement. [13316]

  Mr. Hain
  Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme. They estimate average daily flows of 21,100.

  Transport Grants
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to reduce the current disparity in the funding of Welsh transport grants between urban and rural Wales; and if he will make a statement. [13171]
  49
  Mr. Hain
  All local authorities in Wales are invited to bid for transport grant and each scheme submitted is assessed on its merits against the grant criteria. I will ensure that all projects submitted by rural authorities are given fair consideration against these criteria.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to include economic development effects within cost-benefit analyses when awarding transport grants in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [13174]

  Mr. Hain
  Economic development effects do not form part of the standard cost-benefit analyses used to assess road schemes. However, they form part of the wider Transport Grant criteria upon which projects are assessed.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to bring the strategic

  Patients removed from general medical practitioners lists

  Patients removed because of act or threat of violence

  Patients removed at request of GP1

  Patients transferred at request of Patient

  FHSA2

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  4

  8

  458

  288

  1

  n/a

  Dyfed

  —

  12

  91

  93

  2

  2

  Gwent

  —

  9

  520

  442

  4

  5

  Gwynedd

  —

  9

  46

  77

  —

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  20

  518

  347

  8

  13

  Powys

  —

  —

  11

  12

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  n/a

  33

  1,407

  1,150

  24

  22

  West Glamorgan

  n/a

  6

  479

  527

  9

  25

  Wales

  n/a

  97

  3,530

  2,936

  48

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 Excluding those recorded under first category.

  2 Currently available data are for 1993–94 and 1994–95 for former Family Health Service Authorities. n/a = not available.

  Source:

  GMP Census Additional Data Collection 1994–95, Department of Health 1996.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Litigation
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has conducted into the requirement, in terms of the likely success or merits of a case, for the instigation of civil proceedings by a litigant; what criteria correspond to current usual practice; and if he will make a statement. [13772]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision whether to litigate and the criteria applied to judge the likely success or merits of the case are matters for the client on the professional advice of his lawyer if he has one. I have not commissioned research into this specific area but my Department has commissioned a number of research projects which look generally at why people choose to litigate.
  50
  planning authority for public transport for Wales under the remit of the Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [13172]

  Mr. Hain
  There is no strategic planning authority for public transport for Wales. However, the Government are currently consulting on an integrated transport policy. The Government's policy on devolution is that the Welsh Assembly will take over virtually all the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales. The functions, including those with respect to public transport, will be set out in an order that will be made under the Act which establishes the Assembly.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were removed from general practitioners lists by(a) county and (b) health authority in each of the past five years. [14212]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The presently available information, for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95, is given in the table:

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria and methods his Department intends to use to measure the probability of success in cases of civil litigation; and if he will make a statement. [13719]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision whether to litigate and the criteria applied to judge the likely success or merits of the case are matters for the client on the professional advice of his lawyer if he has one.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations his Department has held with members of the insurance industry, and related experts, on the subject of arrangements for insurance civil litigants who will be able to litigate using the intended extension of the conditional fee agreement; what were the conclusions of such discussions; and if he will make a statement. [13715]

  Mr. Hoon
  My officials are in discussion with interested parties, including representatives of the insurance industry, about the range of issues connected
  51
  with the extension of conditional fees, and not least the provision of insurance against the potential liability for an opponents costs and who should meet those costs.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations his Department is holding on plans for changes in the legal aid and civil justice system; which bodies he is willing to accept representations from; and what the deadlines are for consultation on each aspect. [13717]

  Mr. Hoon
  I include a table showing the consultation papers that are presently planned. In many cases the dates are provisional and may be changed in the light of circumstance.

  I welcome representations from anybody who wishes to contribute and not simply the professional bodies, special interest and consumer groups who are routinely consulted. Copies of consultation papers are available without charge from my department and can also be found on the Internet (www.open.gov.uk/lcd/index.htm) and responses can be made by e-mail.

  Civil justice reform

  Issue date

  Responses required by

  Clinical negligence procedures

  Paper issued on 31 October 1997

  31 December 1997

  Multi-party situations

  Paper issued on 31 October 1997

  31 December 1997

  Specialist jurisdictions (Chancery, Admiralty, Official Referees etc.)

  Planned for November 1997

  Expected to be end of January 1998

  Small claims limit and fast track limit

  Planned for November 1997

  Expected to be end of January 1998

  Civil court fees

  Planned for November 1997

  Yet to be decided

  Fast track costs and fixed costs

  Planned for April 1998

  Expected to be end of July 1998

  Extension of conditional fees

  Planned for January 1998

  Yet to be decided

  Changes to scope of civil legal aid

  Planned for January 1998

  Yet to be decided

  Legal Aid reform proposals for introducing contracts and a revised merits test

  Consultation will take place during the first half of 1998

  It is planned to complete the consultation by end of june 1998

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the expenditure implications of the changes in(a) training, (b) staffing and (c) information technology required for the implementation of those of Lord Woolf's civil justice proposals which Her Majesty's Government intends to implement by April 1999. [13714]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the Hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. John Burnett, dated 3 November:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the costs of Lord Woolf's Civil Justice proposals.
  52
  We are currently working out the detailed implications of the effects of the changes on (a) training, (b) staffing and (c) information technology of the Lord Chancellor's recent announcement on the Middleton Review, but are not yet in a position to give specific expenditure figures. However, although there will be implementation costs in the short term, they will be in line with the Government's commitment to remain within current expenditure plans and therefore will be absorbed within existing budgets.

  Conditional Fee Cases
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many conditional fee cases his Department has monitored in drawing up plans for changes in the legal aid and civil justice systems; if he will publish such research; and if he will make a statement. [13716]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department was represented on the working group that oversaw the research commissioned by ACLEC from the Public Studies Institute the results of which were published by the PSI on 23 September 1997. Copies of the research are available from PSI. The solicitors who provided information to PSI had entered into 837 agreements at the time the research took place and provided details of 197 agreements for analysis.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the Minister to whom each is responsible, indicating the subjects on which they advise. [12329]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently no special advisers in this Department.

  Solicitors (Complaints)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce measures to provide for a statutory complaints procedure against solicitors. [12604]

  Mr. Hoon
  The department has no plans to create a new complaints handling body. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was set up by the Law Society in September 1996 and I agree with the Legal Services Ombudsman that it will take two to three years before the Office can be properly judged by results.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in securing compensation for United Kingdom haulage companies which suffered losses as a result of the industrial action around French ports during the summer. [13038]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no information on claims for compensation in respect of the dispute which blocked some French Ports in April 1997. It may be that hauliers have claimed directly from the French. We are in
  53
  close touch with the French authorities over the outstanding claims for compensation in respect of the lorry blockade in November 1996.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the consistency of road traffic regulations in different member countries of the EU which affect United Kingdom haulage companies. [13034]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Most EU legislation on road haulage is aimed at completing the single market in transport: even where agreements have been reached there is often some scope for variations and exemptions between States. There are also, in practice, some differences in interpretation of EU legislation and inconsistencies in its application. By contrast, much other road traffic legislation is better made at national level taking account of the differences in road condition, driver training, penalties and enforcement in individual Member States.

  Differences may include the side of the road on which traffic passes, maximum lorry weights, speed limits, the provisions of various national highways codes, priorities at roundabouts, night-time, weekend and bank holiday lorry bans, lorry routeing, and the requirement to pay tolls or purchase vignettes. There are also various more specialised requirements such as documents or markings on the vehicle giving details of weights and dimensions of the vehicle and the threshold for requirements to notify police authorities and highway agencies of abnormal loads. The penalties are those laid down in national penal codes.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since 1 May Her Majesty's Government have protested to other EU member states about the treatment of United Kingdom lorry drivers by local police or other authorities in their countries; and if he will make a statement. [13036]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have written on 16 occasions to the governments of other Member States following requests from UK hauliers for assistance. Most of these were in relation to disputed fines.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, at the third conference of the parties to the climate change convention in December, he will support the Africa Group's proposals for fair shares in respect of a global limit on emissions. [13013]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government recognise the importance of long-term reductions in emissions taking into account issues of equality and the need for developing countries to develop their economies and combat poverty. The proposals of the Africa Group merit consideration as one of a number of approaches to the long-term control of greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime we believe that developed countries must take the lead and agree at Kyoto to making legally binding significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions after 2000. The EU proposal for a 15 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010 provides the best way of achieving this.
  54
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will press at the third climate change convention in December for all industrialised countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2005. [13014]

  Angela Eagle
  At the Third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, the Government will be supporting the EU proposal that developed countries reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010, and by at least 7.5 per cent. by 2005. The Government think that it is important that Kyoto sets a target for 2005, and we believe this figure strikes the right balance between ambition and achievability.

  Green-belt Land
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changing the restrictions on the use of green-belt land. [13029]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's Green Belt policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG)2. There are no current plans to revise this PPG.

  Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons a minimum age of five years was adopted for the award of an orange badge for parking purposes; and what plans his Department has to review this rule. [13004]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The minimum age for eligibility for an Orange Badge is two years; this is laid down in the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982. The reason is that children below this age will often be carried in a pram or pushchair, whether they are disabled or not. We keep the operation of the Orange Badge Scheme under review but we have no plans at present to change the eligibility criteria.

  Housing (Provision of Services)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he is considering for changes in the allocation of responsibility for the provision of transport and other services, with special reference to water for new housing developments, particularly in rural areas. [13007]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no current plans for changes. We are, however, looking at these and other issues mainly in the context of the work on our integrated transport strategy and in our consideration of the responses to last year's green paper on household growth.

  Housing (Rented Accommodation)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proportion of the projected increase in demand for housing is for rented accommodation;[13009]

  (2) what estimates he has made of future changes in the demand for rented accommodation; and what evidence these are based on. [13010]
  55
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department published a paper in May 1995 ("Provisional for Social Housing—Background Analysis: Households in England, their Housing Tenure and the Housing Stock, 1991–2001") analysing the way in which population changes and household growth might alter the demand for housing in England by main tenure over the period 1991 to 2001. This indicated a newly arising need for social housing of between 60,000 and 100,000 units per annum.

  The range of demand for additional social housing was calculated by taking the Department's official projection of the growth in household numbers over the 10-year period and subtracting estimated growth in owner occupation. Estimates were based essentially on past trends. The methodology assumed that overall size of the private rented sector would remain unchanged over the 10-years (though in practice it has expanded). Specific adjustments were made for Right To Buy sales, demolitions, etc.

  In November 1995, my Department commissioned the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Cambridge to undertake a feasibility study to develop an economic model of the demand and need for social housing in England between 1996 and 2006. A technical report on this study will be published shortly.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment, Transport and the Regions what action has been taken to reduce discharges of the radioactive substance technetium 99 from the Sellafield reprocessing plant. [13023]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 all discharges of radioactivity from the Sellafield site are authorised by the Enviornment Agency. British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) has applied to the Environment Agency to vary its discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site. The application includes a reduction in the maximum permitted levels of technetium-99 discharges to sea.

  In July, BNFL provided additional information to the Environment Agency in support of its application in respect of its aerial discharges. The Environment Agency is considering the additional information.

  My Department has received requests for the application to be called in by the Secretary of State for his own determination. These requests are being considered.

  The Government are committed to ensuring the best practicable means are used to limit radioactive discharges. Indeed, the Government agreed to comply within a request to demonstrate to the OSPAR Commission how the UK is meeting the obligations of the OSPAR Convention with respect to reducing discharges and eliminating any pollution from discharges of technetium-99 from Sellafield to the Irish Sea.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to implement the objectives of the OSPAR Convention in respect of(a) protection from the harmful effects of ionising radiation, (b)prevention of marine
  56
  pollution caused by radioactive discharges and emissions and (c) continuous reduction of discharges of radioactive substances. [13024]

  Angela Eagle
  Discussions are continuing within OSPAR, in which UK officials are involved, on the form of an objective with regard to radioactive substances and a strategy to achieve that objective. This will form part of the conclusions of the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting being held next summer. In the meantime, the UK is continuing to comply with all its international obligations on the protection of the environment, the public and workers from harmful effects of ionising radiation.

  The UK is also continuing to develop and use the Best Available Techniques to prevent pollution of the marine environment from inputs of radioactive substances. We indicated at the OSPAR meeting in September our wish to make progress on the question of reducing nuclear discharges to the marine environment and to work with our OSPAR colleagues to find a way of committing all countries to this action.

  Housing Needs
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on what evidence his Department's projections of the increase in the number of households by the year 2016 are based; [13028]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the accuracy of the projected increase in the number of households by the year 2016. [13067]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Descriptions of the methodology and main statistical assumptions underlying the household projections to 2016 are set out in the annexes to "Projections of Households in England in 2016", published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. A copy of this publication is in the Library of the House.

  My Department has received many representations about the accuracy of the household projections and they have been subject to considerable scrutiny since their publication. Much of this work has been published, for example by the Environment Committee in evidence for its report on Housing Need in 1996. Further discussion of the household projections was given in the Green Paper, "Household growth: where shall we live?" which was published last November and the Government are currently considering the responses to that consultation. I am satisfied that the projections were the best that could be made with the available data and that they accurately reflect recent trends.

  Telephone Kiosks
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning the extent of planning controls over the installation of telephone kiosks, with particular reference to security implications in the neighbourhood of potential terrorist targets. [13120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The installation of telephone kiosks under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 is subject to a prior approval procedure, whereby operators must give the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether they
  57
  wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the siting and appearance of the installation. An authority may refuse such approval, if they consider this to be justified. Architectural Liaison Officers (or Crime Prevention Design Advisers in the Metropolitan area) are available in police forces to give advice on crime prevention through environmental design. Such advice may include specific and detailed suggestions about the design of buildings, or general advice about estate design or the siting of particular features.

  Salvage Tugs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to alter the arrangements for stationing of salvage tugs around the United Kingdom coastline; and if he will make a statement. [13147]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Three Government-funded vessels are on station to provide emergency towage primarily for the Dover Strait, North-West Scotland and the South-West Approaches. The current contracts expire on 31 March 1998. The future provision of emergency towing vessels is being considered as part of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Development Plans (Eastern Region)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which district council draft development plans the Government office for the eastern region has commented on since 1 May. [13126]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1 May the Government Office for Eastern Region has commented on the following local plans:Colchester: parts of the pre-consultation draft.
  South Cambridgeshire, Suffolk Coastal: pre-deposit consultation.
  East Cambridgeshire, Norfolk Waste Plan, South Norfolk:deposited plans.
  Basildon, Epping Forest, Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, St. Edmundsbury, Tendring, Thurrock: proposed modifications to deposited plans following public local inquiries.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which draft county structure plans the Government Office for the Eastern region has responded to since 1 May. [13125]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government Office for Eastern Region commented on the pre-deposit consultation draft of the Replacement Essex Structure Plan in July 1997.

  Asbestos
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the Government have made on banning the supply of asbestos products. [13169]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Commission has advised Ministers on a mechanism and timetable for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos products. I will be making an announcement in the near future on how the Government intend to proceed.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the consultation paper on the statutory right to roam will be published. [13127]

  Angela Eagle
  Shortly.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received concerning English Nature's proposal to de-notify the Thame and Hatfield moors SSSI site(a) in favour of the proposal and (b) against the proposal. [13145]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has received 120 representations against English Nature's proposals to de-notify parts of Thorne and Hatfield Moors Sites of Special Scientific Interest. There have been no letters of support to date.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the SSSI sites reviewed by English Nature in each year from 1990 indicating which had the SSSI status removed as a result of the review. [13143]

  Angela Eagle
  Since the creation of English Nature in 1991, officers have made over 10,000 visits to SSSIs. As a result of these visits, English Nature had de-notified 14 entire SSSIs comprising 11 notified solely under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and three notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  A larger number of other SSSIs have also been subject to partial de-notification and extensions as a result of these visits.

  The figures by each year are:

  De-notifications

  1949 Act

  1981 Act

  Area (ha)

  1991–92

  0

  0

  —

  1992–93

  5

  0

  291

  1993–94

  2

  0

  5

  1994–95

  3

  3

  169

  1995–96

  0

  0

  —

  1996–97

  0

  0

  —

  1997–98 (so far)

  1

  0

  10

  Local Government (Grant)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the level of Government grant to each metropolitan authority and London borough in the current financial year. [13478]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Metropolitan authorities and London boroughs have reported the following amounts of central Government grants in 1997–98.
  59

  £ thousand

  Budget estimates

  Grants inside AEF1

  Grants outside AEF2

  Total grants inside and outside AEF3

  Metropolitan authorities

  Bolton

  114,021

  48,786

  162,807

  Bury

  56,112

  28,524

  84,636

  Manchester

  287,674

  152,739

  440,413

  Oldham

  110,403

  36,536

  146,939

  Rochdale

  92,003

  39,966

  131,969

  Salford

  106,920

  48,281

  155,201

  Stockport

  71,359

  46,532

  117,891

  Tameside

  86,659

  37,060

  123,719

  Trafford

  75,888

  34,673

  110,561

  Wigan

  106,964

  38,951

  145,915

  Knowsley

  92,54

  29,878

  121,932

  Liverpool

  281,070

  175,514

  456,584

  St. Helens

  70,939

  30,729

  101,668

  Sefton

  106,053

  61,088

  167,141

  Wirral

  133,470

  67,542

  201,012

  Barnsley

  81,337

  31,823

  113,160

  Doncaster

  125,733

  36,905

  162,638

  Rotherham

  107,942

  36,379

  144,321

  Sheffield

  213,416

  80,296

  293,712

  Gateshead

  88,632

  35,748

  124,380

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  133,801

  60,964

  194,765

  North Tyneside

  77,263

  37,845

  115,108

  South Tyneside

  73,239

  26,102

  99,341

  Sunderland

  135,361

  52,324

  187,685

  Birmingham

  571,291

  234,825

  806,116

  Coventry

  135,036

  62,494

  197,530

  Dudley

  96,310

  32,362

  128,672

  Sandwell

  144,085

  46,945

  191,030

  Solihull

  57,431

  21,391

  78,822

  Walsall

  126,039

  32,811

  158,850

  Wolverhampton

  118,432

  48,681

  167,113

  Bradford

  243,975

  88,784

  332,759

  Calderdale

  77,000

  31,530

  108,530

  Kirklees

  144,337

  63,428

  207,765

  Leeds

  282,456

  120,692

  403,148

  Wakefield

  114,713

  39,020

  153,733

  London Boroughs

  City of London

  69,201

  1,821

  71,022

  Camden

  149,841

  101,576

  251,417

  Greenwich

  149,078

  58,827

  207,905

  Hackney

  198,612

  111,769

  310,381

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  111,704

  65,392

  177,096

  Islington

  147,417

  77,327

  224,744

  Kensington and Chelsea

  80,188

  70,890

  151,078

  Lambeth

  200,684

  110,426

  311,110

  Lewisham

  164,851

  76,780

  241,631

  Southwark

  186,138

  87,241

  273,379

  Tower Hamlets

  211,219

  60,116

  271,335

  Wandsworth

  150,316

  77,154

  227,470

  Westminster

  158,450

  94,723

  253,173

  Barking and Dagenham

  83,667

  26,768

  110,435

  Barnet

  110,992

  89,616

  200,608

  Bexley

  79,065

  37,201

  116,266

  Brent

  158,708

  128,863

  287,571

  Bromley

  84,551

  69,992

  154,543

  Croydon

  125,850

  87,900

  213,750

  Ealing

  137,960

  95,539

  233,499

  Enfield

  127,697

  70,368

  198,065

  Haringey

  149,419

  132,819

  282,238

  Harrow

  69,839

  46,556

  116,395

  Havering

  69,991

  27,548

  97,539

  Hillingdon

  91,578

  39,672

  131,250

  60

  £thousand

  Budget estimates

  Grants inside AEF1

  Grants outside AEF2

  Total grants inside and outside AEF3

  Hounslow

  110,340

  54,242

  164,582

  Kingston upon Thames

  40,923

  28,927

  69,850

  Merton

  58,662

  35,907

  94,569

  Newham

  202,838

  117,951

  320,789

  Redbridge

  102,593

  64,269

  166,862

  Richmond upon Thames

  32,014

  34,734

  66,748

  Sutton

  61,467

  28,774

  90,241

  Waltham Forest

  128,164

  91,372

  219,536

  1 Grants inside AEF include Specific and Special grants inside AEF, SSA Reduction Grant and Revenue Support Grant.

  2 Specific and Special Grants outside AEF.

  3 Total Specific and Special Grants inside and outside AEF.

  Cabinet Committee on the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Cabinet Committee on the Environment last met. [13514]

  Mr. Prescott
  Details of proceedings of Cabinet committees are not published, in accordance with the second exemption of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actions taken by his Department since 1 May to increase provisions for cyclists and increase cycle use. [13503]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 723–24.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of cycles in the United Kingdom and the distance travelled yearly by them in each of the past five years. [13669]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures (shown below) are only available for Great Britain. The number of household bicycles is estimated using the National Travel Survey, and the distance travelled is estimated from the Road Traffic Census. No estimates of the distance cycled off-road are available.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Number of bicycles (millions)

  15.6

  15.7

  16.3

  17.4

  18.3

  Distance travelled (billion kilometres)

  4.7

  4.5

  4.5

  4.5

  4.3

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total mileage, for each London borough, of existing dedicated cycle routes and the distance planned for 1998–99; and when he expects the planned 1,000 mile route system in London to be completed. [13670]
  61
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The 1,500 mile London Cycle Network (LCN) being developed by the 33 London boroughs, with financial support from the Government, comprises dedicated routes, shared routes and signed routes along lightly trafficked roads. A summary table showing miles of existing and planned LCN routes by borough, which includes dedicated routes, is set out below, but specific information on dedicated routes is not held centrally. Approximately one third of the network has been implemented and it will be completed as resources allow.

  Miles of existing and planned LCN routes in London

  Authority

  Existing length (miles)at April 1997

  Planned (miles) 1997–98

  Planned (miles) 1998–991

  Barking and Dagenham

  19.8

  3.7

  4.3

  Barnet

  23.1

  6.8

  0.0

  Bexley

  8.3

  9.9

  8.1

  Brent

  13.8

  3.7

  20.5

  Bromley

  35.8

  7.5

  17.4

  Camden

  11.2

  3.1

  4.4

  City of London

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Croydon

  20.0

  9.9

  6.8

  Ealing

  40.6

  3.7

  3.1

  Enfield

  10.5

  1.9

  1.2

  Greenwich

  19.8

  6.2

  0.6

  Hackney

  11.7

  3.1

  3.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21.4

  5.0

  4.3

  Haringey

  12.8

  0.6

  6.8

  Harrow

  2.0

  3.1

  6.2

  Havering

  5.1

  2.5

  4.4

  Hillingdon

  33.8

  10.6

  11.8

  Hounslow

  30.9

  6.8

  12.4

  Islington

  11.8

  0.6

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.1

  2.5

  2.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  25.9

  5.0

  3.1

  Lambeth

  4.7

  6.2

  1.9

  Lewisham

  8.4

  1.9

  4.3

  Merton

  15.0

  3.7

  6.8

  Newham

  1.9

  13.7

  19.3

  Redbridge

  17.2

  0.0

  2.5

  Richmond

  40.6

  9.3

  6.8

  Southwark

  14.0

  6.2

  0.0

  Sutton

  18.6

  0.6

  6.2

  Tower Hamlets

  13.4

  1.2

  1.9

  Waltham Forest

  22.9

  6.2

  9.3

  Wandsworth

  36.8

  0.6

  4.4

  Westminster

  7.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Totals

  564.30

  145.80

  185.00

  1 Dependent on availability of funding. In addition there are 8.6 miles of Thames Cycle Route to be introduced by a number of boroughs in 1997–98 and a further 12.4 miles in 1998–99.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Review)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the independent review of the standard spending assessment; and when the report will be published. [13393]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has not set up an independent review of standard spending assessments. The calculation of standard spending assessments is regularly discussed with the Local Government Association in the Standard Spending Assessments Sub-group. In addition, the review of local government finance, which is being carried out in consultation with the Local Government Association, is considering the role 62
  of needs assessment in the allocation of central government grant to local authorities. I expect this part of the review to report next spring.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the level of Government revenue support grant allocated to each metropolitan and London authority for each child in local authority care; [13873]

  (2) if he will list the level of grant allocated to each local authority for the care of the elderly. [13874]

  (3) if he will list the average level of grant per child received by each authority for the provision of primary and secondary school education. [13875]

  (4) if he will list the average rate of grant per head received by each authority for the care of elderly persons in each local authority. [13876]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Revenue Support Grant is paid to authorities in support of their general revenues. It is not allocated for particular purposes.

  Grants specific to particular kinds of expenditure are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if standard spending assessments will continue to be used as the primary basis for capping; what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of using SSA as a basis for measurement; and what proposals he has to facilitate better long-term planning by local authorities in respect of capping. [13896]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are committed to ending crude and universal capping as soon as possible. We announced in July a review of local government finance which, among other things, will help to put in place the changes needed to deliver that commitment. In the meantime, capping will remain in place in 1998–99 and capping guidelines will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy that future years capital financing standard spending assessments will reflect the true cost of financing capital schemes. [13897]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are considering a range of possible changes for next year to make the SSAs fairer. We shall do as much as is compatible with our commitments on public expenditure.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take into account in his SSA review the problems of local authorities with a low tax base. [14198]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Review of Local Government Finance is considering, among other things, the way in which the Revenue Support Grant takes account of the needs and taxbase of authorities.
  63
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years the amounts of capital receipts which(a) have been released and (b) are planned to be released by each local authority. [13026]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the Capital Receipts Initiative, the Government will begin to release additional resources to local authorities to meet pressing housing need. Copies of individual authorities' illustrative entitlements in 1997–98 and 1998–99 have been placed in the Library.

  Households
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what evidence his Department's projections of the increase in the number of households by the year 2016 is based in respect of(a) each region and (b) each county of the south-east region. [13696]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Descriptions of the methodology and main statistical assumptions underlying the household projections to 2016 are set out in the annexes of "Projections of Households in England to 2016", published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. A copy of this publication is in the Library of the House.

  Projections were published for every county, metropolitan district and London borough. Separate household projections were made independently for each of these projection areas, based on sub-national population projections compiled by the Office for National Statistics (formerly OPCS), and these are calibrated to ensure consistency with the regional and national projections.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the future of the Civil Aviation Authority; and what are his plans for its eventual privatisation. [13746]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are considering, with colleagues, the options for the future of the National Air Traffic Services of the Civil Aviation Authority. Privatisation is one of the options under consideration. We shall announce our decision in due course.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment 64
  he has made of the wider benefits to the regional economy of granting transatlantic fifth freedom rights to selected far and middle east carriers in respect of United Kingdom regional airports. [13364]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is normal practice for the Department to ask the CAA to carry out an economic analysis before air services negotiations. This covers a range of factors including, where appropriate, benefits to the regional economy, and is taken into account by the Department in its strategy for the negotiations.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation Registration Scheme
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the counties in England and Wales which(a) have and (b) have not implemented a houses in multiple occupation registration scheme. [14210]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not currently available. Since 3 March 1997, local housing authorities in England and Wales have been free to adopt registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation, which conform to models prepared by the Secretary of State, without the need to notify or obtain prior approval from central Government.

  The Government are committed to introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. The coverage of the existing registration schemes will be a relevant issue in formulating proposals for such a scheme and we will be collecting this information from local authorities in due course.

  Advice and Family Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he is making to supply low-income families with more advice centres and family centres. [13733]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) supports a range of locally led community projects which include the provision of advice, family and community centres and other initiatives of benefit to low-income families. Round 4 of the SRB Challenge Fund has been specifically recast to target it more effectively on those in the greatest need.

  More generally, the need to spend on local authority services is reflected in local authorities' Standard Spending Assessments which are used for the distribution of Revenue Support Grant. Decisions on spending priorities are a matter for each local authority.

  County Services Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the county services block SSA; and if he will include in it an economic index element. [14197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This has been discussed with the Local Government Association this year. We expect to announce our proposals for SSAs for 1998–99 at about the beginning of December.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total capital receipts to be released to each London borough and over what period; and what proportion will be spent on housing. [13496]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to Royal Assent to the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill, the entitlement of each London borough under our Capital Receipts Initiative in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is set out in the attached table. These additional capital resources will be available to local authorities to support housing, and housing associated regeneration works. Final decisions about the application of these resources, however, will be for individual local authorities. Decisions about the release of resources under the Capital Receipts Initiative over the longer term will be taken in the context of our Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total housing deficit for affordable housing for each London borough.[13497]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no official estimates of either the current or future housing need for London boroughs.

  The Department has released estimates of housing need for England as a whole. In 1995 the Department released estimates of housing need for England which projected the newly arising need for social housing at between 60,000 and 100,000 units per year over the period 1991–2001 and research was commissioned in 1995 to develop an economic model of housing need. This work was undertaken by the Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University (DAE). The report on this feasibility research is expected to be published later this year. DAE have been commissioned to undertake further research on the model including work to explore the possibility of regional estimates of housing need.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's current estimate of the rate of global warming; and what are their current predictions for 1998 and the subsequent five years. [13498]
  66
  Angela Eagle
  Over the next century, the rise in global average temperatures caused by the net effect of warming due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and cooling due to man-made sulphate particles is expected to be some 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. This is the consensus view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Due to the large natural variations in temperature between years, the Government does not make predictions of global average temperatures for specific future years.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that as few families as possible are forced to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; [13730]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that as many homeless families as possible are provided with permanent accommodation. [13732]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are committed to placing a new duty on local authorities to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own and are in priority need.

  As soon as possible after being elected to office, we made regulations which require local housing authorities to give reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing to people who are being accommodated temporarily—or who have recently been assisted to secure accommodation themselves—by the authority under the homelessness legislation. These regulations (SI 1997 No 1902, made under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996) come into force on 1 November and restore the link between homelessness and the allocation of long-term settled accommodation.

  Moreover, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, under the Capital Finance Initiative, £784 million will be made available in support of additional capital spending on housing needs in England in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure that bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families is clean, safe and comfortable. [13731]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government encourage local housing authorities to explore all alternatives before resorting to bed-and-breakfast establishments to provide temporary accommodation for homeless families. The Code of Guidance on parts VI and VII of the Housing Act 1996, to which authorities must have regard by law, states that authorities should ensure that bed-and-breakfast accommodation meets the statutory requirements on standards for houses in multiple occupation.
  67
  We are determined to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation. We are preparing a new Code of Practice which will take account of the findings of research into fire risks in houses of multiple occupation which were published by my Department on 30 October. We are also committed to introducing a national licensing system for houses in multiple occupation.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the options currently under consideration for increasing investment in London Underground; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand report compiled for his Department. [12981]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are considering a wide range of options for public/private partnerships to increase investment in London Underground, while ruling out wholesale privatisation. The Government's advisers, Price Waterhouse, have examined debt funding with public ownership; partnership structures which could involve a Trust, a joint venture concession or partial sale of the business, or a full concession; and operational structures which could involve a single business, vertically integrated line businesses or separating infrastructure from operations. The Government are also considering options for increasing investment in the short term. I have no plans to place Price Waterhouse's work in the Library, but will consider what background information should be made available when policies and decisions are announced.

  Railways (Public Service Obligation Grant)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proportion of the turnover of the 25 train operating companies was derived from the public service obligation grant in each year; [12883]

  (2) what proportion of Railtrack's turnover was derived from the public service obligation grant paid to the train operating companies in each year; [12881]

  (3) what proportion of the turnover of the three rolling stock leasing companies was derived from the public service obligation grant paid to the train operating companies in each year.[12882]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Public Service Obligation grant has been replaced by Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS), paid by the Franchising Director to the 25 train operating companies (TOCs). SPRS is not hypothecated to cover particular types of expenditure, so it cannot be directly identified as the source of payments made by TOCs to Railtrack or to the rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs). In addition to SPRS, the TOCs receive income from PTEs, from fares paid for passenger services and from payments made for other services.
  68
  The table provides details, for each year since the TOCs, Railtrack and the ROSCOs were created, of SPRS and PTE payments to the TOCs, access and leasing charges paid by the TOCs, and Railtrack and ROSCO turnover.

  Passenger grants paid to TOCs, etc. 1

  £million cash prices

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  SPRS payments

  1,783

  1,669

  1,809

  PTE payments

  346

  362

  290

  Total public support to TOCs

  2,129

  2,031

  2,099

  TOCs' income from passenger fares2

  2,171

  2,379

  2,582

  Passenger access charges

  1,955

  2,003

  2,119

  Railtrack turnover

  2,275

  2,300

  2,437

  Passenger leasing charges

  800

  3—

  3—

  ROSCO turnover

  800

  3—

  3—

  1 All figures for payments and charges are for the passenger railway industry as a whole. They do not reflect the position of individual TOCs, e.g. Gatwick Express receives no public support.

  2 TOCs' income from other sources is not readily available.

  3 Information may be available from the Registrar of Companies, Companies House, Crown Way, Cardiff, CF4 3UZ.

  Housing Developments (Affordable Housing)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the powers he has to require private developers to provide a proportion of affordable housing in new housing developments; [13006]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of local authorities' powers to ensure that new developments include a sufficient proportion of affordable housing. [13008]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The courts have held that a community's need for a mix of housing types—including affordable housing—is capable of being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications by local authorities or the Secretary of State or appeals by the Secretary of State. The courts have also held that the Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications or appeals.

  The Department's current policies on how the planning system can contribute to the overall supply of affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, as supplemented by Circular 13/96. On 24 July 1997 the Government issued for consultation a draft revision of Circular 13/96. The consultation period ended on 3 October 1997. My Department is currently analysing the responses.

  Local Authority Services (Funding)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the financial provision for local authority services per head of population for each local authority in England in the current financial year.[13395]
  69
  Mr. Raynsford
  Data on 1997–98 Standard Spending Assessments per head of population for each local authority in England is contained in the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1997/98", a copy of which is available in the Library. Table 1 of the Handbook gives figures for total SSA per head and Table 2b gives SSAs by major service block.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of opencast coal mining in England; what consultations he has had with representatives of voluntary and community groups over the review; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards opencast coal mining. [13660]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We published a consultation paper on the review of planning policy for opencast coal on 30 July 1997. The paper sought views on the issues raised by the 10 point plan for opencast coal, which we prepared when in opposition, and the options for change. The closing date for comments is 31 October. We have to date received a number of comments, including 12 from voluntary or community groups and 32 from members of the public. In the light of responses to consultation the Government will decide what changes to policy guidance could and should be implemented in interim planning guidance, which would better be accommodated in a full review, planned for 1998, of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3 (Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal) and whether any legislative changes are necessary.

  Railway Passengers
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what level of passenger in excess of capacity the Rail Regulator is required to consider sanctions on a train operating company; and what plans he has to review this figure. [13052]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) levels are set by the Franchising Director at 3 per cent. across all morning and evening peak services, and 4.5 per cent. across either peak in isolation. These maximum levels are below the average level of overcrowding experienced during the last 10 years of British Rail operation. There are no plans to change these standards, but each train operating company is kept under regular review by OPRAF.

  Passenger counts must be carried out by an OPRAF-approved independent body at least once a year to monitor operator's compliance with PIXC standards. The Franchising Director can instruct an operator to carry out a feasibility study on the most effective method of increasing capacity if it seems likely that because of an increase in demand the operator will be unable to meet the PIXC requirements using existing records.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the number of passengers in excess of capacity on rail passenger safety. [13053]
  70
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. All rolling stock is designed to operate safely, even when fully loaded. Overcrowding in itself is not a safety hazard. The Passengers in Excess Of Capacity levels set by the Franchising Director are intended to maintain reasonable levels of passenger comfort at peak times.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the suppliers to his Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13552]

  Angela Eagle
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Such detailed information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 29 July regarding the black country development corporation—Ref. PT/EE/P50/10996/97; and what are the reasons for the delay. [13202]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday. The delay was primarily due to the need to consider all the responses to the consultation on the proposed Statutory Instruments to secure the wind-up of the Urban Development Corporation.

  Transport Works (Blight)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the(a) report on blight caused by transport works commissioned by the former Secretary of State for Transport and (b) the University business school compulsory purchase review. [13208]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I anticipate receiving the final report of the Interdepartmental Working Group, which was set up to consider the scope, cause and effects of blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure projects, shortly. Once I have received the report I will consider arrangements for its publication. I hope to release the report of the research undertaken by the City University into the operation of compulsory purchase orders at the same time.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend planning policy guidance in respect of the erection of telecommunication masts. [13211]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (Department of the Environment, December 1992) (PPG8). We have no immediate plans to
  71
  review the basic approach of the PPG to the erection of telecommunication masts. Work is in hand with representatives of local planning authorities and telecommunications code system operators to review the working of the Code of Best Practice for Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures as applied to Mast/Tower Development, which was published by my Department last year.

  Railways (Freight)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rail lines operated for freight purposes only, giving the mileage length of each line identified. [13027]

  Glenda Jackson
  As at 31 March 1997, 1,632 kilometres of railway line were available only to freight traffic. Details of individual lines are held by Railtrack rather than the Government.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the commercial and non-commercial interests of the members of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification. [13183]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not have information on the commercial and non-commercial interests of members of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM); nor on any members of the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committees. Such information is not sought by the HSC when members are appointed to committees. The ACGM was set up by the HSC to provide it with expert advice in relation to all aspects of the contained use of genetically modified organisms. Members are nominated by the CBI, TUC and other bodies according to the tripartite principle applicable to all HSC advisory committees.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls exist to ensure that companies retain parental lines of genetically-modified seed varieties granted consent for release for field testing or marketing. [13182]

  Angela Eagle
  The marketing and experimental release of GM plants, including seeds, requires consent from the Secretary of State under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations. Consents may be subject to conditions, which could include conditions with respect to the retention of parental lines. In addition, statutory controls exist over the marketing of all seed of the main agricultural crops, whether genetically modified or not. The effect of these controls is that the seed of parental lines of hybrid varieties can only be produced by or under the control of the person responsible for maintaining the variety.

  Rolling Stock Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the level of profits relative to turnover enjoyed by the rolling stock companies; and if he will make a statement; [13205]
  72
  (2) what plans he has to regulate further the activities of the rolling stock companies.[13206]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently reviewing regulation of the railways as a whole. As part of the review, we are examining the current performance and future operation of the rolling stock leasing market.

  Local Authority Reorganisation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [14067]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 18 July I invited authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1997–98. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the revised maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs in 1997–98. In the initial round priority was given to authorities that were reorganised on 1 April 1997 and will be reorganising on 1 April 1998; I have adopted the same priorities for the mid year stage of the scheme. The majority of the authorities to be reorganised in 1998 requested at the beginning of the scheme that allocations in respect of redundancy be deferred until this round. Accordingly, the allocations listed below for authorities reorganising in 1998 are intended to cover redundancy costs.

  The amounts are as follows:

  Authority

  Maximum amounts: £000s rounded 1997–98

  1996 reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  1,400

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  1,300

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  1,500

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  1,300

  Bristol City Council

  1,100

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  1,700

  North Somerset Council

  1,000

  South Gloucestershire Council

  1,200

  Kingston upon Hull Council

  1,200

  East Riding Yorkshire Council

  2,500

  North Lincolnshire Council

  1,200

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  1,900

  York City Council

  800

  Total

  18,100

  1997 reorganisations

  Bedfordshire County Council

  1,000

  Luton Borough Council

  3,500

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  3,000

  Derbyshire County Council

  650

  Derby City Council

  2,950

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  2,900

  Poole Borough Council

  3,000

  Durham County Council

  350

  Darlington Borough Council

  2,000

  East Sussex County Council

  1,800

  Brighton and Hove Council

  4,000

  Hampshire County Council

  1,600

  Portsmouth City Council

  2,600

  Southampton City Council

  3,200

  Leicestershire County Council

  1,100

  Leicester City Council

  3,100

  73

  Authority

  Maximum amounts: £000s rounded 1997–98

  Rutland Council

  1,160

  Staffordshire County Council

  720

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  2,600

  Wiltshire County Council

  400

  Swindon Borough Council

  2,000

  Total

  43,630

  1998 reorganisations

  Berkshire County Council

  4,100

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  2,100

  Newbury District Council

  2,400

  Reading Borough Council

  3,000

  Slough Borough Council

  2,600

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,200

  Wokingham District Council

  3,500

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  2,300

  Hereford City Council

  250

  Leominster District Council

  350

  Malvern Hills District Council

  600

  South Herefordshire District Council

  200

  County of Herefordshire District Council (shadow)

  13,000

  Worcestershire County Council (shadow)

  12,300

  Malvern Hills District Council (shadow)

  1385

  Devon County Council

  3,000

  Plymouth City Council

  2,900

  Torbay Borough Council

  3,400

  Essex County Council

  2,800

  Southend on Sea Borough Council

  2,950

  Thurrock Borough Council

  2,850

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  2,400

  Nottingham City Council

  3,100

  Cheshire County Council

  2,500

  Halton Borough Council

  2,500

  Warrington Borough Council

  3,300

  Shropshire County Council

  2,100

  The Wrekin District Council

  3,000

  Kent County Council

  3,200

  Gillingham Borough Council

  400

  Rochester City Council

  600

  Medway Towns Council (shadow)

  13,000

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  1,400

  Peterborough City Council

  3,400

  Lancashire County Council

  2,800

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  3,200

  Blackpool Borough Council

  3,000

  Total

  87,085

  Combined total allocations

  148,815

  1 Supplementary Credit Approval to be issued. The figure includes SCA issued in May 1997.

  Isle of Wight Council, Buckinghamshire and Dorset County Councils did not submit bids.

HEALTH

  NHS Capital Prioritisation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health according to which criteria the national health service executive's capital prioritisation advisory group will assess health service need; and which agencies will be asked to contribute to this assessment. [12600]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group will be responsible for determining the criteria for assessing health service need. It is expected that the criteria will include the ability of schemes to deliver benefits such as improved quality 74
  of clinical services, better access to services, development of training teaching and research, and improved environment.

  Preliminary assessments are expected to be made by NHS Executive regional offices and the NHS trusts and the health authorities concerned. These assessments will be reviewed by the NHS Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the capital prioritisation exercise by the national health service executive's capital prioritisation advisory group will begin; who will be consulted; and when the results are expected to be announced. [12599]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group's first exercise will be to prioritise those schemes wishing to go forward in the second tranche of the Private Finance Initiative, which we expect to announce in the spring.

  The process for prioritisation has yet to be finalised. Details will be announced before the of the year, following which work on this first exercise will begin.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost to the national health service of the abuse of cannabis. [13178]

  Ms Jowell
  It is not possible to assess the costs related to a single drug.

  Hospital Car Park Charges
  Ms Jennifer Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trusts charge their patients for parking on hospital sites in the west midlands; and what is the scale of charges. [13690]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts are free to make their own decisions about whether charges for car parking should be made in the light of particular local circumstances. The information on exactly how many do is not collected by the Government.

  The majority of NHS hospital trusts in the West Midlands Region charge users for car-parking on hospital sites. Of the few that do not, some are now looking carefully at and, in at least one case, consulting on this option. Charges are generally in the region of 50p to £1.00 per day; considerably less than standard car parks or parking meter fees.

  Patients who are eligible, under the Hospital Travel Costs Scheme, to claim reimbursement of travelling expenses to and from hospital may also be able to have car parking charges reimbursed.

  Step-parents
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for legislative recognition of the claim of lesbian and gay co-parents to be equivalent to those of step-parents. [14362]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 14 of the Adoption Act 1976 only permits a joint adoption application to be made by a man and woman married to each other; co-habiting couples are therefore excluded from making a joint
  75
  application but an application may be made by one of them. Decisions about the child's placement for adoption will always be determined by the welfare and needs of the child. The Government have no plans to amend the relevant sections of the Act.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of(a) the cost to each local authority of subsistence payments to asylum seekers since January 1997 and (b) the number of people each authority has made payments to. [13671]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not comprehensively available for the period January 1997 to date. Three special grants were made available to local authorities for 1996–97 in respect of their expenditure on support for: adults, families and unaccompanied children. The table below details the amount of grant paid to individual authorities for supporting adult asylum seekers and unaccompanied children in 1996–97 and the estimated expenditure incurred from 1 January to 31 March 1997 by authorities claiming a grant for supporting asylum seeking families.

  Grants will be available for 1997–98 subject to Parliamentary approval. Full details of authorities' expenditure will not be known until claims for the grants are received.

  Information is collected week by week on the numbers being supported by authorities in London. The latest available information, for the week ending 17 October, is that London authorities were supporting 6,707 single adults and 4,006 families (for some authorities the latest information was for a prior week and has been included in the total with no change). Regular data on the numbers of asylum seekers accommodated are not provided by authorities outside London.

  Grants paid to local authorities in 1996–97

  Local authority

  Grant paid to local authorities in 1996–97 for supporting asylum seeking adults £

  Estimated cost to local authorities in supporting asylum seeking families 1 January to 31 March 1997 £

  Grant paid to Local authorities in 1996–97 for supporting unaccompanied children £

  Barking and Dagenham

  19,334.53

  Barnet

  61,898.53

  253,429.00

  Barnsley

  1,534.96

  Berkshire

  40,171.00

  Bexley

  6,699.01

  Birmingham

  14,842.98

  Brent

  326,173.35

  256,392.00

  Bromley

  3,283.57

  Buckinghamshire

  1,909.99

  Cambridgeshire

  24,319.00

  Camden

  612,150.00

  308,054.00

  City of York

  820.71

  Cornwall

  2,831.88

  Corporation of London

  33,000.00

  25,490.00

  2,044.00

  Croydon

  177,987.69

  208,716.00

  Dorset

  660.00

  Ealing

  131,596.00

  140,800.00

  East Sussex

  9,219.44

  Enfield

  11,881.90

  113,300.00

  Gateshead

  1,554.12

  Greenwich

  26,086.73

  Hackney

  186,658.54

  101,750.00

  76

  Grants paid to local authorities in 1996–97

  Local authority

  Grant paid to local authorities in 1996– for supporting asylum seeking adults £

  Estimatd cost to local authorities in supporting asylum seeking families 1 January to 31 March 1997 £

  Grant paid to local authorities in 1996–97 for supporting unaccompainied children £

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  536,021.00

  284,815.00

  Hampshire

  500.24

  Haringey

  177,045.00

  238,917.00

  Harrow

  224,547.00

  89,533.00

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,414.54

  Hertfordshire

  11,628.07

  Hillingdon

  15,613.75

  2,224,300.00

  Hounslow

  26,331.65

  110,646.00

  Islington

  186,285.00

  36,850.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  346,823.39

  138,167.00

  425,986.00

  Kingston

  12,527.00

  Lambeth

  531,480.00

  187,876.00

  Leeds

  15,345.00

  Leicester

  3,737.50

  Lewisham

  117,383.00

  111,000.00

  Lincolnshire

  1,052.36

  Manchester

  19,225.28

  Merton

  57,820.66

  44,785.00

  Middlesborough

  3,926.77

  Newcastle

  8,403.97

  Newham

  84,476.33

  588,623.00

  Northampton

  990.00

  Oxfordshire

  15,510.00

  Redbridge

  82,283.00

  237,200.00

  Richmond upon Thames

  13,397.17

  Rochdale

  480.00

  Southwark

  222,090.00

  233,881.00

  Suffolk

  2,778.00

  Sutton

  23,203.51

  Tower Hamlets

  120,210.00

  125,300.00

  Waltham Forest

  20,774.72

  70,773.00

  Wandsworth

  104,795.00

  208,131.00

  West Sussex

  6,793.03

  Westminster

  936,344.04

  152,077.00

  347,669.00

  Total

  5,626,849.91

  4,266,416.00

  2,999,999.00

  Total figures may not be exact due to rounding.

  Basildon and Thurrock Hospital Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the membership of the selection-interviewing panel for the vacant non-executive posts of the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust; [13728]

  (2) on what basis and to what extent the selection panel gave separate job descriptions for the two vacant non-executive posts on the board of the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust.[13729]

  Mr. Milburn
  The membership of the selection/interviewing panel for the two vacant non-executive posts of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals National Health Service Trust was:Mr. Geoff Jennings, Chairman, Havering Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Ian Macpherson, Chairman of Basildon and Thurrock NHS Trust
  Mr. Iain MacDonald, Employee Relations Manager, New Holland Tractors
  Mr. Ian Robertson, Non-Executive Director South Essex Health Authority.
  77
  The advertisement for the two posts indicated that one of the appointees would be expected to chair the trust's audit committee and would need to have appropriate skills. However, separate job descriptions were not given to those interviewed.

  Health Service (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to announce the results of the review of London's health service; and if he plans to keep the review group in existence afterwards. [13499]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Independent Advisory Panel is expected to report to me shortly. Their advice and the Government's response will be published in due course. No decision has yet been made about the future existence of the Panel.

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the establishment of a new national organisation for young people in care; and if he will make a statement. [14070]

  Mr. Boateng
  A feasibility study commissioned by the Department of Health on the setting up of a new national organisation for young people in care and care leavers has recently been completed. The report of the study has been submitted to the Department and is under consideration.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set up working parties with(a) surgical and other hospital equipment manufacturers,(b) trusts, (c) royal colleges and (d) other bodies to devise appropriate solutions to the millennium compliance problem; [13939]

  (2) what representations he has had from trusts, royal colleges and other bodies about the impact of the millennium compliance problems relating to hospital equipment. [13938]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Health Service Executive set up a Year 2000 "helpline" in July 1996. Since that time, the helpline has received over four hundred calls and in response has provided information, advice and guidance to those working in the NHS. The current rate of calls is in excess of ninety per month.

  The NHS Executive has made arrangements to meet with staff representing all NHS organisations, their suppliers and professional groups. The clinical professions will need to be involved particularly in making and carrying out contingency plans where critical services are affected.

  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) has received a number of requests from Trusts for advice on the Year 2000 issue as it may apply to medical equipment. MDA will shortly be issuing guidance on the appropriate action by device users and manufacturers.

  MDA's guidance will ask medical equipment manufacturers to identify any of their products which are affected by Year 2000 problems and to make this information available to users and other interested parties, with an indication of the appropriate remedial action.
  78
  We are satisfied that, at this stage, there is no need to set up working parties in relation to the Year 2000 issue as it may apply to medical equipment in particular.

  We will require that any trust or health authority which has not got its systems ready and fully tested should notify the department by 31 December 1998.

  The primary responsibility of the NHS always has been and will be patient safety.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he has not replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on the administration of the National Blood Transfusion Service; and when he plans to do so. [13773]

  Mr. Milburn
  My noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon today. The hon. Member will appreciate that the considerable interest in all areas of the country which the review of the Liverpool Blood Service has provoked has led to a marked increase in the amount of representations which we have received on this and related issues, all of which require appropriate consideration.

DEFENCE

  Recruitment
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the current levels of recruitment to the armed forces. [11745]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government is committed to addressing the very serious legacy of undermanning which it inherited on 1 May. Recruitment to the Armed Forces is one of our top priorities and whilst I would not wish to give a false sense of security, I am glad to report encouraging signs of improvement, particularly in respect of recruitment in the Army.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State when he expects the Royal Air Force to commence taking delivery of operational Eurofighter aircraft. [11746]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first aircraft is scheduled to be delivered to the Royal Air Force at the end of 2001.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the future of the Eurofighter programme. [11752]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State when he expects to announce an order for production of Eurofighter. [11756]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) earlier today.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement about the future of the defence medical services. [11748]
  79
  Dr. Reid
  The Government is committed to providing effective and efficient medical support to the Armed Forces in peace and war. We are well aware of the serious problems being experienced by the Defence Medical Services and have ordered an urgent reappraisal of current arrangements with a view to tackling the deplorable legacy we have inherited.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to establish an arms diversification agency. [11749]

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish his plans for a defence diversification agency. [11767]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson).

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to Her Majesty's Treasury's comprehensive spending review with particular reference to its impact on the United Kingdom's strategic response. [11751]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review is my Department's contribution to the Comprehensive Spending Review. At the strategic level, we are committed to strong defence through NATO and the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent. This forms part of the framework of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies are being undertaken to examine the benefits of low flying to RAF active service operations. [11753]

  Mr. Spellar
  Experience of recent conflicts confirmed that low flying continues to be a vital tactic in the penetration of hostile air defences. There are currently no specific studies into the benefits of low flying, but the need is kept under continuous review.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to reduce alcohol misuse in the armed forces. [11754]

  Dr. Reid
  Drunkenness is an offence under the Service Discipline Acts and is taken very seriously by the Armed Forces. All three Services already have comprehensive packages, available to all personnel, to combat alcohol misuse in addition to measures taken to limit drinking in Service establishments. These measures are kept under review and amended and re-focused as necessary.

  Electric Batteries
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about purchase by his Department of electrical batteries. [11755]
  80
  Mr. Spellar
  Batteries are purchased by many budget holders in the Ministry of Defence, either directly or as part of other projects, to meet the needs of all three Services. In all cases, a range of factors is taken into account including safety, storage and maintenance, disposal, and integration into other defence equipment. There are stringent tri-service procedures to ensure that any new battery or modification to existing batteries is an acceptable addition to the Department's range of codified batteries. Wherever possible, value for money is sought through competition against performance specifications, taking account of both initial purchase and through life costs.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the conclusions of his strategic defence review in respect of the Army. [11757]

  Dr. Reid
  We have received many written submissions to the Strategic Defence Review addressing the Army. We have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of those submissions whose authors have agreed that we should do so. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's strategic defence review in defining the circumstances in which British forces are likely to be called into action. [11758]

  Dr. Reid
  The Strategic Defence Review is considering generic missions which the Armed Forces should be able to undertake to meet our foreign and security policy objectives. It is not defining particular circumstances in which they might be called into action. Decisions on the commitment of forces would take into account a range of factors, including of course our national and international obligations.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of the defence review. [11759]

  Dr. Reid
  Work on the Strategic Defence Review is expected to be completed around the turn of the year. It will then be considered by Ministers and the results published in a White Paper as quickly as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met industry representatives to discuss the progress of the strategic defence review in respect of the Army. [11760]

  Dr. Reid
  The Secretary of State has not met industry representatives to discuss aspects of the Strategic Defence Review relating to the Army. My right hon. Friend has, however, met industry representatives to discuss broad procurement matters in the context of the Review. The last occasion was on 29 October when he chaired the National Defence Industries Council, whose agenda was dedicated to Review issues.

  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the strategic defence review, with particular reference to the problems of overstretch. [11763]
  81
  Dr. Reid
  The Government is fully committed to alleviating the question of overstretch, one of the main problems facing our Armed Forces, and we have already introduced a number of initiatives to address the related issue of undermanning. By matching capabilities to commitments, the Strategic Defence Review is aimed at further addressing this problem.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the Royal Marines in Stonehouse, Plymouth, to discuss their role in the strategic defence of the United Kingdom [11761]

  Dr. Reid
  Rather than visiting three Commando Brigade's Headquarters in Stonehouse, Plymouth, I plan to see them on exercise and to be briefed on the Royal Marines' roles and capabilities during their Winter Training in Norway on 24 and 25 February next. I was extensively briefed on these matters when I visited the Commando Training Centre on 16 September.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the 1996 world court judgment on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons on British nuclear strategy. [11762]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 19 June 1997,Official Report, column 261.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of the territorial armed forces units. [11764]

  Dr. Reid
  The future role and structure of the Territorial Army is being considered in the Strategic Defence Review as part of our work on the Armed Forces as a whole. It would be premature to assess the likely outcome of the Review before the process is complete.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to the multinational stabilisation force in the former Yugoslavia.[11766]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government is justly very proud of the highly effective contribution that British troops continue to make to the mission of the Stabilisation Force for Peace in Bosnia.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution made by the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve to UK peacekeeping operations overseas. [11768]

  Dr. Reid
  Over the last few years, our volunteer forces have made a significant contribution to peacekeeping operations overseas. The Territorial Army consistently supplies around 10 per cent. of British troops serving in the Former Yugoslavia; at present, some 400 TA soldiers are mobilised in the region.

  Mission Statement
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish his Department's mission statement. [14206]

  Dr. Reid
  I have nothing to add at this stage to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member on 16 June,Official Report, columns 14–15.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians were enlisted for the duration of the Gulf war. [13505]

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

  Navy Laundrymen
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chinese nationals are currently serving as laundrymen on Her Majesty's ships; and by whom they are employed. [13508]

  Dr. Reid
  Employment of laundry personnel is primarily a matter for the contractor, Worldwide Laundry Services (WLS). However, I am advised that there are currently 38 Chinese Nationals serving on HM Ships. Of this number, 25 are employed by WLS and the remaining 13, working on ships not yet taken up by WLS, are employed by the following contractors: Mr. Chick Shun Chui; Mr. Kang Shik Ming BEM; Mr. K. P. Lau BEM; Shao Brothers and Mr. Sung Sun Ching. We would expect the rolling programme of ships transferring to the new contract arrangements to be completed by February 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-Gurkhas are currently serving as laundrymen on Her Majesty's ships; and by whom they are employed. [13506]

  Dr. Reid
  There are twenty eight ex-Gurkhas currently serving as laundrymen on HM Ships, employed by Worldwide Laundry Services (WLS).

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-UK nationals are currently employed aboard RFA ships. [13507]

  Dr. Reid:
  There is a small number of non-UK nationals employed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. These are people who were employed before all RFA posts were designated Reserved posts and who retain reserved employment rights. I will write to the hon. Member with precise details and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the peacekeeping operations in which British forces have been involved since 1990, indicating the number of personnel of each of the armed services deployed in each, at three-monthly intervals over the last five years. [13159]

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

  Implementation Force Budget
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the marginal cost to his Department's budget of taking part in IFOR and Operation Decisive Edge in the financial year 1996–97; and how much was made available from the reserve towards these costs. [13133]

  Dr. Reid
  The additional cost to the Defence budget of the United Kingdom's military contribution to the NATO led Implementation Force (IFOR) was £183 million in 1996–97. The additional cost of the supporting air operation under Operation Decisive Edge was £19 million. Based on November 1996 forecasts of £184 million, the Government provided additional funding of £184 million to meet these costs.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently serving in Bosnia as part of the Stabilisation Force. [11851]

  Dr. Reid
  Some 5,300 UK troops are currently serving in the Former Yugoslavia as part of SFOR. Around 3,600 are based in Bosnia and a further 1,700 in Croatia. These figures exclude routine short term fluctuations in numbers as units arrive and depart from theatre.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the additional costs to his Department's budget of IFOR and Operation Decisive Edge; and how much additional funding was received from the reserve towards these costs. [14025]

  Dr. Reid
  Up to the end of the 1996–97 Financial Year, the additional cost to the Defence budget of the United Kingdom's military contribution to the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) was £243 million and £19 million for the supporting air operation under Operation Decisive Edge. Based on Number 1996 forecasts of £244 million, additional funding of £244 million was provided from the Reserve. The Ministry of Defence continues to incur follow on costs from the UK contribution to IFOR. Estimates of these costs are currently being updated and a statement will be made to the House in due course.

  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has held with his NATO counterparts on ballistic missile defence. [11750]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with his NATO counterparts on ballistics missile defence.

  Departmental Overspend
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of his Department's overspend in financial year 1996–97, how much he claimed from the Reserve in the first instance; and how much he finally obtained. [14024]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not made a claim on the Reserve in the 1996–97 financial year which ended before the present Government was elected.
  84
  In November 1996, the former Secretary of State sought and secured funding from the Reserve to meet the estimated additional costs of the United Kingdom's contribution to the NATO-led Implementation Force in the Former Yugoslavia in 1996–97 of £184 million; £160 million for ground operations and £24 million for supporting air operations. In the event, the actual cost of the ground operation in 1996–97 was £183 million and a further £22 million was incurred in meeting the United Kingdom's commitment to the follow on Stabilisation Force on which decisions were made after the Reserve claim.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions
  Mr Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities do not exercise their discretion to disregard war widows' pensions and war pensions when assessing entitlement to housing benefit and council tax rebate. [13941]

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of a uniform disregard of war and war widows pensions by all local authorities when assessing entitlement to housing benefit or council tax rebates; and if she will give the figures separately for each of the authorities who currently give no disregard or only a partial disregard. [13166]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The cost to local authorities (LA) in England, Scotland and Wales if all LAs fully disregarded war and war widow's pensions when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit is estimated to be £70 million. This is in addition to the cost to central Government of £15 million for the statutory disregards in these benefits.

  Information on discretionary local schemes for housing and council tax benefits is not routinely collected. This is because any such scheme must be funded from an authority's own resources and, therefore, the decision to operate a scheme is entirely for individual LAs.

  Reduced Benefit Directions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) disability working allowance are currently subject to a reduced benefit direction at (i) the rate of reduction which applied before November 1996 and (ii) the 40 per cent. rate of reduction applying after November 1996. [14160]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All children have the right to the support of both their parents wherever they may live.

  Before 7 October 1996, parents with care in receipt of a relevant benefit who failed to co-operate with the Child Support Agency without good cause were subject to a benefit reduction of 20 per cent. of the adult income support personal allowance for six months followed by a further reduction of 10 per cent. for 12 months. From 7 October 1996, the reduction was increased to 40 per cent. of the adult income support personal allowance for three years to be immediately renewed if the parent with care continued to fail to co-operate.
  85
  The latest available information is from February 1997, which shows that 3,000 parents with care on income support were subject to a 20 per cent. reduction; 7,000 were subject to a 10 per cent. benefit reduction; and 4,000 were subject to a 40 per cent. reduction.

  Figures for parents with care in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance who are subject to a benefit reduction are not available.

  Extra-Statutory Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of extra-statutory payments by the Benefits Agency in each month since January 1995. [14015]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Details of the monthly expenditure on extra-statutory payments by the Benefits Agency are only held from the commencement of the 1995–96 year. Although individual monthly figures are not available for the period 1 January 1995 to 31 March 1995 the annual amount paid has been included in the table.

  £

  Month

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  April

  —

  99,077

  122,914

  147,127

  May

  —

  43,653

  105,639

  78,014

  June

  —

  107,177

  108,344

  213,604

  July

  —

  102,524

  93,091

  85,446

  August

  —

  214,774

  34,712

  128,483

  September

  —

  145,624

  123,952

  161,525

  October

  —

  165,141

  130,223

  —

  November

  —

  153,595

  84,487

  —

  December

  —

  153,578

  35,953

  —

  January

  —

  139,551

  87,633

  —

  February

  —

  93,182

  91,286

  —

  March

  —

  79,263

  101,250

  —

  Totals

  955,329

  1,497,139

  1,119,484

  814,199

  Special exercise

  —

  —

  12,650,063

  —

  Grand totals

  955,329

  1,497,139

  3,769,547

  814,199

  1 Payments made to the Dorset Trust Housing Association due to loss of benefit following incorrect advice given by the Benefits Agency.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to resume social security payments to appellant asylum seekers. [13492]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  An inter-departmental review led by the Home Office is currently considering all aspects of arrangements for asylum seekers, including the provision of accommodation and support throughout the entire asylum process.

  Benefit Backdating
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the annual savings from the proposed limitation of backdating of benefit claims to one month; and if she will break this total down by client group. [14020]
  86
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  £ million cash

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Elderly

  0

  10

  14

  14

  Long-term sick and disabled

  0

  14

  18

  18

  Lone parents

  0

  8

  10

  10

  Unemployed

  0

  10

  16

  16

  Others

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  42

  58

  58

  1. The estimated savings relate to the proposed measure in the Social Security Bill to reduce the maximum amount of backdating of benefit claims from three months to one month.

  2. Estimates are based on an ad hoc survey of backdated benefit claims undertaken during 1996 uprated in line with Departmental forecasts of benefit expenditure. The savings are in addition to those estimated for the April 1997 changes which reduced the maximum amount of backdating of benefit claims to three months and benefit reviews to one month.

  3. Allocation of benefit savings to client groups is in accordance with the convention used in tables 4 and 5 of the 1997 Departmental Report. Income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit savings are divided between the expected beneficiaries.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the expected annual savings from the limitation of backdating of benefit claims to three months; and if she will break this total down by client group. [14021]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  £ million cash

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Elderly

  36

  48

  63

  63

  Long-term sick and disabled

  33

  49

  49

  49

  Lone parents

  18

  20

  20

  20

  Unemployed

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Total

  90

  120

  135

  135

  1. The estimated savings relate to the April 1997 changes which reduced the maximum amount of backdating of benefit claims to three months and benefit reviews to one month.

  2. Based on an ad hoc survey of backdated benefit claims undertaken during 1996, uprated in line with Departmental forecasts of benefit expenditure.

  3. Allocation of benefit savings to client groups is in accordance with the convention used in Tables 4 and 5 of the 1997 Departmental Report. Income support savings are divided between the expected beneficiaries.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the percentage of a random sample of lone parents whose youngest child was at school and who were receiving income support who would typically flow off benefit in a three-month period in current economic circumstances. [14023]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  87
  There were 506,000 income support claimants with a lone parent premium at the end of November 1996 whose youngest child was aged five or over. Around 46,000 of these had ceased to claim by the end of February 1997. Some of those whose claim terminated during this period may have reclaimed by February 1997.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, November 1996 and February 1997.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the funds committed under the new deal for lone parents in(a) 1997–98 and (b) future years comes from (i) the windfall tax, (ii) savings made from the freezing and re-structuring of the lone parent premium and one parent benefit, (iii) savings from the further reductions planned to the family premium (lone parent rate) and child benefit (lone parent rate) and (iv) the abolition of the child benefit increase for new lone parent claimants in 1998. [14166]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is as follows. The funding for the New Deal for Lone Parents up until October 1998 will be met from within existing provision. The funding for future years will be met entirely from the windfall levy. This will comprise of £150 million over the life of the Parliament plus an additional £50 million to improve financial help with the cost of childcare in the In-Work benefits.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents on income support are estimated to have a child under five years and three months old who has not yet reached their second term at school in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [14163]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. Each school and local education authority has its own policy on the point in the school year at which children in their fifth year start school, and no central figures are available on the actual age (by year and month) at which children start. The number of lone parents on income support whose youngest child was aged five years and three months or less at February 1997 was 538,000.

  Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 1997. Sample size 5 per cent. Lone parents are defined as those receiving the Income Support Lone Parent premium.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the future entitlement to one-parent benefit of lone parents currently receiving income support and who flow off income support after 31 October. [14019]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The proposed changes to Child Benefit for new lone parents are due to be implemented from June 1998, prior to that date current entitlement rules still apply. From implementation of the proposed changes, new lone parents will receive the same rate of Child Benefit as couples with children. Existing recipients will not be affected as long as they continue to satisfy entitlement conditions. In addition, lone parents who are receiving Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance with the lone parent rate of family premium will be able to make one subsequent claim for the lone parent rate of Child Benefit when they move into work.
  88
  Mr. Rendal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the annual cost of the lone parent premium and one parent benefit in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; [14161]

  (2) what are the projected annual costs to the Government of the family premium (lone parent rate) and child benefit (lone parent rate) in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [14162]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables. Information on expenditure on the lone parent premium is not available as components of a benefit award cannot be separately identified. The lone parent premium is payable with Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Benefit expenditure on one parent benefit/child benefit (Lone parent payment)

  £ million

  1994–95

  289

  1995–96

  310

  1996–97

  348

  1997–98

  330

  1998–99

  313

  1. Total expenditure figures are consistent with the 1997 Departmental Report.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Estimated expenditure on lone parent premium/family premium (Lone parent)

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income support

  276

  285

  286

  275

  220

  Housing benefit

  63

  75

  85

  100

  95

  Council tax benefit

  57

  68

  74

  80

  85

  1. From April 1997, the lone parent premium payable with the income related benefits was amalgamated with the family premium to become the family premium (lone parent rate).

  2. The estimates of expenditure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 show the extra cost of paying a higher rate of family premium to lone parents.

  3. The expenditure in Great Britain is obtained by multiplying the number of recipients by the value of the premium. However, some recipients will receive an overall amount of benefit which is less than the value of the premium.

  4. Lone parents claiming the income related benefits after April 1998 will no longer be entitled to the higher rate of the family premium. The effects of this change are included in the reported estimates.

  5. Estimates for 1994–95 to 1996–97 are based on sample data and are not entirely consistent with Departmental Report figures.

  6. Estimates for 1997–98 to 1998–99 are consistent with the overall expenditure estimates in the 1997 Departmental Report.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the annual savings from(a) the removal for new claimants of the family premium (lone parent rate) in April 1998 and (b) the planned abolition for new claimants of the lone parent increase of child benefit under the Social Security Bill 1997. [14168]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The estimated net saving from the removal of entitlement, for new cases, to the lone parent rates of(a) family premium, in income support,

  89
  jobseeker's allowance, housing and council tax benefit is, in the three years starting from 1998–99, £55 million, £125 million and £170 million. (b) child benefit is, in the three years starting from 1998–99, £5 million, £15 million and £25 million.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Government have saved to date from(a) the freezing and re-structuring of the lone parent premium and (b) the freezing and re-structuring of the lone-parent increase of child benefit.[14167]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  1996–97 savings realised from

  £ million

  Income support/jobseeker's allowance

  lone parent premium

  10

  One parent premium

  5

  1. The latest available estimates are for the financial year 1996–97.

  2. The first year savings were realised from the freezing of the lone parent premium and one parent benefit.

  3. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million.

  4. Information is not yet available for recipients of the housing benefit/council tax benefit lone parent premium in 1996–97.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  2. Child Benefit Management Information System Data.

  Pensions Policy Review
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what meetings have been held with pensioners' organisations concerning the review of pensions policy; and if he will make a statement. [13666]
  90
  Mr. Denham
  On 17 July my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced a wide-ranging review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including all aspects of the basic pension and second pensions, including SERPS.

  The first stage of the review has involved an extensive public consultation exercise with pensioners' organisations, employers, employees, consumer groups, the pensions industry and others. As part of that exercise I have met the following organisations: Security in Retirement, including Baroness Castle, Mr. Barry Fawcett of the Public Service Pensioners' Council, National Association of Retired Police Officers, the British Pensioners and Trade Union Association, Help the Aged and Age Concern. I have also met the National Pensioners' Convention on 3 occasions reflecting their central and specific role to ensure that the views of today's pensioners are at the heart of the review process. Departmental Officials have also held a separate meeting with them.

  We have already received more than 1,100 written responses to the review, including representations from pensioner organisations, which we will consider. The Government intends to publish its initial framework for change in the first part of 1998. There will then be a further period of consultation before firm proposals are developed.

  Decision Making and Appeals (Consultation)
  Mr Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to make available to the general public the results of the consultation on improving decision making and appeals in social security. [14017]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 23 June,Official Report, column 418. Members of the public can obtain copies from the Decision Making and Appeals Branch, Department of Social Security, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT.

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

Lord Higgins
The Right Honourable Sir Terence Langley Higgins, KBE, having been created Baron Higgins, of Worthing in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Weatherill.
Lord Burlison
Thomas Henry Burlison, Esquire, having been created Baron Burlison, of Rowlands Gill in the County of Tyne and Wear, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gladwin of Clee and the Lord Whitty.

Lord Razzall
Edward Timothy Razzall, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Razzall, of Mortlake in the London Borough of Richmond, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Lord Tope.
Lord Keith of Kinkel—Took the Oath.
Lord Scarman—Took the Oath.

The "Marchioness"/"Bowbelle" Collision
2.50 p.m.
Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will honour the undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Labour Party in August 1991 to hold a public inquiry into the "Marchioness" and "Bowbelle" disaster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are considering very carefully the case for a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act into this disaster. My colleague, the Minister responsible for shipping, met representatives of the "Marchioness" Action Group in August to discuss their concerns. The Government understand the distress the group has endured during its long campaign, but any decision to hold a further investigation would have to be based on justifiable and objective grounds.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that the dredger presently on top of the Thames barrier, formerly called the "Bowknight",
1220
is a sister ship of the "Bowbelle", owned by the same group, Ready Mixed Concrete? Now that there are no longer the connections between Ready Mixed Concrete and No. 10, does she not agree that it is time that this inquiry was speeded up and the process of taking a decision accelerated?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware that the "Sand Kite" is owned by the same company, South Coast Shipping Company of Southampton, that owned the "Bowbelle" dredger. The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch is currently conducting an inspector's investigation into the cause of, and circumstances surrounding, the accident at the Thames flood barrier.
As regards the issue of an inquiry, we are assessing very carefully the evidence submitted by the "Marchioness" Action Group in support of its call for a formal investigation. The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, Rear Admiral John Lang RN (Rtd.), who took up his post in April 1997, will be presented with the evidence when it is complete to determine whether it justifies reopening the MAIB's accident investigation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House as a whole expects the obligation that was explicit in the terms of the undertaking freely given by the Deputy Prime Minister to be scrupulously honoured?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. However, noble Lords will be aware that since 1991, when the Deputy Prime Minister gave that undertaking, several important developments have taken place. In December 1991 the Hayes Inquiry into river safety was commissioned. That report was published in 1992 and, of the 22 recommendations, 21 have already been implemented. In 1994 the Court of Appeal ordered that the inquests into the deaths of the victims should be remitted to a different coroner for a fresh decision. In April 1995 the jury returned its verdict of unlawful killing. In view of those developments, it is important that we assess carefully the case that has been submitted for a public inquiry, and we are making that assessment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a full inquiry was carried out by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch? One of the purposes of setting up the MAIB was to get away from the confrontational nature of formal investigations and to have a similar set-up to the Air Accident Investigation Branch. There has not been a public inquiry into an air accident since 1972. The purpose is to get to the facts without confrontation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that. I understand also the feelings of the families involved that, because of the different processes that have taken place, there has not been a holistic view of what happened. There is a possibility of re-opening the MAIB investigation if that is justified. In order to determine

1221
whether such a reopening or other form of inquiry is justified we must look carefully at the evidence to see whether it is new and fundamental.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I understand the distress felt by the families of the victims and their desire to obtain as much information as possible. However, can the noble Baroness confirm that not only were the recommendations in the report on river safety by Mr. Hayes implemented, but also that the previous government responded quickly and positively to the recommendations in the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch report referred to by my noble friend?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is true that the majority of procedures and recommendations set out both in the MAIB report and the subsequent Hayes report have already been implemented. We intend to address the outstanding issue—that is, alcohol abuse on board ship—and in due course issue a consultation paper on applying alcohol limits and post-accident testing to mariners.

Millennium Exhibition Site
2.55 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the likely cost of the millennium dome, when will it be completed, and what means of transport will be available to those who are expected to visit the site.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the overall cash budget of the New Millennium Experience at Greenwich and the associated national programme is £758 million. That includes allowances for inflation and contingencies. Costs attributable to individual components of the project are subject to contractual negotiation. They will be published in the accounts of the New Millennium Experience Company Limited at the appropriate time.
The dome structure is planned to be completed in September 1998. Installation of internal structures and content is planned to be completed in September 1999. There will be a wide variety of public transport modes for visitors to choose, including the new Jubilee Line station next to the experience site and river services from central London.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, how did a new Government, not all that respectful of the ideas and plans of their predecessor, pick up on this one? The project is extremely expensive, not easy to reach and there is uncertainty as to what it will contain. Is not the Minister a little apprehensive that this huge project could turn out to be just a massive monument to the conceit and vanity of those who conceived and constructed it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to intrude on disagreements
1222
within the Conservative Party. Other disagreements within the Conservative Party are perhaps more in the public eye at the moment. However, the noble Lord will be aware that we carried out a review of the millennium dome project when we came to office in May. The Cabinet concluded that, first, it would be a considerable waste of the money already spent if we abandoned it at that stage. Secondly, it concluded that there were enormous advantages to be gained from a project which I can say without fear of contradiction will be the greatest millennium project in the world. It will trumpet out the virtues and plans of this country for the next millennium.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the anticipated life of the millennium dome? How long is it expected to last?
Noble LordsOne thousand years!
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I like that idea. The dome is to be built of PTFE—polytetrafluoroethylene. The oldest building of that material is in California and was built in 1973. It is still in extremely good condition so the dome will have a life of at least 24 years. The steel structure is planned to have a life of 60 years.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some indication, if this extraordinary project is successful, of the expected increase in traffic on a journey which takes in excess of one hour—I speak as a former Member of Parliament for the area—through one of the most crowded areas of London?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, visitors will not be allowed to take their cars to the site. The only parking will be for coaches. The vast bulk of the visitors to the site will go by public transport, including the new Jubilee Line, park and ride facilities at all points of the compass and river transport.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I did not express myself properly. I am simply asking for an estimate of the increased road traffic to be generated. The Government must have one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will be no increased road traffic at the site other than coaches.
Lord Marsh: That is road traffic, my Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may try to explain to the noble Lord. The total estimated number of people going on any day will be 30,000 to 40,000. The capacity planned for is 75,000. Even that is not individuals; and even if they were all in coaches, it is not a very large number.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend at the Dispatch Box gave details of what the building costs will be. However, history shows us that prestige

1223
projects like this, while they start off with a bang and are initially financially successful, very often turn out to be financial albatrosses. If that turns out to be the case with this project, who will pick up the bill? Will it be the Government or the new London authority?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no suggestion of the new London authority picking up any part of the bill. The project is cash limited. It is on time and it is within budget.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that £758 million is a considerable sum of public money? Does he further agree that, if that money were instead devoted to capital investment in London Underground, first, he might get better value for money and, secondly, there would be a greater likelihood that the second half of his Answer about the availability of public transport might turn out to be true?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl's definition of public money is. The only part of millennium experience money that is coming from the taxpayer is for the regeneration of the ground, which is being carried out by English Partnerships. The rest of it, as he knows, will come from the Lottery, private sponsorship and ticket sales and merchandising. As to the alternative of spending more money on public transport, the Jubilee Line, which is the principal component of the transport access to the dome, is indeed a permanent contribution to capital expenditure on transport in London.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much money has so far been raised by IMG?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a chicken and egg situation. A whole series of projects have been put forward to be contained in the dome other than the central experience, which is the responsibility of Sir Cameron Mackintosh. Eleven of the 22 proposals which came in are being worked up. Until that has been completed and they can be made public it is difficult to raise money other than by doing what IMG is doing at the moment, which is working on a sponsorship strategy. However, we know that we have staunch support from the original private supporters of the dome, particularly British Airways and British Telecom.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, how much money?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our ancestors were infinitely wiser when they built Stonehenge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Stonehenge will undoubtedly last longer and will outlive anything that we do at the dome or elsewhere for the millennium.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, what will the dome do for any of us? What on earth are all the people going to do when they get there?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proposals for the inside of the dome are of two kinds. First, there is the experience itself, which is being worked on by Sir Cameron Mackintosh and John Napier. That will be an in-the-round 10,000-seat auditorium, probably several times a day. Around that there will be a whole series of exhibitions and interactive experiences. None of us knows yet in detail what they will be, but I shall gladly write to the noble Earl about the themes for them.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will any of these exhibitions have anything to do with the founder of Christianity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I explained in an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, earlier this year, the spiritual aspects of the dome are the responsibility of a Lambeth working group, which is ensuring—this may not be satisfactory to the noble Earl himself—that there are representatives of all Christian faiths, and others, who observe the Gregorian calendar.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the working group from Lambeth will have its work cut out to invest this project with a measure of dignity. I wish the noble Lord could bring himself to state more clearly than he has done yet what will be the advantages to this country and when they are likely to accrue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think we should be ashamed of ourselves, of our heritage and, indeed, of our plans for the next millennium. That is what the dome experience will be about.

Bosnia: UK Troops
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbredeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the United Kingdom's future contribution to the multinational stabilisation force in the former Yugoslavia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom contributes some 5,300 troops to the NATO-led stabilisation force—SFOR—in Bosnia. Progress in implementing the Dayton peace agreement will determine whether a successor force is needed once SFOR's mandate ends in June 1998. If it is, the United Kingdom is willing to keep troops on the ground, if others are ready to do the same. Troop numbers would depend on the tasks assigned to a successor force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I congratulate the Government on the firm action that they have taken in detaining suspected war criminals and those who have

1225
been indicted for war crimes. Can my noble friend assure me that the Government will continue to take such further action to detain those who are currently free?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government will support the pursuance of those indicted of these crimes wherever and whenever possible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the phrase "if others are ready to do the same" applies most crucially to the United States? Does she consider it wise that the British Government should lay such heavy dependence on the decision of the United States to continue to contribute troops as to the future of the force as a whole?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that any successor force must be militarily credible to all Bosnian parties. Experience shows that only NATO has this credibility. It is also important that the burden is shared evenly. Any force should therefore be drawn widely from NATO member states and perhaps from others too. But its exact configuration and mandate will be a matter for NATO to decide and will depend on the tasks assigned to any successor force.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what undertakings can the Government give us that the cost of British participation in Bosnia will continue to be borne by the Treasury contingency reserve and will not fall on the defence budget as yet another sum of money to be taken from the small amount available for that purpose?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have already indicated, it is too early to say whether there will be a need for a further force after the end of June next year. That is still some eight months away. Under the current practice, any further need will fall on the contingency reserve.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the present attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has taken into account the apparent close relationship that has now developed formally between the Soviet Union, Germany and France to the exclusion of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position of the United Kingdom Government is one that depends upon the co-operation of all parties involved in Bosnia at the present time. The position of the United Kingdom takes account of all relationships both within NATO and elsewhere.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, about the arrest by the British contingent of SFOR of certain war criminals, is the Minister satisfied that the terms of reference of SFOR and the resources available
1226
to it are sufficient to complete the task of arresting the remaining indictees within the expected life of SFOR? In particular, can the Minister say what additional measures are being taken by SFOR to apprehend the 39 suspects whose whereabouts are listed publicly on a website?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the precise terms of any new mandate must be discussed fully within NATO. The SFOR mandate allows troops to detain any indictees whom they come across in the course of their duties if the situation permits. The operation by British SFOR troops to detain two indictees in Prijedor in July underlines the present determination to ensure that all war criminals are brought to justice. The Government have consistently said that SFOR troops will detain indicted persons with whom they come into contact in the course of their duties, provided that the tactical situation permits.

Gulf War: Armed Forces' Healthcare
3.12 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What medical treatment they are offering to sick members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and others who served in Operation Granby.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, healthcare for all serving members of the Armed Forces is provided by the Defence Medical Services. Healthcare for ex-service personnel is the responsibility of the National Health Service.
The Ministry of Defence operates a medical assessment programme for all veterans of the Gulf War which provides a diagnostic assessment of veterans' health. A full report, which includes recommendations for any treatment which is considered by MAP physicians to be appropriate, is sent to the patient's doctor. For serving members of the Armed Forces this is normally their unit medical officer and for ex-service personnel a general practitioner within the NHS.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But is he aware that many GPs who are sent results of tests from the medical assessment programme do not understand them and file them at the back of patients' files? Further, is he aware that one patient of whom I have heard today has been struck off his GP's list because his requirements are too extensive, given the multiple nature of his illness, and that another patient who was referred to Airedale Hospital has been refused funding, despite recommendations from various consultants and the MAP programme, with the result that his parents must dig into their nest egg? Is the Minister aware also of numerous other instances where six years after the Gulf War patients have not received correct medical treatment?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, if I correctly understand the supplementary question put by the noble Countess, it appears that her major complaint is against certain practitioners within the NHS. If however representations are made to the Ministry of Defence that the information that is passed on to practitioners is too difficult to understand, I shall invite my right honourable friend in the other place to look into these matters.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Human Rights Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in this debate. I am delighted that she, a former chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, has chosen this occasion for what I am sure will be a distinguished début.
I chair many Cabinet committees, but none that has given me greater satisfaction than the committee whose labours have brought this Bill forward in the first legislative Session. It occupies a central position in our integrated programme for constitutional change. It will allow British judges for the first time to make their own distinctive contribution to the development of human rights in Europe. It is today a happy reflection that British jurisprudence will shortly flow into an inspired modern building, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The architect chosen after an international competition is that great British architect, Richard Rogers, my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside, who recently took his place on the Government Benches.
I look forward especially to the contribution today of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. His major role in the development of the anti-discrimination legislation of the 1970s under the future Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is well known. I should also acknowledge from this position, as did the White Paper, that he has perhaps for 30 years been a tireless campaigner for legislation on human rights. His has not been a silent but an eloquent vigil, and his day has now almost arrived.
It is also a great pleasure to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his place today and to note that he is to speak in the debate. He has an even longer record of distinguished advocacy on human rights legislation than that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
This is a Government who see Britain's future as a strong and leading participant in the Council of Europe and the European Union. This Bill is further evidence of that. It was not edifying to begin Friday, 24th October by hearing the shadow Home Secretary, Sir Brian Mawhinney, on the "Today" programme railing at
1228
judges from Albania and Bulgaria sitting with other judges in the European Court to determine human rights. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of any xenophobia. He is incapable of it. I know that when he speaks in support of this Bill he speaks strongly for himself. I doubt, however, whether he speaks for his party. Tory policy before the election was clear: outright rejection of the case for incorporation. From the mouth of the then Prime Minister we had this miracle of sapience:
"We have no need of a Bill of Rights because we have freedom".
My Lords, what enervating insularity—and what nonsense!
The traditional freedom of the individual under an unwritten constitution to do himself that which is not prohibited by law gives no protection from misuse of power by the state, nor any protection from acts or omissions of public bodies which harm individuals in a way that is incompatible with their human rights under the convention. Our legal system has been unable to protect people in the 50 cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the convention by the United Kingdom. That is more than any other country except Italy. The trend has been upwards. Over half the violations have been found since 1990. I have no doubt that with his distinguished European background the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will reject as absurd the proposition that because we have liberty, we have no need of human rights. This is a Home Office Bill. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to define in his speech what is the policy, what is the position in principle, of the Shadow Home Secretary and of the Conservative Party on this Bill.
This Bill will bring human rights home. People will be able to argue for their rights and claim their remedies under the convention in any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom. Our courts will develop human rights throughout society. A culture of awareness of human rights will develop. Before Second Reading of any Bill the responsible Minister will make a statement that the Bill is or is not compatible with convention rights. So there will have to be close scrutiny of the human rights implications of all legislation before it goes forward. Our standing will rise internationally. The protection of human rights at home gives credibility to our foreign policy to advance the cause of human rights around the world.
Our critics say the Bill will cede powers to Europe, will politicise the judiciary and will diminish parliamentary sovereignty. We are not ceding new powers to Europe. The United Kingdom already accepts that Strasbourg rulings bind. Next, the Bill is carefully drafted and designed to respect our traditional understanding of the separation of powers. It does so intellectually convincingly and, if I may express my high regard for the parliamentary draftsman, elegantly.
The design of the Bill is to give the courts as much space as possible to protect human rights, short of a power to set aside or ignore Acts of Parliament. In the very rare cases where the higher courts will find it impossible to read and give effect to any statute in a way which is compatible with convention rights, they

1229
will be able to make a declaration of incompatibility Then it is for Parliament to decide whether there should be remedial legislation. Parliament may, not must, and generally will, legislate. If a Minister's prior assessment of compatibility (under Clause 19) is subsequently found by declaration of incompatibility by the courts to have been mistaken, it is hard to see how a Minister could withhold remedial action. There is a fast-track route for Ministers to take remedial action by order. But the remedial action will not retrospectively make unlawful an act which was a lawful act—lawful since sanctioned by statute. This is the logic of the design of the Bill. It maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I am determined to address concerns that have recently been expressed by the press. First, the Government are not introducing a privacy statute. They have resisted demands that they should. They believe that strong and effective self-regulation is the best way forward in the interests of both the press and the public. It is well known, and deserves to be better known, that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, with which I was myself associated until May as a member of the appointments commission which appoints its members, has begun the necessary work of strengthening self-regulation. Although much remains to be done, there have already been significant improvements which are as welcome to government as to the wider public. We look forward to the noble Lord's good work continuing and prospering. It is strong and effective self-regulation if it—and I emphasise the "if'—provides adequate remedies which will keep these cases away from the courts.
I want, however, to address directly the concerns of the press about how the courts will deal with Article 10 (freedom of expression, a central part of which is freedom of the press) and Article 8 (privacy) once the convention is incorporated. I am a strong upholder of the freedom of the press; and I am a member of a Government who, as a whole, give the highest value to upholding the freedom of the press. The European Court has in terms declared that Article 10,
"constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society".
The Court is hostile to any attempt to restrict press freedom when the complainant is a public figure. Our highest courts have said the same. In 1990 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, said:
"In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in Government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship".
In 1990 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, declared that in the field of freedom of speech there was no difference in principle between English law and Article 10. In 1993 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, stated uncompromisingly:
"It is of the highest—I emphasise—the highest—public importance that … any Governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism".
1230
The European Court in 1991 in Sunday Times v. The UK (No 2)—the Spycatcher case—declared:
"the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication even for a short period—and I emphasise 'even for a short period'—may well deprive it of all its value and interests".
I agree with that and so, I believe, does every British judge.
I say as strongly as I can to the press: "I understand your concerns, but let me assure you that press freedom will be in safe hands with our British judges and with the judges of the European Court". I add this, "You know that, regardless of incorporation, the judges are very likely to develop a common law right of privacy themselves. What I say is that any law of privacy will be a better law after incorporation, because the judges will have to balance Article 10 and Article 8, giving Article 10 its due high value".
More practically, I do not envisage the press going down to late Friday or Saturday privacy injunctions, disruptive of publishing timetables, if the press has solid grounds for maintaining that there is a public interest in publishing. The doors of my officials and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have been open throughout the summer to anyone interested to discuss the practical implications of incorporation. There were many who walked through our doors. They remain open. I say emphatically to editors and media lawyers, interested to discuss with us appropriate arrangements for handling these cases, where self-regulation has failed to nip them in the bud, "You are welcome to come and make your views known to us".
I now turn to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 lists the convention rights that are to be given further effect in the United Kingdom by the Bill. They range from the right to a fair trial to the right to life itself; and they are all fundamental human rights. The text is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Also, Clause 1 makes it possible for the rights contained in other protocols to be added to the Bill if the United Kingdom becomes a party to them in future.
Clause 2 requires courts in the United Kingdom to take account of the decisions of the convention institutions in Strasbourg in their consideration of convention points which come before them. It is entirely appropriate that our courts should draw on the wealth of existing jurisprudence on the convention.
Clauses 3 to 5 are concerned with the relationship between the convention rights and other legislation. Clause 3 provides that legislation, whenever enacted, must as far as possible be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights. This will ensure that, if it is possible to interpret a statute in two ways—one compatible with the convention and one not—the courts will always choose the interpretation which is compatible. In practice, this will prove a strong form of incorporation.
As I have said, however, the Bill does not allow the courts to set aside or ignore Acts of Parliament. Clause 3 preserves the effect of primary legislation which is

1231
incompatible with the convention. It does the same for secondary legislation where it is inevitably incompatible because of the terms of the parent statute.
Clause 4 provides for the rare cases where the courts may have to make declarations of incompatibility. Such declarations are serious. That is why Clause 5 gives the Crown the right to have notice of any case where a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility and the right to be joined as a party to the proceedings, so that it can make representations on the point.
A declaration of incompatibility will not itself change the law. The statute will continue to apply despite its incompatibility. But the declaration is very likely to prompt the Government and Parliament to respond.
In the normal course of events, it would be necessary to await a suitable opportunity to introduce primary legislation to make an appropriate amendment. That could involve unacceptable delay when Parliamentary timetables are crowded. We have taken the view that if legislation has been declared incompatible, a prompt parliamentary remedy should be available. Clauses 10 to 12 of the Bill provide how that is to be achieved. A Minister of the Crown will be able to make what is to be known as a remedial order. The order will be available in response to a declaration of incompatibility by the higher courts. It will also be available if legislation appears to a Minister to be incompatible because of a finding by the European Court of Human Rights.
We recognise that a power to amend primary legislation by means of a statutory instrument is not a power to be conferred or exercised lightly. Those clauses therefore place a number of procedural and other restrictions on its use. First, a remedial order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That will normally require it to be laid in draft and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before it takes effect. In urgent cases, it will be possible to make the order without it being approved in that way, but even then it will cease to have effect after 40 days unless it is approved by Parliament. So we have built in as much parliamentary scrutiny as possible.
In addition, the power to make a remedial order may be used only to remove an incompatibility or a possible incompatibility between legislation and the convention. It may therefore be used only to protect human rights, not to infringe them. And the Bill also specifically provides that no person is to be guilty of a criminal offence solely as a result of any retrospective effect of a remedial order.
So far I have spoken about the relationship between the convention rights and legislation and about what happens if they cannot be reconciled. That is only the first way in which the Bill brings rights home. On its own that would be insufficient. I turn now to the second way, which is in Clauses 6 to 9. Clause 6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which incompatible with the convention. Before I explain what that means in practice, I should say something about our approach to the application of this Bill to public authorities. We decided, first of all, that a provision of this kind should apply only to public authorities,
1232
however defined, and not to private individuals. That reflects the arrangements for taking cases to the convention institutions in Strasbourg. The convention had its origins in a desire to protect people from the misuse of power by the state, rather than from the actions of privste individuals. Someone who takes a case to Strasbourg is proceeding against the United Kingdom Government, rather than against a private individual. We also decided that we should apply the Bill to a wide rather than a narrow range of public authorities, so as to provide as much protection as possible to those who claim that their rights have been infringed.
Clause 6 is designed to apply not only to obvious public authorities such as government departments and the police, but also to bodies which are public in certain respects but not others. Organisations of this kind will be liable under Clause 6 of the Bill for any of their acts, unless the act is of a private nature. Finally, Clause 6 does not impose a liability on organisations which have no public functions at all.
If people believe that their convention rights have been infringed by a public authority, what can they do about it? Under Clause 7 they will be able to rely on convention points in any legal proceedings involving a public authority; for example as part of a defence to criminal or civil proceedings, or when acting as plaintiff in civil proceedings, or in seeking judicial review, or on appeal. They will also be able to bring proceedings against public authorities purely on convention grounds even if no other cause of action is open to them.
If a court or tribunal finds that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with the convention, what can it do about it? Under Clause 8 it may provide whatever remedy is available to it and which seems just and appropriate. That might include awarding damages against the public authority. We have concluded that if a court is considering an award of damages for an act which is incompatible with the convention, then it should have regard to the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights. Our aim is that people should receive damages equivalent to what they would have obtained had they taken their case to Strasbourg.
Clause 9 is concerned with what happens when a court or tribunal acts in a way which is incompatible with the convention. Here we have preserved the existing principle of judicial immunity and have provided that proceedings against a court or tribunal on convention grounds may be brought only by an appeal or application for judicial review. I have spoken at some length about the two main ways in which the Bill brings right home. I now deal more briefly with the other provisions of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 17 are concerned with derogations from, and reservations to, articles of the convention. The United Kingdom has one derogation and one reservation in place, relating to Article 5(3) of the convention and Article 2 of the first protocol, respectively, and those articles have effect subject to them. The text of the derogation and reservation is set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. They will have domestic effect in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Any future derogation

1233
and reservations may also be given domestic effect under the Bill. For domestic purposes they will be subject to periodic renewal in the case of derogation, or review in the case of reservations.
Clause 18 stands apart from the other provisions of the Bill. It is concerned with the appointment of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. That Court is being reconstituted next year as a new permanent Court and one of its member judges will come from the United Kingdom. In drawing up nominations for that post, we want to be able to select from a wide field of suitably qualified candidates. One disincentive which might discourage some potential candidates from coming forward is that sitting full-time as a judge at Strasbourg would be incompatible with performing the duties of a judge in the United Kingdom. Under our present law, a judge would have to resign his office here in order to take up the appointment at Strasbourg, with no guarantee of reinstatement at the end of the term of office. Clause 18 is designed to remove that obstacle, so that if a judge is appointed to the European Court he will have the right to return to the bench in the United Kingdom after his term at Strasbourg.
Clause 19 imposes a new requirement on government Ministers when introducing legislation. In future, they will have to make a statement either that the provisions of the legislation are compatible with the convention or that they cannot make such a statement but nevertheless wish Parliament to proceed to consider the Bill. Ministers will obviously want to make a positive statement whenever possible. That requirement should therefore have a significant impact on the scrutiny of draft legislation within government. Where such a statement cannot be made, parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill would be intense.
Finally, Clauses 20 to 22 are concerned with various supplemental provisions with which I need not detain the House.
Lastly, the Bill does not provide for the establishment of a human rights commission. I appreciate that this will cause disappointment to some. It is suggested that a commission would have a useful role to play in promoting human rights and advising individuals how to proceed if they believe their rights have been infringed. Although we have given this proposal much thought, we have concluded that a human rights commission is not central to our main task today, which is to incorporate the convention as promised in our election manifesto. There are questions to be resolved about the relationship of a new commission with other bodies in the human rights field; for example, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Would a human rights commission take over their responsibilities, or act in partnership with them, or be an independent body independent of them? We would also want to be sure that the potential benefits of a human rights commission were sufficient to justify establishing and funding for a new non-governmental organisation. We do not rule out a human rights commission in future, but our judgment is that it would be premature to provide for one now.
1234
We have, however, given very positive thought to the possibility of a parliamentary committee on human rights. This is not in the Bill itself because it would not require legislation to establish and because it would in any case be the responsibility of Parliament rather than the Government. But we are attracted to the idea of a parliamentary committee on human rights, whether a separate committee of each House or a joint committee of both Houses. It would be a natural focus for the increased interest in human rights issues which Parliament will inevitably take when we have brought rights home. It could, for example, not only keep the protection of human rights under review, but could also be in the forefront of public education and consultation on human rights. It could receive written submissions and hold public hearings at a number of locations across the country. It could be in the van of the promotion of a human rights culture across the country.
I have tried to explain why the Government want to bring rights home and how we propose to do it. This Bill represents a major plank in our programme for constitutional change and invigoration. I have for many years been downcast by the want of protection for human rights in the United Kingdom. In a democracy it is right that the majority should govern. But that is precisely why it is also right that the human rights of individuals and minorities should be protected by law.
I am convinced that incorporation of the European convention into our domestic law will deliver a modern reconciliation of the inevitable tension between the democratic right of the majority to exercise political power and the democratic need of individuals and minorities to have their human rights secured. I commend this Bill to the House and look forward to the whole of our debate today.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.44 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on furnishing us in his Bill with so many ingenious solutions to what seemed to be a range of intractable problems. I join him in congratulating the parliamentary draftsmen; it is a masterly exhibition of their art.
Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will not be voting against the Bill on Second Reading. Irrespective of the success or failure of our amendments thereafter, we will not vote against the Bill on Third Reading. As the Bill was foreshadowed in the manifesto, we are bound by the Salisbury Convention.
If the Bill becomes law it will be a defining moment in the life of our constitution. Perhaps the only other examples this century of such defining moments were the passage of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. As your Lordships are acutely aware, they had a dramatic effect on the balance of power between your Lordships' House and another place.
If this Bill reaches the statute book it will have an equally defining influence on the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Whatever the inherent merits of its contents, I hope that your

1235
Lordships, in formulating your amendments, will be aware of how deep are the implications for that relationship. They lie at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of powers in our constitution, which has been the hallmark of our liberties throughout the centuries.
I am very proud of the fact that a Conservative predecessor of the noble and learned Lord—Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, and subsequently Lord Kilmuir—had a greater influence on the shape of the convention than probably any other British politician. Indeed, were it not for the support which Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, gave to the terms of the convention, Mr. Attlee might never have got it through his Cabinet, opposed as it was so profoundly by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt. Therefore, on behalf of my party, I make no apologies for what is contained in that convention; we support its terms wholeheartedly.
I shall not speak at great length on this matter. I know that your Lordships are anxious to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose determination and imagination have done more to see the Bill appear in this House today than any other single person. I am also delighted to see here present the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, with whom I first discussed the terms of such incorporation in the elegant dining room of a fine sailing club in Cowes more than a decade ago.
There are many obvious reasons for wanting incorporation. Many people believe it hypocritical that we send our citizens to Strasbourg to obtain rights to which they are not entitled at home. We know that the convention is judge-driven and we often find that the judges in the court in Strasbourg—brilliant and well-meaning lawyers though they are—lack an understanding of our constitutional ways which are, after all, unique.
Furthermore, the number of countries which have become part of the convention has expanded rapidly in recent years. Often the senior judges from those countries who will sit in Strasbourg have little experience of the jurisprudence of a free society. Until recently the jurisprudence in their countries has frequently been rubber stamping an order of the local commissar. The man behind the guichet was the man who counted. Therefore, in that context, putting the interpretation of the convention in the hands of our own judges has its attractions.
It is also a fact that, for a long time, where there has been ambiguity about a domestic statute and where one acceptable interpretation would be in accordance with the convention, our judges have given our statutes that interpretation. Therefore, to some degree the process of incorporation is already occurring.
But against those benefits, we must set the possible impact of incorporation on our own constitution. Therefore, the means by which incorporation takes place is critical.
The noble and learned Lord was presented with two possible options for incorporation. For shorthand, I shall use the terms "Canadian" and "New Zealand" options, although the principles behind them rather than their details are what matter to me.
1236
In some respects, I suppose, the option which conformed more closely to our constitutional traditions was the Canadian option because it fitted in perfectly with our great constitutional principle that no parliament can bind its successor. As your Lordships are aware, that means that, if the terms of a subsequent statute conflict with the terms of a previous statute, the terms of that subsequent statute prevail and the conflicting terms of the previous statute are impliedly repealed. Therefore, it would follow that if the convention were incorporated and the terms of the convention conflicted with the terms of the previous statute, the terms of that statute would be repealed.
It would fit in with our constitutional principles and it would also have two other great advantages. The first would be legal certainty. The matter would be decided there and then by the judges; and the decision would be backed by remedies for the successful litigant.
What is the difficulty? The difficulty is clear from even a cursory glance at the kind of law which the convention makes—because its terms are very general. If the terms of the convention could repeal previous statutes, what previous statute would be immune from its terms? It would create a mass of uncertainty throughout our judicial system. Almost no statute would be safe from the possibility of being struck down by a judge interpreting the convention.
And so, despite its constitutional attractiveness, perhaps I may say with due humility that I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was quite right to reject that option.
What is the other option which he had at his disposal? It is the New Zealand option, and that option reflects the opposite principle. It says that where there is a conflict between the convention and a previous statute, and if that conflict is clear, the terms of the previous statute prevail. It is then up to the legislature—in that case, the New Zealand legislature—to make up its mind whether to change the law in conformity with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. I suspect that that summary will not find favour with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, who is to speak later this afternoon but it is the best that I can do in the circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has also in terms rejected that solution. I suggest that he has gone for a hybrid of the two: he is not striking down the previous statute but is giving judges the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. He then gives Parliament the option to legislate not by full primary statute but by order in council.
I believe that that solution is constitutionally unacceptable for two reasons which I shall try to explain as briefly as I can. In the Bill, the courts of this country are not bound by the decisions of the court in Strasbourg. It is to have a persuasive but not obligatory effect. When a court in this country makes a declaration of incompatibility, it might be making a declaration which is not an accurate photograph of the law of the convention. Indeed, that option is expressly incorporated in the Bill. To the extent that a declaration of incompatibility does not reflect the true construction of the jurisprudence of the convention, the judges will be

1237
making a declaration about the making of new law, judge-made law. Indeed, they will be doing more than that. They will be initiating a legislative procedure in Parliament.
What is the doctrine of the separation of powers in our country? It is that judges do not interfere with the parliamentary process on the one hand and Parliament does not interfere with the judicial process on the other. That principle has stood us in enormously good stead, certainly since the Glorious Revolution more than 300 years ago. To the extent that the judges are not reflecting the jurisprudence of the convention but stating their own view about what the convention says, they are in breach of that doctrine. They are initiating new legislation.
Of course, it is true that Parliament does not have to go ahead and pass that legislation. Indeed, what I fear may flow from a judicial decision of incompatibility is a long and bitter debate in Parliament about whether the judges were right and even if they were right, whether it is right to legislate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way so that we can understand his otherwise very clear argument? Is not the declaration of incompatibility, merely a declaration, which does not make new law? It is not a matter of jurisprudence, but is merely a statement that an Act of Parliament conflicts with the convention, full stop; and it does it in a way which is impracticable. There is no judgment there.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, the declaration expresses the judge's view about what is the difference between the convention and the previous statute. It does not necessarily reflect the view of the court in Strasbourg. It is therefore a home-grown judicial expression of what the law ought to be. It is not an expression of what the law of the convention is. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head and he is perfectly entitled to do so. But if the judge is making a declaration about the difference between the convention and the previous statute which is not based on the jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg, and if his court is not bound by that jurisprudence in the future, then he must, by definition, be taking his own view about what that difference is. That view is what forms the basis for the order in council. In other words, that view is what initiates the legislation. Therefore, there is a breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers. That is the point that I make.
What is more, the legislative process which is initiated is not a full primary legislative process. It starts an order in council process. We all know that an order in council cannot be amended; and we know also that it is not usually debated, although of course in this case it will require an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is not proper parliamentary consideration of future legislation.
There are of course other reasons that this Bill should be looked at with great caution. Those other reasons concern the substance of the Bill. I shall not go through every clause this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord
1238
the Lord Chancellor has drawn our attention to just one of those clauses; namely, that concerning privacy. For example, on its face, the clause on privacy poses serious problems in this country because, as we all know, the BBC is a public authority and many other companies from the television media are not. Therefore, in Article 8 there is an inherent conflict between publicly and privately provided television services.
But more than that, we do not really know in which direction the judges will take us. Is that fair to the judges? Is it fair to the country, which elected the present Government, to introduce the law on privacy by the convention? It is not. The public are entitled to know exactly where they stand in relation to the law on privacy. If we are to sustain the relationship between judges and the legislature which has stood us in such good stead for so long, we need the Government to define much more carefully the framework within which the judges are to make the declarations of incompatibility; otherwise, we shall be faced with a whole raft of legislation as orders in council which was not properly authorised.
I shall not take your Lordships into any of the other clauses, but I believe that the same observations could be made with what I hope is equal force in those other areas. We must be cautious about changing our constitution which has stood us in good stead for many hundreds of years. Most other countries in the world admire it greatly. Indeed, many are very jealous of it. I do not believe that we have failed in protecting our liberties since the convention was passed, signed and ratified in 1950. I am confident that noble Lords will look at the Bill objectively, with our own constitutional principles in the forefront of their minds.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues that they have introduced this measure setting enforceable legal limits to their huge executive powers, securing European Convention rights in the laws of the United Kingdom and providing effective domestic remedies for breaches of convention rights by public authorities. It demonstrates a welcome commitment to democratic and accountable government and to respect for human rights under the rule of law. I congratulate the Government on this well-designed and well-drafted Bill.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have been most generous in their references to my efforts. I should like to pay tribute to the great and crucial contribution of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor both when in Opposition in convincing the Labour Party of the case for incorporation and now as Lord Chancellor in helping the Home Secretary and his other colleagues to shape the Bill. Indeed, many of its provisions are stamped with his powerful and personal imprint.
There are many others whose contributions have also been remarkable. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, whose Hamlyn lectures, two decades ago, first made the case for a renewal of British democracy, based upon coherent constitutional

1239
principles of citizenship and accountable government. It is excellent that the noble and learned Lord will be participating in today's debate. It was the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, whose Introduction to the House today we have welcomed, who persuaded Harold Wilson's Government in 1965 to agree to take the momentous step enabling individual cases to be brought against the United Kingdom before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.
The case for incorporation was first taken up in this House from these Benches through the indefatigable Lord Wade, building on work carried out by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Home Secretary, when he published a Green Paper in 1976. Each of my noble friends who will speak in the course of today's debate has made significant contributions to the cause. Incorporation has also traditionally been supported by distinguished Labour Lords, including Lord Gardiner and Lord Silkin of Dulwich, and indeed by distinguished Conservative Lords like the noble Lords, Lord Broxbourne, Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It is also crucially supported by the senior judiciary, led by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, and the Law Lords.
However, incorporation has never been supported by the Conservative Party. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will even yet be able to persuade his colleagues to behave less like Dr. Doolittle's curious creature, "Pushme Pullu", and to give unequivocal support for the Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. It is surely incumbent on the Opposition party to inform Parliament unequivocally whether it supports or opposes incorporation, rather than hiding behind the Salisbury doctrine and abdicating its constitutional responsibility.
The rights guaranteed by the Bill are not alien; indeed, they are part of our British birthright and constitutional heritage. As we have heard, the text was drafted by British lawyers. The values that it enshrines are universal. The convention has been exported by successive British governments to become part of the written constitutions of many Commonwealth countries. The Bill does indeed bring the basic civil and political rights of everyone in this country home by allowing everyone to claim those rights against public authorities in British courts. It involves no challenge to the English dogma of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. Rather its enactment involves the much-needed exercise of parliamentary sovereignty, giving our own courts proper authority to perform their duty of interpreting and applying common law and statute law in accordance with the UK's international obligations under the convention. True to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the courts must defer to existing and future Acts of Parliament if it is impossible to read and give effect to them in a way which is compatible with the convention.
Therefore, far from weakening Parliament's role, the Government's proposals will increase the accountability of the Executive to Parliament. The Bill does so by requiring a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in
1240
either House to make a statement before Second Reading as to his view of the compatibility or otherwise of the Bill with convention rights. That would both enhance parliamentary scrutiny and also enable the courts to ascertain whether legislation enacted after incorporation was intended to comply with or to be inconsistent with the convention. In the absence of a formally expressed intention to enact inconsistent legislation, the courts will be able to act on the basis that the legislation was intended by Parliament to be compatible with convention rights.
The Government also propose to strengthen Parliament's role in another way; namely, by supporting the creation of a new parliamentary committee on human rights, whether a joint committee or of each House. Its functions will presumably include scrutinising proposed legislation in each House, as well as UK compliance with the various international human rights codes and keeping the working of the new Act under review. That proposal was put to the previous Government by a coalition of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and myself, without any success whatever. It is part of a much-needed holistic approach, which does not leave the task exclusively to the courts but which requires Parliament and the Executive, as well as the judiciary, to take human rights equally seriously.
The Bill will not empower our courts to strike down legislation which it is impossible to read in accordance with convention rights. But the command by Parliament in the Bill to the courts to read them in that way,
"so far as is possible",
represents very strong wording. The courts will no doubt strive as far as is judicially possible to save legislation from having to be declared incompatible, and hence to be amended by future further legislation. The courts will do so by construing existing and future legislation as intended to provide the necessary safeguards to ensure fairness, proportionality and legal certainty as required by the convention.
Every declaration of incompatibility will represent a systemic failure, as our statute book is already made to comply with our convention obligations. A declaration of incompatibility will also be highly inconvenient because it will mean that our courts are unable to provide an effective judicial remedy and that the inconsistency will have to be remedied by government and Parliament under the special fast-track legislative procedure; or, if not, it will have to be remedied by the overburdened European Court of Human Rights. That is why I believe that our courts will do everything within their power to ensure that there is no mismatch between legislation and convention rights, and why declarations of incompatibility will, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, be "very rare".
Some have criticised the power to take remedial action by subordinate legislation as being a sinister sapping of parliamentary powers. That criticism is misconceived. At present, when a judgment of the European Court requires the amendment of primary

1241
legislation, that can only be done by new, amending primary legislation. That is a slow and cumbersome method of complying with our international obligations. It has sometimes resulted in a tardy and incomplete implementation. Similarly, where a British court decides that there is a fatal inconsistency in a statute, what is needed is a speedy means of remedying the defect and of providing a remedy for the individual victim.
Under the European Communities Act 1972 (enacted by a Conservative Government), the power to implement the UK's Community obligations may be implemented by subordinate legislation, without any requirement to obtain the affirmative approval of both Houses. But this Bill provides for stronger parliamentary control, as, except in cases of pressing urgency, the implementation of the UK's convention obligations by subordinate legislation can be done only by the affirmative procedure. To require the Government to introduce primary amending legislation to give effect to European or British judgments would be to hinder the speedy and effective implementation by Parliament of convention rights, obligations and remedies.
To turn to another important aspect, there has been misguided public pressure from the press for a media immunity from the effect of the Bill in relation to the protection of personal privacy. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, warned, in a somewhat uncharacteristically intemperate article in yesterday's Mail on Sunday, that this Bill could become a "villains' charter", because Article 8 of the convention contains an absolute right to respect for privacy, without any specific defence of public interest. That is simply not the case.
The convention is clear in guaranteeing both the right to free speech, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear, and the right to respect for personal privacy without making either right absolute. Article 8(2) makes a specific exception to respect for personal privacy where necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to free speech. I have had the privilege of representing various newspapers, broadcasters and book publishers in British courts and in the Strasbourg Court relying on Article 10 of the convention to vindicate their right to publish and their readers' right to receive information and opinions without unnecessary interference of restraint by the common law of statute. There is no stronger advocate of free speech and a free press.
But the right to free speech, like the right to respect for one's private life, is not absolute. Its exercise may be limited in a democratic society to meet some pressing social need, including the state's positive obligation to ensure respect for personal privacy by public authorities and by the media. The European Court has repeatedly emphasised the vital role of the media as watchdog and purveyors of information on matters of public interest, including the workings of government and the conduct of politicians and public officials. The European Court has also emphasised the importance of ensuring respect for the personal privacy of oneself and one's home.
1242
However, like the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court has also made it quite clear that claims to personal privacy must not be allowed to defeat the vital public interest in free speech, except in cases of real necessity and where what is at stake really is the individual's private life. It has declared that prior restraints on publication call for particularly careful, strict scrutiny.
In the Fayeds' case—where, alas, I was defeated—the court made it clear that free expression is especially important in relation to the activities in the public sphere of public figures, as distinct from the private lives of private individuals. Politicians, public officials and businessmen involved in the affairs of large public companies lay themselves—stated the court—open to close scrutiny of their acts by the media.
The media should recognise that the UK has a positive obligation under the convention to secure the right to privacy in domestic law, and that our courts are likely—as has been said already—if not certain to develop a common law of privacy even without statutory incorporation. Some genuinely independent authority, I suggest, must surely perform the difficult and sensitive task of maintaining the balance between free speech and personal privacy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that that body should be the Press Complaints Commission, whose enforcement and remedial powers need to be enhanced by the media in the interests of a free press acting in accordance with a new and strengthened code of practice. If that happens, then I believe that the development of a right of privacy, already inherent in the common law, will not lead normally to judicial intervention against the media, except in cases of real necessity if the PCC fails to secure a fair balance and to provide effective redress.
But neither the media nor the PCC should treat free speech as an absolute right, nor seek an immunity from liability for infringements of the right to privacy, as though they were above international human rights law. If the PCC lacks the necessary powers, or fails to exercise them, the courts will need to give necessary judicial protection as they do in the United States whose constitution gives primacy to free speech, but whose federal and state laws and common law also safeguard personal privacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is also mistaken in suggesting that courts,
"could be forced to grant injunctions to those with something to hide simply because the right to respect for privacy in the Bill is absolute",
although he weakens his argument by acknowledging in the same article that his fears are based on a possible future judicial misinterpretation of the convention. The right to privacy is not absolute. I am confident that our courts, obliged by Clause 2 to take account of Strasbourg jurisprudence, will not misinterpret the law and will not grant prior restraints through interim injunctions to restrain alleged infringements of personal privacy where the defendant seeks reasonably to rely upon a public interest defence, any more than the courts now do in cases of alleged libels.

1243
I have a few points of concern about some details of the Bill. First, I understand the Government's reasons for excluding Article 13 of the convention from the provisions to be incorporated; that is the provision which obliges public authorities—judicial as well as legislative and executive—to provide effective remedies for breaches of convention rights. The Government rightly consider that the Bill gives effect to Article 13 by obliging the courts, as public authorities, to comply with convention rights. Perhaps there is also anxiety within the Government that incorporation of Article 13 might lead the courts to fashion remedies beyond those specifically prescribed by the Bill.
I do not believe that there is such a danger in fact because the Bill is quite clear as to the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals and as to the remedies which they are and are not empowered to grant. Even in the absence of incorporation, the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal have treated Article 13 as relevant to their functions in cases such as Ex parte Khan; and Brind; and Esther Rantzen. It would be a strange legal solecism if Parliament were now to exclude Article 13 altogether from being considered by the courts when acting in accordance with the functions vested in them by the Bill.
My point would be met either by including a purpose clause stating that the Bill's object is to secure convention rights and to provide effective remedies for their breach, or by amending Clause 1(1) so that the substantive rights may be read with Article 13 as well as with Articles 16 to 18 of the convention. I should be grateful if that point could be further considered before Committee.
My second concern is that Clause 7(1) confines the standing of those seeking to review the allegedly unlawful acts of public authorities to victims, as defined under the convention. That seems to me to be too restrictive and likely to result in undue procedural complexity and unfairness. Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and Order 53, Rule 3, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, impose a jurisdictional requirement of "a sufficient interest" for an applicant to apply for judicial review. That test of sufficient interest, coupled with the requirement to obtain leave to apply for judicial review, and the courts' other discretionary powers, provide sufficient safeguards against any abuse of judicial review by interfering busybodies or those without a sufficient interest. I hope that the Government upon further reflection will agree that it is unnecessary and undesirable to impose a more restrictive test where what is at stake is an alleged breach of human rights rather than ordinary administrative wrongdoing.
My third concern is that the proposed remedial orders, in cases of legislative incompatibility with the convention, should be able to provide effective remedies for those whose rights have been infringed. That is a point which perhaps one might pursue further in Committee.
My final point is more substantial. It is to ensure that incorporation enhances effective access to justice. Incorporation will mean that everyone will have to exhaust his or her domestic remedies all the way
1244
through the domestic legal system, if necessary to your Lordships' House, before having recourse to Strasbourg. If the right of access to courts, guaranteed by Article 6 of the convention, is to be real and effective and not illusory, litigants must not be unnecessarily deterred by the absence of legal aid and advice or by the risks of having to pay the legal costs of the other side.
Labour's Green Paper, Bringing Rights Home, stated that after the passage of the Bill,
"it will be important to … provide advice and guidance to those who wish to assert their rights"—
and—
"to institute or support individual or public-interest cases based upon well-researched, well-founded evidence and arguments".
It also stated that,
"One way forward could be for the Act to establish a Human Rights Commission or Commissioner".
The report of the Joint Labour and Liberal Democrat Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform, on which I was privileged to serve in Opposition, agreed that,
"A Human Rights Commissioner or Commission, or similar public body, would provide advice and assistance to those seeking the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention, and he itself able to bring proceedings to secure effective compliance with the ECHR, whether by judicial review or by representative proceedings".
We in my party have pressed the Government to create a very modestly funded public authority with carefully defined powers to give advice and assistance, and to bring proceedings in its own name. We are very disappointed that the Government have decided not to implement the proposal at least at this stage. However, I am encouraged by the Lord Chancellor's observations and by the White Paper's statement that the Government have not closed their mind to the idea, especially in the context perhaps of rationalising and harmonising the enforcement powers of the existing bodies dealing with unlawful discrimination on various grounds.
We all look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who has particular expertise as former chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission. She is an old friend with reforming instincts whose speech will make an important contribution to the debate.
In his important keynote address to the Solicitors' Annual Conference in Cardiff on 18th October, the Lord Chancellor rightly observed that the civil justice system,
"should be accessible for everyone—not just the very poor and the very rich".
He acknowledged that there are cases where the predicted cost would be disproportionate to the likely benefit to the individual,
"but where it is plainly in the public interest for a particular point of law to be examined, or for a precedent to be established".
The Lord Chancellor expressed his belief that,
"it would be right to make special arrangements for these cases".
I hope that during the period when the case for a human rights commission is being further considered, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will indeed be willing to use the powers conferred by the

1245
Bill to make special arrangements as to costs where legal issues of real public importance are raised in judicial review or other proceedings of the kind referred to in his keynote address. It is not enough, I believe, to permit lawyers to enter into no-win no-fee agreements with clients of limited means. It is also necessary to ensure that the risk as to costs, including the respondent's costs, do not act as an obstacle in the way of effective access to justice.
I also hope that the Lord Chancellor will use the powers conferred by the Bill to implement the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his masterly report on Access to Justice that the courts should have a discretion to order such costs be paid out of public funds, or to order at the leave stage that an unsuccessful applicant will not have to pay the respondent's costs where the court is satisfied that the proceedings have been brought in the public interest.
Effective access to justice for all is a basic human right guaranteed by the convention. Effective access is crucially important if the Bill is to make real progress towards a constitutional Bill of Rights for this country.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, I join with previous speakers in looking forward with eager anticipation to the speech to be made later by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I also associate myself, if I may, with the tributes already paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the former head of my chambers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
I welcome the Bill. My reasons for doing so are unsurprising and may therefore be stated briefly. First, it seems to me highly desirable that rights and freedoms which the United Kingdom has undertaken to guarantee to its citizens should be enforceable by those citizens here in the United Kingdom. It makes no sense, and, I suggest, does not make for justice that those seeking to enforce their rights have to exhaust all their domestic remedies here before embarking on the long and costly trail to Strasbourg.
Secondly, it seems to me highly desirable that we in the United Kingdom should help to mould the law by which we are governed in this area. I think—and the very distinguished president of the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that he shares this belief—that British judges have a significant contribution to make in the development of the law of human rights. It is a contribution which so far we have not been permitted to make. But incorporation will also mean, I hope, that when cases from this country reach Strasbourg, as on occasion they will do, the court will have the benefit of a considered judgment by a British judge on the point at issue. That will mean, I hope, that some of our more idiosyncratic national procedures and practices may be better understood.
Thirdly, I consider that incorporation will strengthen the confidence of the public in our democratic and judicial institutions. At present disappointed litigants leave our courts believing that there exists elsewhere a superior form of justice which our courts are not allowed to
1246
administer. In most cases those litigants would fare no better with the benefit of the convention. But the belief that there is some superior form of justice available elsewhere is, I think, damaging and undermines confidence in our institutions. It is unhealthy; and I hope that incorporation will restore the belief of our people, once an article of faith, that human rights and fundamental freedoms flourish as luxuriantly here as anywhere else in the world. It is after all 350 years since Milton wrote in
Areopagitica,
"Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live".
I believe that these are solid reasons for welcoming the Bill. But I do not think that they will turn our world upside down. I do not think so badly of our institutions as to suppose that we have been routinely violating human rights and undermining fundamental freedoms all these years. I am aware, as are your Lordships, of a number of objections in principle to incorporation. The first is that it involves, so it is said, a major transfer of power from Parliament to the judiciary. While I respect those who advance that argument, it is not one I accept. The mode of incorporation does not empower judges, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear, to overrule, set aside, disapply, or—if one wants to be even more dramatic—strike down Acts of Parliament. That is a power which throughout the recent debates the judges have made clear they do not seek. The mode of incorporation adopted is that which most fully respects the sovereignty of Parliament. Following incorporation, nothing will be decided by judges which is not already decided by judges. The difference is that British judges will in the first instance have an opportunity to provide a solution.
The second objection in principle which one frequently hears is that it will draw the judges into politics. That has not, so far as I know, happened in all the other member states of the Council of Europe which have either incorporated the convention or given effect to it. As noble Lords well know, judges already from time to time find themselves deciding cases which have political, sometimes even party-political, implications. The judges strive to decide those cases on a firm basis of legal principle; and that is what they will continue to do when the convention is incorporated if the Bill becomes law.
Thirdly—a matter referred to by previous speakers—concern has been voiced by the media at the implications of Article 8. The first paragraph of the article states:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
The second paragraph goes on to provide that:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society",
for one of a limited number of special purposes. I find it hard to see how the article poses a threat to responsible organs of the press or the broadcasting media. I find it even more difficult to see that, when one recognises that, for the first time in British history, there will be a guaranteed, though not unqualified, right to freedom of expression.

1247
Questions are bound to arise on the line that divides the right to privacy from the right to freedom of expression. In the absence of statutory guidance, the courts will have to decide such questions when challenges are made. They will be guided by the case law in Strasbourg. They will pay attention to cases in other jurisdictions around the world which have provisions and which have given helpful answers to analogous questions. The judges will strive to give effect to the public policy underlying the convention. If they fail to do so, they are open to correction by Parliament or by the European Court of Human Rights. I find it hard to see why this country—alone among European nations—should fail to reconcile these competing principles in an acceptable manner.
It is no doubt possible that the Bill may be improved during its passage through Parliament. However, I welcome it as a valuable step in the right direction. I hope that I shall not be thought discourteous if I leave the debate before all noble Lords have spoken. I have an inescapable engagement later in the evening.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on a subject in which I have had a long-standing personal and professional interest. It is an honour to speak in this House, with its commitment to justice, and in the company of so many who have campaigned vigorously for human rights legislation in the United Kingdom.
As this is the occasion of my maiden speech, I am mindful of the advice I was given to be brief and uncontroversial. Human rights is a subject that can generate strong feelings and, as such, does not readily lend itself to a totally uncontroversial speech. But I have been assisted in that regard by the scope, comprehensiveness and content of the Bill and the White Paper which accompanies it.
The Bill is the most significant development in protecting human rights in the United Kingdom since the war. Its impact could be far-reaching, not only in providing individuals with access to justice if their rights are infringed but in helping to ensure that they never need to go to court—by changing the way in which legislation and policies are drafted and by raising awareness throughout society of the importance of rights and the responsibilities that they entail.
That is a development which I very much welcome. Only last year, the Runnymede Trust, of which I am deputy chair, was part of a delegation of United Kingdom organisations to the United Nations meeting of the Human Rights Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Committee members, in their final recommendations to the British Government, confirmed that according to international standards racism in the UK is a violation of human rights. The continued existence of racism and other forms of discrimination in any modern society needs to be seriously addressed. The Bill goes some way towards creating the framework for a more inclusive and tolerant society which values diversity and the contribution being made by all its citizens. It begins the process of
1248
creating and promoting a rights culture in which every individual recognises that we all have a role to play and that working towards the elimination of discrimination (be it on the grounds of sex, race, disability or sexuality) is a majority issue and not a marginal concern.
In this respect, I regret the fact that the Bill makes no provision for the establishment of a human rights commission, although the White Paper does not rule out the setting up of such a body at a later stage. As a former chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the statutory body which deals with sex discrimination and equal pay, I am mindful of the important role that national statutory bodies can play in ensuring that individuals have access to justice and access to the expert advice and assistance they need to bring a case. Our existing statutory bodies, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, have an important legal role; but they also have an important role in raising public awareness.
I would like to see a human rights commission in the United Kingdom with the following key functions: securing access to justice; promoting good practice among the public bodies which may otherwise find their practices subject to challenge in the courts; monitoring draft legislation and policy and assisting Parliament in scrutinising legislation; and providing information to the public. Those functions are particularly important in the early stages of incorporation to ensure that the rights set out in the Bill are accessible and that Parliament, the courts and the general public are assisted in the interpretation, enforcement and monitoring of those rights.
There is of course an ongoing debate about whether the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality should be brought within the umbrella of a human rights commission if such a body is created. The Institute of Public Policy Research, of which I am a trustee, has conducted research on the functions which a human rights commission could fulfil and the structure that it might have. In my view the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality would be enhanced by becoming part of a human rights commission. It would bring issues of race and sex discrimination from the margins to the mainstream; the two organisations would no longer be perceived as acting in the interests of a particular social group but would be seen as part of a body promoting and enforcing internationally recognised human rights. For the public, employers and other organisations seeking guidance, there would be a single body—a one-stop shop.
There will always be difficulties in changing the institutional structure of existing bodies. Reassurance will be needed that the intention is to strengthen each part of any new body and that neither race nor gender discrimination will be marginalised in any new structure. However, differences about optimal structures should not deter us from creating a body which will undoubtedly be needed if the Bill is to achieve its full potential in protecting the rights of people within the United Kingdom.

1249
I hope that the Government will now take the lead and consult on the options with respect to the creation of a human rights commission and build the consensus which they have rightly identified as being desirable.
I thank your Lordships for your patience and kind attention.
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am delighted, on behalf of your Lordships' House, to congratulate warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her excellent maiden speech. Her speech reveals at first hand her wide experience of issues connected with the Bill. Her work with the Equal Opportunities Commission, about which we have heard several times, her work with the Black Health Foundation and her present, ongoing deputy chairmanship of the Runnymede Trust all qualify her to assist your Lordships' House with the present business but also with many other subjects on which we look forward to hearing from her. On behalf of your Lordships' House, I repeat our congratulations to the noble Baroness on her speech; we look forward to hearing from her in the future.
Various speakers from the Bishops' Bench, in 1995 and 1997, assured the House that, should it pass the Bill, a substantial body of people, from other-faith communities as well as the churches, would applaud. In 1985, for instance, the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales strongly supported the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law, as did the majority of the executive committee of the then British Council of Churches. Those are not merely formal gestures of support. For some of us, there is a spiritual and religious dimension, as well as a legal and human dimension, to the Bill. It may be of more than historical interest to recall that in 1776 the American Declaration of Independence had at its heart a religious reference, declaring that:
"All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights".
I believe that there is also a moral dimension to the Bill. In a speech in your Lordships' House on 1st May 1995 my colleague, the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, said:
"I believe that in the end [the incorporation of such articles of the convention into law] … is a moral matter and that the rights enshrined in the convention are not there simply because certain states decide that they will be there but because those states recognise certain fundamental moral principles which need to be enshrined in law".—[Official Report, 1/5/95; col. 1279.]
I speak, therefore, as a supporter of the Bill. However, perhaps I may, for that very reason, raise two questions already aired in public discussion but on which I should be grateful to hear a further answer. I trust that noble and learned Members of this House from the legal world will bear with me if my questions are naive or confused.
First, is it the case, as some public criticism has claimed, that the convention defines the human rights which it protects in terms which are dangerously general? In particular, is it the case that the terms in
1250
which the restrictions on human rights are framed are too sweeping—broad terms such as "national security", "the prevention of disorder" and "health and morals"? Some of us have read the argument that such generality is at odds with the more detailed case law-based practices of British justice. But the justification for incorporation must surely be that it will enlarge the freedoms of citizens under the law. Is there a danger that the sheer generality of some of the articles could be interpreted in such a way as to restrict those freedoms?
My second question concerns the proposed fast track for changing laws following an adverse declaration by the courts. As I understand it, the proposal is to do this under 90-minute orders. Such orders can be rejected by Parliament. Will they, with the pressure of other business, be scrutinised and amended with due care? I understand that in particularly urgent cases the order would take immediate effect, although it would expire after a short period if not approved by both Houses. A not unfriendly critic might still ask whether over a period of time, as an ongoing process, all this would not shift the balance between Parliament and the courts in ways that may not be evident for some years.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford were members of a working party on human rights and responsibilities in Britain and Ireland which reported in 1988. That report concluded that the incorporation of the European convention into domestic law could make a significant contribution to the solution of the problems of Northern Ireland by providing an additional safeguard to the rights of people. I believe that that argument still holds. Justice and the rule of law are the best basis for reconciliation in that context. I am sure that your Lordships will not take it amiss if I insist upon this point: reconciliation requires more than good law, but justice is the best foundation for peace.
In conclusion, I am convinced that many church leaders and leaders of other communities in these islands would argue, as I do, that the right of the citizen to challenge the lawfulness of any Act by the government under which they live is one of the strong foundations of democracy. The main function of this legislation is not to undermine our legal system through incorporation of foreign elements within it but genuinely to see that justice is done without unnecessary delay or exposure. The title Bringing Human Rights Home is well chosen.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships also have human rights. One is that, if I exercise the privilege of addressing your Lordships, I should be brief and not repeat what others have already said. I deeply regret that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is not in his seat. I hope that I shall not be deemed discourteous if I comment on his speech in his absence; I would have much preferred to have said it in his presence.
It is regrettable that the main Opposition party is not joining with others in your Lordships' House in agreeing to the Bill. I believe that it is singularly unfortunate—for them, as well as for the country—that the impression

1251
should be given that the Opposition is opposed to the proposed rights of British subjects to come to British courts; but there it is.
I admired the noble Lord's speech for the readiness of his eloquence and, if I may say so, his utmost clarity in developing unclear arguments. I am glad that the noble Lord is here to hear those words, if he heard no more.
I can understand the person who takes responsibility for the main Opposition's views in this matter saying that he disagrees, as does his party, with the whole idea of the convention. Many arguments were advanced on the basis of, "Surely our common law is good enough. Do we not have enough of a reputation in regard to our civil rights and liberties without having to borrow somebody else's convention, even though British lawyers took such a prominent part in drawing it up?" That I can understand. What I cannot understand is somebody saying, "The convention is a good document and I am glad that in 1951 this country ratified it. But the only way in which advantage can be taken of that convention is by telling one's client (if one happens to be a lawyer) 'in our view, you have definitely got rights under this convention. But I am sorry that, in order to exercise them, you will have to take a journey to Strasbourg with me. It will take a long time because the lists are cluttered up. I am afraid that when we start thinking of legal costs, the amount will be considerable. I am afraid also that you will not necessarily have the benefit, as you would have done if things had been different, of going before an English judge who would interpret—as much as he could—by the principles of English law the law set down by the convention".
There is no doubt that we have the finest judges in the world—some of us will be even more certain of that after recent events. That is something that could hardly be said by the judges who have already spoken in the debate. To deprive our citizens of their right to appear before those judges is an ungainly attitude for the main Opposition to take. However, it was put on record. The reason they are not opposing the Bill is not because they want to put any arguments against it, but because of the Salisbury Convention. We are indebted to the name of Salisbury for many things and I suppose we must add that to our indebtedness on this occasion.
Perhaps I may take up one of the points that was made and develop it a little. One of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was the declaration of incompatibility. As I understood him—I know he will correct me if I am wrong—he felt that the declaration of incompatibility was made in breach of the whole of our constitution in the sense that the judge was telling Parliament what Parliament ought to tell the country. I do not understand that. The judge will only say what any layman of intelligence might say: "I am faced with the existing statute on one side; I am faced on the other side with the convention and the two cannot be matched. I am not saying that one is right and the other is wrong".
In fact under the Bill, if it becomes an Act, he would have to say, "In my position as a judge I can only take into account the Act of Parliament which already exists". Then, under the Bill, if the question of
1252
incompatibility is to be examined, notice must be given to the Crown. The Minister can make himself part of the proceedings. That is Parliament speaking in the law courts; talking in terms of discussing incompatibility. If there is incompatibility, who decides whether or not the Act of Parliament which is incompatible should be amended? Parliament decides that; not the judge.
Having said that, perhaps I may ask a question of the Minister. I do not know how the procedure—with which I entirely concur—works. The judge makes a declaration of incompatibility and has in front of him the accused in a criminal case or the plaintiff or defendant in a civil case. Incompatibility is found. If the Minister who is responsible wants to intervene, he can do so. He does so and the application is heard; there is then a decision.
What happens in the case that is under review? Possibly the decision will be announced by the Minister in the court that he intends to recommend that our statute be amended to conform with the declaration. What does the judge then do? Does he adjourn the proceedings to see what view may be taken? In the Bill there is a procedure under which it is held that there can be retrospective legislation or retroactive legislation. It could therefore date back to the time of the trial. Does one adjourn and wait? There is another provision in the Bill which says that nobody is to be made guilty as a result of the eventual decision of the Government either to keep the legislation or to amend it. But it does not say that someone must not be made innocent. I should be grateful if the Minister could reply to that question at the end of the debate.
My last words—your Lordships will appreciate this—relate to Clauses 8 and 10 of the convention. Those are the clauses that relate to privacy. It is all very well to talk about the public interest when one is in the newspaper world—and much of our newspaper world is still reputable. But there is a part of it of which I am thoroughly ashamed. I say that without reservation. My American friends used to come to me and say, "What a joy it is to read your British press. It is nothing like our newspapers that contain gossip and pictures of the kind that we do not admire". Now they say, "Oh, you have caught our American plague, have you, with some of your newspapers?".
We talk of public interest but I wonder whether it does not also go the other way. The convention lays down that everyone is entitled to privacy in person, correspondence, home and family. The Royal Family is entitled to it; Ministers of the Crown are entitled to it; and Members of Parliament are entitled to it. In the public interest I say this. I know of many men and women who are extremely capable of rendering public service to this country who have said to me, "We would love to do it, but no thank you; not at the cost to my family life, knowing that every action of mine will be looked at and every person with whom I have dinner or lunch will be photographed. No thank you. I love my family too much, however much I love my country".
Public interest therefore goes both ways and if the voluntary regulation does not pay with some members of our press, then I hope a judicial decision made in the light of this Bill by British judges will bring them to their senses.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I fear that I may be about to put something of a dampener on the proceedings. But in doing so, and in showing less than full enthusiasm for this Bill, I would not like it to be thought that I do not admire greatly the work done by many people, and perhaps principally the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the field of human rights. When I make my contribution I would not like it to be thought that I am not paying tribute to him and also, as others have done, congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her maiden speech.
When one reads some of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, such as the decision that the United Kingdom violated the human rights of the IRA terrorists who went to Gibraltar bent on murder, it is not surprising that some have argued that we should have denounced the convention years ago. But the fact of the matter is that we have not denounced the convention, and at first blush it seems attractive to argue, as many have, that if a convention which Britain has signed gives British people rights, they should not have to make the long and expensive journey to Strasbourg in order to obtain them. But of course the matter does not rest there. For while the Prime Minister stresses that the object of the exercise is little more than to make it easier for people to get their rights—in the words of the White Paper,
"to make more directly accessible the rights which the British people already enjoy under the convention"—
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has over the months sung a very different tune.
According to the noble and learned Lord, incorporation will include a very significant transfer of power to the judges, who—I quote from a press report of a speech he made—
"will interpret the convention to reflect changing social attitudes".
In plain language, that means that the judges will make new laws. The noble and learned Lord was reported some time ago as saying that he contemplated, as an example of the sort of law they would make, a new law of privacy. It does not take too much imagination to see that that would have one great advantage for the Government. The Government would at least be spared the embarrassment of having to introduce a privacy Bill themselves, with all the risks of conflict with the press which that would entail.
Now of course the judges have always made law. Indeed when we talk about human rights, as we do today, we should remember that such human rights as our law recognises are largely judge-made; for example, the presumption of innocence, the right of peaceful assembly and the freedom of the press. As we applaud the judges for having used common law principles to uphold individual rights, we are entitled to wonder whether we cannot trust them to continue to develop the common law to meet new threats to our liberties when they arise.
But make no mistake about it, when we ask the judges to get to work on some of the vague and imprecise concepts in the convention, such as the right of respect for family life, when we give the judges the opportunity
1254
to put whatever construction they like on these concepts, we will be giving an immense new impetus to the judges' law-making power, for good or ill. Furthermore, we will be doing so at a time when the judges have not exactly been backward in coming forward, having in any event been demonstrating an increasing enthusiasm to make new laws, particularly new laws to fetter the Executive.
Against this background, is it not obvious that the greater the latitude allowed to judges to make new laws, the greater the risk of their appearing arbitrary, capricious and biased; and is it not obvious that the greater the latitude allowed to judges to make law, the greater the risk of conflict with Parliament?
We were told that the Bill has been drafted to minimise the risk of such conflict. But increasing conflict there undoubtedly will be. The courts may not be able to strike down a Bill as conflicting with the convention, but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has to acknowledge that the end result will be precisely the same. If the judges make law which conflicts with a law made by Parliament, a fast-track procedure will be invoked to ensure that Parliament bows the knee and the judges' law prevails. That is the truth of the matter. And what these laws will be, to which Parliament will have to bow the knee, is anyone's guess.
It will all depend, according to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on the judges' views of what Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, has failed to do by way of change to the present law to reflect "changing social attitudes". When these conflicts with Parliament arise, as they inevitably will, it is equally inevitable that there will be much greater interest in the political affiliations of those appointed to the Bench and, as in the United States, appointments will become a matter of controversy, with the suspicion, justified or not, that they have been made on political grounds. We will finish up paying a handsome price for the exercise on which we have now embarked.
What makes this whole exercise particularly unsatisfactory is that while, through incorporation, we will be running all these risks, we will not avoid continuing to be made fools of by the judges in Strasbourg. If British judges are robust and reject large numbers of complaints, the litigants, or a large number of them, will go to Strasbourg anyhow, and we could actually finish up with more decisions against us at Strasbourg than we get now.
That of course will mean us finishing up with the worst of all worlds: first, erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament, with the judges rather than the elected representatives of the people making laws to reflect changing social attitudes; and, secondly, foreign judges, brought up in an entirely different tradition, making embarrassingly inappropriate decisions in Strasbourg. At the end of it all I cannot forget that for centuries we have got on very well, avoiding tyranny, without a constitution spelling out in high-flown phrases so-called fundamental rights. The Government of the Soviet Union, with such a constitution, practised mass murder. I do not believe that the British need to be given rights; or rather, if they need to be given rights, they are not to be found in the convention.

1255
As a free born citizen I thought, long before I read the convention, that my family and my home were entitled to respect. I thought—and surely I was right to think—that if any public authority invaded my home without just cause, I had a remedy. But I am now told that if my home was invaded and I was foolish enough to seek a remedy under the European convention, I might be met with the argument that, in my case, invasion of my home was necessary—and here I quote from Article 8—for the economic well-being of the country or the protection of my or someone else's health. I am tempted to say, though I fear I would be out of order to say so, thank you for nothing, my Lord Chancellor; thank you for nothing, Mr. Straw.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he will bear in mind that for the past 46 years the people of our country have been subject to the rights and obligations created by the European Convention on Human Rights, and that when they have had access to the European Court the judges there have included a British judge or sometimes two British judges. The conflict to which my noble friend has referred between the decisions of the Court and governments in the European Community just does not seem to have arisen. Is it not now right that the British people should have their rights and obligations enforced by our judges in our courts?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend must have misunderstood what I said earlier. I was not talking about conflicts which have occurred but about the potential for conflict in the future as a result of giving a great, new impetus to the judges' law-making power. I should have thought that it was obvious to everybody that there is some risk in giving this new impetus to the judges' law-making power. In my view, conflict with Parliament will almost certainly arise.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to speak so early in the debate. Sadly, I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate for pressing private reasons. Once again, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak so soon.
This has been a splendid debate so far—until, if I may say so, the last 10 to 15 minutes. I am a retired judge and when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was speaking, I wondered exactly what class of men and women he was referring to in terms of the way in which they apparently behave intellectually. I remind the noble Lord that for centuries our judges have been developing the common law, and for centuries from time to time Parliament has amended, reformed and perhaps even removed part of the common law. I have not noticed any judicial revolution because of that and I have not noticed any tyrannical behaviour on the part of Parliament. Indeed, if we were not to enter the new constitutional phase which is heralded by the Bill, it may be that the judges would look at the convention, knowing the way in which it was drafted and its history, as something that could creep into the law through the common law unless Parliament passed legislation to cancel it. That would be absurd and, fortunately, we have this Bill.
1256
The Bill is the beginning of a very important constitutional chapter in our history. The quality of the Bill is that it recognises that in a democracy, the democratically elected assembly—for us, that is Parliament—must be sovereign. At the same time, the Bill recognises that the European Convention on Human Rights exists and that that convention, ratified by Britain in 1951, guarantees the human rights stated in it. The Bill recognises that those rights are already in existence in the United Kingdom, although their direct enforcement is not yet possible here.
What has the Bill done? The Bill has stood up for parliamentary sovereignty. At the same time, to quote from the preamble to the Bill, it,
"gives further effect … to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights".
The Bill recognises that under our law those rights are already guaranteed and takes that as an opportunity for constitutional reform. The Bill is modest. As I have said, the legislation will be an Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms that are already guaranteed under the European convention.
The Bill has done that in a brilliant way and I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, his colleagues in government, the civil servants and the draftsmen on the document that they have produced. We now have the protection of our primary law and the protection of the rights that are guaranteed by the European convention. That is achieved by a partnership, if I may put it like that, between Parliament and the judges. The judges do not strike down primary legislation; they merely indicate their opinion, without fuss, that certain matters are incompatible and leave it at that. When there is incompatibility between a primary statute and the European Convention on Human Rights, there will be a fast-track parliamentary procedure.
The Bill may or may not need reform or looking at again in the future, but it is the beginning of a new constitutional chapter and I see absolutely nothing in the history of English law which indicates that either the judges or Parliament will play rough. This is a new form of partnership, with the judges sticking to their judicial work and Parliament being supreme in legislation. That is absolutely right. If we are to be a democracy, the people must have the last word. Having said that, constitutionally we can ensure the protection and development of our rights, guaranteed under the convention.
A number of provisions in the Bill could well be further considered. My speech will be short, so I certainly do not propose to do that, but I should like to say this: if we go ahead, developing phase by phase along the lines suggested in the Bill, we shall work out a new constitution which will be to the infinite benefit of everyone. I have no doubt about that. It will come if the spirit of the Bill is maintained. Having heard the speeches that have been made so far, I end by saying that we need have no fears: we are on a path to constitutional reform which will preserve our democracy and our convention rights.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. As one who has been a humble foot-soldier in his band which is now on the eve of a famous victory, perhaps I may add that there is no noble Lord to whom I should rather give way than the noble and learned Lord. This is a great day for him and for Britain. I am extremely glad that he is with us today of all days.
This is a victory not for any political party, or combination of political parties, but for individuals and citizens for whom the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke in his introductory speech. I believe that it is right to pay tribute to some of those outside your Lordships' House and the other place who have put so much effort into this over the years. I refer to NGOs like Justice, Liberty, the Runnymede Trust, referred to by the noble Baroness, the Constitutional Reform Centre, of which I had the honour to be chairman for some time, and perhaps above all the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. As long ago as 1977 that was the first body to come out in support of this proposition for the very reason, which has already been referred to by the right reverend Prelate, that in Northern Ireland this was one measure on which all sides of the community and all parties agreed. It provides a basis for common respect for human rights across the communities. It is no coincidence that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland was an early supporter of this measure.
I am bound to say that I am slightly confused by the message that has come from the Benches to my left. I got the impression—perhaps I did not pay sufficient attention—that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was rather in favour of the incorporation of the convention into British law. At one point he praised it with faint damns. Towards the end of his speech I slightly lost his argument, but my overall impression was that the noble Lord quite liked this measure. One then heard a robust and unreconstructed speech from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Perhaps he provides the more authentic traditional voice of the Conservative Party. One wonders whether the noble Lord, who presided with such distinction over the beautiful island of Bermuda, is aware that written into its constitution is the whole of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is good enough for the Commonwealth, Europe and virtually the whole world, but apparently not good enough for the Conservative Party.
This is a debate full of immensely distinguished lawyers from all over the place. Lawyers have spoken and are about to speak. Of course, those of us who are laymen listen to them with enormous respect. But I believe that there is an important aspect of this convention that must be considered in an entirely different way. It is natural for lawyers to think of remedies and the infringement of rights. They think of courts and what happens in them to deal with the infringement of rights and how remedies can be made available. That is how it should be, and that is what lawyers are for. But I believe that it is more important for us to consider the normative effect in creating a
1258
culture of rights. This was a matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, also referred in an outstanding maiden speech. If one is to create a culture of rights, what is far more important than what ends in court is whether legislators in legislating and administrators in administering build into their thinking this culture of rights so that one ends up with less legal proceedings and more of a culture and society that provide greater respect for rights; in other words, the normative effect is the key and one should always be alert to the rights of the individual.
If I have one bone to pick with the Government it is a relatively small one but I pick it nonetheless. I refer to the rather warm words but faint commitment to a human rights commission. The Government have said that at some stage in the future they will be open to considering such a commission. Surely, the need for a commission is at the beginning of this process, to take up cases to test the law, to encourage and assist individuals in a new area for British courts and to promote good practice; in short, to make the whole process work. I hope that the educational effect that a commission can have is a matter that the Government will address slightly more urgently than their words suggest. Words such as "the future" always make one a little nervous. That is a limbo in which all too often good ideas disappear.
I should like to seek three assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he comes to reply to the debate: first, that the future to which the Government refer is the near future; secondly, that on the issue of the commission there is no question of a Treasury veto on relatively modest sums of money to fund such a commission; and, thirdly, that the Government will take an active lead in trying to reconcile the commission with the other equality commissions. I believe that this is such a complicated matter that without an active lead from the Government these questions are unlikely to be resolved. I seek those assurances in the context of an apology that I must make to the noble Lord. I have already notified him that I have a long-standing engagement which means that I may have to leave before he replies. But I shall be most interested to read what he says.
In conclusion, this Bill is a major plank in the Government's programme of constitutional reform. It has the power to modernise and invigorate our system of government. But, above all, the reason why I believe that we should support it wholeheartedly is that it aims to put the citizen back where he and she belong; that is, at the centre of the system rather than on the periphery.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the White Paper justly pays tribute to two of the precursors of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has done so much not only in presenting a Bill which foreshadows this but also in leading us—those who followed—into the concept of the value of a parliamentary committee on human rights. I should like to see a joint select committee. For that, too, we are indebted to him. The other one who was mentioned in the White Paper, I believe valuably, was

1259
Sir Edward Gardner, who had been my parliamentary private secretary. He, too, introduced a Bill on the lines of this measures. Very valuably, he set it in the context of English, British constitutional and common law. But there was one who was not mentioned until he was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I refer to the late Lord Wade who, Session after Session, tabled a Bill on these lines. I strongly supported him, so naturally I support this Bill.
I was a little embarrassed at the time because four noble and learned Lords who were personal friends and colleagues, and for whom I had very great respect, differed on the matter. On one side were my noble and learned friends Lord Scarman and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone; on the other side were the late Lord Diplock and the late Lord Elwyn-Jones. One should remember that Lord Elwyn-Jones on that occasion also spoke on behalf of the Labour Party, which renders inappropriate part of the jibes of a rather partisan political character that have occasionally crept into this debate.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as did Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out that there was another side to this question. It is one that I do not myself accept. I believe that the arguments are overwhelmingly preponderant in favour of this Bill. However, one would be very rash indeed to proceed without weighing very carefully what the noble Lord has said today.
In view of all that has been said, I think that I can address myself to three specific points. The first is that, although one might not have gathered it from the speech of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, the Bill nevertheless introduces into English law for the first time a right to privacy. I say "for the first time", but it was in fact adumbrated many years ago. In 1351, in the famous statute which inaugurated the justice of the peace, it was made an offence to eavesdrop. At that time literally listening under the eaves of your neighbour's house was considered an infringement of his privacy. Unfortunately we lost that tradition in our law, and today we have far more grotesque invasions of privacy: electronic eavesdropping, long distance photo lenses, and so on. I profoundly agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said at the end of his speech about the danger such conduct renders to the recruitment of valuable people into our public life.
I have some questions to ask, on the assumption that the right to privacy is a real right. I believe that it can be enforced against a public body only. Presumably—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will correct me if I am wrong—that will include the BBC. Will it include independent television and its various components? Will it include the press? I doubt it as such, but in the valuable brief which the organisation which is now called Liberty has circulated, it suggests that the matter might be indirectly canvassed against the press by bringing a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, and, on failing to receive satisfaction from it, to bring a suit for judicial review. That seems to be hopelessly circuitous. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to satisfy us on that point.
1260
The second point that I want to raise is on legal aid. I naturally attach high importance to access to justice, but I respectfully agreed entirely with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and with his predecessor, that there must be some containment of the legal aid bill which is now utterly out of hand. I disagreed however with the proposal that the mitigation of legal aid should be compensated for by a no win-no pay system of litigation. That brings a most undesirable gambling element into our legal system and profession.
Indeed, I should have thought that it is inappropriate in the context of human rights where there is seldom, and often a restricted, right to compensation. The remedies are sometimes unpecuniary. Perhaps I may suggest an alternative; that is, to give certain bodies, at the discretion of the court, a locus standi. That could include bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. I would go further, because I should like to see both those bodies pressed into a human rights commission. I agreed with what the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in her splendid maiden speech, said about that.
If we had a commission for human rights and permitted it, at the discretion of the court, to have a locus standi in these matters, part of the denial of legal aid would be solved. American courts give that type of locus standi. I see no reason why we should not.
We should not be justified in adding to the legal aid bill at this moment. We are at the moment borrowing money which has to be repaid by our children. We are not justified in borrowing it to spend on our own satisfaction but only on matters such as education, training and investment which inure to the benefit of those who have to repay the debt.
The last matter I should like to raise is one which has been freely and valuably canvassed; that is, the relationship between Parliament and the courts. So far as concerns future legislation, it seems to me that the Government's proposal is well-conceived in the light of our constitutional balance, but as regards past legislation, I cannot see why the common law rule that a later statute which is incompatible with an earlier one impliedly revokes that other in so far as it is not expressly revoked. Indeed I should have thought that that rule must subsist until it is expressly abrogated by statute. Having raised those matters, I should not like it to be thought that I am not wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whom I have had the opportunity to admire over the years from a number of standpoints. I was glad that he said what he did about the speech of

1261
my noble friend Lord Waddington, because as the debate unfolded I had begun to think that I might be in a minority of one, and therefore in need of some protection, as I sought to develop a warning, which I wanted to lay before your Lordships. It is a warning which, until my noble friend Lord Waddington had spoken, had thus far gone unuttered.
Perhaps I may interpose one small point; namely, a welcome for the Bill's provision retaining the derogation from Article 5.3 in respect of detention. I pass lightly over that because it is not the main thrust, or anything like it, of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. In my respectful opinion, it is necessary. Notwithstanding the great importance of the general principle of ensuring that people who are detained as suspects shall be released promptly or charged promptly, as regards terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland, we need the provision that is on our statute book: that people may, under stringent conditions which are scrupulously enforced, be able to be detained for five days for investigatory purposes in addition to the 48 hours which are accounted for in right of arrest.
I am sorry to say that that is the only provision in the Bill which I can wholeheartedly welcome. That is not because I am other than wholly in favour of the Convention on Human Rights; wholly in favour and proud of the fact that our country was the first to ratify the convention in 1951; and wholly in favour of the fact that in 1967 we accorded the right of individual petition to our fellow citizens. Those are important aspects and it is right that they should continue.
However, I am also a firm admirer of our judiciary and the limitations that our constitutional practice has placed upon its work. Those limitations have preserved the judiciary from any perceived taint of partiality, especially in controversial fields of political policy. That is important and we want to risk it only after the greatest care and consideration.
It is important because it bears upon the need for the public to retain confidence that the judiciary is altogether impartial. That is nowhere more important than in the case of the disappointed litigant. It is important that he leaves the court believing that the judiciary is altogether impartial. He may believe that the judiciary did not understand the case—perhaps that is par for the course—but he should never believe that because of a perceived taint of partiality the judiciary could never have been expected to find in his favour.
That must continue. My grave fear is that if we require our judges to undertake the additional tasks provided for in the Bill—in shorthand, they can be said to interpret and apply the provisions of the convention—by reason of the broad brush conceptual language, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, confidence will diminish not because of what the judges will do to the convention but what the convention will do to the judges. As I look at some of the most distinguished
1262
representatives, I say with the greatest respect that I do not believe that the judges are in the strongest position to recognise what the convention may do to them—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will explain a point which puzzles me when I hear the argument that he has made. What on earth is wrong with our British judges which disqualifies them from performing the role when the judges of almost every other Commonwealth and European country perform the role of interpreting the broad language of constitutional guarantees of human rights as required by the Bill? Why are our judges uniquely disqualified'? What is the threat to them which does not apply to the judges of, for example, India, Canada, New Zealand or the rest of the Commonwealth?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I have a good passage which I was reserving for the end of my speech which deals with that, but I shall gladly promote it. Of course, the argument is not all one way—all black or all white—and in some circumstances when one is setting up a newly-independent country it makes every sense to have a provision such as that mentioned by the noble Lord. However, I believe that there is no country in which the judiciary has been so successfully and carefully protected from "political involvement". Furthermore, there is no country whose judges are more widely admired for their political impartiality. Therefore, one must achieve a balance between risking that and the advantages that will be gained. I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington when he asked what are the lacunae in the protection of our people which are said to justify the Bill.
It is necessary in a newly independent country, set up with a constitution no doubt drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his customary skill, but it is not proven to me that the risk of exposing the judges to the taint of political partiality is justified by the advantages which will be gained. Article 11 dealing with freedom of association, for example, will inevitably bring the judges into the whole issue of the closed shop and collective bargaining. Inevitably Article 2, the right to life, will in time bring the judges into expressing views and making choices about the compatibility of our statutory law on abortion. The point is that they will have to make choices which are political.
Each of the articles requires a balance to be established between one public interest and another which conflicts with it. That is different from the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is different from the choices they have to make when they develop the common law. It is different from the choices they make when they exercise the judge-made and judge-invented jurisdiction of judicial review. It is right that many of the cases subject to judicial review are of political interest, but the choices are not political in character. The choices which they will have to make by reason of the necessarily broad brush language of the convention will unarguably be political in character.
The high watermark of the argument will be the question: why should not British judges deal with these matters? It is a strong issue about which one must think

1263
carefully. It is said that it is better to let our judges play their part in shaping the convention's development. I acknowledge that argument, but I suggest that it is not strong enough to warrant the damage which is inherent to the reputation of our judiciary. As has already been mentioned, sooner or later people will suspect that a judge has been appointed not by reason of his judicial capabilities but because in the eye of the government of the day he is sound on abortion or the closed shop. Those thoughts need to be considered. They are serious and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to utter them.
It is said that incorporation will concentrate the minds of Ministers and officials, but in my experience that is already the case. For nine years I was a Law Officer of the Crown and had that privilege. I must say that I thought that it was a bourn from which no political traveller returned, but I was a fortunate exception. Throughout that time, we all always made it a point of honour to insist that our legislation and choices of executive action were made by reference to and in respect of our international obligations certainly to the Convention on Human Rights. I do not believe that our record as a country is that bad, considering that at an early stage we gave the right of individual petition and considering the plague of terrorism with which we have had to contend for more than 25 years, coping with people who have no respect for any rights of anybody whatever.
It is said that it takes a long time to get to Strasbourg but that that could be done much more quickly were that court and commission to reform their practices. I hope to hear from the noble Lord who is to wind up what are the Government's proposals in that regard. The previous government had some proposals.
Of course, this is not an easy matter. However, I have very grave anxieties about the dangers, which I have tried to express. After listening with deep admiration to speeches from all sides today, I remain of the view that the balance of safety comes down firmly against bringing those, to my mind, dangerous duties home to the judges.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I shall say a few words to welcome this Bill. I believe that even the most extreme ultra-nationalist or ultimate anti-European should also welcome the Bill. For this time, we do not give away any of our national sovereign powers to European institutions. Instead, we grant powers to the British courts which the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg already have.
It is a sensible measure and, as has been said by a number of speakers, we might have done it earlier: in 1951 when the United Kingdom ratified the convention; or in 1966 when we recognised the right to individual petition to the Strasbourg organs; or, indeed, some 10 years ago when the deficiencies of the present system became abundantly clear. It might have saved our country some awkward and unnecessary condemnations by the human rights court; and it might have saved the
1264
applicants from taking the long and hard road to Strasbourg, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed the matter recently. In particular, it might have saved the litigants the expense which taking that road to Strasbourg inevitably involves. Indeed, in my view, we must always consider the interests of those who rightly or wrongly seek redress for decisions which they consider to be unjust.
As has already been said, the road to Strasbourg can be long, hard and expensive for applicants. But so it is also for the Government. As the excellent Command Paper by the Home Office states, once all domestic remedies have been exhausted, it takes some five years for an application to go before the European Court and it costs an average of £30,000 per application. Therefore, we shall save that money if British judges are applying the convention's provisions and if litigants feel that it is no longer necessary to go to Strasbourg. Therefore, the Bill can be welcomed by those who feel that governments are always spending more and are never sufficiently cutting expenditure.
The Human Rights Bill will now subsume into the law of the land the provisions of the human rights convention by which we are bound in any event since its ratification in 1951. Although we were the first member country of the Council of Europe to ratify the convention, we are among the last to make sure that our national judges can apply it directly.
Other countries have solved that problem either in the way that we are now about to do or because their constitution may provide for the supremacy of international law over national law or, indeed, by other means. For example, Dutch and French judges and some judges from other member states of the council have been able to settle cases in a manner in which our courts have had to leave, until now, to the Strasbourg organs.
In addition, the judiciary in our country should have ample reason to be satisfied with the Bill. Becoming acquainted with the convention itself will not be a heavy assignment, but of course one must study also the doctrine around it and the jurisprudence not only of the commission and court in Strasbourg but also that of national courts in other member states of the Council of Europe. Thus it is justified to provide some kind of training for judges, magistrates and tribunal members who may have to handle aspects of the convention.
We in Parliament should also be pleased. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks, the Bill does not make us subordinate to the courts which cannot strike out our Acts by declaring them null and void when it is considered that they violate the convention. As we have heard, the courts will have to limit themselves to a declaration of incompatibility. Therefore, I submit that it is clear that those who are concerned about the prerogatives of Westminster should perhaps not exaggerate their fears in that regard.
Finally, all those who take to heart the protection of human rights in this country should greatly welcome the Bill. I hope that they do. After all, the protection of human rights may be considered to be almost a British invention, as is the case in relation to international

1265
protection, going back to the Atlantic Charter when Britain and the United States joined hands. In addition, we took a very active part in the elaboration of the European Court itself. Our influence at that time was such that General de Gaulle did not want France to become a party to the then treaty because he considered it to be too Anglo-Saxon in concept.
Since 1951, a number of additional protocols have been added to the convention, each one of which contains a number of additional substantial provisions. This country ratified the first protocol but there are three others outstanding. In that regard, I should like to encourage the Government to proceed with the ratification of Protocol 7, as I believe is their declared intention.
Therefore, there are some additional protocols to the convention which aim to widen its scope by adding new rights and freedoms to those it already protects. Moreover, there are also a number of protocols to modify the convention's procedures. The last such protocol, Protocol 11, will change profoundly its structures. That protocol has now been ratified by 38 of the 40 contracting parties. The two countries which have not ratified are Russia and Croatia. The effect of the implementation of the protocol will be to institute a full-time Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, thus doing away with the present part-time commission and court.
Also, there will be one judge appointed from each contracting party. An ad hoc committee, which I shall chair, of the Legal Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has been formed to interview, at the last count, 114 aspiring judges. To that end, we shall meet for two periods in Paris lasting for many days on each occasion.
The point which I wish to emphasise to your Lordships is that that has never been done before. The Parliamentary Assembly merely ratified, as it were on the nod, whichever particular judge was thrown to it. The Parliamentary Assembly is therefore taking very seriously its responsibilities in regard to the appointment of the new judges to the new full-time court. Of course, those judges will have to take up permanent residence in Strasbourg, which is not the case at present.
Therefore, I believe that at Council of Europe level, there is an attempt to modify in the light of the continuing trends. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will have a very fair wind in your Lordships' House.
6 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, one feature of most charters on human rights is that minorities are allowed to be heard. I am rather glad about that because during the course of this debate I am beginning to find myself in quite a small minority. Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I cannot extend a warm welcome to the Bill, despite the fact that I have been practising the law for 49 years and have been a judge in Scotland for almost 13. Perhaps I may make one little point to show that there are two sides to the argument. The United States
1266
introduced a Bill of Rights 200 years ago. The most celebrated case in this century in the USA—where there is direct application of the constitution—was the Gideon case. From the time of his conviction to the overturning of it on the grounds of contravention of his human rights, it took 37 years. So direct access to a convention or a charter does not necessarily mean that one moves swiftly. The Dred Scott case of last century was overturned rather more swiftly, but in that case it took a civil war to do so. Therefore, direct access to Bills of Rights and the rights contained in them is not necessarily a guarantee.
My opposition to incorporation into our domestic law of the convention is of long standing. In 1986 I had the honour and privilege of being invited by the BBC to deliver the Reith Lectures of that year. They were later published under the compendious title of, "Law, Justice and Democracy". Lord Elwyn-Jones asked at the time, "Is that all?". Indeed, that was all. The theme was that, by enacting a Bill of Rights, we would be doing something which was quite unnecessary, having regard to our traditions and our success in relation to delivering human rights.
However, my opposition is not based on a distaste for human rights; indeed, I am a strong defender of them. I am the vice-chairman of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. I am strongly in favour of human civil and political rights, especially if they are defined with clarity and precision. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that when one comes to what he described as vague and imprecise rights, one is doing something quite different from conferring a precise, well-defined, achievable and realisable right.
The present Bill does a great deal to achieve a remarkable and reasonable compromise. However, I still believe that it offends against points of fundamental principle. By incorporating into our domestic law vague, imprecise and high sounding statements of legal rights, we hand what is truly legislative power away from a democratic and accountable Parliament to an appointed, unelected and unaccountable judiciary. No doubt the latter will be composed of distinguished men—indeed, that applies to some, many or most of them—but they will be successful lawyers with very limited democratic credentials and experience.
The White Paper is perfectly explicit about what is happening in that regard. I shall quote from two passages in the document. Paragraph 2.5 says:
"The Convention is often described as a 'living instrument' because it is interpreted by the European Court in the light of present day conditions and therefore reflects changing social attitudes and the changes in the circumstances of society. In future our judges will be able to contribute to this dynamic and evolving interpretation of the Convention. In particular, our courts will be required to balance the protection of individuals' fundamental rights against the demands of the general interest of the community".
What kind of a job is that to give to judges? That is a job which ought to be left to democratically accountable Members of Parliament.

1267
In paragraph 2.8, the White Paper also says:
"This 'rule of construction' is to apply to past as well as to future legislation … the courts will not be bound by previous interpretations. They will be able to build a new body of case law, taking into account the Convention rights".
We should not run away from the fact that this is empowering judicial legislation. Of course the judges will not possess quite the same power here as they do in the United States or in other places, but the effect will be exactly the same. Elsewhere in the White Paper it is made abundantly plain that in almost every case—and I know of no exception—Parliament will at once move to bring the law into line with what judges say the convention says it is. In fact, Parliament has no option if the Strasbourg Court so decides. The certain aim of British judges will be to interpret the convention in the way that they think the Strasbourg Court will. Otherwise, they will be overturned in Strasbourg.
I believe that such matters are most important. In the Reith Lectures I wrote the following:
"A constitutional Bill of rights … is inevitably a charter of enduring super-rights, rights written in delphic words but in indelible ink on an opaque surface. It turns judges into legislators and gives them a finality which our whole tradition has hitherto professed to withhold from them. It makes the mistake of dressing up policy choices as if they were legal choices. It asks those whose job it is to know and apply the law to create and reform the law. It requires those whose skill it is to know what the law is to decide what the law should be".
Our tradition is to legislate in terms which are as precise and exact as the English language and human foresight can achieve. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, chaired a distinguished committee which looked at the form of our legislation and I believe that it favoured the precise definition of our right. However, charters of human rights, especially when they must reflect the competing interests and different perspectives of different countries—as in the European situation, which encompasses different groups, different traditions, different religious and moral perspectives and also different nation states—come to be written in broad, imprecise and ill-defined language.
I believe that I am merely echoing what has been said elsewhere, but such charters are inevitably full of vague expressions, like the American one, "due process", which has been productive of thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of decisions which have enacted judicial legislation. We also have in the present case words like "promptly", "a reasonable time", "in the interests of justice" and the one that has been mentioned by several noble Lords which appears in Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11; namely, "necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security and public safety", or even, "the economic well-being of the country". So judges decide whether a derogation from the stated right is in the interests of the economic well-being of this country. In my judgment that is not a matter for judges. When one puts Delphic words into charters, one then needs to ask someone what those words mean. It is like going to the Oracle to ask what it means. The high priest will answer and will tell you what it means. However, unless one is a fool, one realises that it is the judge—or the high priest—who is telling you what it means. Indeed, the Oracle is relatively silent.
1268
Our courts will soon have to decide, here or perhaps in Strasbourg, whether homosexual men can marry—I believe that question has already been before the European Court on two occasions—and whether members of an allegedly extremist party, like the Communist Party, can join the government service or be excluded from it. The Court has already addressed on several occasions the grant or refusal of legal aid and, therefore, our legal aid system is subject to the charter. The court has already addressed on more than one occasion the question as to whether schoolchildren can be strapped, and the legality of abortion is waiting in the wings to be settled by the courts, as in the United States, instead of by the elected Parliament.
I shall quote from de Tocqueville in his observation 150 years ago. He said of the US Supreme Court that,
"scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question".
In 1955 Daniel Boorstin said:
"The Supreme Court has become the American political conscience, a kind of secular papacy, a new search in every generation for what the more large-minded and more foresighted of the Founders might have meant if they were alive".
That was in 1955. Since then, we have had two terms of Reagan, one term of Bush and of course we had Nixon. Each of those presidents said that they were going to change the character of the court and that they must have people in it of the right disposition of mind. Nixon promised judges who would be different. At the Republican Party convention of 1980 a pledge was given to work for the appointment of judges who respected innocent human life and were in favour of law and order. That meant that they had to be against abortion and in favour of capital punishment. Therefore judges were chosen with a view to obtaining what was in the view of that party the right kind of results.
I have the greatest possible respect for British judges; many of them are my best friends. However, that does not lead me to give them tasks which they are not well qualified to perform. Inevitably, they will become politicised. I have one further quotation from the excellent work which I am afraid is no longer in print, Law, Justice and Democracy, which states:
"A Bill of rights embodies semi-permanent choices between the conflicting interests of citizens. And to present such choices as if they are the gratuitous enlargement of the human rights of all is to misuse language. Rights are not to be regarded as if they were roses without thorns".
That still encapsulates the view which I have reached.
I wish to draw attention to the extremely important matter of the hidden cost of this legislation. In future no lawyer will be able to advise a client on any matter which might involve a public authority without studying not just the European jurisprudence—as he will read the Strasbourg report as I have done—but also American case law, Canadian case law and even Indian case law and Australian and New Zealand case law. Each lawyer will have to instruct his own mind before he can advise his client. We judges know almost nothing of European law. As regards Clause 2 of the Bill, I do not even know how to gain access to some documents in relation to decisions of the Committee of Ministers. As I say, there is, therefore, a considerable hidden cost in this Bill.

1269
Further, we in Scotland are plagued—I believe it is even worse in England—by the party litigant. I refer to the man who is consumed with a passion for his own case. This kind of charter provides him with an enormous opportunity to come to court and say, "I have a fundamental human right and I want to vindicate it". As a senator in Canada said of the Canadian charter of rights, it provides,
"a field day for crackpots, a pain in the neck for judges and a gold mine for lawyers".
That is the view that I take.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken will not be surprised to find that I, as an admirer of his writings for a long time, join him in what appears, alas, to be a minority. My view of the Bill before us can be summed up in three words: silly, unnecessary and dangerous. My reasons are the following. It departs altogether from what has been the normal practice of Parliament through the ages. What does Parliament do? It is told that there is something wrong in the body politic; that there is some mischief which requires legislation to correct. That is Parliament's business. So surely the authors of a Bill which intends to deal with human rights should have begun by saying, "There is in the United Kingdom a disastrous deficiency in the sphere of human rights". No such claim has been made or illustrated by any of the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this Bill.
Further, they should have stated that this lacuna is to be remedied by the incorporation of the European convention. But then, surely, the next point that should have been made would have been to provide illustrations of countries which have incorporated the convention and where it can be demonstrated that the protection of human rights is much greater than it is in this country. However, no such evidence has been produced. Would it not have been proper—the new Government are keen on pre-legislative inquiries—to send an inquiry team to a number of European countries which I shall not specify where human rights might be thought, even with the incorporation, to be in much less good shape than they are in this country? Therefore it seems to me that no case has yet been made out for the Bill on the lines which normal legislation would require of a government.
There have been various other interesting gaps in the considerations that we have been offered. Much has been made of the fact that the authors of the text of this convention were largely British. That is true but what does that show? It shows that at the end of the war and the end of the occupation of Europe by Nazi and Fascist tyranny people looked to Britain as a country in which human rights had been preserved and where they now sought to find an instrument which might prevent those horrors recurring. Unlike many of your Lordships, I was around at that time. In other words, it was never thought that the convention should be applied to democratic countries, least of all the United Kingdom. It was thought that this was to be something which would be
1270
held up as an example to the newly liberated countries as to the kind of apparatus they would require to prevent these horrors recurring.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it so happens that not only was I a delegate to the Council of Europe at that time in 1951 and 1952 but I was on the legal affairs committee as well. Incidentally, I had to play some part in helping to formulate the constitution of the Court of Human Rights. I can assure the noble Lord that at that time this was not merely considered as a matter between governments; it was a matter on which we wished to protect the interests of all the people of all the countries represented at the Council of Europe.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, that was not how it was presented in this country at that time. What a number of lawyers may have thought among themselves is, of course, of great interest—one is always glad to have the historical reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—but if one asked people in this country a decade afterwards, "Are your human rights safeguarded by signature to a convention, or are they safeguarded by Magna Carta and the revolution of 1688?" any schoolboy could have given the correct answer.
Therefore it is a quite extraordinary thought that in a country where on the whole no one has yet been able to demonstrate where this absence of human rights is to be found, we should now be told that we need to incorporate a document whose very generalities reflect the situation then. If we were drawing up something now, obviously we would be more precise and we would avoid these contradictions. But, when it was merely a measure intended to hold up a beacon to the newly liberated countries of Europe, that was not required.
The only serious argument is that at present it is possible for litigants who think that they have been aggrieved to go initially to a court in Strasbourg. That is an expensive and time-consuming procedure. Far be it for me to say anything in favour of the Strasbourg court, for which I have minimal respect ever since it ruined our secondary education in this country by its absurd decision outlawing corporal punishment. All the troubles that the Government now find in schools, all the things that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education are so anxious to correct, all the assaults on teachers by pupils and parents, stem from that original folly, which unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, then the Secretary of State for Education, thought it his obligation to bring into our law.
Nevertheless, there it is. It is said that if we adopt this convention at least we shall save litigants this trek to that court. But it has already been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and others that it is nothing of the kind. If litigants are dissatisfied with what the British courts do when they appeal to them on the basis of the convention, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the litigant from saying, "I happen to be a wealthy man. I can afford it. I shall go to Strasbourg just the same". If one is intent on protecting British litigants from this exhausting, costly pursuit, I fear that some far more radical measures will be required. One measure would be to say—on the whole I say it; I have

1271
in some sense said it already—that the convention is a historical monument: it bears no relation to the present and we might as well say that we are withdrawing from it—the rebus not sic stantibus any more. I do not think that there would be enormous gales of indignation in this country if that were done.
The other measure would be slightly less dramatic in international terms: to revive the excellent statute of 1353, the statute of praemunire, by which it was declared that anyone taking a case to a foreign court which should have been submitted to His Majesty's courts would be in danger of having his possessions confiscated and being outlawed. That, I think, would be a considerable deterrent to the persistent litigant.
I hope, therefore, that, Salisbury Convention or no Salisbury Convention, in this place or in another place, this Bill will not find its way on to the statute book. At that point we should consider seriously important issues. They may not bear directly on human rights in the old fashioned sense. They may not be issues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rest of the American Declaration of Independence, to which the right reverend Prelate rightly referred us, but they are questions of discrimination and other matters for which two commissions exist, as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, reminded us. There may well be a case for a commission to look at other possible minor infractions. I do not refer to infractions of human rights in the sense in which those rights are disregarded in a country such as Iran, to which we have been looking in recent weeks, but those issues which in a fully just society should not be allowed to continue. If the Government would come forward with positive legislation, and not with the incorporation of this out of date, generalised and useless document, they would even have my support.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, not being a frequent speaker in your Lordships' House it perhaps behoves me to mention such credentials as I have for troubling your Lordships with a few thoughts about this Bill. It is a Bill whose significance extends even beyond the United Kingdom and Europe, for it signifies the adherence of the United Kingdom to the international movement towards the national codification of human rights: a movement which answers the aspirations of peoples and takes its origins from the aspirations of peoples. The very existence of such a movement may be seen to refute the arguments about handing political power to the judges, vague generalities and so forth, which a number of noble Lords have with no little vigour and even charm put to your Lordships today. When the Bill is enacted, it is significant that, of the older Commonwealth countries, only Australia will be without some general enforceable affirmation of state guaranteed human rights.
As for my credentials, though modest they are at least varied, extending from six years of judicial breaking in of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 to somewhat similar experience in Samoa, Fiji and the Cook Islands. Those are small jurisdictions, but the smallness of the jurisdiction is no reflection of the difficulty of applying human rights. It presents a real but necessary challenge
1272
to the judge. Now, having had some small experience of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, it may fall to me in company with some other Members of your Lordships' House to play a part in that field in the future in a significantly different constitutional setting.
Each of those lands has evolved its own partly distinctive Bill of Rights; and in turn the United Kingdom Bill will be partly distinctive again. The United Kingdom Bill has limited aims. For instance, it is tied to the rather elderly European convention, taking no notice of international developments since. Again, it does not itself lay claim to comply with Article 13 of that convention, which guarantees to everyone an effective remedy before a national authority. That omission is perhaps to be explained as a matter of drafting technique, but it may not be clear that even the Government are making that claim. I say as much subject to anything that may fall from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he replies to the debate. Human rights organisations raise various other points.
I believe, however, that the shortcomings of the Bill—and there are some—are far outweighed by its merits and that it may well prove to have real bite. I believe this for two reasons. The first is the express empowerment of the higher courts to make a declaration of incompatibility. Such express power is not given in the New Zealand Bill of Rights, under which, as was accurately summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, sufficiently clear legislation overrides the affirmed rights. As a judge, I feared that the courts might seem to come into conflict with Parliament if they declared that an Act was clear and overriding but nonetheless a violation. Happily, that fear will not exist in the United Kingdom because of Parliament's authorisation of such declarations. Nor does it seem likely that a declaration will be a mere bruturn fulmen, if one from the Antipodes may be forgiven what has been called "the worst type of Latinism in the law". It is true that the power of a Minister to make remedial orders is neither expressed as a duty nor restricted in time; nor of course is the power of Parliament—but reasonable expedition would appear to be the essence of the concept in Clauses 10, 11 and 12; they breathe it. And if a national court has made a declaration of incompatibility and expeditious remedial steps have not followed, will not that state of affairs amount to a plain invitation to a journey to Strasbourg? After all, as was pointed out, the European Court of Human Rights retains all its power and can always have the last word. That in itself may well be a strong incentive towards adopting compatible interpretations in this jurisdiction.
Secondly, let us consider the language of Clause 3(1):
"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights".
The clause will require a very different approach to interpretation from that to which United Kingdom courts are accustomed. Traditionally, the search has been for the true meaning; now it will be for a possible meaning that would prevent the making of a declaration of incompatibility.

1273
If there is one capacity in which lawyers are unsurpassed, it lies in discerning various possible meanings in words. Last week, your Lordships' Appellate Committee spent much of three and a half days considering the possible meanings of the word "act" in the phrase, "act, fault or neglect". One possible outcome is that for the time being it would be premature to give any definite answer. The week before, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council spent much of two days considering the possible meanings of the word "a" in the phrase, "a registered trade mark". One possible outcome is that no particular significance attaches to "a".
The shift of the criterion to a search for possible compatible meanings will confront the courts with delicate responsibilities. Even for lawyers, a must is a must. For surely the difference between mandatory and directory provisions can have no place in interpreting the Human Rights Act, which will itself be primary legislation. Consider, say, an Act making a certain kind of disclosure a criminal offence, enacting one specific defence, but not specifically excluding a defence under Article 10 (freedom to impart information). Without expressing any opinion as to the outcome, one can see that there will be a new kind of problem. In effect, the courts are being asked to solve these problems by applying a rebuttable presumption in favour of the convention rights.
Clause 3(1) is, if anything, slightly stronger than the corresponding New Zealand section. If it is scrupulously complied with, in a major field the common law approach to statutory interpretation will never be the same again; moreover, this will prove a powerful Bill indeed.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, after that erudite exposition from down under and other places, I fear that my remarks will appear much more mundane. I tore up my speech at one stage this afternoon, found it again and am about to tear it up again—mainly because my fox has been shot by both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, as the time has worn on, I am not so sure.
I begin by declaring an interest in that I am a member of the Press Complaints Commission. Noble Lords will therefore probably understand what I am about to talk about now even if they do not understand when I have finished. A few years ago I remember the Deputy Chief Whip coming to the Dispatch Box one afternoon and saying that he regretted that the Chief Whip was not able to be there because he was on a course. We all knew, of course, that it was the day of the Cheltenham Gold Cup. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, very much wanted to be in his place, but unfortunately he is in Melbourne.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill was rather severe on the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who is chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. To refer to the noble Lord's article as"
1274
intemperate" was going a bit far. However, when my noble friend finished I thought I understood where the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was possibly wrong and where the Press Complaints Commission had been badly advised. As I say, I am now not so sure.
I thought that we should be most grateful for the words from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the question of privacy—not least because he was complimentary to the Press Complaints Commission, but also because he appeared to set at rest some of the fears that we had. But listening to other noble and learned Lords I am now not quite so sure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, touched on a worry that we had had that it might be possible, via injunctions against the Press Complaints Commission, to get at the press in that way whereas the press itself could not be tackled under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
It is that indecision which is worrying for journalists. The Press Complaints Commission does not exist in order to bolster up journalists and newspaper editors. It does, however, exist to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld in this country while at the same time privacy is maintained. On the face of it, Articles 8 and 10 are utterly incompatible in this regard in certain cases. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made it clear that there is sufficient case history in Strasbourg so that we need not worry about that; but we do not know what will happen when these matters get into the English courts.
Imagine that you are an investigative journalist with a piece of hot news which may involve privacy. How can you be sure which way the courts will come down, if that is the way we are going to go? I believe it is because of that as much as anything that people like Mr. Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, have been calling for a privacy law to give certainty to the situation rather than allow it to be handled through the Bill.
You will not be surprised to hear that I believe that it will be far better that the matter should be left in the hands of the Press Complaints Commission unless it can be shown that that commission is failing. I do not believe it is. I think there has been considerable exaggeration over the problems of privacy. The commission has something like 3,000 complaints a year in toto, covering all sorts of things, including harassment and problems of children being approached when they should not be. A whole raft of complaints comes to us. Only one in eight refers to privacy.
I do not say that we send satisfied customers away even in those cases; there are those who want their privacy so that they can go on doing something nasty, just as Mr. Robert Maxwell used the libel laws to enable him to go on doing something nasty. There are also those who have a genuine misunderstanding—for instance, people who complain that their address has been given by newspapers when it is already on public record as a result of having been mentioned in court or at an inquest. Many of these cases are very sad, but the fact is that a lot of these people are not having their privacy invaded by the newspapers. In so far as it has been invaded, it has already been invaded by the courts.

1275
After I had listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I was inclined to think that we were worrying about nothing. Having heard so many other speeches today, I am less certain of that. I am sure that we shall have to come back to this at Committee stage, when I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will speak on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make it clear that when I referred to the uncharacteristically intemperate remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I was referring to the reference to a villain's charter and the suggestion that the right to privacy was absolute and would gag the press. Of course, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the article did not deserve careful study or that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was other than a dispassionate arbiter between the two public interests.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor deserves to be congratulated on bringing the Bill to the House so expeditiously after the general election. Congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in no way diminishes my regard for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this field for many years. I believe he must be very pleased with the outcome. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Amos on her extremely competent and valuable speech from her experience as chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is, I believe, doing at least part of the work of the human rights commission which she would dearly love to see created.
There has for some time been a growing movement for incorporating into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. I would say more about this if the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, were here, but, as he is not, I will simply say that I believe that the main point of the Bill is to ensure that our judges are enabled from the word go to determine issues involving human rights.
Time and again over many years—and we have heard something of this in the debate—it has been the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament that has proved a major stumbling block to incorporating the convention into our law. The brilliant design of the Bill is to say that, while no court may strike down legislation on the ground that it infringes the convention, the High Court may make a declaration to that effect, after which Ministers are expected to come to Parliament via the so-called fast-track procedure and amend the legislation so that it conforms to the convention.
If that works as seems to be intended by the Bill, the political reality will be that, while historically the courts have sought to carry out the will of Parliament, in the field of human rights Parliament will carry out the will of the courts. I realise that the Bill does not say that Ministers must follow the fast-track procedure if the High Court has declared that a statute contravenes the convention; it does not say that Parliament, through its two Houses, must pass the affirmative resolution put
1276
before it; but the intention of the Bill surely is that government and Parliament will faithfully implement any declaratory judgment made by the High Court. I quote from paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper:
"A declaration … will almost certainly prompt the Government and Parliament to change the law".
The likelihood of blatant infringement of the convention by a UK government or UK government-promoted legislation is no doubt unlikely so far as future legislation is concerned. There is indeed a triple lock, or a triple deterrent, on any government promoting legislation which may infringe the convention. First, Ministers must state when introducing a Bill whether it is compatible with the convention. Secondly, the courts must interpret the legislation so that, as far as possible, it is compatible with the convention and, if that is impossible, a formal declaration may be made that it is incompatible. Thirdly, the European Court may do likewise. Up till now only the last of those three deterrents has been in place.
As we all know, the real problems arise when courts have to interpret the qualifications expressed in the covenant to the specified human rights and when one right appears to be in conflict with another. Several of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon the conflict which may arise between the right of privacy and the right of freedom of expression. I should like to mention a conflict which has not been referred to this afternoon: the conflict which may arise between the right of freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial.
The great bulk of our UK law on contempt of court—both common law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981—is concerned with the kind of thing that several of your Lordships have talked about in relation to this convention—namely, with striking a balance. In my example, the balance is between the right of freedom of expression and comment about the accused and the right to a fair trial. It is not a new concept, but one has to accept that, if the convention becomes law, the balance may be struck at a different point.
In 1973, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity granted an injunction to prevent the Sunday Times from publishing an article concerning the thalidomide tragedy at a time when several court actions on behalf of the child victims of the drug were being negotiated with the British marketers, Distillers, with a view to an out-of-court settlement. The House of Lords' judgment was based on the view that "trial by newspaper" prejudged issues that were before the courts. (I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who gave one of the leading judgments in that case, for my oversimplification of the judgment.)
The Sunday Times—not being satisfied with that judgment—petitioned the ECHR which ruled that the injunction violated Article 10 of the convention. Inevitably, argument in the European Court of Human Rights turned on the qualification allowed in Article 10 to the right of freedom of expression; namely, was the restriction "necessary" for maintaining the authority of

1277
the judiciary? By a narrow margin of 11 to nine the European Court ruled that the restriction was not "necessary" for the purposes specified in Article 10.
I mention the narrow margin of 11 to nine specifically because I say to Her Majesty's Government that bringing rights home will not alter the fact that interpretation of the articles in the convention and the interpretation of the qualifications and conflicts between the articles will be just as difficult for our judges as they have often proved to be for the judges in the European Court of Human Rights.
I shall round up with a few questions to the Government. I had some difficulty in interpreting "public authority" in the Bill. The Bill says,
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights".
The phrase "public authority" includes,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
According to the White Paper, that includes companies that were previously in the public sector, such as the privatised utilities. That strikes me today, in 1997, as a little odd because some of those private utilities—for example BT and British Gas—in providing their services to the UK public, are competing with other companies and that competition is encouraged. It is odd if one company in the field is considered to be a "public authority" and one of its competitors is not.
Then I wonder how far it is intended that the definition of "public authorities" in the Bill is meant to be paralleled with the range of private bodies that the courts have said in recent years are subject to proceedings for judicial review on the basis that they have a "public element". In the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, I am bound to mention the City Takeover Panel, which was regarded as one of those bodies. I mention too the Advertising Standards Authority, which is a self-regulatory authority presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
Those bodies are performing functions that would be performed by statutory public bodies if the private self-regulatory bodies did not exist. The Advertising Standards Authority exercises an important jurisdiction. It has a lot of power over advertisements that are said to offend against the well-known rubric that advertisements must be,
"legal, decent, honest and truthful".
Since the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in the past that freedom of expression in Article 10 includes the freedom of commercial expression—the freedom to advertise one's goods—I wonder whether its rulings could be challenged as not complying with the convention.
I commend the Bill but put forward the queries that I raised.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, the Government are to be warmly congratulated on the White Paper they
1278
presented to accompany the Bill. It is an extremely well-drafted document. It is well written in pleasant, readable style; it is comprehensive, clear and grapples with the main problems with which we are faced, even if we may not agree with all the solutions. I regret only that we have not had more time to consider it. There has been an exceptionally short interval between its presentation and the presentation of the Bill to enable those of us who are rather dull and slow of understanding to master our arguments. But my congratulations on the form of the document are sincere.
The Bill is presented as a great constitutional advance, as a great movement of freedom, in resounding phrases relating to our civil rights and fundamental freedoms. And that is right. That has been true of other considerations and other Bills of this nature. However, it is important to realise that this is the crunch date. This Bill will be passed; it will be made part of the law of the land and its carefully drafted phrases will have to be applied by judges throughout the land—from the House of Lords right down to the circuit judges; it will have to be considered by Ministers and officials in preparing legislation and must be looked at much more carefully than we have felt it necessary to look at previous draft enactments of this kind. It is surely right therefore that we should look, as several noble Lords endeavoured to do, at the problems it creates to see whether we can identify them in order, first, that we may know what we are doing and the British public understand what we are doing; and, secondly, that so far as is possible we may try to mitigate some of those problems in the course of the Committee and later stages of the Bill.
This has been said in part but noble Lords will forgive me if I say it again in slightly different words. It is essential in considering this Bill to recollect that the European Convention on Human Rights started life as an international convention at the end of the war. It was an agreement between states as to the standards of values to be observed by all countries in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made that point extremely well.
One only has to look at the document to know that that is so. They had their eyes firmly on what had been afflicting Europe in the previous five years—the loss of life in the concentration camps, arbitrary arrest (the Gestapo knocking at the door), torture and slavery, persecution for opinions and religion. Without entering into any historical arguments between the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Renton, I can pick up what was said by one of the most eminent British judges of the court about the convention. He said that it was a,
"collective guarantee to ensure that rules and their application are in accordance with primary principles of law as recognised by civilised nations".
That reflects of course the language of the statute of the permanent court of international justice. It was regarded as a collective guarantee and I have no doubt that our delegates working on the text of the convention looked at it in that light. They did not regard it as laying down a charter for the UK or other states. I am glad that that is recognised by the White Paper at paragraph 1.11, which takes exactly that point.

1279
Moreover, it is interesting to note that one of our delegates, Mr. Ungoed Thomas as he then was, who was representing the Labour Party, vigorously opposed the idea that individuals should have rights under the convention which they could seek to enforce in the courts. It was not until many years later that the United Kingdom came round and accepted the right of individual petition. However, that was the position in 1950-51. Our delegates knew that all essential rights were confirmed to us by common law and there was never any intention that the new obligations by way of guarantee should be taken to supersede them.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by the common law, are: the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given an effect contrary to international law—an old principle which has been there for years; freedom of expression; and freedom of association. All of those were in the minds of our delegates, firmly secured already by the common law to this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by the new inter-state obligations in the convention.
Then, of course, evolution takes place. The right of individual petition is recognised and is exercised by many states. Many cases come before the court and the court gives decisions which are recognised and, remarkably, accepted by all the member states and their governments. So the demand for incorporation into national law gathers strength. The arguments for that—we all know them by now—are: greater access in terms of going straight to the court instead of going through the procedure in one's own tribunals. That is certainly a powerful argument, but not a total argument valid by itself and not to be weighed against others. Then we are told about "bringing home the rights". "Bringing home the rights" is a lovely phrase. It makes us think of the "Ashes", or perhaps the bacon. But when one gets away from the romantics, what it does is to superimpose an international instrument—no doubt partly drafted by British lawyers but intended as an international instrument and nothing else—on our existing system of common law and statute. That bring us to two main groups of problems.
The first is the question of parliamentary supremacy. I shall not say anything about that at this stage in the evening. It has been covered more than adequately by many speakers. For my part I shall be perfectly happy to accept the rather careful compromise, which has been worked out by the White Paper and the Bill, with perhaps a little consideration of the fast-track procedure, as to which I feel a few doubts. I am much more concerned with the substantive effect on English law of the Bill. Where is the beef? Perhaps I should say: where is the bacon? Another metaphor is: banners bake no bread. We want to know what the Bill is doing. Will United Kingdom citizens be better off, their liberties strengthened by new rights and by the exercise of powers by United Kingdom judges?
1280
Something has already been said on the list of rights. There is no doubt that the list is not adequate for modern states. This is now an ageing convention. It was drawn up for limited purposes and it has now been overtaken in many respects by United Nations covenants and other covenants such as the convention on the rights of children. Many necessary rights are omitted, as indeed the White Paper agrees. However, on the other hand, it is right to say that the evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee a few years ago revealed 12 new rights not protected by the common law which were conferred by the convention. So we are getting an advantage that way—12 new rights through the convention not protected by the common law.
On the other hand, quite a number of those recognised by the United Nations convention are not there. Some of them are dealt with in connection with Protocols 4, 6 and 7. However, I would agree respectfully with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said some years ago, that, in spite of that defect—in spite of the ageing character of the European convention—this represents an important first step towards a modern British Bill of Rights. I am prepared to go along with it on that basis.
One then comes to implementation or compliance. We have Clause 3, which has been much discussed, as to the interpretation of legislation. I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on this point. Clause 3 does not really represent a very great advance on what already is the position under English law. Then we come to a point which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about public or private bodies. That problem has bedevilled the European court. It has never been able to take a firm position as to whether these rights are enforceable against private bodies as well as public bodies. The Bill does not take a very clear position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that Clause 6 requires very careful examination. It is a little labyrinthine between functions and acts and between public and private. We shall have to look at it carefully at the Committee stage. Therefore, I shall not say more about it now.
My third point is perhaps the most important one. I refer to the very general language used in the convention, which has to be interpreted now by the courts. It will be said, "The European Court has had to grapple with this legislation for a great number of years. Why cannot the British courts do the same?" But it is quite a different matter. It is one thing to admit access to the European court and the commission after you have gone through all the domestic procedures and after the case has been sifted by the commission. It is one thing to have interpretations then made of provisions in the convention. But it is quite another thing to throw the convention, with all its words, on to the lap of all the judges in our country in connection with whatever dispute, criminal or civil, anyone may be able to think up as a case for incorporating the convention.
It has been said that this will bring the judges into politics. The word "politics" is slightly unfortunate. It calls upon the judges to perform functions which are normally suitable for Parliament rather than for the judiciary. There is no doubt that that will happen. I shall not go through the rights again. Many noble Lords,

1281
including the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Simon, have already dealt with them. However, there is no doubt that these vague phrases will have to be interpreted by the courts in connection with concrete cases. One thinks of immigration and the use of the word "family". Your Lordships may have seen a Written Answer last week to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who asked what "family" means. Does "family" mean a man and a woman in marriage or a man and a woman in concubinage? Does it cover a man living with a man? Does it cover a woman living with a woman? Naturally the Government are not going to give a very clear answer to those various conundra. But such problems are bound to arise and, as many noble Lords have said, will put the judges in great difficulties. We have to face these difficulties if we are to be realistic.
It may be said, and will be said, that the courts will have the benefit of decisions of the European Court itself and of the commission—and of the new court when it is set up under Protocol 11. Clause 2 of the Bill says that account must be taken of any of their decisions. That will help a little, but one must not be too hopeful about it. Cases are dealt with by the European court on a case to case basis in relation to particular facts and it is properly reluctant to go beyond individual cases. Some assistance may be got there. Even so, the judges in our country will be left with difficult decisions on these difficult and ambiguous phrases.
We need not go so far as to fear the making of political appointments to the judiciary. That is a bogey which is not a real one. However, one cannot at the same time be oblivious to the vast swings of judgments which one finds in the United States, where the Supreme Court is given the power to decide these political questions between the different courts—the Vinson court, the Warren court or the Burger court. Those things do happen. People do change and there are swings of result according to the changes.
I hope that your Lordships will take these difficulties into consideration at the later stages of the Bill. We may be able to help a little—perhaps on the margin of appreciation, though I do not think I have time to go into that now.
I should like to make one final point which nobody else has yet made in relation to Clause 18, which deals with the appointment of judges to the European Court. I have had some personal experience of the difficulty which now exists when appointing judges to that court even on a temporary basis. I have no doubt that it is absolutely right to remove those difficulties by provisions such as those in Clause 18 in order to enable our judges to work at that Court. Curiously, the provisions do not allow for the sending of Lords of Appeal—I do not know why—but start with the Court of Appeal and go down. It is excellent, however, that our judges should be able to take their place at the European Court. There may be some problems because, as I understand it, the tenure of office in the new reconstituted Court would be six years. I am not sure that we would be willing to part with a Lord Justice for six years, but that point could be considered later.
1282
One other provision looks a little ominous. I refer to Clause 18(6)(a), which gives power to the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State to make provision for the pensions of those judges. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to resist Treasury niggling with regard to the pensions of those judges. It is an important and unique job and the fiscal implications should not be paramount. I hope that the provisions will not be ungenerous. Subject to those points, however, I am glad to support the Bill.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this very important constitutional Bill starts in this House rather than in another place and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that credit is due to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for arranging that that should be so. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should begin in your Lordships' House in view of the long interest that has been taken here in human rights legislation and in the incorporation of the convention, and in view of the presence of the Lords of Appeal, past and present, who have already made such notable contributions to our debate. I am sure that all of us will remember in particular the entirely characteristic speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
Although during the past two decades I have followed with close attention and great sympathy all of your Lordships' previous debates on the convention, I have never spoken on the subject before. That has not been due to any lack of interest, but has been because I was unsure of where the balance of advantage lay between present practice and enabling litigants to enforce their convention rights in the domestic courts. I believe that the time has now come and that this step should be taken. I support the Bill and do so in the hope that there will be a realistic appreciation of some of the difficulties implicit in the proposals. The speech that we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, illustrates that point.
In evaluating legislative proposals, at least three criteria can be adopted. The first is the intention; the second is the method proposed; and the third relates to the likely outcomes. As to the intention, surely most of us—if not perhaps entirely all of us—can agree that any extension of the protection of the civil rights of individuals against the power of the state is a wholly desirable objective. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, spoke of 12 new rights that are likely to become part of British law as a result of incorporation.
The method proposed is ingenious. An adroit scheme is set out in the White Paper and the Bill to reconcile the judicial process with parliamentary sovereignty.
So far, so good; but what about the likely outcomes? The Government have introduced the Bill in the context of an ambitious programme of constitutional reform. The aim is to enable British courts to provide redress to persons who may have suffered from breaches by public authorities of rights that are enshrined in the convention. The timescale will certainly be shorter than the present extended, long drawn out process which is involved in applications to Strasbourg.

1283
My question this evening, about which little has been said so far, is whether the remedies will prove to be effective. First, decisions may be quashed. That is certainly an effective remedy for the individual. Secondly, a court that already has the power to order payment of compensation or to award damages in civil proceedings may do so if it finds that the public authority has acted in a way which violates a convention right—although in reaching that finding the domestic court must take account of the principles of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to awards of compensation.
However, remedies for unlawful acts by public bodies must go further than compensating the victim. Remedies for acts by public bodies which are found to be wrongful require those policies (or the legislation which authorised those actions) to be changed. It is at that point that I have some reservations about the likely effectiveness of the procedure contained in the Bill. What I say is of course speculation. All this lies in the future and nobody can be sure of it; but I believe that this aspect of the Bill deserves some careful thought.
In some cases, policies can be changed within the scope of the existing enabling legislation. However, in other cases it may be necessary to amend, or to repeal, certain provisions of primary or secondary legislation. I note that Clause 10 does not place an obligation on a Minister to take action which is necessary to "remove the incompatibility"—that is the phrasing used—with the convention; it merely states that he "may by order" make the necessary modifications. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall return to debate whether the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may" or some variation thereof.
Although the courts will not be allowed to set aside Acts of Parliament, as we have heard from the Lord Chancellor and others, they will be able to make a declaration that legislation is incompatible with convention rights, so bringing to the attention of Ministers and Parliament the need to change the law. However, respect for parliamentary sovereignty, understandable as it is, means that under the system envisaged the ultimate decisions will be made not only in an elected, representative assembly—that is the justification—but in an assembly which is highly politicised and adversarial. At present, the main shortcomings of recourse by litigants to Strasbourg are the lengthy delay and, in some but by no means in all cases, the cost. I add that qualification because, like other noble Lords, I have been concerned about life sentence cases. In such cases, the applicant is still in custody and the costs are very low on the litigant's side although the Government may employ counsel, which would somewhat increase the cost. Less obvious though it may be, the strength of the present proceedings lies in the way that the decisions of the court in Strasbourg are enforced. Subject to one derogation as to the period of time in which a suspect can be held in detention in Northern Ireland, changes in administrative practice or substantive law have followed in every case in which a violation has been found against the United Kingdom. Sometimes those decisions have been intensely unwelcome to British Ministers; for example, the series
1284
of decisions limiting the Home Secretary's arbitrary powers of continued detention for life sentence prisoners after the expiry of the penal element of their sentence. When my noble friend Lord Waddington spoke so vigorously in the debate earlier today I wondered whether when he was Home Secretary the iron had entered into his soul.
The current enforcement procedures are low key and partly diplomatic. The channels are via the Council of Ministers in Strasbourg to the Whitehall departments in London. The keynote is quiet persuasion behind the scenes, not confrontation. These are the steps which precede the introduction of changes that have been required—changes to which the United Kingdom has been committed by binding treaty obligation in international law.
The test of the system set out in the Bill, as explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he opened the debate, is whether the outcomes of court proceedings will be implemented as effectively as happens at present with a much less visible system. Would it not be a paradox if, at the end of the day, the high ideals which are the impetus for this legislation were to lead to a weakening of the compulsion on politicians and officials to make the necessary changes to protect the rights of an individual, however unpopular, who brings a case in the domestic courts under the European convention?
7.23 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support this Bill. I have a number of points which are better aired in Committee. I urge only one point upon your Lordships tonight. In his compact preface the Prime Minister says, among other things:
"We believe it is right to increase individual rights...new rights, based on bringing the European Convention on Human Rights into the United Kingdom law...the Human Rights ill give people in the United Kingdom opportunities to enforce their rights under the European Convention in British courts".
In the admirably clear White Paper appears the following comment that takes the matter a little further:
"Bringing these rights home will mean that the British people will be able to argue for their rights in the British courts...British judges will be enabled to make a distinctively British contribution to the development of the jurisprudence of human rights in Europe".
Until quite recently the proposed legislation received a good press from the media, but the penny has dropped that if one introduces the convention one introduces it in its entirety, including Article 8. That article introduces the right to privacy. This matter has given rise to considerable anxiety, which I believe overlooks Article 10, which clearly balances the right. I understand the concern that Parliament is not providing the framework that should be adopted and interpreted by the courts in dealing with a law of privacy and that it is being left on a case-by-case basis for the judges to work out. That may be a lengthy and not altogether happy process, in the course of which it will be the judges who get the flack rather than the Government. That may be one reason for ducking the responsibility.

1285
The particular point I make is that rights are valueless unless there exists the means to enforce or protect them. No doubt that is the reason for Article 13, which provides:
"Anyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I was surprised that Clause 1 of the Bill, while referring to the articles to be grafted onto English law, expressly omitted Article 13. There is no doubt an innocent explanation for it, although noble Lords were not provided with one when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opened the debate. This is a matter which concerns me.
Because a failure to provide the means to enforce renders the rights valueless, very recently I tabled a Starred Question. In my supplementary question I asked the Minister:
"Does he agree that the correct, indeed the only, answer that can be provided to the recent cynical and contemptuous observation by Mr. Richard Murdoch, that any law of privacy would only inure to the advantage of the rich and famous, is that legal aid should be made available for those who cannot afford to bring forward a reasonable cause of action? Secondly…does he agree that speculative litigation in the form of conditional or contingent fees—if allowed in this new field of jurisdiction—would be inadequate to ensure proper access to justice?".—[Official Report, 14/10/97; co1.391.]
The Minister entirely avoided answering those two questions, until at the very end I limited the question to whether legal aid would be made available to enable the law to develop as he envisaged it. The noble Lord replied that there were no proposals to extend legal aid to the area to which I had referred.
What exactly is to happen? I submit to your Lordships it is nonsense to suggest that contingency or conditional fees, which are said to be about to replace legal aid, will provide access to justice in this field. First, to a large extent one is entering uncharted territory where the prospect of evaluating success is very difficult and therefore it will be an unusual solicitor who is prepared to take it on. Secondly, if there is to be an obligation to take out an insurance to indemnify the successful defendant, if there is one, against the costs, the premium will be impossible. Thirdly, damages, if they are to be awarded, are to follow the scale awarded in Europe, which does not appear to exceed more than £15,000. If that is to be the source of the uplift in costs and is itself to be capped, as has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, at 20 per cent—the recommendation of the Law Society—then the supply to the successful solicitor to stimulate him into taken up this type of case seems to be small.
Then, of course, if litigation is directed to establish incompatibility, and succeeds, I do not believe that in that situation there is any power to award damages. It is thus essential, if legal aid is to be abolished in general, that special provision be made for human rights claims. Otherwise, the impressive observations of the Prime Minister, to which I have referred and quoted from the preface, will ring hollow and Mr. Murdoch will triumph. If that happens, the Government, with their huge majority, will not be forgiven for what the public, I think, will consider to be an act of cowardice.
7.32 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in welcoming the Bill I must begin with a confession.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have not formally asked your Lordships to allow me to withdraw early. I have sat overdressed in this Chamber for about the past four hours. I hope that I will be forgiven if, on this limited occasion, I do withdraw. I shall miss, in particular, the noble Earl's speech upon which he has just embarked, which fills me with even greater regret.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon for having intervened before he had sat down. It was entirely through inadvertence. Having done that, I must proceed to a further confession. In welcoming the Bill, I must begin by saying that I was brought up, as were some others among us, in the Pharisaical belief that we in this country are different from other men, and that our rights are not as much in need of protection as in some other places.
I must confess that when I first heard the case for this measure, argued by Mr. Donald Wade, as he then was, when I was 18, I did not appreciate its importance. In changing my mind, I have not developed a diminished affection for the legal system or the constitution of my own country. What I have learnt is that no system of government is that perfect this side of paradise. That is why I believe that this is a vital measure.
I not only welcome the measure; I warmly welcome the way in which it is done. The drafting of the Bill appears to me to be a thing of intellectual beauty. I admire it deeply. Whether that intellectual quality is from within the noble and learned Lord's department, or, as I sometimes suspect, also inside his skull, either way he is responsible for it, and I congratulate him on it.
The problem of reconciling rights with sovereignty is one that goes right back to Magna Carta, and the common law's treatment of that has had, over the centuries, a certain degree of ambiguity. I shall say something about the issue of sovereignty because it is occasionally misunderstood. There are two distinguishing marks of a sovereign power. One is that it can do what it will, and cannot be controlled but by itself. That mark will tend to show that if a sovereign power chooses voluntarily to place itself under a particular restriction it has every right to do so.
I would instance the Act of Parliament of 1554 which restored the jurisdiction of the Pope in this country. It was a voluntary acceptance of restraint. And whatever opinion one may have of that, it was a legal Act of Parliament and therefore could only be repealed by another. That is the second mark of sovereignty: that no Parliament can bind its successors. That is, as far as I can see, entirely unaffected by anything in the Bill. I hope that the Bill will not be repealed, but a future government will be well within their legal rights if they do so. So in that way also, and this is crucial, there is no challenge whatever to sovereignty.
It will be a different matter of course whenever the time comes when we start considering the question of whether we should have a constitution. I recall the noble

1287
and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in this Chamber, pointing out that this state and the state of Israel are the only two western nations which do not have a constitution. Whether Mr. Netanyahu's successor may wish to reconsider that question is an argument upon which I shall not venture today. When that does happen, there will be considerable conceptual and intellectual difficulties to face, but that is in the future. It has nothing to do with the Bill.
We have in fact had two systems of law operating in this country, one international, and one domestic—the common law and the canon law. If that question had been handled with as much sophistication as is shown in the Bill, and if our 16th century judges had been as far-sighted as their 20th century successors, many of the arguments which lead to the Reformation need never have happened.
Among those to whom tribute has deservedly been paid today, I should like to include one more—the late Lord Taylor of Gosforth—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Russell:—for his Dimbleby lecture on this subject. The noble Lord lived to refute Mark Anthony, for the good which he has done has lived after him.
I should like to touch upon some of the arguments which have been put up against the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, expressed anxiety about judges making political choices. Judges have always had to make political choices. If the noble and learned Lord should read, for example, the judgment in the case of Rex v. Hampden (the ship-money case) he will see that that was inevitably a political judgment whichever way it went. That is an inevitable result of judges being empowered to ensure that the Executive governs according to law. It is tough on the judges, but I do not think that we should propose giving it up. I do not see that it will become more the case as a result of the Bill than it was before. It is merely going to be rather more in the open and rather more recognisable. I do not regard that as an evil.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—I know that he is not in his place, but I have given him notice that I intend to raise these points and he has promised to read them—drew attention to a concern which one often meets, about the lack of certainty in drafting. He said—I think that I have his words down exactly—that language defining rights should be as precise and exact as language permits.
I should like to refer the noble and learned Lord to something which he quoted in part—the Renton Report on the preparation of legislation. That report argued that the pursuit of certainty in the legislator in the end becomes self-defeating, because the legislator cannot foresee all cases.
Furthermore, the report contains an extremely interesting chapter dealing with the difference between the English and European drafting of statutes. The English method tends to lay down a great deal of detail in the hope of certainty. The continental method tends to lay down general principles that can be interpreted in
1288
the light of circumstances. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will read Hansard, because I suggest that if he looks back to the 17th century Scottish statute book he will see that the law of Scotland has been drafted more according to the European principles than to the English. Both methods of legislation have weaknesses as well as strengths, but both are acceptable and both have worked in many contexts.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the doctrine of due process. He took it up only in its American context, but it has a much older history. It was clarified in this country during the 14th century and ultimately goes back to the due process clause of Magna Carta. That illustrates the point that if one goes back in English law one gets back also to legislation by the expression of general principle. I hope that that answers the point about the European convention which I heard made in this Chamber by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. He drew attention to the difficulty of amending the convention, but that is the advantage of legislation in these general words. It allows the rights to grow. I have always said that legislators, like parents, must be prepared to let their offspring grow up. That is something which the method of legislation by general words does well.
At times the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded me of King John on Magna Carta; he did not particularly approve of it. The noble Lord also reminded me of a remark made by John Stuart Mill:
"When has there been a dominion which has not appeared natural to those who possessed it?".
We in Parliament are as subject to that as anyone else and we should not forget it.
There are matters on which the legislation could be improved—good though it is, no legislation is ever perfect. I wish to congratulate even in her absence the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on a distinguished maiden speech. If I praise that speech in moderation it is only in order to ensure that what she said should not thereby be made controversial.
I strongly agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about legal aid. It is a matter to which I hope we shall return. I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Lester about Clause 7 dealing with the restriction to victims. It is vitally important that bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission or a future UK commission on human rights should be able to bring proceedings. One of the many advantages would be in weeding out at an early stage some of the hopeless cases as well as bringing success to some of the stronger ones.
I agree with what was said about the importance of Article 13. I will give a specific example; it is the protection of asylum seekers with a claim which rests on Article 3 of the European convention and not on the UN Convention on Refugees. That applies in particular to the protection of victims of non-governmental persecution. Any of your Lordships who a couple of days ago listened to a BBC radio programme on Algeria will know well the kind of problems to which I refer. Those people are as much in need of protection as

1289
anyone else. Unless Article 13 is incorporated, they will continue to need to go to Strasbourg and the United Kingdom will continue to be found in violation. That would be a pity.
I will address only one point about the drafting of the Bill. All I intended to say has been said by other speakers. I wish to take up the issue of the procedure for quashing legislation which is found incompatible with the convention. It is known in the Chamber that I have less than total affection for procedure by regulation or for procedure under the Henry VIII clause. In this case, it is justified for the same reason as it was in the European Communities Act 1972, which contains the greatest Henry VIII clause in our legislation. It was introduced by none other than Lord Rippon of Hexham and many noble Lords will remember his distinguished opposition to the spread of Henry VIII clauses.
What is common in these two situations is that the Henry VIII clause is necessary to give effect to the prior and clearly expressed will of Parliament. If the Act reaches the statute book it clearly will be the will of Parliament that the convention should be observed. Therefore, if the Minister proceeds to quash legislation—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that it is entirely the choice of the Minister, no doubt after appropriate consultation with his colleagues—he will be saying that Parliament did not intend to pass legislation contrary to the European convention. That is something which a Minister in a sovereign parliament may perfectly well do. He is not bypassing the will of Parliament; he is giving effect to it.
That is one of the good procedures laid down in the Bill. With all the suspicion of regulation which I have expressed, I can perfectly properly not only support it but welcome it.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was brought up to believe that this country did not need a convention on human rights since our human rights were well enough protected. However, as I grew older and met exponents of human rights on the continent and in the United States I was converted to the idea that a written document is essential. Therefore, I am one of those who is pushing rather than pulling the part of the push-me-pull-you that is trying to encourage the movement in the direction of a convention on human rights.
I have given up the idea that human rights is an offshoot of the French Revolution and that it is connected with anti-British rebellion across the Atlantic. It was conceived when we were opposing Hitler and Stalin and, drafted in 1950 at the height of the Cold War in order to ensure that our ideas had moral superiority—as indeed, it turned out that they did—it enabled us to fight bravely against the communist menace.
Now the violators are fellow members. I take to heart the comment made by my noble friend Lord Kingsland that the new judges have little experience of the jurisprudence of a free society. But the new judges will be with us in the Strasbourg court and they must soon learn.
1290
If they do not learn, we must help them and work with them. Our domestic law will be appealable to them, whether we like it or not. Therefore, I want to give it a push not only in this country but also abroad.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that the committee, about which he spoke positively, could be the van of the human rights culture throughout the country. I suggest that it could be the vanguard also of a human rights determination throughout Europe and the world. I very much hope that when the committee comes into existence, it will not only deal with the observance of the convention in the United Kingdom but will have also a European dimension, a Council of Europe dimension, a European Union dimension and a dimension beyond these shores. I wonder whether the Government have it in mind to follow up that important initiative by incorporating into our law the covenant on civil and political rights, because that would take many of the ideas of the European convention outside Europe to other countries where those principles very much need to be looked at.
I believe that there will be quite a lot of work for the new committee to do. Some of the ideas put forward in the European Convention on Human Rights are, let us say, old-fashioned and some are rather shocking. For example, I was surprised to see under Article 2 of the convention the principle that it may be permissible to deprive an individual of his life if that person is trying to make an escape from lawful custody. I wonder whether that will be looked at by the committee and whether legislation at a domestic level can be brought in to deal with it.
The clause dealing with privacy is very complicated. Having heard the interventions of many noble Lords on that issue, I tend to believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we need some sort of recognition of the right to privacy and, if this Bill will lead us towards achieving that, so much the better. We have seen what has happened in recent months to Princess Diana. We have seen telephones being tapped in order to discredit Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament. Secret cameras have been installed by newspapers. I am not sure that it is possible for the Press Complaints Commission to deal with all those problems as they should be dealt with. If this Bill can move that forward, so much the better.
Perhaps I may mention that in the European Union, those human rights criteria are used quite shamelessly in matters of trade and discussions with countries where human rights are violated. Some years ago, I was chairman of the European Parliament sub-committee on human rights. In those days, we insisted that a human rights criterion should be inserted into the Lomé Convention and should be debated during the discussion of enlargement of the European Community, as it then was. A few months ago, it was debated in relation to the customs union for Turkey.
Therefore, I trust that the new committee will bear those matters in mind also, because violations of human rights can be used as a trade advantage. We see that with goods produced in China and other countries. Slave labour and other practices condemned by the European convention can lead to goods being produced very cheaply and sold extremely advantageously.

1291
It is high time that this Bill was brought before Parliament. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Both noble Lords have promoted human rights as part of our "religion", our ideology, over a number of years. This day must be a happy one for them and I certainly shall be one of those who support the Bill this evening.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, earlier this afternoon, one of my noble and learned friends came to me and said, "I am really very sorry that I shall have to leave and so shall be unable to hear you make your usual speech". My usual speech is, of course, in opposition to the incorporation of the convention. I have opposed it in the past on two basic grounds. First, it seemed to me, at any rate as a matter of logic, that a universal right to freedom of action or inaction unless restrained by law must be wider and should be more satisfactory than the specific rights set out in this or in the other convention. Secondly, I thought that it was for Parliament to set limits on that universal right to freedom as and when the need arose.
However, as I told my noble and learned friend, I must admit that I have changed my mind. I do not feel that in changing my mind, I am a sinner who has repented. Nor do I have any of the enthusiasm which is normally attributed to the experience by a new convert. It is simply that I have reassessed the situation as it is at present in my view.
It seems to me now that there were two conditions which had to be satisfied if a universal right to freedom was really to work properly. The first condition was there had to be a high degree of self-restraint and effective self-regulation on the part of those who were enjoying that freedom. One test, but not the only test, would be the old rubric of, "Do as you would be done by"
The second condition was that Parliament should be ready and willing to intervene where self-restraint and self-regulation failed and there was an acute conflict between freedoms or parts of my universal freedom. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, this Parliament, for one reason or another—it may be lack of time or will—has singularly failed to do that.
Most obviously that applies to the field of privacy, in respect of which the media give complete priority to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 over the right to respect for private and family life as enshrined in Article 9. Their self-restraint has certainly failed and I venture to think that, while self-regulation may be making some progress, the progress is too slow and limited to be acceptable.
I was depressed by the stand of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on behalf of the press. I was depressed also, for rather different reasons, by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it is not the fault of the press that privacy is breached by giving addresses of people. He said that that was the fault of the courts which put that information into the public domain by allowing an address or a name to be given in court. In my respectful view, that shows a total lack of appreciation of the
1292
difference in kind as well as quality between revealing an address to a small audience and revealing it to millions. The same of course is true of other aspects of privacy.
There it is. As I say, for those reasons I have come to welcome, or at any rate to support, the passage of this Bill. I believe it to be a very cleverly crafted Bill. I have a great professional admiration for the way in which it has been put together. I am quite satisfied that it upholds the authority of Parliament, which is one of the things that has always troubled me. It avoids any conflict between Parliament and the courts.
I know that it will not politicise the appointment of judges and I hope that it will not lead to the public perceiving judicial decisions as being political in their nature. It is true that they will involve a measure of discretion and a measure of social and judicial engineering, but it will be done under the authority of Parliament and with the guidelines, such as they may be, which can be derived from the convention and from other decisions on the convention in other jurisdictions.
It is an occupational hazard for a judge to be accused of reaching a political decision. Those who have worked in the field of judicial review know perfectly well that, whichever way they decide a matter, they will be accused of playing politics. It may be wrapped up a little but, essentially, that is what is at stake. Indeed, in many of the judicial review cases the applicants had no hope—and knew that they had no hope—of getting a favourable decision. What they really wanted to do was to air their particular hobby horse and, when it failed, to blame the judge for that failure.
I believe that that will happen in the case of this new right. We will have to start with a deluge of claims of breach of the convention. If the Canadian experience is anything to go by, it will range from the arguable through the just arguable to the plain preposterous: such as, the young gentleman—indeed, he was not a gentleman really; he was of the male gender but was in fact a schoolboy—who said that his freedom of expression was being infringed in some way because at religious gatherings he refused to do other than the opposite of what the entire congregation was doing in terms of sitting down and standing up. I could go on with many other like examples.
I hope that one by-product of the legislation will be that the Strasbourg court will take a long hard look at decisions made in the British courts on the meaning of the convention and that it will, if necessary, extend the margin of appreciation which I am sure that that court ought to extend to most jurisdictions. I say that because what is right and proper in one country with one set of traditions and one history may be quite different from that which is right in another country with a different history, tradition and culture.
I welcome Clause 18 of the Bill, which I understand foreshadows the appointment of senior British judges to the Strasbourg court. If I may say so, it will be an experience for both of them.
I should like to say a few words about a topic raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, which I believe to be of fundamental importance; namely, the definition of a

1293
"public authority" which is to be found in Clause 6(3). Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memory in that respect. The subsection says that a "public authority" includes—
"a court"—
there is no problem about that—
"a tribunal which exercises functions in relation to legal proceedings"—
similarly, there is no problem about that—
"[and] any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
I just wonder what are,
"functions of a public nature"?
I turned to the White Paper for assistance and at paragraph 2.2, it states:
"The definition of what constitutes a public authority is in wide terms. Examples of persons or organisations whose acts or omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged include central government (including executive agencies)"—
of course, that is understandable—
"local government; the police; immigration officers; prisons; courts and tribunals"—
and, again, I understand that. But then the White Paper says;
"and, to the extent that they are exercising public functions, companies responsible for areas of activity which were previously within the public sector, such as the privatised utilities".
What has the fact that an activity was originally in the public sector got to do with the definition that we find in the Bill of people carrying out,
"functions of a public nature"?
I do not believe that every activity by a publicly-funded or publicly-run agency in the past has necessarily been of a public nature. When one thinks of organisations like the BBC, which of course is not yet privatised, one has to admit that it clearly carries on functions of a public nature. Therefore, it is clearly subject to that definition. There cannot be any difference between the BBC, the ITV company or commercial radio. Therefore, I take it that they are all included in the definition of a "public authority".
Then we have to consider not the origin of people's functions but what the functions are today. I genuinely want to know what is a,
"function of a public nature".
If we consider the press, it is obvious that one could not find a function which is of a more public nature. Whether or not an organisation is in the private or public sector, it is clearly dealing with the public in general and not particular members of the public.
That promptly put me in mind of Safeways; for example, is Safeways conducting a business of a public nature? It may be said that it is not but I am not quite sure why. There must be a better way of defining what is meant by a "public authority". It is quite clear that it does not mean a public authority; indeed, this is a pure term of art. Whatever the definition, it must be made clear that it is only a term of art. Various possibilities are open to us but I shall not labour them, save to say
1294
that one could start putting examples in of what are and what are not functions of a public nature, thus leaving it to the courts to draw the final line between the two.
One could resolve what looks to me very much like an inter-governmental conflict of view as to what was meant to be covered by this legislation, which has been papered over by this very clever formula. I must sincerely hope that that will be resolved by the Government before we reach the Committee stage. It is for them to say what the Bill is meant to cover and not a matter for Cross-Benchers, Back-Benchers, or whatever. It is for the Government to deal with the matter between now and the Committee stage.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, if I should appear even more unsettled and indecisive than usual it is because I am shaken to the core by the announcement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that he has changed his mind. I have always found his speeches most persuasive—indeed, the most telling that I have heard in our various debates on the matter. Therefore, for the noble and learned Lord to recant now causes me grave concern, especially so when he said in such an ominous voice that the BBC was not yet privatised. As the Vice-Chairman of the BBC, I fear the very worst. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord must be privy to some information which escapes me.
When the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was paying tribute to the various organisations which had contributed to this success, he missed out Charter 88. I should have thought that that charter had had a very great effect on this movement to incorporate the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to the growing movement for incorporation. We have had such debates so often now and, looking around the Chamber, I see many warm friends from the various interchanges that we have had. My views on this legislation are well known; namely, that it is the result of a cleverly organised pressure group purporting to represent large numbers of people but who are in fact a stage army.
I shall not repeat my remarks about Charter 88, which I have explained in great detail on a number of occasions. It is all a matter of public record. I do so to spare your Lordships from being subjected to that once again, but also in view of remarks made in this Chamber in answer to a Question of mine which I asked just before the House rose for the Summer Recess. I asked about the Pilgrim Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to my remarks as,
"an example of the extraordinarily malign fantasies which occasionally seize the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks"— [Official Report, 13/3/97; col. 426]
It is not so bad having that said but when one hears the almost universal murmur of assent around the Chamber one must have pause for thought.
I shall not pursue that matter but I wish to give your Lordships an example of what I am talking about. I refer to the Independent newspaper. The recent influx of new Peers on this side of the House from both academic and cultured sources has meant that those of us who are classified as time servers are able to enlarge our

1295
vocabularies. One of the words which I have managed to pick up is "oxymoron". I hope that I have understood the application of this word. It seems to me that the title of the Independent is an oxymoron and that it should be called the Chronicle of the Chattering Classes. Noble Lords can watch this unfold for themselves. In the Independent on Sunday of 19th October there was an article on the cannabis campaign. According to the newspaper, people are saying that they want change. It provides a list of campaign supporters; one can add one's name to the list. In the Independent on Sunday of the following week appeared the headline,
"The Campaign Everyone Is Talking About".
Further names are added to the list representing people from literary circles, the arts, the media, academia, medicine, pressure groups, politics, readers, the law and the state. However, there is no one from the manual classes. Even Charter 88 admitted that of the signatories to that charter one half of 1 per cent. came from the manual classes. These matters are not always quite so universally sought after as may be suggested.
One of the things which has upset me about this campaign is the way in which this country has been denigrated in order to generate a feeling that there must be change. I shall weary the House with just two examples. On 21st June 1994 the Opposition spokesman for constitutional affairs in another place, the honourable Member for Nottingham, North, said,
"In August this year. Britain will go to the United Nations to stand condemned in the dock of world opinion for its failure to protect and extend citizens' rights in this country".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/94; col. 188.]
I have made some inquiries about the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The Library has kindly supplied me with the information that the United Nations Human Rights Committee meets in private and that the evidence is not available. That does not exactly ooze civil liberties and freedom of information, but that is the sort of thing that we in this country are being questioned about.
I refer to my other example of a recruiting letter for Charter 88. The third paragraph states,
"Look around you. Here is a country of decent, altruistic, freedom-loving people. And here is a political system built on lies, half truths and stupid adversarial sound bites. The system no longer represents people. It has become a game played by an ever-diminishing minority of practitioners whose cynicism seems to increase every year, whose self-seeking is reported by the week. Many people do not relish the choices on offer at the General Election".
The letter is signed by Helena Kennedy, QC. It was written a little while ago.
The same thing happened before the war when we had this denigration and running down of the country. That can be seen on both sides. Albert Speer stated on page 238 of Inside the 3rd Reich,
"[Hitler] stuck unswervingly to his opinion that the West was too feeble, too worn out, too decadent to begin the war seriously".
Sir Winston Churchill himself in his book, The Second World War, stated on page 232, when discussing the preparations of the Germans,
"They must have time to complete the war machine, and a conciliatory speech now and again from the Fuehrer would keep these futile and degenerate democracies chattering".
1296
This is a serious matter as it means that although most people of good will can persevere, if there are others with sinister motives one has to be careful. Recently the BBC produced a good series on the Nazis. We should be indebted to Laurence Rees for that series. His main consultant was Professor Ian Kershaw of Sheffield University. Professor Kershaw described the Weimar constitution as,
"'the last word in liberal constitutions' which drew on the best elements of the American and French constitutions and which contained what was imagined to be 'every possible protection' for the individual".
Yet Professor Kershaw remarked that,
"Hitler was still able to set aside the entire constitution and its safeguards in one paragraph of the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February 1933".
The written constitution was no help to 6 million Jews, over half a million gypsies and goodness knows how many mentally handicapped, physically handicapped and mentally disturbed people and homosexuals who were butchered. It is no good thinking that by producing these written documents we shall automatically be safe. That is not the case. The matter requires constant vigilance. We are also indebted to Laurence Rees for explaining in his programmes that the Gestapo could not have operated without the co-operation of ordinary German people. The trial presently being conducted in France and what is emerging about the Vichy regime is also extremely interesting.
I refer to the number of cases in which this country has been involved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, wrote in the Financial Times of 6th December 1996 of the human rights myth and the concept that we are the worst country in Europe for human rights violations. That is simply not true as the figures are never presented as they should be with comparisons of population and the length of time that a country has subscribed to the convention. The figures indicate that, despite claims to the contrary, the UK's record bears scrutiny in comparison with the records of many other countries across Europe including Austria, Italy, France, Belgium—there is an example of human rights—the Netherlands and Sweden, when considered against our large population and the long length of time (30 years) that the right of individual petition to Strasbourg has been accepted in this country.
Let us proceed with this legislation but let us not tell ourselves that all over the country in one house after another people are agog to see whether this Bill will be accepted tonight. That is simply not true. Robert Hazell, in delivering the constitutional reform lecture on 14th July, said that one of the interesting points about the general election was the fact that there was virtually no discussion of constitutional issues at all. That is something which has been superimposed. At the Labour Party conference of 1994 the delegate for Bristol, South, Helen Holland, reported back that on Thursday afternoon,
"The debate was headed 'A Modern Democracy' and was a quick romp through Local Government, Constitutional Reform, Electoral Reform, 'Equalities', Law and Criminal Justice and democratisation of Quangos".

1297
Although I do not have a bleeper I feel somehow that I am going off message. Therefore I end by saying that we should proceed with this measure if we think it is the right thing but let us not at the same time congratulate ourselves that a great upsurge of public opinion has brought it about.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting speech to any extent. However, I wish to reassure him of this: that this Bill will enable the people of this country to assert rights which they have enjoyed for 46 years but have had to go a long way to assert, very often only at great expense and above all with delay; and justice delayed is justice denied.
I must apologise for not being present during the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Kingsland due to the fact that 70 miles away I could not get my car to start. I am sorry. However, I have listened to the rest of the debate. The first thing I wish to say is this. In the previous Parliament I supported the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I am sure that the whole House was interested in his speech. With some qualifications, it warmly supported the Bill. I am strongly in favour of the Bill. I rejoice that our courts are at last to have jurisdiction to do justice under the convention.
I shall return in a moment to some of the views expressed about the part to be played by our judiciary. However, before I go further, I hope that it is relevant and helpful to refer again to a matter that I mentioned when interrupting my noble friend Lord Beloff; namely, my experience 46 years ago in the Council of Europe when I was put onto the legal affairs committee. At the first meeting I attended, the main item on the agenda was to consider a draft constitution for a European Court of Human Rights. That draft had been prepared by officials and was available to us in French, with a translation into English. The committee deputed M. Rolin, the brilliant Belgian lawyer who defended Dr. Mossadeq at The Hague after the Abadan affair, and myself to consider those drafts. We spent two days at it. I greatly admired his initiative. We amended the drafts in both French and English.
Our work was accepted by the legal affairs committee and the council and became the constitution of the Court. Over the years I think that it has stood the test of time fairly well, although it is now suggested that it should be amended in one or two respects.
I mention that because we thought at the time that, although anyone would have a right to apply to the Court, its main jurisdiction would be to try cases either brought by one European government against another for a breach of the convention or cases brought by the Council of Europe against a particular European government. It was assumed that individual people would have the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights but that each country would make arrangements for the convention to be implemented in
1298
its own country with the help of its own courts. In most other European countries that has been achieved. Therefore I rejoice that at last our courts will be able to try those cases.
Having listened to most of this vital debate, I am tempted to comment on various views expressed. However, I shall confine myself to just three matters. First, my noble friend Lord Waddington—I am glad he is in his place; we are old friends and I have a great respect for his judgment—said that our judges would make new law and come into conflict with Parliament. That is nothing new. Our judges have been making new law since the beginning of time. Indeed, our common law is mainly judge-made law; and our modern, recent statutes often require difficult judicial interpretation either because they are ambiguous or obscure or sometimes because they have conflicting provisions. But the important point is that Parliament always has the last word. Parliament often has to amend, and over the years has amended, judge-made law. So there is nothing new about that; it goes on all the time.
The Bill proposes the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to the jurisdiction of our courts. I say this: "Where there's a will there's a way". It will be done. I have complete confidence in our courts.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden said that our judiciary will suffer as a result of the Bill. But it is worth noting that all members of the higher judiciary who have spoken in the debate, except the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, have welcomed the Bill. So have other eminent lawyers who are present. Speaking earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made some important points and was broadly in favour of the Bill. I do not believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has much to fear about the effect upon the judiciary. I am sure that they can take it anyway.
Thirdly, I remind my noble friend Lord Beloff that we have often had to incorporate international treaties into our Acts of Parliament. Normally it has worked smoothly and well. I agree that, although few problems have arisen as a result of our doing so, perhaps some of our commitments under the Treaty of Rome and within the European Union have caused and are causing problems. I refer in particular to the common agricultural policy.
Finally, while congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill, I hope that they will realise that the Bill will require much detailed consideration in Committee. Perhaps I may have the attention of the Government Chief Whip in your Lordships' House. I must tell the noble Lord that several days will be required on this vitally important matter. I do not say how many days, but enough days must be allowed.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be present on such an historic day as this. We are looking at what is pulsing across our constitutional Rubicon. I believe that when we look

1299
back we shall all be proud to have been here on this day. It is a remarkable day and one which many of us did not expect to see.
Let me also say that the debate has been enriched by a maiden speech which rose to the quality of such a day. As many other noble Lords have done, I refer to the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who I am sure will contribute greatly to our debates in this House. We are most grateful to her. She brought to this House a knowledge of human rights and the way they are exercised by those who have to deal with such matters. Many of us will listen to her in future with the greatest possible interest and attention. We are delighted that she is among us.
It was another historic moment hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, announce his conversion to supporting the Bill. I should like to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who regrettably is not in his place, announce a similar conversion. After we have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on further occasions, we may yet experience that great moment—a blazing light in the Chamber—when that conversion follows the first.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is one of the most distinguished contributors in this House, said that when the European Convention on Human Rights was first acceded to by this country—indeed, not so much acceded to as largely drafted—nobody supposed that it would be relevant to ourselves. It was in effect an exported convention for others less enlightened than we were. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, pointed out, as did my noble friend Lord Russell, we have slowly learnt that its application is also appropriate to ourselves.
The balance of power, struck long ago at the time of the Glorious Revolution, has been greatly altered by the weakening of the Crown, the weakening of this House—almost all of whose amendments in a very short period of time on many pieces of critical legislation were overturned by the previous government—and in some ways the weakening of the Commons itself. Nobody should underestimate the combined power of patronage and discipline on the consciences of MPs. Finally, there is the rise in the number of cases for judicial review, which has exemplified the weakness of our confidence in the fact that human rights will always be respected by our system and which I for one regard as being a symptom of the sicknesses of our constitutional custom and practice. For all those reasons, it is right and appropriate that we are discussing this Bill today.
Secondly, I wish to underline the reference made by a number of noble Lords to three issues in the Bill that we shall want to discuss in greater detail in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may wish to comment on them. I shall mention them only briefly since they have been so well analysed by other Members of this House. The first is the concern in regard to remedies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, all referred to the problem of whether, without direct reference to Article 13, the Bill makes adequate provision for remedies in all relevant cases.
1300
In that context, I wish to mention the statements made on behalf of Justice, with particular reference to remedies in cases where a law has been found to be not compatible with the European Convention but still remains the law. While that is not put right, what remedy can the person seeking redress find'? It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would make some reference to that set of cases.
I wish to refer briefly to another issue raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. It concerns what is to be the definition of the victim under Clause 7(1). Although I am not a lawyer, as must be clear, my understanding is that in this country when a case is brought for judicial review it is sufficient to show that there are good grounds for interest in the matter that is the subject of the review. I understand that "sufficient interest" is the test. The Strasbourg test is a narrower one. Some of us are concerned as to whether the narrowness of that test will mean that some cases will not be able to be brought.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the difficulties in regard to people being sure that they can call upon legal aid, or at the very least that they will not have costs awarded against them that are so heavy that they might be unable to meet them. That problem is best met by taking classes of cases. Some of us are concerned that the non-governmental organisations and the statutory agencies which have played an absolutely central part in seeking redress at Strasbourg might find themselves unable to do so under our own legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may be able to comment on that.
The third matter of concern, again expressed by a number of noble Lords, concerns the issue of the "fast track". If I may pay a compliment to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor among others, it is a most ingenious solution to the problem of how to deal with both parliamentary sovereignty and the need to have a recognition of individual human rights in this country. I wonder whether we could not even further improve on the already remarkable decisions suggested by the Bill: by bringing the proposed committee on human rights to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred more directly into relationship with that particular process.
For example, on the analogy of our own delegated legislation committee in this House, it should surely be possible for the new committee and its sub-committees to give an indication of their own view on proposals for affirmative resolutions to amend legislation to bring it into line with the requirements of the European convention; and perhaps also to be involved, as happens in New Zealand, with pre-legislative scrutiny of new Bills to ensure that the committee is also satisfied that they meet the requirements of the European convention. My noble friend Lord Lester referred to Australia. That is also correct; the Australian Senate has such a committee. Many of us would feel reassured by the greater involvement of Parliament without delaying the changes in the legislation that those proposals would imply.

1301
I wish to raise only two other issues, both of which are critical. The one area where I hope the Government might reconsider their position was eloquently referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in her maiden speech. In a speech in July the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to a human rights commission as a driving force for change. Earlier in this debate he said that the issue was "not a matter of first account" in our debate today. With the greatest respect, I suggest that it is an issue of first account—and for these reasons. This country suffers from an absence of education and understanding of citizenship, which is a serious lacuna in an old democracy such as ours. Rights and their associated obligations constitute, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, a new kind of civic morality in our country—a civic morality to which, repeatedly, the new Government have referred as being at the core of their attitudes and aspirations.
I recognise the public expenditure implications of a commission, which is why I propose that it might be a very modest body at first. A commission would be charged not only with advising those seeking redress, those seeking justice, but would, I hope, become the spark for a new attempt in our education system to introduce the concept of citizenship alongside that of religion and ethics. I can think of nothing more appropriate at the beginning of a new Government than to accept the need for a culture of human rights among our children and university and college students, because that is the bedrock upon which a culture of human rights will be built in this country.
As a number of noble Lords, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, have indicated, the European convention is itself a rather old document. For example, it makes no reference to the right to information from government agencies; it makes no reference to some of the most troubling ethical issues of our times, those associated with scientific advance—genetic engineering, cloning and electronic surveillance. It cannot make such reference because those issues did not exist when the convention was drafted. It will need to be modernised and brought up to date. But who is to do that? That is another area where I believe a human rights commission could play an important part.
That brings me to my concluding thought. I have had the honour over the past year to serve on a body called the Comité des Sages. It is rather nice that in French one has no sex; one is simply a "sage", and I like that. As a sage, I have been involved with conferences in every member state on the issue of putting fundamental human rights at the heart of the European Union treaty. The Amsterdam Treaty made small advances in that direction by amending Article F to put respect for human rights at the centre of the treaty and then, much more radically, followed that up with an amendment, Article F(a), under which a country which fails to respect human rights can have its own rights suspended under the treaty. That is an extraordinarily radical move forward.
I should like to see the UK put at the heart of its presidency of the European Union the concept of human rights in Europe for recognition and reinforcement of
1302
those rights in line with what has now happened in the United Kingdom. What we are doing for our domestic law, extended to the responsibilities that we have under the European Union treaties, could make not just Britain but the whole of Europe a continent marked by a commitment to human rights and the obligations that are part of a recognition of those rights.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that we have had a very good debate. We shall have heard from some 18 different lawyers, and the debate is none the worse for that. Among the distinguished speakers, we have been gratified to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, make her maiden speech. I should like to be the first from these Benches to offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness and to say how grateful I personally was that she spoke and that for once I find myself not the youngest speaker in the House, which is on occasion somewhat grey-haired.
I have one small disagreement with the noble Baroness. In her one criticism of the Bill she said that she would like to see a human rights commission and was sad that that was not provided for. Its exclusion is one aspect of the Bill with which I am happy.
My noble friend Lord Kingsland made our position clear at the beginning of the debate. He laid out our two main reasons for being unhappy with the Bill but made clear that, in line with the Salisbury Convention, we have no intention of voting against the Bill in this House. He made it clear that we oppose the Bill because we feel it will lead to politicisation of the British judiciary and compromise the sovereignty of Parliament. Like many other speakers, he was unhappy about the fast-track procedure to change the law if the judges call for it. Put simply, that means that Parliament will not be given sufficient time to consider the implications of the changes to the law. I shall return to those issues.
I should like to begin by picking up the final point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, who stressed that this was a very important Bill which proposed fundamental changes to the law of the United Kingdom. This is a relatively short Bill of a mere 22 clauses and two schedules. I take it that the schedules simply reiterate what is in the convention and are simply unamendable; they are a statement of fact and there is no point trying to amend them here. The 22 clauses make what I and others consider to be fundamental changes to the legal system in this country.
It is important that we should have adequate time to consider the Bill at Committee stage, Report stage and, dare I say it, at Third Reading. I say that knowing that the Government Chief Whip is listening. We should also have adequate intervals between the different stages. To try to rush the Bill through, adhering to the minimum times as set out in the Companion and standing orders, would not be right.
A great many questions have been raised, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will address some of them this evening. Obviously, the more he can address this evening, the more time we can save later on. Concerns which must be addressed have been raised

1303
by noble Lords from all sides of the House, whether in favour of the Bill or not. For example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised a number of detailed points of the kind with which this House is particularly good at dealing but which ought to be addressed in Committee. I must say to the Government Chief Whip that they might take some little time.
It is to be regretted that the Bill and the White Paper were published simultaneously. I believe that others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, would agree with me that a little more time to consider the implications of the White Paper would have been welcome.
I should like to deal with one or two detailed points. The first relates to resources. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that he did not want to see growth in Government expenditure in this area. The resource implications are acknowledged in the Bill but are not addressed in any detail in the Financial Memorandum, as they ought to be. It is acknowledged that additional expenditure on courts and legal aid will arise. The total extent of that additional expenditure is not quantified; nor is there any commitment that it will be met by the Government. That is something that we shall wish to pursue at later stages.
As far as the courts are concerned, the Government surely have no alternative but to agree that they will provide the additional judges and court staff warranted by the extra work-load. I believe the position with regard to legal aid is more complicated—another issue addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As I understand it, the Government are intent on abolishing civil legal aid. Who do they think will act for individuals who wish to raise alleged breaches of convention rights in the civil courts? Conditional-fee arrangements are unlikely to help in that case. In many instances the cases will not involve the recovery of damages and even when they do so the level of damages will be low. Damages are to be based on Strasbourg awards and it is therefore unlikely that many lawyers would be willing to take on cases on a speculative basis. The Government therefore are purporting to give greater rights to citizens which they will be unable to enforce.
Turning to criminal cases, if convention points are to be raised in criminal proceedings, that will lead to additional and lengthier court hearings. We should look for a clear commitment that the legal aid schemes in both England and Scotland will meet that additional expense. I certainly welcome comments from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on that issue when he comes to sum up.
The second detailed point I wish to make and one that has not been raised by any other noble Lord—I find that surprising since there have been a number of speakers from north of the Border—is what one might call the Scottish dimension, particularly after devolution. Once the Scottish parliament is up and running, it will not have the power to pass primary legislation that contravenes the convention. Such legislation will be
1304
ultra vires of the Scottish parliament. As a consequence of that, the Scottish courts will be given power to strike down such legislation even though they will not have the power to strike down Westminster legislation that they find equally objectionable under the convention. There will thus be a significant difference in the powers of the judiciary north and south of the Border.
The Scottish parliament will have power to pass legislation on topics such as law and order and education. When it does so, there may be instances where it enacts statutory provisions virtually identical to those enacted in Westminster in relation to England and Wales. The sentencing powers for criminal courts are an example of when that might occur. If the Scottish courts reach the view that a specific statutory provision contravenes the convention, then that statutory provision can be quashed, as we see from paragraph 2.21 of the White Paper. On the other hand, if the English courts reach a similar view about an identical provision in England, they will not have the power to quash it; they will only have the power to make a declaration of incompatibility—as was discussed at length earlier this afternoon in relation to Clause 4.
I doubt whether the general public will understand or accept that difference of approach. The reasoning in the White Paper at 2.13, explaining why the Government do not have a mandate for giving the courts power to quash Westminster legislation, fails to address the issue of whether they have a mandate to give such a power to the Scottish courts in respect of legislation from the devolved parliament.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Whatever the general public may think, I am totally mystified by what he said. Is the noble Lord's position that the courts of the United Kingdom should have the power to strike down Acts of the sovereign Westminster Parliament in the same way as courts will have the necessary power to make sure that the subordinate power in Scotland or Northern Ireland, if there were one, acts within its powers? Or is the noble Lord's position that there should be uniformity in the opposite sense; namely, that there should be no power to curtail Scottish legislation by a Scottish parliament that breaches the convention?
It seems to me that it has to be one or the other. As I understand the position, under this Bill the sovereignty of Parliament is being preserved and a subordinate legislator is quite rightly being brought within the framework of the convention so as not to act ultra vires. However, I am puzzled by the noble Lord's position. I do not understand for which of those propositions he is arguing.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not arguing for either of those propositions at the moment. I am pointing out that there is a discrepancy in the treatment of the two parliaments. The Government themselves will answer in due course. It may be that they will say that the treatment of Scotland should be different because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, puts it, that is the subordinate parliament compared to the imperial Parliament in which we are sitting.

1305
If we turn to paragraph 2.13 of the White Paper, we will see that it deals with that point. However, it is beholden on the Government to explain why they believe there should be the difference and why it is unlikely that there could be a conflict between the treatment of the two. I welcome the Government's response to that point.
The third item with which I wish to deal—again, I hope to deal with it briefly because it was dealt with at considerable length by a number of noble Lords—is the effect on the press. I saw the article written by my noble friend Lord Wakeham and I am sorry that he is unable to be here today for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealing with the points met by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. Other noble Lords referred to them at later stages in the debate and this is again something that we must address in considerable detail at the Committee stage.
My noble friend makes it clear in his article that he is opposed to a privacy law. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is also opposed to a privacy law. My noble friend has a concern that this measure could let in a privacy law by the back door. That is something that we must deal with in some detail at a later stage, particularly if, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put it, Articles 8 and 10 are, on the face of it, incompatible.
I turn to the question of the fast-track procedures. I am grateful for the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this is not a power to be taken lightly. I agree with that fully. On many occasions in the past I have been on the receiving end of the strictures of my noble kinsman, Lord Russell—I do not see him in his place—when, on moving legislation through this House, I have attempted to take powers that he considered to be bearing on the Henry VIII side of things. I know that my noble kinsman takes a fairly strong view of the use of delegated legislation of that sort. But he accepts that this occasion is one that is suitable for the use of the Henry VIII clause, just as he accepts that the same could be said of the European Communities Act 1972.
I believe that is an issue that we must address carefully. We must also address the fact that, under the fast-track procedure, much has been made of the fact that the Minister himself will have discretion as to whether or not it is used. When one looks at the words in paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper it makes it clear that,
"it will almost certainly prompt the Government and Parliament to change the law"
In other words, the Minister's discretion is bound very tightly. Between now and Committee stage the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will examine what is proposed and will report to the House so that the House has the benefit of the views of that committee.
1306
Again, much has been made of the dangers of politicising the judiciary—I have much sympathy with that view. I believe it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself who said in an article in 1996 entitled "Judges and Decision Makers", that,
"the political and legal choices which import as consideration of fundamental rights protection are among the most difficult and most subjective, and offer immense scope for political and philosophical disagreement".
He also said—my noble friend Lord Waddington referred to this—
"Incorporation will involve a very significant transfer of power to the Judges".
There are dangers here and they are dangers that cannot merely be addressed by the Law Lords saying that they do not see them. Many others see the dangers and that is something which we must come back to with considerable care when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
As I said, we have had a long debate on what is a slim Bill but it is a debate that will continue for some time to come as we move through the Committee and Report stages. I shall not speak any longer tonight because it is important that we now hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, respond for the Government. I can assure him that he will have a busy time in the coming weeks and months as this Bill proceeds through this House before we send it on to the Commons for its consideration.
8.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I might understand clearly in my own mind what the policy of the Conservative Opposition is. The question is of the simplest kind. Do they support or resist the principle of incorporation of the convention into United Kingdom law?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for the Opposition to respond to questions. It is for the Government to respond. We have made it very clear that we oppose the Bill. It may be that there are other ways that the noble Lord could go about it. But we are debating this Bill. It is this Bill which both my noble friend Lord Kingsland and myself have made clear we are strong in opposing, though we have also made clear that, abiding by the convention, we have no intention of opposing its Second Reading as it proceeds through the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the cat has just got out of the bag. I thought it might.
In opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—I say, as he knows, without any sense of patronizing—provided your Lordships with a thoughtful speech. He said, "If passed, this will be a defining moment in the life of our constitution". I profoundly agree. He said that he supports the convention wholeheartedly. I profoundly agree. That is why the question which I posed to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is one of central public importance to everyone in this country who is interested in these issues. That interest

1307
is not limited to the chattering classes; it is not limited to lawyers and academics; it is something of interest to a very large section of our population because it will affect their lives profoundly in the next five to 10 years.
Perhaps I may deal with an obvious question because the answer is in the words read out by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Scotland is different because it would be ultra vires for the Scottish Parliament to pass laws incompatible with the convention. Therefore, because those are the constitutional arrangements which we have arrived at, the Scottish judges will have the powers to act as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated. The United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign. We have therefore opted, I believe prudently, rightly and in accordance with United Kingdom tradition, to limit the power of the judges to the declaration of incompatibility. It really is as simple as that.
Many questions have been put forward. It is suggested that perhaps this is an unconscious and unknowing conspiracy by the judiciary to take over power from the legislature. Nothing could be further from the truth. A number of noble Lords who have spoken have said that the judges will have powers. Indeed, yes: which judges, what powers and exercised where, is the whole point. But none of those questions raised by noble Lords begins to address the issue.
Perhaps I may give a recent example. It was not long ago in your Lordships' House that I introduced a short and modest Bill to deal with the consequences of the judgment of the European Court in the case of Chahal. If I remember right, that legislation was being drafted by our predecessors and it was inevitably necessary to bring it in as a direct consequence of two things: first, the ruling of the European Court; and secondly, the convention regularly accepted by all governments of all shades of opinion that when Strasbourg speaks, the United Kingdom follows. That is what we find objectionable. We wish to recover control over our own affairs in a British way.
This is a remarkable country. What a country it is. What a country it can become if we have the internal self confidence to say that there are many things that we do well here. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated earlier, this will be a two-way street. We are not to be subject simply to the donations of jurisprudence and legal construction in Strasbourg. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked whether there had been a commission of inquiry about various arrangements in continental Europe. There was not a commission of inquiry but the Home Secretary directed me to go to one or two countries in Europe to see how they do things there. The one constant theme was that they wished us to be able to provide our jurisprudence, which they regard with great respect, knowing it to be infinitely subtle—in some ways much more subtle than continental jurisprudence.
I pay tribute to a notable maiden speech. I shall say no more than that because I know that every one of your Lordships who heard it is of the same view. Perhaps I may make one small modest note. When I was a very junior law student I never thought that I would have the
1308
infinite pleasure of being able to listen to that great man, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, addressing us as he did.
This has been a good debate. Everyone has risen to the occasion, although we have had different views. My feeling is that the approach represented by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is very close indeed to the approach of the Government as set out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in opening the debate. Our courts will have the opportunity to develop our jurisprudence. That is not, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, simply, "You will be able to get your rights enforced quickly and cheaply because you will not have to make the journey to Strasbourg". It is much more important than that. Every public authority will know that its behaviour, its structures, its conclusions and its executive actions will be subject to this culture.
It is exactly the same as what necessarily occurred following the introduction of, for example, race relations legislation and equal opportunities legislation. Every significant body, public or private, thereafter had to ask itself, with great seriousness and concern, "Have we equipped ourselves to meet our legal obligations?" That has caused, as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said, a transformation in certain areas of human rights. The same is likely to follow when this Bill becomes law.
Perhaps I may respond to some specific questions. Article 13 was mentioned by a number of your Lordships. Our view is, quite unambiguously, that Article 13 is met by the passage of the Bill. The answer to the question is as plain and simple as that.
A number of noble Lords asked questions about funding. In particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, returned to the question he put to me a little while ago. Perhaps it will be helpful if I make plain, with the authority of the Lord Chancellor, what the funding position will be. The Lord Chancellor is to deliver new proposals on legal aid. As is well known, he began the debate and gave an account of his thinking in his keynote speech in Cardiff recently. The proposals that he has to deliver on legal aid will take full account of the need to ensure that people who have strong cases to bring under the Bill should continue to be able to do so. My noble and learned friend further indicated that he would give serious consideration to the proposal made in Sir Peter Middleton's recent report that there should be a special fund to support the carrying forward of public interest cases because there might be appropriate cases which would not pass the legal aid merit test and there might be occasions where the persons concerned did not meet the legal aid financial test—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord say who is to control that fund and who is to direct payments out of it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that question will be abundantly answered following the consultation which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated publicly a little while ago that he is about to carry out. No one can deal with the details or the fine tuning until that consultation has been carried out.

1309
The right reverend Prelate asked whether some of the rights or qualifications were not dangerously general. I am bound to say—this has been said many times—that a general description of rights is in many ways much more appropriate than an attempted description or prescription of rights which is not capable of being flexible with changing social conditions. Perhaps I may give one example. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to electronic surveillance. Of course, that was not known 50 years ago in its present subtlety and sophistication, but the matter is still well covered by Article 8. We do not need over-prescription in this delicate area.
A number of your Lordships, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, referred to the question of whether at this stage there should be a human rights commission. The Government believe that Parliament has an extremely important part to play. That is why the Lord Chancellor went out of his way to indicate that the Home Secretary and he would both look favourably, if Parliament wished it, on the development of a human rights committee.
Dealing with the point about education and the dissemination of material, he said specifically that it might well be subject to the committee's views and that the committee would wish to travel within the jurisdiction in order to take evidence, hear representations and have public forums. That is a development which another place and your Lordships' House might well wish to see. What the Government have said—I hope that your Lordships will think this prudent—is that it is for Parliament to decide on the mechanisms that it wishes to adopt. We are not in any sense drawing back from our commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked whether I could say whether there would be a Treasury veto on the human rights commission. If I may put it bluntly, all I can say is I do not readily understand that anyone would be able successfully to overrule the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary if they concluded that they wanted public funding, but that is a little way down the road. The question was whether there will be a Treasury veto. I shall try again: no, no, no.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked whether we would be "proactive"—I believe that that is the word nowadays—about relationships with the existing statutory commissions. Of course—we have been in regular correspondence with them in past months.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked what would or would not be a public body. He rightly conjectured that we would anticipate the BBC being a public authority and that Channel 4 might well be a public authority, but that other commercial organisations, such as private television stations, might well not be public authorities. I stress that that is a matter for the courts to decide as the jurisprudence develops. Some authorities plainly exercise wholly public functions; others do not. There is no difficulty here.
1310
There is no difficulty in the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Perhaps I may cite Railtrack as a simple example. It is the statutory safety regulator, but equally it carries out private functions of property development or property acquisition. It is perfectly easy for a judiciary, which is as well accustomed as is ours to questions of judicial review, to resolve such problems. It is a mistake to think that we are hobbling authorities because they are now private whereas they used to be public utilities. The point is not the label or description; it is the function. I hope that I have made that plain.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me whether a newspaper which has never been publicly funded and which has never been a public body comes within the definition? I never understood that the definition required anybody to be an authority; I thought that one had to be either a company or an individual.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, subject to the cautious proviso that this is a matter for the courts to determine in due time, it is our belief that a newspaper is not a public authority. A court is a public authority which is obliged to act lawfully. I have developed that point in the context of the question about the press and privacy.
It cannot be too firmly reiterated that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made it absolutely plain that the Government believe that the proper way forward is to have effective self-regulation by the PCC; that is to say, effective in terms of the legitimate interests of proper investigative journalism and public protection and, overarching both, effective in terms of public support. As my noble and learned friend has indicated, if there is effective self-regulation there will be no blemishes. I repeat his words: effective self-regulation is the way to keep these cases from court.
This is not intended to be a bonanza for lawyers. It is intended to offer a proper balance within our society in answer to the difficult question: how does one reconcile Article 8 with Article 10? That is not always an easy function to perform. But it is not beyond the wit, intelligence and traditions of our judicial system to come to appropriate conclusions in appropriate cases.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is always courtesy itself in giving way and replying to points made in the debate. To our applause there is now to be enshrined in statute law a right to privacy. Is that merely to be vindicated by reliance on self-regulation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot prescribe or precisely foretell how judges will develop their powers. But I reiterate as plainly as I can the view of the Government that on questions of press freedom effective and efficient self-regulation is infinitely preferable to legal battles in court. It is not only the press that intrudes into people's privacy; neighbours and

1311
private detectives do it too. There are many intrusions into privacy suffered by the meek, lowly and humble and not considered on a daily basis. This law will introduce into our regime the necessity for those who intrude to understand that now legal sanctions may be hurled against them when formerly they were not.
No one should forget that the press in this country, which is not free of blemish-neither I nor any member of the Government has ever pretended otherwise—does good work. It is absolutely necessary in a free and democratic society that there is an investigative press and media willing to look into matters and to expose wrong-doing, sometimes at great risk and financial cost. I do not believe that anyone who recalls the political history of the past 18 months can possibly differ from that proposition.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon asked what might happen in a criminal or civil case where a convention compatibility point was raised. The solutions will be infinitely variable. The courts already have power under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to take certain steps by way of the exclusion of evidence if the case may become unfair. It may be necessary to have adjournments or a preliminary ruling by the trial judge, whereupon the defendant can either continue the trial or change his plea, as happens now, and reserve his rights on appeal. I believe that all of those mechanisms are well familiar at the moment and can be usefully developed as experience demonstrates it to be right.
1312
Without presumption, I recognise the force of the feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I entirely endorse his comment and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that people may have legitimate concerns about these matters. There will be differences between us. It is the philosophic difference that perhaps can never be bridged. I correct myself. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, indicated, sometimes argument changes the mind.
I have been at the Dispatch Box for 19 minutes, two of them spent sitting down and hopping up again. I forgive myself on your Lordships' behalf. I put the position of the Government very generally. I have already said that the Government endorse the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that this is a defining moment in Britain's constitutional life, history and traditions.
We want to make the Bill the very best construction that we can. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out earlier that this was a Home Office Bill. I cannot leave this Dispatch Box—I should not—without complimenting the officials in the Home Office and the parliamentary draftsmen for producing this subtle, elegant and very British construction. There is a verse that I used to know. It has a line or two in it: "'Courage', he said and pointed towards the land".
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  Community Fire Safety Task Force Report
  Community Fire Safety Task Force Report
  Terrorist Exclusion Orders
  Terrorist Exclusion Orders
  Prisoners: Repatriation to the Irish Republic
  Prisoners: Repatriation to the Irish Republic
  Police Service Objectives and Performance Indicators
  Police Service Objectives and Performance Indicators
  Liberia: Aid
  Liberia: Aid
  OECD Agreement on Investment
  OECD Agreement on Investment
  Kurds in Northern Iraq: Internal Conflict
  Kurds in Northern Iraq: Internal Conflict
  Human Rights Issues: UN Commission Meetings
  Human Rights Issues: UN Commission Meetings
  Algeria
  Algeria
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Missing Persons
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Missing Persons
  Turkey: UK Diplomatic Visits to South-eastern Region
  Turkey: UK Diplomatic Visits to South-eastern Region
  UN Human Rights Investigations: Access Refusals
  UN Human Rights Investigations: Access Refusals
  OECD Agreement on Investment: Discussions with Developing Countries
  OECD Agreement on Investment: Discussions with Developing Countries
  Horses: Designation
  Horses: Designation
  Industrial Tribunal Case 13528
  Industrial Tribunal Case 13528
  Scottish Parliament and Capital Punishment
  Scottish Parliament and Capital Punishment
  Cantray Steading: Accommodation for Disabled Young People
  Cantray Steading: Accommodation for Disabled Young People
  Queen Mary's University Hospital, Roehampton
  Queen Mary's University Hospital, Roehampton
  Guardsmen Wright and Fisher
  Guardsmen Wright and Fisher