Sitting of 23 June 1998

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

    Undergraduate Course Applications
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: How many applications were made to Scottish universities for undergraduate courses starting in the 1998–99 academic year by students whose principal residence is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; and how many such applications were made for courses starting in the 1997–98 year. [45570]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): According to recently released figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the number of applicants to Scottish higher education institutions from the rest of the UK in 1998 was 33,081 by 16 May 1998; that compares with 34,527 on the same date in 1997.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: As the figures suggest, there has been a significant fall in the number of applicants from the rest of the United Kingdom—and, of course, they have not yet taken up their places. Is it not time that the Government acknowledged the unfairness of the extra year's £1,000 tuition fee being charged to students from the rest of the UK? Do the Government recognise that they are driving a wedge between Scottish students and those from other parts of the country and, in doing so, yet again playing into the hands of the independence movement that they claim to oppose?
    Mr. Wilson: From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, who composed—or received —that question, I imagine that the fall I have reported is disappointingly small. I wonder how he squares his thesis with the fact that the reduction in applications from Scotland to the rest of the UK is greater than the reduction in applications from the rest of the UK into Scotland. The reduction obviously has nothing to do with tuition fees; applications have held up extremely well. If we take account of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in admissions to Scottish universities in the current academic year, there has been no drop-off at all in applications to university from any part of the UK.
    Mr. James Wallace: Is the Minister aware that in a speech yesterday Lord Dearing
    822
    indicated great concern about the public funding of universities and warned of overcrowded classes, declining standards and soaring student failure and drop-out rates? Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an unequivocal undertaking that any sums raised from the payment of fees will be ring-fenced and put right back into higher education?
    Mr. Wilson: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must explain his position as well. We can say exactly where additional money will come from for universities and for further education because we have had the courage to take decisions about funding. The Liberal Democrats, nationalists and Tories have resisted those difficult decisions in terms of their own policies. I can say with confidence that, as a result of our changes— based on the Dearing recommendations—substantial additional money will go to higher education.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that university education was regressive and did not help to increase participation by young people from working-class families? Does not the new system still take account of three quarters of the cost of tuition? Is not it much fairer, in the sense that the individual and society benefit, while sharing the cost?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, there is 11 per cent. entry into higher education in Scotland from the two lower socio-economic groups, whereas there is more than 80 per cent. entry from the two highest socio-economic groups. That is the status quo which all Opposition parties appear anxious to defend. On the contrary, we have said that on all grounds access must be extended. That is why people from households with below average earnings will pay absolutely nothing in tuition fees and why we have abolished fees for part-time students from lower income backgrounds in Scotland. All those measures are aimed at widening access, and there is nothing in the proposals to limit higher education access for people from less well-off backgrounds—quite the contrary, and potential students, whose life prospects depend on decisions taken now, understand that. That is why applications have held up so well, in spite of the efforts of some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am sure that the Minister will shortly receive the cool Britannia medal from the Prime Minister for the calm way in which he responds to his figures. Will he give the House a firm assurance that he will at no time during this Parliament increase the tuition fee in Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to the Dispatch Box; I am sure that he will join me in wishing Scotland well tonight. Opposition Members must live with the basic fact that, despite the changes in student funding, applications for higher education in Scotland have held up extremely well. The systems of higher education in Scotland and in England are different—school qualifications are different and university degree courses are different—and cannot be matched perfectly. Addressing that anomaly would create a much greater anomaly for people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example.

    Road Deaths
    Mr. David Stewart: What representations he has received about the level of road deaths in Scotland. [45571]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am aware that the number of road accident casualties is a matter of great concern to a great many people. The Government share that concern and are committed to bringing about further reductions in the toll of people killed and injured on our roads.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the recent investigation by the statistical office of the European Commission shows that 118 people per million are killed on roads in the highlands and islands—the highest proportion in Scotland? The Automobile Association argues that one factor is the number of single-track roads. Will he undertake to end the folly of single-track trunk roads in Scotland and to aid road safety in the highlands and islands?
    Mr. McLeish: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the recent statistics, but there is no one simple reason for the problems in the highlands. To put the figures in perspective, every day in Scotland 62 people are injured, 11 people are seriously injured, one person dies and there are 22 proven drink-driving charges and 250 speeding offences. We live in a dangerous situation, where people act irresponsibly. I should like to think that we will be taking further steps not only in the highlands, but across Scotland, to tackle this evil on our roads.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What comparison has the Minister made between the Scottish and English statistics, and what reason does he give for the discrepancy?
    Mr. McLeish: I have made no comparison with the English statistics.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that the current roads review will take cognisance of safety issues and not be purely Treasury driven? There are still too many accident black spots in my constituency—as he will see when he visits it later this year—and in others that have gone unremedied for far too long.
    Mr. McLeish: The trunk roads review is based on a number of criteria, of which, of course, efficiency, the environment, the economy and safety are very important. I have met, in London and in Edinburgh, many hon. Members from both sides of the House to discuss their concerns, and I have committed myself to an exhaustive programme of visits in August to ensure that I receive the information at first hand. We are determined to make roads safer and to get over to drivers the message that they can kill. The bigger message is: do not drink and drive; do not speed; and be careful in a motor car around children.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend may be aware that a soldier is seriously ill in
    824
    hospital following the most recent collision on the single carriageway Al trunk road in south-east Scotland. Will he acknowledge the need for safe and efficient communications between Scotland and England? As the Government are in favour of strong communications between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, will he please press ahead with the dualling of the A I trunk road?
    Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend was one of the Members of Parliament whom we visited to discuss, as part of the roads review, the problems of the A I . We shall issue criteria for the review soon and I shall have the final report at the end of the year. We intend to ensure that safety is the greatest consideration, not only on the A1, but on every trunk road in Scotland. That will, of course, apply equally to the cross-border flows.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why did the Minister duck the question from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) about single-track roads in the highlands? Is he not aware that literally thousands of miles of such roads, through the most beautiful parts of Scotland, draw in visitors who are used to driving on the right and that the statistics about accidents, including deaths, in the highlands are disturbing? Have the Government no policy to deal with such roads in the highlands?
    Mr. McLeish: My response was not intended as a ducking of the central issue. In the past few years, a number of measures have been taken to improve road safety in the highlands and islands, such as improvements on the A82 between Tarbert and Inverness, and signing, lining and anti-skid surfacing. For foreign drivers, especially during the summer season, who have difficulty moving from dual to single carriageways, we are trying not only signposting but are having multilingual leaflets printed. We appreciate the problem and are trying to ease the plight of foreign tourists to the highlands and islands. The right hon. Gentleman can be reassured that everything that can be done is being done to improve road safety.

    Business Support
    Mr. Desmond Browne: What level of support the Scottish Enterprise network is giving to indigenous companies, with particular reference to small and medium businesses. [45572]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Scottish Enterprise's budget for 1997–98 amounted to £466 million and supported programmes predominantly aimed at assisting indigenous small and medium enterprises. Scottish Enterprise resources devoted to foreign direct investment during the same period amounted to £40.2 million.
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the recent initiative to support and set targets for the survival of small businesses. My recent experience of campaigning for whisky jobs in my constituency has led me to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when the local enterprise companies work in partnership with the local authority, the local work force and the

    825
    private sector. Will my hon. Friend consider putting in place, or encouraging, mechanisms to ensure the delivery of that initiative through local partnerships?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right: partnership is the way forward in each area on all aspects of economic development. Our strategy directions to Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the network are to work closely with local authorities and other partners to get a coherent approach in every area. As my hon. Friend says, we have increased the target for new business start-ups in Scotland to 10,000 a year, which is building on the existing strategy for the development of small and medium enterprises. We think that that is achievable and partnership is the way forward.
    On his initial point, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent campaign that was strongly based on partnership and effectively defended whisky jobs in Kilmarnock. Unfortunately, an equally well-run campaign was not so effective in the short term in Dumbarton. Last night, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and all the partners to which my hon. Friend referred, I had a meeting to find out how the problem could be remedied so that we can deal with the proposed J and B closure, which is to take effect in 2000. We will achieve that through partnership.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister likes to appear to be the friend of small businesses, as he has just said. How can he possibly expect us or the people of Scotland to believe that he wants to defend small businesses when he and his colleagues continue to defend the irregular practices of direct labour organisations that provide unfair competition to small businesses in their area, and Ministers refuse to take action against them?
    Mr. Wilson: As a former small business man, I do not expect the hon. Lady to accept anything I say. However, I draw a distinction between that and expecting the people of Scotland to accept what I say.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The Minister will be aware of today's announcement of 250 job losses at Volvo bus in Irvine. He may not be aware that, last week, 40 redundancies were announced at Phoenix Cables and that, next week, there may be 600 job losses at Digital in Irvine. Can he give us some indication of what should be done in the Irvine area? Does he remember that when the previous Administration wound up the development corporation, I predicted that, rather than attention being focused on job attraction, such events would become the norm?
    Mr. Wilson: The Volvo decision does not take effect until 2000 and involves an international restructuring. The initial loss of jobs will be in Germany and in Austria. I hope that measures can be put in place before then and that market conditions will be such that the job losses may not happen in Irvine in 2000, although there are difficulties there.
    I do not join my hon. Friend in pre-empting the announcement by Digital Compaq. Everyone knows that the company is restructuring world wide, but we should wait for the outcome of that. In the spirit of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), we must work together wherever there are
    826
    job losses and for whatever reasons they happen to ensure that damage is limited in the short term and that new measures are taken to bring new jobs in the longer term.

    East Ayrshire
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: What representations he has received on the conduct of East Ayrshire local authority. [45573]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): May I first apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who would normally have answered this question? He has been dispatched—very willingly —to France to represent the Government at the Morocco game. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating Craig Brown and the team on their achievements so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I think those shouts were a little more hearty on our side than on the other. There is something of an air of disappointment on the Opposition Benches this afternoon—with which, of course, I sympathise. The Scottish team has done well and we are proud of it. Our thoughts are with it as we look forward to what we hope will be a famous victory.
    I have received a number of representations on East Ayrshire and I expect to receive today the council's response to the statutory notice served on it relating to the performance of its direct labour organisations.
    Miss Kirkbride: We, too, would like to congratulate the Scottish team and wish it well for tonight's match. However, we wish that Labour local government in Scotland could perform as well and as effectively. The situation in East Ayrshire is testimony to the fact that sleaze is rife in Labour local government in Scotland. When will the Secretary of State maintain the Prime Minister's dictum that for members of the Labour party it should be one strike and then out? When will he tackle the problems of local government in Scotland? When will he set up a proper public inquiry to deal with gross misuse of public money?
    Mr. Dewar: I take the situation in East Ayrshire very seriously, but I must caution the hon. Lady against jumping to conclusions. Sleaze is an unfortunate choice of word. On the face of it, there has clearly been a total collapse of financial control and management control.
    Miss Kirkbride: Only that?
    Mr. Dewar: Yes. Sleaze suggests dishonesty and personal corruption. If I were to accuse the hon. Lady—I stress that I do not—of sleaze, the authorities of the House would take a poor view. Perhaps she should consider waiting until she knows all the facts before she makes a rather pejorative judgment.
    East Ayrshire is a serious matter. That is why I have, unprecedentedly, used my statutory powers to call on the local authority to provide information and a forward plan. I assure the House that I shall not hesitate to use my powers, which are extensive, if I am not totally satisfied that the matter is being put right and that any shortcomings and failures are being rooted out.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: I welcome the Secretary of State's swift and decisive action on the current

    827
    problems. It is vital to the future of local government in Scotland, as will be the deliberations of the McIntosh commission, which is currently consulting on relations between local government and the Scottish Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take no lessons from the Tories about local government in Scotland? They spent 18 years trying to undermine and destroy it, culminating in their disastrous local government reorganisation, which was executed purely for party political reasons.
    Mr. Dewar: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. The important thing is to get the matter put right. If there is one thought that should unite the House it is that properly funded and organised, effective local government is an important part of our democratic structure. I suspect that Tory Members are a little more confident on this matter because they do not control one council in Scotland. That gives them a gung-ho approach. I hope that they will take the matter seriously and support the effective actions that we are taking. In case they become too complacent, the word Westminster should be at least whispered.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Has the Secretary of State noticed that for value for money, efficiency and high-quality services, the top three mainland authorities are all Scottish National party controlled? Should he not recommend them as models of best practice to the inefficient, poorly run Labour authorities that have brought the whole Scottish local government system into disrepute?
    Mr. Dewar: I take efficiency very seriously. The best defence for local government is efficient local government and effective delivery of local services. I looked with interest at the table to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I noticed that the important characteristic was not which political party was in control but the catchment area and make-up of authorities. Smaller, rural authorities tended to do well. To use one illustration, I think that there are about 10,000 public sector houses in Angus; in Glasgow, there are 100,000. A different scale and range of services have to be provided. I am becoming ungracious in my old age, but before the hon. Gentleman takes off to polish his halo I should tell him that Perth and Kinross direct maintenance department is running a deficit for the second year running—this year, it is £650,000.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: Events in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire and the Grampian police fraud squad investigation into Moray council concern all hon. Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his prompt response to many of those concerns. In the longer term, what thought has he given to changing the structure of local government in Scotland to bring about the direct election of mayors or provosts? If it is good enough for London, it is good enough for the towns and cities of Scotland. The big advantage that they would have over London is that Jeffrey Archer would never be a candidate.
    Mr. Dewar: That is a vision of danger which I never share with my hon. Friend, but I shall think about it seriously tonight. He makes an important and fair point. Anyone looking around local government will agree that there is an atmosphere of change. Many people in
    828
    local government are thinking about such problems. The McIntosh commission is in session, and on its agenda will be electoral voting systems, the possibility of electing leadership of the sort mentioned and the introduction of a cabinet system. There are many ways to change the internal dynamics of local government. I look forward to the report of the McIntosh commission and taking forward an agenda for change that will benefit local government and reassure those who rely on its services.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no council tax payer in East Ayrshire or North Lanarkshire will pay any extra money this year or next as a direct result of the wrongdoings of his councillors?
    Mr. Dewar: I cannot give such a simplistic assurance. If I did, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to question its practicality or propriety. We will consider the situation. We are waiting for the report of the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Today, we will receive the replies to the statutory request from the councils, which we must consider. It would be foolhardy and misleading for me to say that there will not be problems in meeting the gap that has appeared in the finances of the departments concerned. There are a number of ways and time scales over which that can be done.
    Dr. Fox: It is clear from the Secretary of State's response that he is unwilling or unable to protect taxpayers from the malpractice or incompetence of Labour councillors. He is unable to protect Labour Members from deselection by members of the Blairite tendency and, indeed, unable to protect himself from the whispering campaign against him in his party in Scotland. As the senior Labour figure in Scotland, what responsibility does he take for that shambles?
    Mr. Dewar: I believe in political accountability, and I am taking energetic action on that matter. I would be prepared to have a serious discussion with the hon. Gentleman about that, but, judging by the irrelevancies, that he dragged into his previous remarks, he is not interested in serious political debate.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am delighted to say that my wife is on the list of candidates—and no way is she a Blairite.
    When can we expect to receive the McIntosh report? Is there not a pressing need for local government reform? If a different electoral system is good enough for the Scottish Parliament, surely we should introduce a different system for the election of local authority representatives which ignores the rather strange idea of elected provosts.
    Mr. Dewar: That will clearly be an interesting debate. We want the McIntosh commission to have time to do its job properly. I do not rule out the possibility of an early report, perhaps on a limited number of issues, but legislation may be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which fast approaches.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend's wife on being on the list. I am looking forward to having dinner with her and my hon. Friend on Saturday night.

    Atomic Energy Policy
    Dr. Julian Lewis: How many times he has met the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1998 to discuss energy policy. [45574]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chief executive of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discuss nuclear issues.
    Dr. Lewis: We have learnt that in March the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority had already recommended closing Dounreay. That was at about the time the Prime Minister agreed to accept a further nuclear shipment from Georgia. Was the Prime Minister informed of that UKAEA recommendation and, if so, why did he not tell the full story to the House? If he was not informed, who at the Scottish Office was responsible for the failure to inform him? If that failure was the fault of the Scottish Office, is that not another reason why the Secretary of State's reputation is fast approaching critical nuclear meltdown?
    Mr. Wilson: If I knew who the hon. Gentleman was, I would be able to reassure him personally that the Secretary of State's reputation across the political spectrum in Scotland is extremely good, and it is based on integrity over many years in public life. The decision to accept the Georgian shipment was based entirely on our international commitments and it would have been a dereliction of duty not to accept that small cargo when we had the capacity to do so. I am proud of the fact that we in this country are willing to accept our international obligations—and we shall continue to do so.
    Miss Anne Begg: My hon. Friend will remember the BBC programme "Frontline Scotland" that exposed last year the existence of the waste shaft at Dounreay and nuclear hot spots on the beach there. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the Dounreay site is safer?
    Mr. Wilson: We are doing a great deal. My hon. Friend mentioned the waste shaft. The problems associated with it did not arise after 1 May last year; they developed over many years —and Conservative Members have the brass neck even to raise this issue. The previous Administration completely ignored the problems, presumably in the hope that they would go away or not be noticed. This Government came to power, recognised the problems at Dounreay and acted on the waste shaft, just as we acted on other issues that arose at Dounreay over a long period.
    If ever a Government inherited problems that they did not create, and showed that they had the courage to face up to them, it is the present Government, in our response to the problems that had built up over the years at Dounreay.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The Minister will be newly aware of the fact that 75 kg of weapons grade
    830
    plutonium will shortly be on its way to Dounreay. Will he now advise us how many other commercial reprocessing contracts are outstanding for Dounreay?
    Mr. Wilson: It is the usual stuff from the SNP. To throw in—
    Ms Cunningham: It is a straight question.
    Mr. Wilson: If it were a straight question, it would not be the usual stuff from the SNP; the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) should listen to the answer. She threw in the words "weapons grade". Is the implication that Dounreay is being used in connection with nuclear weapons? Is that the scaremongering impression that she tries to convey to people watching our proceedings?
    What is being done is entirely in line with the commitment that existing contracts would be dealt with. That is the commitment; it is a binding contract, and it will be dealt with. The hon. Lady does no favours with her scaremongering—not to me, not to Members of the House, and above all not to constituents of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who have worked in that industry for many years and have made a major contribution to the science, technology and economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the Minister's recent visit to Dounreay, what did the shop stewards and professional associations say to him, and what did he say to them, about their future?
    Mr. Wilson: I had many conversations during my recent visit. It was a very positive occasion, because it was the occasion of the announcement of a major inward investment in Thurso, as a spin-off from the presence of Dounreay in Caithness. As a result, some 500 jobs will be created by AEA Technologies and its Japanese partners in the manufacture of renewable batteries; that was extremely positive. As always, when I speak to people who have given their life to Dounreay and have contributed so much to the Dounreay economy, they say that they despair of the ignorance, the scaremongering, the hysteria and the utter disregard for the feelings of families in Caithness who have lived with the plant for a long time and have a very much fuller awareness of what goes on there, and has gone on there, than the hon. Member for Perth will have if she lives to be 100.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps I can help the Minister by asking a question to which there is a very simple answer. How far into the decommissioning process will we be able to fulfil our international treaty obligations at Dounreay?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not quite clear about the question, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman addresses it to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it will give him a far more technically reliable answer than he would expect from me at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wish that anyone who was a member of the previous Government would make the slightest effort to defend the fact that, for 18 years, the Tories allowed the problems of Dounreay to accumulate and did absolutely nothing to address them. The Government are addressing

    831
    the problems, but we are also determined to maintain employment for people in Caithness, because we are aware of social and economic factors as well as of the legitimate safety concerns that have been expressed.

    Direct Labour Organisations
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: What steps he intends to take to regulate direct labour organisations. [45575]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government will not tolerate incompetence or inefficiency. I expect all councils to look critically at whether direct provision is required, and to put performance and value for money at the centre of all that they do.
    Mr. Rowe: What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the appalling problems that have arisen in Scottish local government do not afflict the new Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: I remain an optimist about the Scottish Parliament, and I am sure that that optimism is shared by the hon. Gentleman, who always has the slight air of a rebel on the Conservative Benches. I do not believe that comparison with local government is relevant. At the end of the day, Westminster's powers will go to the Scottish Parliament; local government will not be raided. The Scottish Parliament will be a policy-making legislative body; local government, essentially, is involved in the provision of local services. I do not therefore believe that the machinery is the same, or that the parallel is relevant.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What effect does my right hon. Friend believe compulsory competitive tendering and local government reorganisation have had on the regulation of direct labour organisations?
    Mr. Dewar: The consequences of the last reorganisation of local government—which was very much a pattern imposed by a Government who, however honourably they may have acted, did not command widespread support in Scotland—were undoubtedly a great deal of disruption, financial difficulties and unavoidable expenses that are still being met by council tax payers and taxpayers. That is perhaps an answer for Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who now worry about such matters.

    North Lanarkshire
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If he will make a statement about the current level of non-housing debt in the North Lanarkshire local authority. [45576]
    Hon. Members: Hurry up.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): My apologies, Madam Speaker. It is worth waiting for, though—it is all good stuff and a very precise answer. Non-housing capital debt in North Lanarkshire council was –256.8 million at 31 March 1997.
    Mr. Sayeed: That is an unusually helpful answer from the Labour party. Did Labour not know about those
    832
    problems when Neil Kinnock was Leader of the Opposition, but nothing was done; when the late John Smith was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done; and when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done? Only now, when Labour is in government—and because those councillors have served their purpose and got Labour into power—is the Labour party prepared to do anything. For all those years, the people of Monklands and North Lanarkshire have had to pay through the nose for incompetence or worse.
    Mr. Dewar: I totally failed to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, which seemed to have many of the characteristics of any early Monty Python without the humour. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the £256.8 million is long-term debt for financing a number of capital projects. There was repayment of more than £10 million in the last financial year. That matter is not in dispute; the situation is under control. Interest payments are, of course, met directly from Government grant. I hope that that provides some consolation for the hon. Gentleman, and that he will go home a rather happier man.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I think the thrust of the Opposition's second question was about the performance of local authorities in general. Will the Secretary of State take the trouble to commend the many local authorities in Scotland that have done a wonderful job in the face of adversity and attack from the Conservatives over 18 years? Will he give the House a possible timetable for the publication of performance indicators that the Government will release? When are the performance plans of local authorities likely to be presented to the public? I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in saying that, in many cases and for many services, they will show the excellent performance of local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: Of course I am glad to pay tribute to the very many effective and hard-working councillors—many of whom are my personal friends—who dedicate themselves to delivering in local government. It is a service to them to try to root out and deal with any abuse that occurs. However, we must be very careful about how we judge such matters. For example, I am informed that Bedfordshire county council, which is Conservative controlled, is running a debt of £120 million in its housing department for the current year. I do not know the circumstances in Cambridge, so I do not condemn that local authority; I suspect that those on the Opposition Benches would sometimes be wise to exercise a similar caution.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the effect of the current exchange rate on business confidence in Scotland. [45578]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have frequent discussions with businesses in all sectors across Scotland and I am fully aware of the extremely competitive trading

    833
    environment that companies face at home and overseas. However, the latest official data show that Scottish manufactured output rose by 7.7 per cent. in 1997.
    Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister is aware that exchange rates are influenced to an extent by the level of interest rates, and we have had about seven interest rate rises under the Labour Government. The House will be well aware of my particular concern about manufacturing and textiles. Is the Minister aware that many of his trade union colleagues are deeply concerned about the redundancies that are being declared in Scotland as a result of a range of factors—not least the exchange rate and the depressing state of the textile industry in Scotland, which is an important industry for the Scottish people?
    Mr. Wilson: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the textile industry. I know that it is going through a difficult time and that, although there are many successful firms, others are suffering pressures which include the current level of the exchange rate. However, their interests and ours lie in the medium and long-term stability of the economy. If some hard decisions had been taken by the Tories in the last months of the previous Parliament, perhaps the textile and other industries would not be feeling so much pain now.
    Mr. Frank Roy: On the question of business confidence, is my hon. Friend aware that I have asked for an inquiry into the running of Motherwell Enterprise and Development Company, whose board called in the liquidators a fortnight ago? Can the Minister give an assurance that local companies that find themselves victims of the MEDCO situation will receive all possible public help at this dangerous time?
    Mr. Wilson: We are keeping in close touch with the MEDCO situation, as is the Lanarkshire development agency, which is our instrument of economic intervention in the area. Its first obligation is to ensure that the services and training provided by MEDCO are kept going, in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents and the businesses in his constituency.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    County Court Services
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his policy towards the availability of county court services in rural areas. [45600]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In considering the future of any county court, whether in a rural or an urban area, the Lord Chancellor must take into account a variety of factors, including accommodation; work load; the number of personal callers; the number of judicial sittings and costs. A further consideration is the alternative arrangements that could be made for court users after closure, as well as access to those facilities.
    Mr. Luff: Does the Minister understand that in the Vale of Evesham there is real gratitude for his decision
    834
    to grant a reprieve to Evesham magistrates court, but growing concern about the new proposal to close Evesham county court? Does he understand that the same arguments apply to both courts and that, whenever a rural court is threatened with closure, a rural community is threatened with losing its access to justice? Will he instruct the Court Service to withdraw the proposal immediately?
    Mr. Hoon: Clearly, different principles apply as between magistrates courts and county courts, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when, in March, the Lord Chancellor gave permission for public consultation on the future of Evesham county court, a careful process was started. A counter survey of users was carried out between 3 and 28 November and every single person attending the court was asked to complete a questionnaire. Some 246 questionnaires were completed and the results showed that the average daily number of personal callers to Evesham is 12. Of the 246 users, only 76 attended for court hearings and the rest made visits on business that could have been conducted over the telephone or by post.

    Magistrates Courts Committees (Devon and Cornwall)
    Mr. Andrew George: What representations he has received on his proposals to amalgamate the magistrates courts committee in Cornwall with that in Devon. [45601]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committees decided that a voluntary amalgamation of their two committees was desirable. Consultations took place in April, and 14 responses were received to their proposals. Those responses formed part of the MCCs' submission to the Lord Chancellor requesting an amalgamation. I should also mention that I have received one letter on the matter from a Member of Parliament—not the hon. Gentleman—and my officials have received one letter on the matter from a member of the public.
    Mr. George: Does the Minister accept that, under the previous magistrates courts committees amalgamation proposals and the current proposals, although a case can be made for appropriate collaboration and partnership on a professional level, bringing together the magistrates courts committees will involve a great deal of travel and will remove magistrates from their local community, which might favour male and older members in taking up the magistracy and work against younger females?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept any of that. The Government will be concerned to ensure that any amalgamation will result in a more efficient and effective service in the area in question while clearly retaining those aspects of the previous administration that will best serve the new committee. It is the Government's policy that an alignment between criminal justice agencies will lead to a greater consistency of approach throughout the country. Aligned magistrates courts committees, police forces and Crown Prosecution Service areas will assist in the speedier consideration and implementation of national criminal justice policy.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend understand—I say this in the kindest possible way—

    835
    that what he has said about Cornwall echoed similar things said by his predecessor in a different Administration? However, in Cornwall, or even in the area that I represent, the result will be less justice delivered locally. I thought that a Labour Government would start turning back some of these so-called efficiencies and drives to better regulation so as to put justice back where it belongs, which is locally, in local communities.
    Mr. Hoon: With the greatest possible respect to my hon. Friend, who indicated that he would be kind to me, may I be equally kind in response and say that I do not accept that any of our proposals are likely to lead to less justice delivered locally? We are considering the administration of the magistrates courts. By more effective administration of these courts we may be in a position to save money and thereby preserve local justice.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What documents in relation to terrorism have been passed to the Lord Chancellor in the proper form under the Great Seal of the Realm. [45602]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): None.
    Mr. Dalyell: Among the documents, is there the Organisation of African Unity's resolution of last night, to which I drew the Lord Chancellor's attention, which emphasises that non-compliance is in line with the judgment of the International Court of Justice and is also based on the fact that the resolutions violate paragraphs 3.33 and 36 of article 27 of the United Nations charter? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend accept that because international law is involved it is not sufficient just to pass by on the other side of the road and say, "This is a matter for the Crown Office or for the Foreign Office lawyers"? The whole Government are involved. Would they therefore ask independent international lawyers, possibly in universities, for an opinion? It seems that our country is violating international law.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the document to which my hon. Friend has referred will be studied with great care by my colleagues in Scotland and in the Foreign Office. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that relevant Security Council resolutions require the Libyan accused to be surrendered for trial either in Scotland or in the United States. At the moment, the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers is not strictly consistent with the relevant Security Council position.
    I emphasise also that the evidence in the Lockerbie case has been considered by four Lords Advocate from two different Administrations. Each of them has independently concluded that the evidence justifies the current proceedings.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on levels of charges for legal aid work. [45603]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The levels of charges for legal aid work are principally determined under the Legal Aid Act 1988, passed by the previous Administration and no doubt supported by the hon. Gentleman. Within the limitations of that legislation, we are introducing standardised fees where it is legally possible to do so. However, we recognised quickly after taking office that the existing legislation does not afford a satisfactory level of control. That is why we announced last year that we see contracting for the provision of legal services as the most effective means of controlling the cost of legal aid.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and, if I may say so, encouraging response. Does the Minister believe it right that somebody who is well known for his support of left-wing causes, Mr. Michael Mansfield QC, should submit a legal aid bill for £22,000, which was ultimately cut to just £12,000? The fees of his junior, Miss Baird, were reduced from £22,000 to just £7,800. That relates to just three days' work. Is that right? Is it value for money? When will this abuse of public resources be stopped?
    Mr. Hoon: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that he and those Conservative Members who appear to support his assertions will support the Government when they introduce legislation effectively to control the costs of legal aid. I also hope that he will be able to persuade Conservative Front Benchers to support the proposals that we have outlined, because the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.
    Mr. Winterton: Michael Mansfield?
    Mr. Hoon: I am not in a position to comment on a case that is currently being considered, nor should I, but I can say that there appears to have been a persistent pattern of overclaiming by members of the Bar. Indeed, statistics that I can publish suggest that, in certain high-cost cases over the past two years, barristers have claimed more than double what they have received.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned only two barristers, whom he considers to be left wing? Michael Mansfield is doing an excellent job in the Lawrence inquiry.
    On the general issue, which I have raised at business questions, is it not totally wrong that the most senior QCs receive substantial sums out of legal aid work when so many people are not able to get legal aid? Surely senior banisters should not be so overpaid and should not receive hundreds of thousands of pounds through legal aid work. I hope that the Government will continue to do what they are doing about this matter.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have made it clear that the Government are determined to get the costs of legal aid under control. He is right: the most expensive cases in the Crown court—the top 1 per cent.—account for more than 40 per cent. of criminal higher expenditure, which is £125 million; the most expensive civil cases—the top 15 per cent.—

    837
    account for about 15 per cent. of gross civil legal aid expenditure, at £167 million. That is why the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Government propose to replace legal aid for civil cases with conditional fee agreements. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that insurance premiums for defendants' costs in personal injury cases, which have a high degree of success, have risen in the past year from about £85 to about £161. When the Government's changes have taken effect, in what circumstances will the Legal Aid Board pay such premiums?
    Mr. Hoon: It is clearly important that the Government control the costs of legal aid. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently issued a consultation document setting out in principle our view that the cost of insurance should be recoverable against an unsuccessful defendant. That would clearly go a long way to assisting plaintiffs who bring cases under conditional fees to recover the costs of going to law, and would thereby increase access to justice. We are considering that carefully.

    Barristers' Earnings
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What assessment he has made of the earnings of senior barristers relative to other professions requiring similar qualifications and skills; and if he will make a statement. [45604]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Each year, the Government, in assessing the level of public sector pay, must have regard to the professional skills and qualifications possessed by different groups. In the past, no regard appears to have been had to the total amounts paid out annually to self-employed barristers out of public funds on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason in principle why the overall amount of public money paid to barristers in any given year should not be open to public scrutiny and debate.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. He read out some remarkable statistics; I had
    838
    thought that the previous Government had abolished all closed shops, but one is still very much in operation. Is my hon. Friend aware of the outrage among professional people who serve the state so well in, for example, medicine and higher education? They have to qualify in their profession, work just as hard as barristers and skill themselves just as much, but the amount of money that they receive from the public purse is not remotely similar. I am not inviting my hon. Friend to go on "The Moral Maze" to discuss the matter, but will he at least consider whether the structure within which banisters work should be examined seriously to bring costs under control?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is referring to the position of QCs. The Government have no present plans to abolish that position. This modernising Government, however, have shown that they are determined to sweep away restrictive practices wherever they occur and whenever they cannot be substantiated in the public interest.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: I do not want to anticipate anything, but perhaps one day I shall be able to welcome the Minister to the front bench of the Bar.
    In addition to planting the question tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), which he answered on 28 April 1998, Official Report, columns 65-67, the Minister said on television at about the same time that senior lawyers acting for legally aided clients were doing "a very responsible job", but that their earnings should be comparable to those of their medical counterparts. Now that the Government have seen the figures for senior consultants' earnings and benefits contained in the Law Society's case before the Committee chaired by the right hon. and noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson, what does the Minister say is the proper level of remuneration for a senior lawyer whose conduct in every case has implications for the future life and welfare of the client and his family?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is quite proper for there to be a public debate about the amount of public money that goes into the hands of private sector lawyers. There is a proper public debate about the sum spent on behalf of taxpayers on those employed by the state in the national health service, and I see no reason whatever why the same principles should not apply to those who receive taxpayers' money to fund what are, in essence, private practices.

Temporary Classrooms
3.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the reliance on temporary classroom accommodation in local authority and grant maintained schools; to place a duty upon the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the number of temporary classrooms in current use; to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans for the replacement of such accommodation, other than that necessary for normal fluctuation in pupil numbers, with permanent school buildings; and for connected purposes.
Members of Parliament are privileged to work in reasonable and, one supposes, permanent surroundings. We occasionally complain that our offices are too small—I certainly do—but generally the roof does not leak, the windows fit, and rot is the province of speakers rather than the woodwork. Many hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren do not share that privilege. They are taught in what are euphemistically called "temporary classrooms". Some are perfectly satisfactory, but many are up to 40 years old. So-called huts predominate in many schools. It is a major preoccupation for teachers, parents, governors and for local education authorities, who are only too aware that what they are providing for schools in their area are not up to the standards that they desire.
Some people would have it that the matter is of little consequence—that one need not worry about the surroundings in which children are taught. I disagree. The teaching environment is important to learning. I accept that it is not the only factor and that a good, committed teacher teaching in a field is a better than a bad teacher teaching in a great hall of academe. The fact remains that if one can put together good, committed teaching, a good curriculum and the right surroundings, one is doing the best for the children rather than the second best, as is so often the case.
A proper classroom—one designed for the purpose—enhances rather than detracts from the educational experience. I want children to concentrate on the curriculum rather than on the construction of substandard buildings. Temporary classrooms, particularly old ones, tend to leak because they have flat roofs that are often insubstantial. They tend to have window frames that do not quite fit, which causes draughts and further leaks. That, in turn, sometimes causes condensation. They are horribly hot in the summer sun and horribly cold in the winter, and they are difficult to heat.
Temporary classrooms also impose artificial constraints on circulation within the school. It is part of the proper school environment that children should be able to pass from classroom to classroom, and circulate around the school, yet children who have the misfortune of being in a distant hut have to put on their overcoats and pick up their bags before they can go to the next lesson. That is a further constraint on the quality of their education. It is also difficult to ensure security in such buildings.
Another good reason why we should not be over-reliant on temporary classrooms is that they cost a packet to run. They are cheap to buy and install, which is the main reason why we have so many them, but they cost more in heating and maintenance and to repair. They are more prone to vandalism: a wooden hut is often a challenge to
840
adolescent males, who like to see how quickly they can apply their destructive capacity during their school years. As a result, resources are diverted from teaching, books and equipment into keeping those huts in working order. They are economic nonsense for education authorities and for school governing bodies.
How widespread is the problem? The Secretary of State, in his contribution to a debate on the Budget resolutions last year, estimated that there are 25,000 across the country. On a local level, there are 709 temporary classrooms in daily use in Somerset. Last year, I was chairman of education on Somerset county council. At some schools, temporary classrooms represent more than 50 per cent. of the teaching accommodation. There are 390 in primary schools: one in every five classrooms in which a primary school child in Somerset is being taught is a so-called temporary classroom. By 2000, three quarters of those classrooms will have passed their design life—their sell-by date—and will have exceeded the life for which they were designed.
Let us remind ourselves of just how old some of these temporary classrooms are. The oldest are the HORSAs, which were built during the war. They had a design life of 10 years, yet they are still here 50 years on. They are not the worst of the building stock by any means. Some wooden buildings built much later are in a much poorer state of repair.
How can we call these temporary classrooms? They are not temporary: some of them now house the grandchildren of the children for whom they were built as temporary classrooms. It is nonsense. The position is the same around the country: Somerset is not a special case. Many hon. Members have similar tales to tell. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has told me of the Westlands school in his constituency, which has no fewer than 38 temporary classrooms in its building stock. I heard a similar story from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who said that half the classrooms in St. Andrew's infants school are so-called temporary buildings.
How have we got ourselves into this mess? The primary reason is the old British story of short-termism and expediency. Such an approach predates the previous Government and the Government before that: the problem has existed for a long time. It always seemed better to spend a little now to provide a temporary classroom rather than to spend more on permanent classrooms. We have had a litany of capital controls, squeezes on local education authority finances and competing policy pressures—the Audit Commission, when I was on it, called it a policy gridlock that afflicts schools. The answers do not seem to work. The private finance initiative may eventually be able to deliver major school developments, but will it turn temporary classrooms into permanent classrooms? I suspect not. The problem may be exacerbated further by the move that the Government are rightly undertaking to reduce class sizes to under 30.
I acknowledge that the Government have recognised the problem. The Secretary of State has talked of the legacy of disrepair. The White Paper "Excellence in Schools" concentrates on that problem and on the Government's acceptance that it needs to be addressed. I simply suggest that the proposals are not yet consonant with the need—which is why my Bill is important.

841
My Bill would place clear duties on the Secretary of State not only to recognise the width of the problem but to come up with proper answers to it, in conjunction with local education authorities, so that we have a planned response in removing temporary classrooms from our schools and replacing them with permanent classrooms. I am fed up with so many schools looking like shanty towns rather than educational establishments.
My Bill should be welcomed because, if it finds favour with the House today, it can be repealed in five years' time. If it is passed, the Bill will have done its job in five years, as action to rectify the disastrous mismanagement of the educational estate will have been taken. The ones who will benefit from that action are the next generation of children, who will have proper accommodation for their one opportunity of learning.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Heath, Mr. Bob Russell, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Martin Bell, Jackie Ballard and Mr. Steve Webb.

Temporary Classrooms
  TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS
  Mr. David Heath accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the reliance on temporary classroom accommodation in local authority and grant maintained schools; to place a duty upon the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the number of temporary classrooms in current use; to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans for the replacement of such accommodation, other than that necessary for normal fluctuation in pupil numbers, with permanent school buildings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 209].
Orders of the Day
  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 9

      INTERACTION WITH SENTENCES OF DETENTION
      '.—(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows—

      (a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2),(3),(4)or (5)of section 75 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;

      (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of that subsection.

      (2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows—

      (a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the 1991 Act, at the beginning of the day on which it is made;

      (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.

      (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently—

      (a) to a detention and training order; and

      (b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,

      he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 75 to 78 above, section IC of the 1982 Act and Part II of the 1991 Act as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.
      (4) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.
      (5) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a manner in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.41 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 19, 23 to 25 and 88.
      Amendment No. 65, in clause 73, page 57, line 35, after 'child', insert
      'over the age of 12'.
      Amendment No. 66, in page 58, leave out lines 1 to 6.
      Government amendment No. 26.
      Amendment No. 67, in clause 96, page 79, line 35, leave out 'or a prison'.

      843
      Amendment No. 68, in page 79, line 36, leave out 'or (c)'.
      Amendment No. 99, in page 80, line 8, after 'apply', insert
      'or if paragraph (a)(i) above applies, but paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply.'.
      Amendment No. 69, in page 80, line 10, leave out from 'applies' to the end of line 12.
      Amendment No. 100, in page 80, line 12, at end insert—
      '( ) Where a person has been remanded to a prison under subsection (4) above, it shall be the duty of the local authority social services department in whose area the court which remanded the person is located to inform the Court if local authority secure accommodation becomes available in which the person remanded to prison could be accommodated, and, on receipt of such notification, the court shall be deemed (unless it makes an order to the contrary), to have ordered that the person remanded to prison should be transferred to that secure accommodation.'.
      Amendment No. 70, in page 80, line 30, leave out 'or prison'.
      Amendment No. 98, in page 80, line 35, after 'himself,' insert
      'or the likelihood of him being harmed by others.'.
      Amendment No. 71, in page 80, line 36, leave out 'or a prison'.
      Government amendments Nos. 29, 89, 58 to 60 and 90 to 97.
      Mr. Michael: Grouped with new clause 9 are many amendments dealing with our programme for reform of the youth justice system. I gather that the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—both of whom participated in the Committee's detailed debates on the matter—are largely content with some of the amendments that we have tabled. I shall therefore speak as briefly as possible on the Government amendments and new clause, so that we can move on to dealing with matters that require more debate.
      Some of the Government amendments are simply technical, to deal with the necessity of straightening out an anomaly that we have discovered, whereas others are simply a response to points raised in Committee. I shall give two examples.
      First, new clause 9 sets out the arrangements that courts will have to follow when sentencing someone who is already under a custodial sentence to a further period of custody under the new detention and training order. The new clause deals with situations in which, for example, a subsequent sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively with the original sentence when that subsequent sentence is passed in either the custodial phase or post-release supervision phase of the original sentence. Some of the amendments deal with technical matters, on which I shall be happy to respond if there are queries. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to delay the House by dealing with those matters now.
      Secondly, amendment No. 24 follows up the Committee's debate on whether a compensation order should be available to a court when it is making a reparation order. There was a good deal of discussion on the matter in Committee, in which Opposition Members
      844
      argued that a compensation order should be available with a reparation order. We listened to the arguments. After the debate, we decided that those arguments were correct and that courts should have the option of using both orders. Amendment No. 24 therefore sets in train that provision.
      I think that those examples give the flavour of the Government amendments and new clause.
      Opposition amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would make the detention and training order unavailable for young offenders under the age of 12. As I said when we debated the issue at some length in Committee, that would be unhelpful. Having that provision in the Bill enables the Government to introduce those orders for the under-12s if evidence of the relevant behaviour and demand justifies that in the fulness of time.
      Again, we have recognised that the matter needs to be subject to scrutiny, and a Government amendment makes any such implementation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there would be scrutiny by the House. I think that that deals with the concerns expressed in Committee, but it also means that if there is a case for such an extension, it will not require primary legislation. I hope that what I have said gives a flavour of the way in which the Government have approached the issues.
      We appreciate that some people expressed concern at the idea of extending detention and training orders to 10 and 11-year-olds, but I remind the House that, even if we did come forward with evidence of their necessity and satisfied the House through the affirmative resolution procedure, the court would still need to satisfy itself that the offending was serious enough to warrant the use of custody under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 test—that the offender is persistent and that only a custodial sentence is adequate to protect the public from further offending by him. I hope that we can set behind us the debates in Committee, as we have tried to respond to the points that were raised.
      We had an extended debate in Committee on the matters covered by amendments Nos. 67 to 71, and I think it fair to refer hon. Members to the Committee Hansard to see how they were debated at some length. However, I shall summarise the issues.
      In February 1991, the previous Government outlined their intention to stop prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old boys, but failed to provide the means to that end. Seven years after the commitment was made, the new places are still not fully available to fulfil that promise. The number of 15 and 16-year-olds remanded to prison has increased significantly in the 1990s. Indeed, the number of 15 and 16-year-old boys on remand has not fallen below 200 since January 1996; at the beginning of June, it stood at 228, but it has been as high as something over 300. It would therefore be unsafe to change the remand arrangements for those boys at this stage.
      Our policy, set out in the Bill, is to make effective use of the planned accommodation that we inherited and to give the courts the range of remand power that they believe they need. That is why we are introducing court-ordered secure remand to local authority secure accommodation on an incremental basis rather than in the way originally advocated.
      The Bill will give the courts the power to remand 12 to 14-year-olds, 15 and 16-year-old girls and "vulnerable" 15 and 16-year-old boys, if a place has been identified in

      845
      advance, direct to local authority secure accommodation. The existing arrangements for the remaining 15 and 16-year-old boys will continue for the time being, although we wish to move to a position where the practice of prison remands for such boys is no longer necessary. As someone who has campaigned on that issue before and since entering Parliament, I am keen that we should succeed in that.
      I hope that, by speaking briefly to the extensive list of Government amendments and by addressing the concerns that I believe Opposition Members wish to raise, I have helped the House to speed towards the matters that I know several hon. Members wish to take rather longer to debate.
      Mr. James Clappison: The amendments tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends relate to important issues regarding young people and custody. Before speaking to them, I should like briefly to comment on what the Minister rightly said about the Government's amendments. He specifically mentioned Government amendment No. 24. He was generous and fair enough to acknowledge that it was perhaps inspired by Opposition arguments in Committee. We are glad that the Government have seen sense on this issue because it is important.
      As the Bill stood, it would have been possible for victims of crime to receive reparation from offenders, but that reparation would not have included financial compensation. We believe with some force that many victims, particularly the less well—off, would like financial compensation more than any other form. It is sensible that victims will be able to receive reparation from offenders, which is a useful concept, and financial compensation.
      I hope that we shall have a similarly positive response from the Minister on our amendments when he has heard our full arguments—I always live in hope—because we intend to keep arguing on this important subject. Sending a child or young person to custody is a significant decision. Sadly, sometimes courts have to make such a decision, but it has to be carefully made. The subject must be dealt with on the basis of reason and evidence rather than rhetoric. I hope that that approach will not be obscured by too much rhetoric about nipping trouble in the bud. Sending children or young people into custody in inappropriate circumstances or sending them into an inappropriate form of custody is likely to store up trouble for the future rather than to nip it in the bud.
      Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 relate to very young children. The Bill establishes a sentence of detention and training for 12 to 17-year-olds and contains a power for the Secretary of State to extend it to 10 and 11-year-olds. As the Minister has just said, the Government are proposing a change to allow that by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not satisfied by what the Minister said. We need to examine why the Government are seeking such a power.
      We have been told that the Government are actively considering establishing a sentence of detention for 10 and 11-year-olds, and intend to make it possible for such a power to be introduced in the way that the Minister has described. The courts already have the power to send children of that age into custody for grave offences. Sadly, some 10 and 11-year-olds need to be sent into custody for grave offences. There is a long-established power under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 allowing children convicted of grave offences to be sent into custody.
      846
      Why do the Government want to go further and send 10 and 11-year-olds to detention alongside older offenders for less serious offences? The Government say that they will introduce such a sentence only if necessary. Where is the evidence that such a power is needed? According to a written answer that I received recently, the number of convictions of 10 and 11-year-olds carrying a custodial penalty went down between 1986 and 1996. I have seen further research in which children were asked about the offence of taking and driving cars. Only a very small proportion of the total started their criminal career at that age. The 10-year-olds did not register on the statistics and the figure for 11-year-olds was only 3 per cent. Against that background, why are the Government proposing such a power?
      In opposition, Labour greatly criticised the provision of secure training orders for 12 to 15-year-olds. The current Prime Minister, when shadow Home Secretary, said:
      "To weaken the provisions in local communities and then to claim that building the new secure training centres will help to prevent juvenile crime is a sham. We know that and I believe that the Government know that as well."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 41.]
      That is what the Prime Minister said then. We will come to the Government's record on local provision shortly, but, in the meantime, I observe that a Government who are considering sending 10 and 11-year-olds not to local provision, but to the very same institutions that were denounced as a sham have some explaining to do.
      Although the centres have been given a new name—detention and training, rather than secure training—and although they probably have been given a lick of paint, and possibly some spin as well, those are the same institutions which, for 12 to 15-year-olds, the Labour party denounced as a sham as recently as the last Parliament. We do not question the availability of the centres for 12 to 15-year-olds, but we wonder about sending 10 and 11-year-olds to them. That measure was not included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
      Our concern about sending children of such a young age to such institutions is increased by the fact that this Government, unlike the previous one, are apparently prepared to contemplate 10 and 11-year-old boys being mixed in those institutions with 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. That should give rise to concern, even among those who spoke about "colleges for crime" in the context of secure training centres in the last Parliament. If there is an element of sham about the matter, it is not on the Opposition side of the House.
      We need to know more from the Minister than we heard in his opening remarks. He referred to the criteria that would be used for sending very young children to custody. However, the criteria in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are the same criteria which must be fulfilled before any offender of any age—including an adult offender—is sent to custody.
      The second limb of the criteria to which the Minister referred—that of further offending—did not even carry with it the qualification that it would have to be offending which, for example, caused serious harm—a criterion used in previous criminal justice legislation. It merely suggests further offences of any type that would carry a sentence of imprisonment in the case of an adult. Those are relatively relaxed criteria, and we need to ask more

      847
      serious questions of the Government. We are not satisfied that they have made out a case for sending 10 and 11-year-olds to custody. We would ask for the evidence and the research that justify taking that power.
      That brings me to the subject of the remands of 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons. It has been widely accepted that the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons is undesirable, and the Minister—quite fairly—accepted that in his opening remarks. Certainly, the previous Government accepted that view, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided for the ending of that practice in due course. More local authority secure accommodation was to be provided to do that, and a programme of providing more places in secure accommodation was set in train.
      A total of 171 places were to be provided. For the benefit of the Minister, I will say that the figure was later revised to 170—so we do not need an argument about that one place. One hundred and seventy places were to be provided to bring the practice to an end. That was firmly set as an objective by the previous Government, and it was enshrined in criminal justice legislation that the practice of sending 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons was to end.
      In the last Parliament, the previous Government were criticised by the Opposition, in effect for not getting on with the job quickly enough. When he became shadow Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister chose to campaign strongly on the issue, criticising both the number of places being provided and the length of time it was taking to provide them. Labour's submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on juvenile offending, called "Getting a Grip on Youth Crime", made a particular point on that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it was an excellent document. I should like to remind him of some of what it said. It described the practice of sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons as "scandalous" and something which had to be ended at once. The Minister said that he campaigned in favour of that—I do not doubt his good faith—but the tragic aspect is that the Government are doing precious little to bring to an end what they described in opposition as a scandal.
      On Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Prime Minister —then the shadow Home Secretary—said that local authorities were "urgently requesting" more places in local authority secure accommodation. He said—he had done his research—that there was a huge demand:
      "We have made inquiries of the national bed bureau within the past few weeks. It says that there is a huge surplus of demand for secure accommodation by local authorities over supply."
      He made it clear that he regarded the provision of more local authority secure accommodation as the way in which to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons, and had every confidence about the time scale. He said:
      "Let me tell the Home Secretary the advantages of dealing with the matter in that way. First, the places could be achieved without delay. This country does not want to wait years before the problem is dealt with. It wants it dealt with now. Secondly, it allows the provision to be both local and integrated, as everybody …has asked for."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 39–40.]
      What have the current Government done to address an issue that the Prime Minister said could be dealt with "without delay"?
      4 pm
      Mr. Michael: The 170 places to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I am glad that the process of education is working—had still not been provided seven years after they were promised; indeed, they have still not been completed. Will he say what the Conservative Government did to revise the estimate that was given in February 1991?
      Mr. Clappison: I remind the Minister who is in government now and who bears the responsibility. He criticises us over the fact that not all the 170 places have been provided, but, as he will be able to confirm when he asks those who provide him with information, 160 of those places have been provided, and the balance of 10 will be provided this summer.
      The Minister mentions seven years, but if he wants to talk about the rate at which local authority secure accommodation is being provided, how does he judge the record of his Government? They have been in power for one year, but, so far, all that they have planned is the provision of an extra six places. He has said that the 160 or 170 places over seven or eight years is insufficient—he seems to be receiving further conformation of the figures—but hat rate of progress was better than the current Government's achievement of six places in one year, with no plans for further provision. As shadow Home Secretary, the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind the issue, and said that further provision had to be achieved "without delay".
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly report the figures accurately? The six places are additional to those planned by the previous Administration in their arrangements and in their spending plans.
      Mr. Clappison: The previous Government's plans were for the 170 places, which the Minister has denounced as insufficient. This Government are providing an additional six places, and I can tell the Minister exactly where they will be: four in Oxfordshire, and two in Merseyside. So much for the local provision for which the Prime Minister called—unless one lives in Oxfordshire or Merseyside, those places are not much use. The Government are providing only six places. We do not think that that is good enough, and we register our discontent.
      Our alarm is further increased by the fact that the Bill provides for the continuation of the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons, subject to a screening process that we do not think adequate. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response to the sensible amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), which would provide for an assessment of whether 15 and 16-year-olds are likely to be bullied—the Bill does not seem to provide for such an assessment—and which would allow them to be transferred, when they had been sent to prison, to local authority secure accommodation when a place became available.
      The Minister will need to say a little about those matters, and he must try to get himself out of the hole that he has dug himself into through his interventions. I do not blame him personally, because I know his real views on the subject, but, as in so many aspects of the

      849
      Government's programmes, even when Ministers have had good intentions they have been torpedoed by other forces within the Government and they are not getting the necessary resources to carry out those intentions. This is a case in point. What is so very worrying is that it is something which the Government set so much store by in opposition. If we cannot trust them on something like this, which the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind, what can we trust them on?
      A salutary lesson is there to be learned. The Bill amounts to a retreat from the position taken by the previous Government, who tried to end the practice through their legislation. This Government owe it to 15 and 16-year-olds and to the criminal justice system in general to end it and to make good the commitments that they set out in opposition.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I support amendments Nos. 67 to 71, to which I and some of my hon. Friends have added our names. In Committee, a joint liberal alliance formed on the Opposition Benches to seek an enlightened and sensible penal policy. The amendments reflect a common view about how the policy should work.
      This is the age-old battle between a sensible policy and the resources required to deliver it. We strongly believe that all sensible people would agree that 15 and 16-year-olds should not be held in adult prisons—by all sensible people I mean the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives on this occasion, the Labour party in opposition, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the chief inspector of prisons, whose thematic report on young prisoners clearly recommended that prisoners under the age of 18 should be held within a separate estate. Our view is along those lines—that the appropriate separate estate for 15 and 16-year-olds held on remand is a place in local authority secure accommodation.
      The Government, and the Minister of State in particular, would probably agree with the general principles that I have outlined, and many Labour Members would also agree that it is unacceptable in 1998 to hold 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons. However, we are left with the problem of finding the resources for a suitable local authority estate, which will have sufficient capacity to cope. We are concerned that the likelihood of doing so will recede yet further, because of the general growth in prison numbers and the requirement to find capital funding for new prisons in general as a result of the huge explosion in the prison population, which has far exceeded any predictions made by the previous or present Governments.
      If we pass the Bill unamended, we will not give the Government any incentive or legislative kick up the backside to find the resources to put into the local authority secure estate for that vulnerable and important group of people held on remand. The money will continue to be diverted into the gaping chasm that is the demand for new prison places.
      All Committee members learned that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is the world expert on local authority secure accommodation. I will certainly not tangle with him or enter into the debate about whether it is 170 or 171 places, or whether it is six new places, eight new or however many. The hon. Gentleman's research has been extensive, and I am sure that the Minister's
      850
      officials will have looked at it with as much vim and vigour. Whether we are talking about six or eight, here or there, the net effect is that there are simply not enough places. That is apparent to everyone. By passing the amendments, we would give the Government the incentive that they need to ensure that they provide the places.
      The general thrust of the Bill is to tackle youth crime and ensure that young offenders in particular are dealt with appropriately. That thrust will be diverted if we do not take this important step towards getting them out of adult prisons and into their own secure estate, where their needs and requirements can be dealt with.
      The adult estate clearly does not have the training, time or resources to deal properly with young offenders who, if their criminal activities are not resolved at that age, are likely to commit significant offences. They are part of the Government's target group.
      In case the Minister does not see the light and accept the amendments, we have some questions about the proposals for dealing with vulnerable offenders, which are the Government's way of saying that they can cope with the problem. Our view is that all 15 and 16-year-olds are potentially vulnerable, but the Government say that they can isolate a specific group of the vulnerable. We want to know how screening will work. Bullying has been mentioned already, but we should all be concerned at the number of remand prisoners who—sometimes fatally —commit acts of self-harm. Many of those individuals have passed through screening systems, and I should not like the House to have to receive reports of teenage suicides or self-harm among people who have slipped through a process designed to seek them out.
      Are the Government serious about the recommendations of the chief inspector of prisons? Is there a long-term policy commitment, when the Iron Chancellor allows it, to spend the money required to build a youth estate? Or will the Government maintain the status quo, even if resources are available? Is it a question of resources, or of a change of policy?
      Will the Minister estimate how many years it will take to achieve the removal of 15 and 16-year-olds from prisons? We hope that the Home Office has made some estimate of the number of 15 and 16-year-olds who will be affected by the proposals, and has some idea of how long it will take to deal with the problem. How will the policy of building a larger secure estate in the local authority sector deliver the goods? At what point can we expect to see the numbers come down significantly?
      We await the Minister's response. It is important to set down a marker from the Opposition Benches to show that we are extremely unhappy that 15 and 16-year-olds go into the adult prison estate in 1998. All the evidence from everyone who has considered the problem seriously shows what a significant problem that is. We all want to tackle youth crime and to help individual young people to break out of the pattern of offending into which they have unfortunately slipped.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I shall confine myself largely to my amendments, Nos. 98, 99 and 100. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) put a powerful case for an end to remanding juveniles to prisons. The Minister should seize the opportunity, if only to set a date. There are 170 or so new places, which is

      851
      quite enough for him to be able to set a date, particularly given the arguments that I remember him advancing before the election.
      A date must be set if the problem is to be resolved. One reason why so many young offenders are remanded in prison custody is that local agencies do not work together sufficiently effectively to find an alternative while a juvenile is actually in court. To set a date would not only concentrate the mind of the Government, but tell the local agencies what they should be doing—in some areas, they are already doing it, and there is no problem—so that the poor performers can be brought up to the level of the best.
      By seizing this opportunity, the Minister would do the criminal justice system a power of good. He would do what I know that he knows to be right. It is what he wants to do. He would eliminate a potent source of harm to young offenders remanded in prison, and, although it is seldom said, he would relieve hard-pressed prisons of a difficult and time-consuming responsibility that they could well do without.
      I was not totally optimistic before the debate that the Minister would find himself free to do the right thing, as I know he would wish to do. Indeed, I was pretty certain some months ago, after the Minister courteously received me with a delegation from the Juvenile Remand Review Group and he said that he did not think that he would be able to put such a measure in the Bill. I tabled my three amendments in case my pessimism, and his earlier remarks, were justified.
      Even with the restraints upon the Minister, I believe that he could find amendment No. 100 useful, although I can see that it would have to be redrafted in another place. I hope that he will accept it with that in mind, and that I have better luck with this suggestion than I had with new clause 8 yesterday evening. I understand why he is apprehensive that there will not be sufficient places in local authority secure accommodation to meet the needs of the courts and local authorities, given the new activities with which the Government are pressing forward. Amendment No. 100 accepts that, and the position from which I believe he starts.
      4.15 pm
      Amendment No. 100 simply requires that, when a young offender is remanded in prison, the local authority should continue to look for suitable secure accommodation, and that the prison should automatically transfer the young person to it if and when it is found. If, as the Minister fears, there is not room in the local authority system, the young prisoner will stay put. If there is, he will be transferred without delay, cutting through the very inertia in the youth justice system that I know rightly causes the Minister much concern.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman's amendment attend to the regrettably common situation whereby young people appear at short notice before the courts and have to be remanded because, given the paucity of resources, there is often no time to find appropriate secure accommodation?
      Sir Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that amendment No. 100 would meet that situation.
      852
      A court on, say, a Saturday morning, has no alternatives in front of it, and therefore remands to prison if a remand in secure accommodation is necessary. I spoke earlier about better co-operation between agencies locally. It is a fault of the system that courts can meet at short notice with a young offender perhaps arrested the previous Friday night but not be aware of opportunities to place the offender if it needs to remand in secure accommodation. Amendment No. 100 gives the court the knowledge that, if it remands to prison, the system will not then subside, but will be obliged to continue to search for a place.
      My amendment is at fault—I would like it to be changed—in using the word "deemed", which is unsatisfactory. I believe that a court remanding to prison should specify in its remand order a move to suitable local authority accommodation if it becomes available, and require only that it be informed if it were done. That would be clear on the court order. Indeed, it would be the court's wishes that were being carried out.
      I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the matter, because it is something which he can do within what he regards as his present constraints. It would be a real help, and would overcome the undoubted inertia in the system that frustrates him and all of us who have been involved in the system, as well as the very people who are part of it. Not merely would they prefer a date to which they can work for remands to prison for juveniles to be ended, but they would appreciate the pressure put upon them by the amendment to continue to seek secure accommodation outside prisons for those whom the courts, regrettably, have had to send there.
      There are two other brief amendments in my name. Amendment No. 98, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere referred, would insert in proposed subsection (5A) the words
      "or the likelihood of him being harmed by others."
      One important problem—probably the major problem—of remanding a young person to custody in prison or a remand centre is bullying, which can be enormously damaging. Subsection (5A) says that a young person cannot be remanded to a prison or a remand centre
      "if the court is of the opinion that, by reason of his physical or emotional immaturity or a propensity of his to harm himself, it would be undesirable".
      The Minister may believe that the reference to physical and emotional immaturity covers the prospect or likelihood of being bullied. If it does, I am surprised that the Bill must include the words
      "propensity of his to harm himself".
      A young person who was physically well grown and emotionally well balanced could be bullied, but he would have to be emotionally fairly immature and have other emotional problems if he had a propensity to harm himself.
      When closely read, subsection (5A) does not seem to cover bullying. If the Minister can assure me that it undoubtedly does, and that bullying is a reason for which the court can determine that the young person must be held in local authority secure accommodation, not in a prison or a remand centre, I will rest easy. However, if there is any doubt, he could use the simple remedy of inserting into the Bill the words in amendment No. 98.
      There is a third amendment in my name, No. 99, which I am not particularly keen to press on the Minister, although I should like him to explain the meaning of a

      853
      rather complicated part of the Bill. The amendment would insert in line 7, page 80, after "apply" the words
      "or if paragraph (a)(i) above applies, but paragraph (a)(ii) does not apply."
      The Minister has probably already considered the amendment, and I shall not explain it in detail, because that would take a long time and I would probably muddle my meaning in the process. It is designed to make explicit the flexibility in the choices that the courts have.
      I am unsure whether that flexibility is already assumed to be there. If it is, I am not sure that the words allow it. If the Minister has deliberately avoided including such flexibility, I will rest easy. I interpret the Bill as stating that if a young offender falls under subsection (5A), he will go to local authority secure accommodation or he will not be held securely at all, because neither a prison nor a remand centre will be open to him.
      Will the Minister explain exactly what the Bill means, and whether it is intended to include that flexibility, which my amendment would make clear? However, if he says that he does not want any remanded young person who falls under subsection (5A) to go to either a prison or a remand centre, I will be content, as I am sure will my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: The remand of 15 to 16-year-olds to adult prisons is a scandal, and a stain on our national character. Both sides of the House should unite in trying to deal with it.
      The numbers involved are small. I believe that the latest Home Office figures are that,
      "in January, 75 15-year-olds and 173 16-year-old boys"
      were held
      "in adult prisons, making a total of 248."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 670.]
      Surely that is not too high a figure for the Government to deal with.
      I remind the Government that, in opposition, the Labour party said:
      "When juveniles do need to be detained, the secure accommodation system has advantages over any new order proposed by the Government. It offers flexibility since it can be used for a variety of offenders, both sentenced and on remand. It is designed as a local provision, and when adequately resourced will not result in young people being removed to institutions miles from their home."
      I should have thought that it would be possible for the Government, if they are prepared to provide adequate resources, to move very quickly indeed to remove all 15 and 16-year-olds from adult prisons.
      I remind the Minister that he said of the Bill:
      "It breaks the logjam that has been in existence for"
      some time. He said:
      "some of us drew attention to the scandalous remand of 15 and I6-year-old youngsters into adult prison accommodation. I repeat that that is a long-standing scandal."
      Those are not my words, but those of the Minister of State. He continued:
      "Another scandal was the remand of young offenders to inappropriate and insecure local authority accommodation, where they disrupted the lives of vulnerable youngsters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 665.]
      854
      The Minister has waxed eloquent in his denunciation of the former Conservative Minister of State, Lord Patten, for his apparent inactivity on this matter, but Lord Patten did give the initial undertaking to end the scandalous remand of youngsters to adult prisons.
      The Minister must live according to his own words. When in opposition, he made it his personal crusade to end this scandal. He now has the power to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds into adult prisons, and he must deliver on that pledge; otherwise, he will be found wanting by the House, and he will have reneged on an absolutely specific pledge that he made in opposition.
      As I said, the numbers involved are relatively small, although there is some debate about the figure of 170. Will the Minister say exactly how many places are needed? In Committee, he told me that the figures varied. He said:
      "On some occasions about 250 or 260 places were required. On some occasions as many as 300 youngsters were held in prison accommodation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 666.]
      Bearing in mind the figures we have about the number of youngsters currently in prison, and the figure of 300 that the Minister gave me in Committee, it is clear that we are talking about relatively low numbers. As we heard, the Conservatives provided 170 places; the Government have provided an additional six.
      Given that the Minister made such a virtue of his support for the provision of extra places when in opposition, is he proud of his record of providing just six extra places? If he tells the House that that extra provision is meeting the problem, I shall be satisfied with that, but he cannot possibly maintain that six extra places are adequate when, according to his own figures, at present,
      "75 15-year-olds and 173 16-year-old boys are held in adult prisons, making a total of 248." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 670.]
      We want some pretty clear details now of what the Government intend to do to fulfil the pledge they made in opposition. We want to know the cost of the extra places, where they are planning to provide them, and the length of time for which they will be provided. As the Minister said when in opposition, it is much better that youngsters are held near their homes.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, unfortunately some 15 and 16-year-olds have to be locked up. In Committee, he quoted some facts and figures, which are worth repeating:
      "One in four defendants granted bail by the courts committed crimes while free… For juveniles, the proportion was one in three, according to the latest Home Office research." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 June 1998; c. 663.]
      Therefore, sadly, the public do need to be protected from these youngsters. No one likes locking them up, but the public must be protected. Equally, it is scandalous that, despite the need to protect the public, these young people—who, although they have committed crimes, are vulnerable—are being put in the same institutions as much older men, and they are presumably thereby being led astray.
      Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the solution to the problem of juveniles repeatedly offending while out on bail is not to lock them up but to process the cases through the courts

      855
      more quickly in order to get those young people into whatever plan or punishment it is hoped will solve the real problem? The Bill has the correct aim of speeding up the process rather than simply locking up children.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Leigh: I agree entirely. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts knows that the worst way to deal with youngsters is to delay sentencing and the expeditious tidying up of cases. It is ridiculous that some cases involving young people can drag on again and again, with several remands. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts will know that lawyers are as guilty as anyone when it comes to remanding cases continually.
      Of course I pay tribute—if that is what the hon. Lady seeks—to current and previous Ministers for their efforts in trying to speed up the criminal justice system. We have been trying to do that in this country for the past 50 years. However, every Government who have tried it have made matters worse. We live in hope that, despite the Bill's high-sounding words, this Government will achieve something.
      In answer to the hon. Lady's point, the Minister told us that the House of Lords decision in R v. Khan is relevant. He talked about nipping matters in the bud, and seemed to imply that it would be possible for the Government to reduce the number of places needed by ensuring that there was a quicker justice system, and that—I do not know how—fewer youngsters will come before the courts.
      It all seems rather vague. I wish the Government well, but we have heard it all before. The practicalities are quite clear: in the recent past—presumably it will be the same in the future—we have needed to lock up about 300 15 and 16-year-olds in this country in order to protect the public. When in opposition, Labour gave a clear commitment to ending the scandalous detention of those 300 young people in adult prisons. The Minister must now stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver on that promise.
      Mr. Michael: I find this debate slightly amusing. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), said that he did not want to hear any more about nipping offending in the bud. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), released from the vow of silence under which he had laboured while on the Government Back Benches before the last general election, came out with a load of total garbage about the efforts that have been made to reduce delay in the youth justice system. He seems to think that there has been a consistent effort over the past 50 years to reduce delay in that system, but that is untrue.
      The hon. Gentleman does not seem to remember that, when the Conservatives were in government, he marched through the Lobby time after time to vote against practical proposals advanced by the then Opposition, particularly against the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. That is true of youth justice more than any other aspect of justice. The hon. Gentleman is condemned by his own voting record, and he has the arrant cheek to come to the House today and attempt to make a mild criticism of present Ministers.
      I assure the shadow spokesman that he will hear a lot about nipping offending in the bud and about speeding up youth justice and preventing some of the evils that the
      856
      youth justice system has encouraged in recent years. The hon. Gentleman referred to amendments Nos. 65 and 66, but I answered the point about the need for the age of 10 to be the minimum cut-off in law. I made it clear that we do not intend to implement the use of the detention and training order for 11 and 12-year-olds unless young people exhibit behaviour that is damaging to the security and safety of the community. The House will have an opportunity to decide that matter through the affirmative resolution procedure.
      The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken reminded the House of our criticism when in opposition of the way in which the previous Government dealt with secure training places and the secure training order. We were right to criticise, because it was not a targeted use of scarce resources. We are having to sort out the shambles that we inherited, and the Bill contains the means to do that.
      I have to tell those hon. Gentlemen who feel free to comment now that they are in opposition that there is some time to go before they can expect not to be reminded of the failings of the previous Government. Just before the general election, after 18 years in office, the Conservative Government excused all sorts of faults and misdemeanours by saying that the previous Labour Government had done this or not done that. After a mere 14 months in office and constrained by the financial arrangements inherited from the previous Government, we have some justification for laying the blame, fairly and squarely, on the shoulders of the previous Home Secretary and his predecessors.
      On some issues, especially those relating to persistent young offenders who do tremendous damage to the community, I am worried about some of the approaches advocated by Opposition Members. If we were not being so polite and gentle today, I might accuse the hon. Member for Hertsmere of turning into an old softie as a result of the time spent in the Standing Committee on the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: Would it make the Minister's life easier if I apologised for the lack of action on the part of the previous Government in dealing with 15 and 16-year-olds? Can we dispose of that matter now? I apologise; we did not do enough. Now that we have resolved that, will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do?
      Mr. Michael: That makes life easier for me, even though it might make it slightly more difficult for the hon. Member for Hertsmere. However, it does not change the situation we inherited. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had issued his apology formally, and not started this debate.
      In February 1991, the promise—which I remember clearly, because it was given to me as a Standing Committee member by the then Minister—was to do away with the remand into adult prison accommodation of young offenders aged 15 and 16. I have never blamed Lord Patten, who came forward genuinely with what he believed was a necessary reform, but the fact is that the Government as a whole failed to provide the places necessary to turn that undertaking into a reality. For seven years after the making of that promise, which I and other hon. Members welcomed, the reality failed to keep up with the rhetoric.

      857
      I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough will give us credit for having acted immediately on entering government to reform the whole youth justice system, including the system of court orders and the secure estate. I have to tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we do not need a legislative kick up the backside; we have given the system such a kick with the changes that are contained in the Bill unamended. I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman: in Committee, he took care in preparing of his arguments, but now he tells us not to confuse him with facts, and prefers to depend on the research of the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
      We are getting on with the job in a variety of ways. We are confronting young offenders with the effects of their behaviour; making them face up to the way in which it damages other people, including their victims; nipping offending in the bud—yes, I shall repeat that for the hon. Member for Hertsmere; diverting youngsters from criminal activity; intervening early; and making sure that mechanisms are in place to deal with young offenders if they continue to offend and to damage the wider community. We have also acted to improve regimes within the prison estate, and to tackle several other issues.
      Hon. Members will be aware of the work of the Children's Society; I went to Feltham to see some of that work to move young people who had been remanded in custody out into non-custodial remands. That is an excellent approach, which not only helps individual youngsters, but influences the way in which local authorities and other bodies undertake disposal of young offenders who are awaiting a court hearing.
      Also in the Bill is a matter that has not been debated, I presume because hon. Members approve of it—the requirement of bail support schemes, so that we reduce offending while on bail by youngsters who currently have to wait far too long to be dealt with by the courts.
      The effect of that should be, first, to reduce the amount of reoffending, and therefore the number of victims created by youngsters whose pattern of offending behaviour continues after they have been brought before the court and remanded. Secondly, it will reduce the likelihood that, because of reoffending, they will have to be remanded into a custodial placement. It is necessary to look at the entire system to understand the way in which the Government are approaching both supply, in terms of the young offenders who require secure placement, and demand, in terms of the courts as well as the availability of places.
      The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is a serious advocate of progress in youth justice matters. He used his best endeavours as a Minister to deal humanely with the system for which he had responsibility. I acknowledge that in opposition he is using his time to examine ways of practically affecting and improving situations. I give credit for that, and it would be a great pleasure for me if I were able to accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. However, I cannot do so, and I need to explain why.
      Amendment No. 99 relates only to subsection (4)(b) of clause 96. The effect of the amendment would be that a court could decide to remand to a remand centre if only the first limb of subsection (4) is met; that is, that the juvenile meets the definition of "vulnerability" under new subsection (5A). Currently, it seems that the court will be required to consult the local authority or the probation
      858
      service of the youth offending team before it can remand a 15 or 16-year-old to custody at all. The local authority would be able to advise the court at this stage whether the boy is vulnerable because he is immature or likely to harm himself. That is the screening that is required.
      Currently there are no remand centres designated for the purpose of receiving such persons on remand. In practice, therefore, if the court is unable to remand under subsection (4)(a), the remand shall be to prison under subsection (4)(c). The amendment does not affect the ability of the court to remand a 15 or 16-year-old boy to prison. It has no practical effect, and is therefore unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 100 introduces a new subsection which imposes a duty on a local authority social services department, in the case of a juvenile remanded to prison, to inform the court if local authority secure accommodation subsequently becomes available. On the receipt of such a notification, the court will order that the person be transferred from prison to local authority secure accommodation.
      I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He raised a similar point when I met him and others in December last year to discuss these issues. He knows that I believe that the amendment is not a necessary provision.
      Sections 128 and 128A of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 allow a court to remand a juvenile in custody in the first instance for a period of up to eight days. That seems a reasonable time scale. The social worker, and later the youth offending team, when such teams are brought in under the Bill's provisions—that is not catered for in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment—will need to identify a suitable local authority secure place. Once that has been done, an immediate application can be made to the court. That which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do is not prevented by existing legislation when viewed in the context of the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      Second and subsequent remands can be for a period of up to 28 days, but a Home Office circular issued last year informed practitioners of changes made to the Magistrates Courts Act by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It reminded them of their obligation to ensure that they take proper account of the welfare of the juvenile. This involves, in particular, the need to keep cases involving juveniles remanded in custody under constant review. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking, and he is right to encourage that approach. I share his view.
      The circular also made it clear that the changes did not affect the general right of defendants to make bail applications before the end of the remand period, or the fact that courts were free to set shorter remand periods if, in the circumstances of the case, they judged that desirable. I am happy to reinforce that message. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am happy to work with him and others to try to ensure that we get the best possible disposal consistent with the protection of the public.
      Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while Home Office circulars are important documents, it would surely be more effective to have what I think is generally

      859
      accepted as a worthy aim enshrined in law? Would my hon. Friend also accept that continuing to remand 15 and 16-year-olds in custody is in contravention of the Utting report, and will give the Government considerable difficulties when faced with making a report on the implementation of the United Nations convention on children's rights? It is generally accepted as wrong. Should we not be trying to make every possible endeavour to ease the situation, to deal with it and to improve it?
      Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a number of points, and has asked a series of questions, most of which I have already answered. They are generally answered by the Bill. Ideally, 15 and 16-year-olds should not be remanded in prison accommodation. The fact that they are reflects the lack of other secure accommodation to take them on remand. I campaigned before and after entering Parliament for that system of remanding 15 and 16-year-olds to be ended. However, the Criminal Justice Act 1991, by providing for that to end, did not provide for the means of so doing. It allowed only an all-or-nothing end to the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds.
      In the Bill, we allow for the progressive ending of such remands. First, we take out vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys. Similarly, we take out girls. We then proceed to 15-year-olds. Progressively, we move to the objective which I wanted to see for eight years, and which my hon. Friend commends to the House. That is the objective, but asking for it is not the same as meeting it. As the previous Government proved, requiring it and putting it in law is not the same as meeting the objective.
      I make the same point with the Home Office circular. Working with prison authorities and voluntary organisations, encouraging the work of voluntary organisations to reduce the non-custodial remand of youngsters and encouraging bail support are the way to implement the circular practically. Putting something on the face of the Bill does not necessarily do anything. I think that my hon. Friend would accept that doing it is more important than talking about it.
      Mr. Allan: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hesitate to provoke him further in debates that we are trying to keep concise. I was interested to hear him say that he sees the Bill as part of a progression towards getting rid of 15 and 16-year-olds in prison. Can the hon. Gentleman say that the Government are committed to building the 300-odd places to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred?
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman misses my point, which is that it is necessary to examine the requirements and to ascertain why they exist. The right hon. Member for Fareham has made the point about the way in which youngsters can be remanded in non-custodial ways that address the evil of reoffending while on bail. I have referred to the prison work being done by the Children's Society to try to demonstrate ways in which that can work, which is proving quite successful. There are some custodial disposals that we should be able to avoid without increasing the amount of reoffending. There is more than one way of dealing with some of the problems.
      The progressive ending of the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in prison is one of the Government's objectives. That is one reason why, right at the beginning,
      860
      we stated our intention of reviewing the secure estate. On the advice of the youth justice task force, and looking forward to the establishment of the Youth Justice Board, we are examining the best use of that estate in a more flexible way. That is allowed for in the Bill.
      I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that we have before us proposed legislation that should not be seen in isolation, but which fits into a pattern of positive activity both to reduce offending by young people, which is the aim of the youth justice system as a whole, and to ensure that custodial and non-custodial disposals are used for that purpose. I am trying to be brief, because hon. Members want to move quickly on to other debates, but I must give way if the right hon. Member for Fareham wants me to do so.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: The Minister is seeking to answer my points, but I do not quite follow his answers. I think that he said that there is a duty on local authorities to continue to seek appropriate local authority accommodation for young offenders in their areas who had been remanded to prison, but I am not certain.
      The Minister also said, "The process is almost as I would like. They have to go back to the court when they have found a place." Does the juvenile himself have to go to court, and does the court have to sit? My amendment would avoid such pressure on the courts; indeed, it would free them up, and enable the system to work more speedily. I would be unhappy if the paraphernalia of the court had to be called into action, even though the result would be the same.
      Setting a date is hugely important. I wish that the previous Government had set a date for ending juvenile remands to prison in the same way that they set a date for the ending of slopping out. They set that date even though everyone who knew anything about it said, "You can't be certain when it will be ready, there are all sorts of expenditures, you won't know how many prisoners there will be, and you will have to release cells so that they can be converted." It was only because a date was set that it happened.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going on far too long for an intervention.
      Mr. Michael: I may have to speak for another hour and a half to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall content myself with promising to write to him, but we take no lessons from members of the previous Government on those issues. He wants dates to be set, but we consulted on legislation last autumn, within a couple of months of coming into government; set in train the establishment of the Youth Justice Board, which will oversee the secure estate and the way in which orders are used; and are bringing coherence to the way in which young offenders are dealt with in every part of the youth justice system. We are setting ourselves clear targets, and meeting them.
      The right hon. Member for Fareham should reflect on the experience of the previous Government and his period in office before suggesting that we simply set dates by pulling them out of thin air. We are establishing a board which will have responsibility for oversight of the coherence of the secure estate, the way in which youth offending teams operate, and making sure that we achieve the aim of the youth justice system set out in the Bill—reducing offending.

      861
      I have tried to be brief, but that has been difficult because I have been provoked by Conservative Members, who occasionally made partisan points and moved on without receiving a response. I hope that I have responded adequately to the debate, and that the Government amendments will be supported, because they will improve the Bill. I also hope that the Opposition amendments will be resisted, because, although some are well intentioned, they would not improve the law.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      FOOTBALL SPECTATORS: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REPORTING DUTY
      '.—(1) In section 16(5) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (penalties for failure to comply with reporting duty imposed by restriction order)—

      (a) for the words "one month" there shall be substituted the words "six months"; and

      (b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 5".

      (2) In section 24(2) (arrestable offences) of the 1984 Act, after paragraph (p) there shall be inserted—
      "(q) an offence under section 16(4) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (failure to comply with reporting duty imposed by restriction order).".'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 2

      DRUG TREATMENT SENTENCE
      '(1) This section applies where a person aged 15 or over is convicted of an offence which carries a custodial sentence.
      (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the court by or before which the offender is convicted may sentence the offender to a period of custody in a prison or other institution ("a drug treatment sentence").
      (3) A court shall not pass a drug treatment sentence unless it is satisfied that—

      (a) the offender is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs, and

      (b) that his dependence or propensity is such as requires and may be susceptible to treatment.

      (4) A drug treatment sentence shall include a requirement ("the treatment requirement") that the offender shall submit, during the whole of the drug treatment sentence, to treatment by or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience ("the treatment provider") with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's dependency on or propensity to misuse drugs.
      (5) A drug treatment sentence shall only be passed where the offender signifies his consent to such a sentence.
      (6) If the offender fails to signify consent or during the period of the drug treatment sentence expressly or impliedly withdraws his consent, then

      (a) if the drug treatment sentence has been passed the Court shall revoke it;

      (b) the court shall sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment or detention of not less than three times the length of the drug treatment sentence intended or passed.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 47 to 50, 21, 22, 51, 106 and 53 to 57.
      Mr. Malins: I begin, as always, by declaring an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.
      I shall focus on a problem that was not known to our grandparents or to our parents, but is known to us and will certainly be known even more to our children. Thousands of people die needlessly and in pain every year because of it, and thousands more suffer. The problems of mad cow disease and acquired immune deficiency syndrome may have a higher public profile, but, in the long term, they are insignificant compared with the problem that hon. Members face in the debate. It is the most critical problem in our criminal justice system— addiction to, deaths resulting from and crime connected with hard drugs.
      Hon. Members should come with me to one of the courts in which I sit, and I would show them a typical defendant. There he would stand in the dock, charged with burglary. He would probably be about 25, and would have a difficult, troubled background. When he was about 14, he would have begun to experiment with so-called social drugs. He would then have moved on a little and begun to mix with the wrong sort of people. By 16, he would have begun to use heroin, and would also have begun the steep descent to disaster.
      By 18, he would be addicted and his problems would have started, because he would need money to feed his habit. He would have turned to crime, and would have had to have burgled between £500 and £700 worth of goods a week, not because he wanted them, but because he needed to sell them to raise the money to feed his heroin habit.
      There he would stand in the dock—a person perhaps from a family unconnected with crime, but taken into crime by drugs. In some ways, he is a wicked and evil figure, but, in others, he is pathetic. In many ways, his plight, despite the misery that he has caused, is not his own fault. If they came to court with me, hon. Members could listen to the probation officer standing next to him, who would vainly say to the court, "How can you help?" They could listen to his barrister, who would say, "My Lord, don't send him to prison, because if there are drugs outside there are more inside." It is a vicious circle.
      Let me put flesh on the bones of my remarks. Fact: more than 50 per cent. of property crime is linked to hard drugs. At least 25 per cent. of prisoners had taken hard drugs in the month before going to prison, and 20 per cent. of those arrested in London are on hard drugs. This is a cruel and wicked problem, and we must grapple with it and decide on it. Our young man may go to prison. He would cost us £25,000 a year at least, and he would cost the country a lot more in misery. This country should be ashamed that it is top of the league in Europe for young people dabbling in drugs.
      I have set the background, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to recognise that the problem of hard drugs and crime, and the link between the two, is the greatest single issue facing the criminal justice system. If it is not resolved, absolute disaster lies ahead.

      863
      5 pm
      Clause 61 provides for drug treatment and testing orders. I read it with interest. The Labour party has honourable men and women whose intentions are good. Throughout the House of Commons, there is a feeling of unity about the need to tackle the drugs problem, although it may be a question of differing degrees of how to go about it. The clause on drug treatment and testing orders effectively requires a defendant whom the court believes is addicted to drugs to submit to treatment and testing. The key point is that that person would have to attend either as an out-patient at some form of institution—probably a probation hostel or hospital—or would be asked to be resident within such an institution for the purposes of treatment. That requirement does not go far enough.
      Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is expressing the view of a lawyer? Some Labour Members will take no lectures from the Opposition because we represent areas that have been torn apart by hard drugs. We need no lectures from lawyers about the consequences for the whole community.
      Mr. Malins: I apologise to the hon. Lady for being a lawyer, but I do not seek to lecture her; nor do I think that my judicial experience makes me unqualified to comment. In the same way, I do not deny her ability to comment. She should not misunderstand me, because we are on the same side.
      Ms Keeble: We are not.
      Mr. Malins: In that case, the hon. Lady differs from her own Front Bench, who have had many constructive discussions with me about the approach to the drugs problem.
      I was saying that clause 61 does not go far enough because it imagines a defendant being resident in the community and attending an institution for treatment. One should go to court and look at defendants. A defendant who burgles and robs late at night to feed his serious addiction cannot be allowed liberty. If such a person is put out into society under a condition to attend for treatment, he poses too much of a danger and is unlikely, in the real world, to turn up for treatment. That is a critical failure of the clause.
      Thus, my charge against the Government is not that they do not care—they do. It is not that they lack good intentions—they do not. It is that their proposal is not tough enough.
      My new clause differs from that of the Government in that it recognises the gravity of the problem and says that
      "where a person aged 15 or over is convicted of an offence which carries a custodial sentence"
      and if the court is of the opinion that the person
      "is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs,… and may be susceptible to treatment"
      that court may sentence the defendant
      "to a period of custody in a prison or other institution".
      There is a degree of compulsion and containment, that in that prison or institution the person should accept the treatment offered. If he or she fails to accept the treatment —fails initially to accept the order—draconian penalties will follow: an ordinary sentence of
      864
      imprisonment of at least three times the length of the drug treatment sentence that would have been passed. It is a way of saying to a defendant, "You will go into custody where you will be treated and if you do not co-operate, the consequences will be severe." I believe that the country would want that.
      Let us all work towards a future in which prisons are drug free. I said at the beginning that the barrister in court begs the judge not to send the defendant to prison because drugs are so freely available there. Successive Governments have failed to get a real grip of that problem. Drugs in prison must be stamped out.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I agree with much of what he says, but clause 62(2)(a) requires that drug treatment and testing be carried out
      "in such institution or place as may be specified in the order".
      Subsection (2)(b) provides that a defendant may be non-resident, which allows for the prospect of electronic tagging or other mechanisms. I therefore do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint.
      Mr. Malins: Let me explain the difference between us. I believe that the toughest approach is needed in terms of drug treatment and testing procedures, and that during those procedures, the defendant should be in custody at a prison or other institution of a prison nature, rather than resident in an appropriate hospital that is not secure, a probation hostel or a similar institution.
      My new clause seeks to introduce a little compulsion into the relevant treatment.
      Sir Robert Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with those who work in drug treatment about how effectively they could treat someone who might have made a choice based on the threat of a sentence that is three times the length of the drug treatment, rather than on a genuine commitment to take on the treatment?
      Mr. Malins: Yes, I have had discussions with those who run such services. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In certain sections of the public sector that are involved in that work, my new clause has not received universal approval. Some recognise the difficulties of what I suggest, and others support it.
      As regards those who support my argument, it was not long ago that the Home Affairs Select Committee had before us a number of experts to discuss the problem of drugs and how addicts should be treated. On a date in March, we had before us a representative of the metropolitan stipendiary bench, a leading clerk to the justices and a leading lay justice. I asked the metropolitan stipendiary magistrate:
      "Do you think that we are moving to a stage where… some form of compulsory detoxification for drug abuse is necessary?"
      He replied:
      "Yes, I think we are. The word that I should use is 'coercion' rather than 'compulsion', but it is a fine line. There are reasons for saying that some form of coercion is necessary. The old theory that you cannot succeed in removing the drug problem unless the individual is willing to co-operate is a valid one but it only goes part of the way. I believe that an element of coercion that is applied to those who either dither or are willing to consider coming off

      865
      drugs can be applied by the courts. Quite how it can be done I am not clear, particularly in view of the cut-back in drug dependency units and funding."
      On the point which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) and others made about treatment in the community as opposed to in custody, a little later during the same Home Affairs Select Committee meeting, one of the most senior lay justices in this country said:
      "At the moment, one of the problems about the places that are being used for drug-addicted parents who come before the family court is the number of treatments that are begun and then dropped. They hardly get over the first hurdle before they drop out. The amount of money wasted is immense. Very often a place has been found and an interim order is made to see whether it works. The person stays two weeks and then walks out or is asked to leave because it is obvious that he or she is still using illicit drugs. I have no idea to what degree the facilities and the money that is spent on them is wasted, but I imagine that it is substantial."
      That is one of my worries about the Bill.
      I am also concerned about treatment of hardened criminals in the community. The lady lay justice said that she sits in a court about 15 miles from the centre of London. She said:
      "We have one of the drugs treatment centres in our area… People go there daily for an administered dose of methadone. Some research shows that those people are helped to some extent. The downside is that they attract into the town an enormous number of drug-pushers and a very large amount of drug-related crime. There are those who take the methadone but want to go out and buy illicit drugs, or steal to buy them. It is a big problem. These drug-testing sentences will not be the answer to a maiden's prayer."
      It is most unlike me—the Minister once kindly accused me of being a liberal thinker —to suggest such a harsh regime, but the House should consider a measure that would place people in custody where they would be treated almost against their will, and if they did not co-operate their position would be made worse. As the Minister knows only too well, in the United States some people, who are virtually in confinement, are administered drugs to help them get off heroin. An experiment has been carried out with the drug naltrexone. Huge numbers of people have been given that drug compulsorily and have been liberated from their heroin addiction. To liberate people from heroin is one of our great tasks in the months ahead.
      We owe society a great deal. We owe that young man a great deal: we owe him the chance to get off drugs. I know the young man who says, "I want to be cured. I am going to try to go to the centre for treatment. I'll do my best, but it's not easy." I have seen him dozens of time in court. He will probably fail. Young men like him fail because there is no big stick to ensure that they go for treatment. It is sometimes necessary to help people who cannot help themselves.
      I tabled the new clause for two reasons. First, we need to have a debate that focuses on this most serious problem in our criminal justice system. It is a good thing to have such a debate. Secondly, I believe that in the months and years ahead we must have a continuing cross-party discussion—there is no residue of wisdom in my party, any more than there is in any other party—to try to win the war against drugs. If we treat the problem as anything less than a war we are letting down not only our people now, but those who are yet to come.
      Mr. Michael: The Government amendments in this group enhance the provisions of the new drug treatment
      866
      and testing order by dealing with some practical issues. I should be happy to go into more detail, but I shall again show restraint and simply commend them to the House. I shall respond to hon. Members who want to raise any queries about the amendments, but I think that they will be agreed to without dissent.
      The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is almost always entertaining and thought-provoking, but today he was slightly confused. He began by saying that the House was united on this issue, and then he attacked and indicted the Government. He said that we were not being tough enough. He is right to say that I expressed some surprise: I heard him in Committee seeking to limit the Government's ability to protect the public and to tackle the problems of anti-social behaviour that damage our communities. The hon. Gentleman is unable to make up his mind whether he is an old softie or wants to be tough on people who cause so much crime.
      5.15 pm
      The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the point gently put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). He invited us to go to his court. We should invite him to come to the town and city neighbourhoods and to the housing estates that have been devastated by drug-related crime. We need no persuasion about the social damage caused, which is why we have given such priority to the problem of drugs and drug-related crime, and why we have proposed the treatment and testing order.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the failure of treatment in many circumstances. It is because of that failure that we have introduced the drug treatment and testing order. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman's proposition is not practical, although I understand the motivation behind it. His new clause would introduce a totally new concept in sentencing. It would add an additional requirement to a term of imprisonment, and if that requirement were not complied with, it would lengthen the term of imprisonment.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's intentions. He attempts to replicate in the prison setting our plans for a drug treatment and testing order in the community. Unfortunately, that will not work. The drug treatment and testing order will rely for much of its effectiveness on the likelihood that the offender will be sent to prison if he fails to comply with the drug treatment requirement. We seek the offender's agreement, but the testing is compulsory and he knows that the courts will take a dim view if he fails to comply with the requirement.
      If the offender is already in prison that incentive does not apply. The new clause attempts to solve the problem by threatening to make the length of the sentence at least three times as long if he does not comply with the treatment requirement. Unfortunately, that approach will lead to staggering injustice. Suppose someone is sentenced to seven years for a drug trafficking offence and he does not give or withdraws consent to treatment. Under the new clause, the court must resentence him to 21 years in prison. That means an extra 14 years imprisonment for failing to take a course of treatment. Does anyone seriously consider that that would be a proportionate response?
      I firmly believe that the way forward lies with drug treatment and testing orders. The Prison Service has produced an imaginative and new strategy to respond to

      867
      the needs of those drug misusing offenders whose crimes are so serious that a custodial sentence must be passed. Treatment is available in the prison setting. Offenders have many incentives to benefit from it, including the chance of becoming drug free and the prospect of family life and employment after release.
      Much still needs to be done to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons. The Prisons Minister is pursuing this matter with vigour. Prison staff take drug misuse in the prison setting very seriously. Almost 13,000 prisoners were referred by staff to be drug tested last year because they were suspected of misusing drugs.
      The problem with the new clause is that it is unjust, unworkable and unnecessary. I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but it would be wrong of me to ask the House to accept it. I ask hon. Members to support our proposals as a real and practical way to make progress. This is only one of the many practical measures that the Government want to take to tackle the scourge of drug misuse and drug-related crime.
      Mr. Malins: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and do not intend to press my new clause to a Division. I know that the Minister will have taken on board everything that has been said in this debate. I am also sure that he and I will have many dialogues on the matter in future.
      On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 1, line 12, leave out '10' and insert '16'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government amendment No. 13.
      Amendment No. 147, in clause 19, page 15, line 43, at end insert—
      'Such an order shall specifically state the geographical extent and duration of, and the occupations or activities covered by, the order.'.
      Mr. Beith: Our amendment would increase from 10 to 16 the age at which someone could be subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The amendment follows lengthy debates in Committee on the merits and potential pitfalls of such orders. We do not oppose the orders in principle, as they could prove to be a useful tool in preventing some types of behaviour, but we have a number of widely shared concerns about them.
      One concern about the orders is that the Bill's definition of "anti-social behaviour" is very broad and vague and could potentially draw in those who are merely eccentric or extraordinary, or draw in people for trivial or unintentional acts. Although Ministers have said that catching such people is not the intention of the provision, it is difficult to be sure that that intention will be realised when it has been so broadly stated in the Bill.
      868
      In making the orders, the standard of evidence applied will be the much weaker civil one, yet an order may lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions—thereby reinforcing our first concern. Moreover, the sanctions themselves are high—up to five years' imprisonment.
      The real paradox that emerged in Committee—leading us to table the amendment on Report—is that, in Scotland, the Government accept that it is not appropriate for children under 16 to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders. Indeed, the Government went so far as to resist amendments tabled in Committee by Conservative spokesmen that would have made anti-social behaviour orders in Scotland apply to young children. I should say that, observing the matter from Berwick-upon-Tweed—looking up one end of the road and down the other—I found that paradox and emerging difference quite extraordinary.
      The argument against extending the scope of the orders in Scotland was that Scotland already has in place for young people the children's panel system, which provided a more appropriate mechanism. Fine; we agree with that. We like the children's panel system and think that the Government, in their review of youth justice, should be building on the example of that system and incorporating some of its good features into the youth justice system in England and Wales.
      We should be drawing on the best practice of the Scottish system, which has now had many years of proven experience and quite notable success in dealing with matters in a better way than our system—a system which has essentially grown out of the adult justice system, rather than being thought out from scratch as the Scottish system has been. The Scottish system was a radical one when it was introduced and has had time to prove itself. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office is in the Chamber, and I am sure that he agrees with me about the merits of that system.
      Meanwhile, in the parts of the Bill applying to England, is there a real problem if the Government do not provide for children potentially to be subject to anti-social behaviour orders? Suppose that Ministers accepted my argument and said, "When we have reformed youth justice, we will not need those orders for children at all." Will there be a problem if we do not have such orders until we have reached that stage? I submit that there will not be a problem. Young children can be dealt with in other, usually much more appropriate, ways, some of which—child safety orders and the work of young offender teams—are in the Bill. Various mechanisms are available to deal with young children.
      Ministers themselves must realise that, in most cases that one could imagine, it is inappropriate for the mechanism of anti-social behaviour orders to be used for 10, 11 or 12-year-old children. I should like some assurance from the Minister that it is not intended that the orders should be used extensively for young children. If he thinks that they will be so used, will he give the House some examples of the circumstances in which he expects them to be used where alternative measures are not available?
      Will the Minister reflect on and compare the Scottish arrangements with anti-social behaviour orders? Although I see merit in the argument that, in many cases, the children's panel system provides a better mechanism for dealing with youngsters than taking youngsters before the

      869
      court, I still think that the mechanisms by which we initially deal with young offenders in Scotland and in England will not be that different. Similar powers will be used in both Scotland and England immediately to address concern about an offender's behaviour, although the body—the diet, in Scottish terms—to which that offender will be taken will be different in Scotland and in England.
      If what the Minister says tonight is consistent with his comments in Committee, he will say that the Government do not intend that the orders should be used widely for young children. I should like that to be made clear. I think that, from now, on grounds of principle, it would really be much better if we followed a consistent practice in the matter between Scotland and England, as the Government's argument on Scotland—with the one exception of the children's panel procedure—holds good for England, too.
      Mr. Michael: I should like first to commend amendment No. 13 to the House. It is a small technical amendment, which we have tabled to meet concerns expressed in Committee that it was unnecessarily restrictive to provide that anti-social behaviour orders should contain prohibitions applying only to the local government area in which the application was brought. The amendment would allow agreement to be reached in cases in which an activity perhaps occurs across local government boundaries. I believe that both Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen will welcome the fact that, on reflection, the Government have agreed that it should be possible to deal with such situations, and will accept that amendment No. 13 represents a positive response to aspects of the debate.
      Hon. Members who participated in the Committee stage will recall that the minimum age of 10 was subject to a lengthy debate, and that Committee members made a strong case for the proposal now contained in amendment No. 74. I still think that they are wrong. Let us consider the situation of the "family from hell", in which the adults are involved in anti-social behaviour that threatens and intimidates the neighbourhood, and in which the younger children are very often used by their parents and older relatives as the "deliverers" of some of the harassment, damage or even injury to those in the neighbourhood. Neighbours' children can be followed or threatened by the younger children in such families.
      As hon. Members will be aware, police officers often have experiences in which youngsters under 10 say, "You can't touch me, Mister." Such youngsters know that they are below the age of criminal responsibility. We have addressed the issue of such behaviour by those below the age of criminal responsibility in clause 11, which provides for child safety orders, so that—in the interests not only of the wider community but of the child—the behaviour can be dealt with and nipped in the bud.
      If we are to tackle anti-social behaviour by a family or group of individuals, it is necessary to have an order against each member of that family or group. People over the age of 10 should therefore be eligible for the anti-social behaviour order. To raise to 16 the minimum age at which an anti-social behaviour order may be imposed would leave a gap between those who can be dealt with under the provisions of clause 11, as they are under the age of 10, and those over the age of 16.
      I should be quite happy to respond to the request by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for clarification on use of the orders. It is
      870
      not the Government's intention that anti-social behaviour orders should generally be used for younger children. However, there would be an anomaly if a family's younger members, who are perhaps being used by older family members, could not be placed under equivalent requirements so that there is equity and so that the same provisions apply to all family members.
      I should like also to allay fears about juveniles being dealt with in adult courts. Part III of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will apply to the orders and contains important safeguards. The position concerning juveniles will be clearly stated in guidance that will be issued later this year. We made a first draft of that guidance available in Committee. Currently, we are revising the guidance in the light of discussions in Committee and of comments from other organisations. If the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed requires any further clarification on the points that he made in moving his amendment, I shall ensure that it is provided.
      Mr. Beith: The Minister describes a scenario in which he sees it as advantageous for the law enforcement authorities to put everyone—adults and children from the same family from hell—on the same sheet of paper. Of course, the family members then have to appear in separate courts—the magistrates court and the youth court. In Scotland, where it is not thought necessary to put all the names on the same sheet of paper, the children will be dealt with by the children's panel, and the adults will be dealt with differently. There is already a distinction in the procedures followed. I think the Minister may be chasing some illusory law enforcement tidiness if he thinks that having all the names on the same sheet of paper is somehow advantageous.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Michael: Clearly, there are obvious differences in jurisdiction as between Scotland on one side of the border and England and Wales on the other. I am trying to address realities. Many of us have had experience of the police and local authorities being powerless to deal with a serious situation and to prevent further anti-social behaviour. As I explained in Committee, there was an attempt in Coventry to use the present system of injunctions to achieve that end.
      A particular family was placed under an injunction not to continue the behaviour that was causing harassment and fear in the local community. As a result of that injunction, such behaviour lessened, not only on the part of the family placed under the injunction but on the part of other families on the estate and, indeed, in other parts of Coventry where it was seen that the police and local authorities were determined to take action and that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The problem was that, as a result of an appeal, it was found that such action went beyond the intentions in law for the proper use of that type of injunction. That is why we have to design a measure to deal specifically with anti-social behaviour.
      The whole point of the order system is to prevent further anti-social behaviour by each individual who is named on an individual order. It would be very odd to place some members of a family under the requirements of an order, but to leave others free to be used by the older members. I have specific examples in mind. When I spoke to police and local authorities and, indeed, to my

      871
      Back-Bench colleagues, many examples arose where having an order for all a family's members would be desirable. For example, I visited an estate with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to talk to the local community and the police. We discussed a case which clearly we cannot debate in the same way in the Chamber.
      I am clear that we need to catch all the targets. If the court decides that it does not need to make some of the younger members of a family subject to an anti-social behaviour order, it does not need to do so, but it should have the freedom to address the problem on the basis of the evidence made available to it.
      The intention is that the order being made and the severe punishment available for the breach of an order will not simply lead to many people being punished, but will lead to some of the offending behaviour ceasing, and other people being allowed to live more secure and peaceful lives.
      Mr. Allan: We understand the Minister's point about a family grouping—there is a rationale behind it—but what will happen to a group of, for example, 13-year-olds who hang around causing minor criminal damage or writing graffiti? We want it made clear that, although their behaviour is reprehensible, they will continue to be dealt with in the normal way, and that it is not the Minister's intention that anti-social behaviour orders will be used against them, which is exactly what some people expect will happen.
      Mr. Michael: I think it is unlikely. It might be possible to construct an extreme case in which it might be appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman is right—it would be unlikely that anti-social behaviour orders would be used in such circumstances. However, one or two people—perhaps 18 or 20-year-olds—might be associating with a couple of younger children who, under their influence, were indulging in anti-social behaviour. They clearly do not form a family group; it is simply that I can think of examples where it was family groups that were causing a problem that needed to be dealt with in order to protect the local community.
      I hope that in my response to the serious points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and in supplementing the very full and useful debates that we had in Committee, I have teased out for the House the Government's intentions in introducing the anti-social behaviour order and for retaining the lower age of 10 as the cut-off point in England and Wales. The fact that these debates have taken place will assist us in ensuring that the guidance offered to the courts on the use of anti-social behaviour orders is precise.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak briefly to amendment No.147 to clause 19, a clause which relates specifically to Scotland. It is a probing amendment directed principally at subsection (3).
      I do not think that there will be much disagreement with the Government's general proposals. All Members of Parliament—I am no exception—know of people who, to a greater or lesser extent, suffer because of the anti-social behaviour of their neighbours, but I should like
      872
      the Minister to tell us precisely what he expects an order to contain and, more to the point, what factors he would expect the sheriff to take into account when imposing the conditions.
      The Minister will be aware that some people live in blocks comprising four flats or in even higher-density housing. Such accommodation imposes its own difficulties when orders are placed on individuals in respect of their behaviour. Indeed, I am dealing with a case where there are enormous disagreements between neighbours living in a "four in a block". I am having some difficulty envisaging how the conditions of an order can be drawn to deal with that scenario, especially when the conditions would presumably relate to proximity or geographical, physical factors. Will the Minister go into a little more detail about precisely what he would expect the sheriff to consider?
      Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to this debate, especially as I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I come to this debate with an interest stemming mainly from a number of years spent as a magistrate in what was then known as the juvenile court and is now known as the youth court. I hope also to give some practical examples from my own constituency where, in a voluntary way, some of the orders set out in the Bill are already in operation.
      I fully support the Bill's provisions and will comment especially on the clauses concerned with curtailing anti-social behaviour. These measures must be implemented if we are effectively to protect people from harassment and disruption in their daily lives. My post bag over the past year has shed light on the fact that these measures will come as welcome relief to many people, especially older people and those on some estates in Halesowen and Rowley Regis who have been victims of anti-social behaviour by young people, some of whom, I regret to say, are as young as eight or nine.
      I believe that it is high time that we, as elected representatives, took responsibility for dealing with the very real problem of youth crime and anti-social behaviour, which causes many law-abiding citizens such huge distress. The Bill is a welcome step in tackling youth crime, providing a clear strategy to prevent offending and, equally important, reoffending, by young people. For the first time, moreover, the Bill includes measures to make sure that it is not only the offenders themselves but their parents—through the new sanctions of parenting and child safety orders—who must face up to offending behaviour and take responsibility for it. Parents who do nothing to prevent their children from behaving in an anti-social manner, or, indeed, who allow them to run riot, will at last be brought to account by these measures. It is morally and ethically right that the onus be placed on parents to accept responsibility for their children's misbehaviour. Parental neglect of this kind is not fair on the children or on the people who become victims of the children who turn to crime.
      In one part of my constituency, the police and the special constabulary have already been making valiant strides to place greater responsibility on parents. Last year, "Operation Guardian", which commenced across South Sandwell, targeted public nuisance and anti-social behaviour by youngsters. The police consulted community groups, tenants associations and police

      873
      consultative committees before the scheme began. Directed patrols concentrated on areas identified by complaints from the public at times that were relevant to the nuisance occurring—with the intention of resolving the problem, not just dealing with the incident.
      Often, the problem related to the activities of young people congregated in groups, but there were also more serious offences by neighbours, including assaults and criminal damage. Sometimes advice to the people concerned was a suitable response to an activity. If that was accepted positively, the problems could be resolved by such action alone. If it was not accepted, letters were written to parents seeking their involvement to exercise parental responsibility. Many of the parents responded positively to being informed about their children's behaviour.
      The operation was highly successful, leading to 600 calls between May and September last year and a substantial fall in reported cases of nuisance behaviour. The Bill and the Government amendment will give greater impetus to such operations by formalising and rationalising them in a statutory framework. In the words of Superintendent Baxter, they will provide a "package of opportunities" to deal with such incidents.
      I also welcome the power to impose curfews in areas identified by local authorities and the police as particular hot spots for trouble. I fully support the Government's initiative in introducing that bold step in a bold Bill. Local authorities should have the power to introduce local child curfews to address the problem of unsupervised, disruptive children on the streets late at night. Young offenders and their parents will be held accountable for causing disruption and, as it applies to children of 10 and younger, the measure will protect very young children from being drawn into criminal and anti-social behaviour—the so-called sub-criminal activities that can often spiral into serious crime later.
      The sanctions that the police, acting in co-operation with local authorities, will have will protect the community from nuisance and harassment caused by youngsters and by anti-social behaviour generally, including that induced by drink or drugs. Replacing repeat and inconsistent cautioning with a final warning strategy is a welcome deterrent. We should be tough and consistent in our punishment of those who regularly cause emotional—and sometimes physical—pain to others.
      In my constituency, great strides have already been made to tackle youth crime and social disorder on a multi-agency level. South-west Sandwell community initiative has successfully maintained the partnership approach, and strong links have been forged with the voluntary and statutory organisations in the constituency. A number of community safety initiatives have been supported through the project and have proved very successful in resolving local problems. The main focus of work with young people has been through a detached youth work scheme. That youth work has been issue-based, providing young people with an opportunity to examine their behaviour and increase their awareness of the choices available to them.
      I should like to cite two examples of the success of the project in focusing young people's attention on their anti-social behaviour. In Cradley Heath and Old Hill, the recorded incidence of criminal damage and arson fell by 37 per cent. after the schemes were put into operation.
      874
      On an estate on Grange road, reported incidents of nuisance behaviour fell from more than 200 to just four between April and August 1996.
      The work of the police has been significantly helped by support from local community residents. Community organisations, the police and local businesses have come together and succeeded in reducing youth crime. Local people have acknowledged a change in the quality of life in the area.
      Important though all the orders are, I am pleased that the Government are not introducing the measures in a vacuum. Tackling youth crime effectively requires a twin-track approach. We need effective powers and sanctions against offenders, and responsible and consistent social policies to ensure that being a young offender does not become an integral part of growing up. I support the Government's strategies for combating unemployment, drugs, failing schools and low educational achievement.
      Reducing youth crime and disorder is about local authorities, the police, schools, parents and the community working in partnership. Voluntary and non-statutory schemes in my constituency have proved successful. We have to adopt legislative measures to give the relevant authorities the teeth to stamp out a problem that has been caused in part by the policies of the former Government and the social neglect over which they presided in some of our most deprived areas.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) spoke powerfully. I wish that things were as easy as she makes out. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a more thoughtful speech, because he revealed a problem. We all know about the family from hell. I have followed the Minister's comments carefully today and in Committee. I understand what he is trying to achieve with families that may be out of control.
      We should define our terms carefully. We can do no better than to refer to the oracle himself—the Minister—who described in Committee the aim of the orders:
      "Essentially, the orders are to be used for criminal or sub-criminal activity—to tackle serious, persistent, anti-social behaviour that affects a community, causing one of more persons harassment, alarm or distress. They are not intended for run-of-the-mill disputes between neighbours, petty intolerance, minor, one-off disorderly acts or the penalising of the merely eccentric. That is why the breach of an order would be a criminal offence."
      Later he said:
      "We think it unlikely that an order would be sought against a child unless his behaviour was part of the behaviour of a wider or older group."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 48-53.]
      We have the definition of an anti-social behaviour order, and we know that such orders will be directed not at individual children, but at the family. The Minister made clear in Committee the danger of introducing children to courts gradually, because they can become case-hardened with repeat appearances. I share that point of view, based on my practical experience. We have to be very careful about taking a child to court. I understand that the provision will be used only rarely, when it is the only way to deal with a family.
      However, I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point about the children's panels in Scotland. I do not know the details of the Scottish situation, but I understand

      875
      from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that the panels are informal, effective and successful. I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the point of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on that.
      Mr. Michael: No, I did not. My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office may be able to give more information about the Scottish system when he responds. The White Paper on youth justice and our proposals on youth offending teams and the final warning show that we are looking at ways of introducing measures that have succeeded elsewhere in a way that fits in with our methods for dealing with juveniles in England and Wales. We want to deal with matters more effectively.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that response. We are trying to resolve the problem of families from hell, but we are trying also to avoid dragging young children—we are talking here about 11-year-olds—through the criminal justice system. Would it be possible for the order to apply to the adult but—in the way in which it was framed and the injunction that it laid on the adult—instruct the adult, in some shape or form, to control his children? If so, the order would be directed against the adult, and the child would not be dragged through the courts, but the problem would be dealt with. I should have thought that that was a reasonable proposition.
      Mr. Michael: If it is a question of parenting, the parenting order forms another part of the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that response. However, it opens up a further debate. If the parenting order is available and if the Government are seeking to learn from the Scottish experience, why should an anti-social behaviour order be applied to a very young child? I may not be understanding this point as well as I should, but I believe that a serious point has been made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. We are talking about young children, and I should have thought that there must be other ways of dealing with them than by dragging them through the court. The Minister may shake his head. He may disagree, but I have made my point.
      Ms Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Government amendment No. 13 and against amendments Nos. 74 and 147. The anti-social behaviour order is one of the most important measures in the Bill. I am sure that it will contribute to restoring to many people and their communities a sense of security which has been missing in recent years.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State came to a conference in my constituency last year on the Blackthorn estate, where there had been rioting by young people and there were concerns about endemic disorder. Those problems were causing serious distress and, literally, wrecking some people's lives. Many of the people involved in the rioting were young. There were reports that some were as young as 11.
      That relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); although the anti-social behaviour order would not normally be used against young people who were rioting, the fact that
      876
      young people were involved in those serious disorders shows that we are not talking about little angels, but about young people capable of causing substantial distress and for whom—in some circumstances—it might be appropriate to use those measures. That is why I think the Liberal Democrats are wrong in their proposals to change the ages to which the orders might apply.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady must recognise that the Government are saying, at the same time, that there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use such an order in Scotland for a child aged between 10 and 16. She cannot tell me that there are no families from hell in Scotland.
      Ms Keeble: I do not know about families from hell in Scotland. I do know that, in my constituency, there is clear evidence that children as young as 11 are capable of causing seriously disruptive behaviour. Although we do not want to take children through the courts, we must find sanctions to help to prevent behaviour that causes serious distress to other people.
      For many of the people at that conference—where my hon. Friend the Minister of State presented the idea of the anti-social behaviour orders—the prospect of being able to deal with the problems that had torn their communities apart for so long was nothing short of a liberation. No longer would they be powerless to counter anti-social neighbours, or to deal with them only by placing themselves at risk of victimisation. No longer would they have to tolerate young people running riot around an estate without being able to set boundaries for their behaviour. No longer would the victims of crime feel a sense of injustice at a criminal justice system that failed to provide proper justice and redress for them.
      One of the most startling presentations at the conference came from Blackthorn middle school, which presented an analysis of the difficulties presented by truants and disruptive pupils. The teachers were able to present a typology of behaviour which identified the need for different and more complex sanctions, some of which recognised the need for community support, and some of which recognised that, in some families, the lack of parenting skills was a major issue in terms of children starting down a road that could—if it is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister would say, "nipped in the bud"—lead from stone throwing to bike stealing to car stealing and then to a life of crime.
      Middle schools cater for children aged from nine to 13, which is an indication of the seriousness of the behavioural problems we can get with young children. Before hon. Members jump to conclusions, the estate was not a wholly council-owned estate; nor was it an inner-city estate. It was an estate with mixed housing tenure and high employment levels. Although there was a fair measure of deprivation, it was not on the scale that we see in the inner cities. That is a symptom of how deep rooted some of the problems of disorder have become in our community, and that is why it is right that the Government should make the measure available.
      In terms of the Government amendment, it makes sense to ensure that the measure can be applied to different local authority areas, since people do not live their lives by local authority boundaries. In Committee, the Opposition raised some points—which they have repeated this

      877
      evening—about the anti-social behaviour orders, on the grounds that it was not clear when and how they would be applied. I have found that the community in general has no doubt about the orders and is fairly clear about identifying the types of behaviour to which they might be applied.
      During the Committee stage, I put out a leaflet that said something about the orders. Immediately, a stream of people came to an advice surgery with complaints about serious problems of anti-social behaviour on their estates. For example, an estate was living in fear of a family which had been evicted from their council property, but had bought a private property and had moved back in. Because the council action in evicting them applied only to their council tenancy, there was no immediate redress for local people. The anti-social behaviour order would provide an avenue of redress and it is worth noting that, in this instance, children in that family might have been the subject of such an order.
      In addition, one member of a family that came to see me had severe facial injuries. The family had been involved in a series of altercations with neighbours which had spilled over into a nearby community. That dispute threatened the family—which had six children—with homelessness. One of the protagonists in the series of assaults was a young person of only 13.
      I suspect that the main—perhaps the only—problem with the anti-social behaviour orders will be that they will be extremely popular and only too well understood by the public. There will be real pressures to apply them quite frequently, and I expect to see at the front of the queue many hon. Members who will want such action taken to resolve the problems that they hear about in their advice surgeries, weekend after weekend. I commend the orders to the House, with the Government amendment. I strongly oppose the changes to the age limit proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would weaken the effectiveness of what will be a popular measure.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I want mainly to deal with amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), but I shall first refer briefly to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who acknowledged that the anti-social orders will be popular. More important, the Government want to make them effective. Throughout the United Kingdom, massive problems are caused by individuals and families who are not yet aware of the need to strike a balance between rights and responsibility in any community.
      The Government have no doubt that, if properly used to deal with the appropriate tenants and, indeed, owner-occupiers, the orders could have a tremendous impact in improving the quality of life for a great number of people who experience hell because of the actions of individuals who should know better. It is difficult to sum up what motivates some families to behave anti-socially, but the orders will provide a remedy, as part of a wider armoury available to the police and local authorities. My hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis and for Northampton, North have made clear their support, which, I have no doubt, will be echoed on both sides of the House.
      6 pm
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) laid great stress on the importance of ensuring that 10 to 16-year-olds should be subject to the anti-social orders, so will the Minister clarify why he believes that it is safe to exclude that age group from the orders in Scotland?
      Mr. McLeish: I am treading a thin tightrope tonight between English and Scottish legislation. The crucial point is that England and Scotland are different jurisdictions. For the past 27 years, the children's hearings system has existed in Scotland on the assumption that children aged 16 and under will be subject to a specific series of provisions to ensure effective treatment, care and punishment. I do not want to stray into the debate as it applies to England, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said, the measures could, in certain circumstances, be applied to those under 16.
      In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I repeat that the crucial point is that we are talking about different jurisdictions, although we could argue about whether the orders should apply to the same age groups in both England and Scotland. When we consulted in Scotland, we noted tremendous support from many quarters for applying the orders to children under 16, but we resisted doing so because, in Scotland, there are already measures to deal with that age group—we felt that, after 27 years of progress, it was vital to keep the children's hearings system intact. That is why we are treating Scotland differently—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not straying further into the more complex matter of English legislation.
      The anti-social behaviour orders will be like a prohibitive injunction—in Scotland, we would call it an interdict. Moreover, it will be applied to individuals. Some hon. Members have talked about families; there will be many more orders affecting the family in England than in Scotland, where we are talking only about the anti-social behaviour order, which will be served on individuals, not on families or groups of people. It is important that I make that point, as it puts into perspective the wider concern that, in dealing with the anti-social behaviour of an individual, we may encompass the family.
      Until now, families have been evicted for anti-social behaviour despite the fact that the children or the spouse were not involved—because of the activities of one family member, the whole family could be subjected to the difficulties and horrors of being evicted. The order will be a much sharper measure; it will allow us to concentrate on the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and—in many cases, I hope—to save the family.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I was a member of the Scottish Office civil service team that introduced the children's panels all those years ago. Because of the nature of proceedings in Scotland, it is easy to link the child to the family—the parents have to accept the decisions and take responsibility for the offence. Will the Government revisit the question whether the Kilbrandon system would be equally effective in England?
      Mr. McLeish: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not responding to that, although I am sure

      879
      that my hon. Friend the Minister of State listened to what he said. As I have said, the jurisdictions are separate, and must find solutions to their own problems.
      I have no difficulty with the principle behind amendment No. 147, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Perth. It is clearly right that a person against whom an anti-social behaviour order is made should know exactly what they must not do and where and for how long the order is to be in force. It is also important that those affected by the anti-social behaviour should be clear about what is prohibited by any order.
      That provision does not need to be specified in the Bill, however. An order made by a Scottish court will, as a matter of course, specify extent, including geographical extent, duration and the prohibitions imposed on the person's behaviour. Like an interdict, the purpose of an order will be to prohibit—for example, it could prohibit loud music after 11 pm, noisy visitors after 2 am or entry into gardens or communal areas. The sheriff could consider a huge list of possibilities, so that the order fitted the circumstances in which the anti-social behaviour was taking place—the sheriff could find the proper ways in which to restrain that behaviour.
      The court is also required to have regard to the terms of the order sought by the applicant. The hon. Member for Perth was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, so she will not have had the opportunity to read the draft guidance on the implementation of the provisions that was provided to its members—I shall arrange for her to receive a copy. I reassure her that the guidance makes it clear to the local authority applicants that they must decide what terms of an order to seek and that the terms should be specific, so that what constitutes a breach of those terms would be readily apparent to the person and to the local community. The guidance also makes it clear that the applicant must decide what duration of order to seek, up to, and including, an indefinite period.
      The draft guidance was produced in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the voluntary organisation the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. It will be issued for full consultation later this summer.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth will be reassured when she sees the detailed guidance proposed for the implementation of the provisions. Of course, as more than a matter of courtesy, I should be happy to take account of her comments on the draft, which is a substantial document—as I said, I shall send her a copy after our proceedings. Given those comments, I hope that she will not press the amendment.
      Mr. Beith: I should say in passing that Liberal Democrat Members accept Government amendment No. 13, which represents a helpful clarification.
      We have had a useful debate. I thought that the hon. Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and for hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) may have had unrealistically high expectations for the order. They both vividly expressed the concerns that we all share about the problems that our constituents face. The hon. Member for Halesowen and
      880
      Rowley Regis explained at some length many of the existing measures based on co-operative efforts and partnership, which will almost certainly bring the greatest success—I think that even she regards the orders as the ultimate sanction.
      The belief that the inclusion of 11 to 16-year-olds on anti-social behaviour orders will be widespread and will make a large difference flies in the face of what Ministers have been saying—it creates unrealistic public expectations about the orders. The public will believe that if the provision is altered, it will fail to provide what would otherwise be a major addition to the powers at the authorities' disposal—we know that that is not so.
      The Scottish Office Minister clearly demonstrated—although perhaps he could not use these terms—that the Scots have a better system. In Scotland, those aged between 10 and 16 can be dealt with by a variety of procedures through the children's hearings system, which makes their inclusion in the anti-social behaviour orders unnecessary.
      Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we believe that there are strengths in the Scottish system and weaknesses in the system in England and Wales. That is why, in the White Paper, the Bill and in other developments, we have wanted to change the system in England and Wales, not by replicating the Scottish system, but by learning from it and from what happens in other parts of the world.
      Mr. Beith: And we are seeking to encourage Ministers to do exactly that. What has emerged from our useful debate is that, whatever some hon. Members say, those procedures will not be widely used for 10 to 16-year-olds if things proceed as Ministers intend. If we developed a better youth justice system, we could create a better way of dealing with that age group, but Ministers feel it necessary to keep that part of the provision on the statute book in the meantime. If that is the basis and because we will press Ministers to carry on with the reform of youth justice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'protecting' to end of line 22 and insert
      'from further anti-social acts by the defendant—

      (a) persons in the local government area; and

      (b) persons in any adjoining local government area specified in the application for the order;

      and a relevant authority shall not specify an adjoining local government area in the application without consulting the council for that area and each chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within that area.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 6

      FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 5, line 42, after 'area', insert
      'including the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in clause 14, page 12, line 13, after 'considers', insert
      'that there are exceptional circumstances which make'.
      No. 12, in clause 16, page 14, line 3, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where a constable has removed a child or young person under subsection (3) above, he may confiscate any article which he has reason to suppose that the child or young person was using in the course of offering any services (whether solicited or otherwise) to any person during the time he was absent from school without lawful authority.
      (3B) An article confiscated under subsection (3A) above may be disposed of in a prescribed manner.'.
      Mr. Beith: We have opposed the introduction of child curfews on both practical grounds and in principle, and we divided the Committee on clause stand part on that issue. As a matter of principle, it is inappropriate to deny basic freedom of movement to general sections of the public on the basis of the possible behaviour of a few individuals—one thinks of the present arguments about whether all English attendance at world cup matches should be stopped because of the behaviour of a few. It is a difficult principle once one starts to apply it; most of us have had experience of it from schooldays, when the whole class was kept in for the behaviour of one individual.
      The terminology "curfew" had its origins in the locking of city gates at night, and its more recent use is borrowed from the practices of much more authoritarian regimes, which deny freedom of movement to many of their citizens for all sorts of reasons. Even for the apparently commendable reason of preventing or discouraging the bad behaviour of a few, it is not a desirable principle that large numbers of people should be penalised.
      Furthermore, if curfews became widely used for this age group, it would be a substantial change in our society and in the relationship between the state and individuals, particularly in view of the signal it would give to young people. The more that young people are told that their behaviour is against the law merely because they are out and about, the more we shall sow in them the idea that the authorities, the police and the mechanisms of law and order are against anything that they do, rather than being there to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent, which is the signal that we ought to be giving them. We want them to support the police, and to recognise that law and order is their protection as well as that of other generations. To penalise them merely for being out of doors is unreasonable if they are not at fault in any way.
      6.15 pm
      The Government care very much about establishing who is responsible for things, and they seem to be throwing responsibility in all directions at once. During the passage of the Bill and in their consultation papers, they have rightly stated that they want parents and children as young as 10 to take more responsibility. Now, they are saying that the state should take responsibility for deciding what time children should go to bed. The desire to place responsibility where it belongs has gone slightly askew in giving the state that power.
      I wondered whether the decision to proceed in this way had a sound basis in research, so I asked a parliamentary question, but the answer did not refer to any specific
      882
      research. How many young people under 10 are not being protected because of the absence of a curfew? If they are not being protected, could an existing power be more successfully enforced? How many young people are causing problems on the streets at night and what is the peak time for young offending? Is it late at night, when the curfew might be applied, or straight after school, when it would be impossible to apply? What has been the effect of curfews in other countries? Apart from the Hamilton experiment, which the Minister did not cite in his reply, we have no research evidence.
      From the discussion, it has emerged that the proposal for local child curfews, however it started out, is now seen by Ministers to be more of an experiment than a substantial addition to policy. We are concerned that demands for extension of the use of curfews will increase. During our debates, hon. Members have pleaded that the age at which curfews apply should be raised and raised again, and that the period for which they apply should be longer and longer. Because of the pressures from the public to do something—not necessarily the right thing—about the problems that they face, we may be on a slippery slope in which curfews become more and more a part of our system.
      Another concern is that curfews will be the first port of call in response to a problem in an area, and that if a few young people are causing trouble, we shall introduce a curfew rather than directing attention to them and using the resources of the various agencies, on a partnership basis, to deal with them and the problems that they cause. I appreciate that the Secretary of State will have to approve schemes, but he may be under growing political pressure to do so on a fairly widespread basis.
      Given the decision in principle taken in Committee, we have tabled amendments to make it a requirement that the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility in an area is considered when formulating crime and disorder strategies, so that thorough and appropriate responses can be developed. Recognising that that strategy would be developed, we could then allow child curfews only under truly exceptional circumstances—that would be the combined effect of the two amendments. More emphasis would be put on formulating plans to deal with criminal behaviour by groups of young people—children—and recognising that a curfew should be introduced only in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
      Of course, a curfew is meaningless unless the police can enforce it and, if one has sufficient police officers to impose a curfew on every child over a certain age who is out at night in the area, one has available sufficient officers to target the people who are committing the crimes in the first place; that would be a better use of those officers. Much of our effort is dedicated to trying to ensure that if the powers are used at all, it will be in only the most exceptional circumstances and that resources will be targeted at young people who are committing, or are likely to commit, offences, and not at innocent young people, who will consequently feel that the police and the authorities are against them even when their behaviour is in no way illegal, and is no more unreasonable than being out at night after a time when some people think that their parents should have sent them to bed.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: I tabled amendment No.12 as a probing amendment and, within its confines, I must refer to the problem of squeegee

      883
      merchants, particularly as it applies on the streets of London. For those who are not familiar with the problem, one pulls up the car at traffic lights and, before one knows it, someone has pounced on the car and is washing the windscreen with soapy suds. In truth, it is an unsolicited service much as described in new clause 6 which, disappointingly although understandably, was not chosen for debate.
      The problem is most common in London, which is not surprising, as we have the most traffic and, indeed, the most traffic lights, which provide the opportunity for the squeegee merchant to select the car that he wants to clean. In one sense, the service ought to be welcome—the opportunity of having the windscreen washed for perhaps 50p—but regrettably, that is not the way in which the practice has developed. The service is unsolicited and one is given no opportunity to reject it or agree the terms. It leads to harassment, aggression and intimidating behaviour towards the occupants of the car. It has to be distinguished, for example, from the chap selling the Evening Standard beside the road—if one wants to buy the paper, one will catch his eye and he will walk over with the paper—or the man selling bunches of roses, to whom one can say, "Twenty roses for the wife, please"—or for whomever one is going to see. In those cases, there is an offer and an acceptance—an agreed contract.
      Even confident and assertive people find it difficult to handle squeegee merchants. I came out of a car wash the other day and drove to the first set of traffic lights with a squeaky clean windscreen. I found a chap cleaning it before I had the opportunity to say, "Stop." That can lead to resentment. Some people refuse to pay, and others ask the squeegee merchant to stop providing the service, both of which actions may lead to trouble. Regrettably, there have been reports of attacks on drivers. Only yesterday, I heard that a driver at traffic lights on Vauxhall bridge asked a squeegee merchant to stop cleaning his windscreen, but as he wound down his window to convey that message, he got a bucket of water in his face. [Interruption.] It is quite amusing, unless one happens to be the guy driving the car.
      In another case, someone asked a squeegee merchant to stop. The chap said that he would, but he cleaned off the soapy suds with wire wool, which permanently scratched the windscreen. My concern is primarily for vulnerable drivers—the elderly person just driving down the road to the shops, or a single woman on her own who finds the situation hard to handle.
      When he was in opposition in September 1995, the Home Secretary made what was described as a tough-talking speech on the subject. He said:
      "Then there are the obstacles faced by pedestrians and motorists in going about their daily business. The winos and addicts whose aggressive begging affronts and sometimes threatens decent compassionate citizens, and the 'squeegee merchants' who wait at large road junctions to force on reticent motorists their windscreen cleaning service."
      He said that there would be a crackdown, but we are 14 months into this Parliament, and we have seen no crackdown.
      The problem is that the law does not specifically target problems of this type. The police must pray in aid a variety of offbeat powers to prosecute squeegee merchants. In the Vauxhall bridge case, the chap who got
      884
      the bucket of water in his face went to the local police station, where he was told the police would not prosecute because it would be one heck of a job to produce all the evidence and because the legislation did not target that type of crime. Various Acts are available to fight the problem in an oblique way: the Public Order Act 1986; the Metropolitan Police Act 1839; the Highways Act 1980; and London local government legislation. However, those powers do not properly equip the police to make the clean kill of a quick prosecution.
      We need a targeted crime, as set out in the non-selected new clause 6. My amendment was intended to be probing. and I should be interested to hear what the Government will do to address a problem particularly prevalent on the streets of London and in areas around my constituency.
      Mr. Rowe: My concern is the Government's attitude to truancy as expressed in the Bill and in some educational measures. Inspectors' report after inspectors' report has demonstrated that truancy falls to a very low level if young people feel that what they are being taught is worth while, and if it is taught in a good way. Measures are being introduced in the Bill and elsewhere that will force children back into schools from which they are absenting themselves because they think that what they are getting is not worth having.
      For too long, we have treated the education system as the cheapest form of child minding. We may find that there is a serious morale problem among teachers who no longer wish to take on for the rest of us the role of forcing authority on young people, many of whom are tall, large and threatening, and who can completely disrupt a class. I strongly believe that the policy of forcing young people back to school—which we all applaud in theory—is misconceived. We must reconsider how we deal with truants, and how we treat teachers who have asked, openly and by implication, to be relieved of the burden of trying to deal with people with whom increasingly they have huge difficulty.
      I have suggested that the time may have come for another look at whether education should be compulsory under the law, which enshrines our 19th-century belief that the authority of school is the cheapest way for our society to deal with youngsters who are increasingly unsuited to the kind of schooling they are getting, who know that they are wasting their time in schools and who need somewhere else to go.
      Mr. Michael: There have been three strands of debate. Let me first reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that our proposals are sensible. I want to persuade him not to press his amendment, and to suggest that he is wrong to oppose our carefully constructed proposals, which will effectively hand authority back to parents rather than increase the power of the state.
      Amendment No. 75 would require local authorities and police forces that are carrying out crime and disorder reviews to take account of the behaviour of those under the age of criminal responsibility. That is entirely sensible, but the amendment is not necessary. In drawing up crime and disorder strategies, local authorities, the police and their partners should base them on crime and disorder audits. The audits should reflect the causes of problems in a local community, including the behaviour

      885
      of those under the age of criminal responsibility. If there are problems, they should be dealt with, and they should appear in the strategy. If there are no problems, clearly there is nothing to be dealt with.
      We have deliberately left the question of what issues and aspects of crime and disorder need to be addressed in the strategies to those who are experienced in the local area. There is nothing between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and it is clear from draft guidance now available on the website that those under the age of criminal responsibility should be taken into account. I am happy to look again at the guidance, and to make more transparent anything that is not clear. The right hon. Gentleman's point is a good one, but it does not need to be in the Bill.
      Mr. Beith: Can a crime audit include what is being done by those under the age of criminal responsibility?
      Mr. Michael: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the guidance, he will see that it is widely drawn. Audits of crime and disorder go wider than just criminal activity, and they include minor and petty disorders, which often cause even more distress to local communities than crimes that are regarded as more serious. Our target in the audits and strategies is to reduce the level of crime and disorder, and that covers the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, I am happy both to reconsider the guidance to make sure that it is clear, and to accept any comments that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to make on it.
      An amendment identical to amendment No. 76 was tabled in Committee, and I thought that we had dealt with it. I was surprised to see the amendment tabled again, but it allows me to explain the position to the whole House, just as I did in Committee.
      Some neighbourhoods are troubled by the criminal and anti-social activities of unsupervised young children. Gathering in public places at night, they can cause alarm and misery to the rest of the community and encourage each other into anti-social and criminal habits. If it is a question of one or two individuals, the Bill's child safety orders can deal with it. If it is a question of a group of youngsters, and the hours that youngsters are allowed out at night have become a problem in a street, it is often difficult for parents to take the responsibility of setting a new standard. It is difficult enough for parents to buck trends, but if there is a settled trend in the community, it becomes all the more difficult.
      I should explain the steps necessary for a curfew order to be used; I think that they will reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. First, the local authority must consult the police—and more widely—on the terms of a scheme. They have to be put to the Home Secretary, who will consider them carefully to see how they suit local arrangements. Consultation with the local community and other agencies will take place before an order is invoked under the scheme. To place an order in a community or street, the local authority would have to consult the police. It must be a joint endeavour involving the police and the local authority. They would then have to consult the local community along the lines agreed by the Home Secretary in respect of the scheme. I can think of one case in my constituency where parents asked me to meet them to discuss problems in one community. Halfway through, they admitted that part of the problem
      886
      was children, including the children of people at the meeting, and that there was a need collectively to draw a line to set a standard for behaviour. Local child curfew schemes create the opportunity to do that.
      6.30 pm
      Local child curfews form part of a wider community safety strategy and will be applied at the instigation of the local authority concerned because it believes that there is no other way in which to deal with unsupervised young children. This is not a magic wand that will deal with the whole problem. Often, other approaches will deal with the sort of problems that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed recognised needed tackling. This provision should be used in appropriate circumstances, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Michael: I am trying to move quickly because I understand that that is what Conservative Members want.
      Mr. Rowe: Given his background, does the Minister agree, that in many instances, the importation of a youth and community worker would defuse the situation? Has he done any costings to find out whether the cost of policing a curfew, which is likely to fall on the police authority, would be greater than that of the local authority providing someone to give the kids a lead?
      Mr. Michael: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is muddled, as he often is. My experience in 15 or 16 years of youth and community work, and as a councillor and Member of Parliament, is that we need a variety of mechanisms to deal with specific circumstances. I have made clear the specific circumstances with which this mechanism would help to deal. It may well be that the involvement of a local authority youth and community worker would help, but such workers are not a magic wand; nor are police officers. We need legislation appropriate to cover a variety of different situations and mischiefs that cause problems in local communities. I believe that this mechanism will prove its worth.
      I do not think that the lack of information to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has referred proves that there is a lack of evidence of need. We can all demonstrate anecdotally that youngsters are out on the street late at night in a way that destroys their future as well as damaging the local community. That shows that no one has been willing to tackle the problem. We will monitor the way in which the provision is used, along with the other measures that we have put forward as part of a comprehensive package. In due course, I am sure that we shall debate how it has worked in practice.
      Amendment No. 12 was tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway); I understand what he is trying to do. It is bad enough when children truant, but it is even more vexing when they engage in money-making ventures when they should be at school. The answer is to get them back to school. We added clause 16, which allows the police to act in partnership with local education authorities and schools to tackle truancy. It is practical because it ensures joint responsibility for dealing with

      887
      truancy. While truancy is an issue for the person who truants and for parents, who should take their responsibility, this measure allows police and education representatives to work together. There have been voluntary examples of that which have not had the authority of the law for the actions of police officers. This provision enables partnership to deal with the vexed problem of truancy.
      It is not necessary or desirable to extend the provision to confiscating property, especially when no criminal offence is involved in its use. I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, South will acknowledge the valuable contribution of clause 16 in seeking to tackle truancy by proper partnership—at Government level between the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment, and locally by enabling partnership.
      Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister comment on the Government's approach to squeegee merchants? In opposition, it was part of Labour's crackdown.
      Mr. Michael: That is part of the wider recent debate, which the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, about the need to intervene quickly in things that cause nuisance and distress to people, and to ensure that they are tackled by the police to prevent them from escalating. Minor items of disorder, as was shown by the British crime survey, lead to more serious offending and damage to the community later. Often offences are committed, and that is a matter for the police. One of the things that we are engaging with is creating a structure in which those who suffer from the commission of offences and the creation of nuisance in their community can work with the police to have the problems tackled, rather than it being a question of complaint and counter-complaint.
      If the hon. Member for Croydon, South looks at the whole Bill and the mechanisms that it creates to tackle crime and disorder, both when serious and when at the precursor level to serious crime—including measures to deal with truancy—he should acknowledge that we have made great progress during the life of the Bill, which has been improved by the debates both in Committee and outside. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments, which I do not believe would improve the Bill. I hope that I have given an assurance about how its measures will be effective.
      Mr. Beith: I do not think that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) got an answer on squeegee merchants. When the Home Secretary raised the issue in his famous pre-election speech, I thought that he had lost the plot and gone seriously off message. I suspect that he is trying to forget it. However, it is a problem in some areas and we have not had an answer on how best it can be tackled.
      I did not expect to get an answer from the Minister which would convince me that introducing the curfew principle into our system of law was desirable, and I have not. What I have got is even clearer confirmation than I expected that the Government see it as having only a limited role, and one which has to surmount many hurdles before it can be put into place. I hope that, in trying to surmount those hurdles, the various bodies involved will realise that there are more immediate and direct ways in
      888
      which to tackle the problem than a curfew, which would probably be an admission of failure. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, the involvement of youth workers might be a better answer, as might getting at individual behaviour.
      It is a great mistake to tell youngsters who are merely out milling around, perhaps causing some irritation, but doing no harm, that they are acting against the law when they do not feel that they are doing anything wrong. Few things are more perverting to children's concepts of what is right and wrong than being punished for something that they did not do or did not feel was wrong in the first place. Many have had that experience in childhood and it has probably soured their relations with authority ever afterwards.
      The Minister has shown that some of the expectations that surrounded curfews are not in the Government's mind. They regard the provision as limited. Our amendments were designed merely to reinforce that limitation. We argued the issue of principle in Committee, so there is no reason to pursue the amendments today. They have given the House the opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions, which are clearly more limited than some comments had suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16

      REMOVAL OF TRUANTS TO DESIGNATED PREMISES ETC
      Amendment made: No. 159, in page 14, line 9, leave out from 'authority"' to 'as' and insert 'means—

      (a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council whose district does not form part of an area that has a county council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;

      (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

      "public place" has the same meaning'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 17

      DUTY TO CONSIDER CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 14, line 21, leave out 'has' and insert
      'means a local authority within'.
      No. 15, in page 14, line 22, at end insert
      'or the Common Council of the City of London'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 23

      ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AS GROUND OF EVICTION
      Sir Robert Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 19, line 20, after 'tenant', insert
      ', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, in page 19, line 20, after 'house', insert
      ', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.

      889
      No. 101, in page 19, line 24, after 'house), insert
      'and whose commission is likely to have had a material impact on the quiet enjoyment of the home life of a person residing in the locality.'.
      No. 85, in page 19, line 29, after 'tenant', insert
      ', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control,'.
      No. 86, in page 19, line 29, after 'house', insert
      ', being a person whom the tenant could reasonably be expected to control.'.
      Sir Robert Smith: Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 would achieve the same goal in different parts of the clause, which seeks to widen the powers of eviction available to public sector landlords to include eviction because of the actions of tenants or their visitors to the property. We want to ensure that those powers will be used only in relation to visitors that the tenant can reasonably be expected to control. We are concerned that the clause could allow victims of domestic violence to be evicted because of the actions of their partner, whom they could not reasonably be expected to control.
      Since we tabled the amendments, we have received from the Minister the draft guidelines, which have been extremely helpful. Paragraph 5 of the guidelines states:
      "It will be inappropriate for landlords to pursue cases where tenants are genuinely unable to control the activities of regular visitors, and in this connection landlords will wish to ensure in particular that women with violent partners are not placed at risk of unwarranted eviction."
      I welcome the Government's clarification in those guidelines.
      Such clarification is a thread that has run through the proceedings on the Bill, and I hope that, when the Scottish Parliament is set up, pre-legislative inquiry will help a great deal. It seems that guidelines are issued at the end of proceedings on Bills, and to a certain extent issues are resolved. However, there is no formal link between the guidelines and the Bill, and it is extremely important that, as the Bill is implemented, it is monitored to check that what was promised in the guidelines continues to be delivered.
      Amendment No. 101 attempts to narrow the clause. If the tenant, visitor or lodger were convicted of any offence liable to imprisonment—although they would not necessarily go to prison—the tenancy could be at risk. We understand what the Government are trying to achieve. The Minister's visit yesterday would have reinforced the concerns of communities about trying to deal with drug dealers and break the cycle of such crime. However, the clause is widely drawn, and some landlords might not want closely to consider the Government's intentions, so our amendment would narrow the clause.
      Paragraph 6 of the draft guidelines makes it clear that eviction should be pursued only when an offence has a bearing on the tenancy. I hope that, in further discussions with communities, Ministers may find ways of beefing up the guidelines to ensure that tenants can be evicted for acts that not only result in imprisonment but affect the neighbourhood, rather than society in general. Moving the person on does not necessarily protect the community.
      Eviction can be only a small part of dealing with crime. Evicting someone and moving them on merely moves the problem elsewhere. It is important that the whole armoury of actions in the Bill and other legislation is used to tackle
      890
      the drug menace, because it is far more important to tackle the individuals and their offending behaviour than to deal with where they live. Moving them on from their community should help to break their links with that community, and perhaps help to treat them. It certainly helps to relieve the community.
      6.45 pm
      The Minister promised research—which, I understand from his letter, has not yet been undertaken—about how the measure has been implemented in England and Wales. It is perceived to have been successful in England, but it is important that we examine how it has worked in practice. That research has not yet been done, but we can try to build for the future. I understand that at present there are no centrally collected statistics on evictions by public sector landlords. It would be fairly easy to collect them, and they would be a useful measuring tool. If we could monitor evictions, we could find out whether the guidelines were being applied correctly, and whether there had been any development.
      When the Minister replies, I should like him to deal with the possibilities of strengthening paragraph 6 of the draft guidelines, and of collecting statistics on evictions and monitoring their success. The Scottish Parliament will then be able to monitor the implementation of the Bill, and, if there are any transgressions, ensure that the legislation is reined in.
      Mr. McLeish: In view of the desire to expedite business, I shall try briefly and comprehensively to respond to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
      The hon. Gentleman was right about monitoring, and that will be an integral part of the measure. We are introducing anti-social behaviour orders, and widening eviction powers for landlords. There is a range of activities that need to be monitored, partly because the information is useful in itself, but also so that we can properly evaluate our measures. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that monitoring will be carried out, and that requires a series of statistics to be compiled by local authorities, landlords and, centrally, the Scottish Office. We concede that point.
      I am pleased that the guidance has been of some help. I appreciate that it does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but it is draft guidance, and we are happy to listen to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and take into account their collective wisdom.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the clause is part of a wider armoury of measures that we need in any community. There is clearly significant support for attacking anti-social behaviour. This evening, we are concentrating on drugs and crime and the issue of visitors, which the hon. Gentleman spoke about. We are extending powers, and we must implement them with caution.
      There are currently loopholes that prevent anti-social and criminal acts committed outwith tenanted properties and the activities of visitors from being taken into account when considering whether a tenancy should be continued. The extended grounds for eviction in clause 23 will close those loopholes, but they will not open floodgates. We hope and expect that, by increasing the deterrent effect of a threatened eviction and, for persistent abusers, who are

      891
      fortunately small in number, allowing swifter action against them, the new measures will help to produce more harmonious communities.
      In framing our proposals, we have been guided by the consideration and conclusions of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Its landmark report in December 1996 serves as the platform for many of the measures, be they legislative or administrative, that we are now promoting.
      For those unfamiliar with the Select Committee's findings, I inform the House that it considered the addition of new mandatory grounds of eviction, and concluded against that course of action. We support that conclusion, and the proposals in clause 23 are to extend the discretionary grounds for eviction.
      That is an important distinction. The discretionary grounds are referred to as such because, in considering the evidence laid before them when landlords seek a repossession order on one of the discretionary grounds, sheriffs must apply a general test of reasonableness. Thus, eviction can be granted only when the sheriff, taking into account all the circumstances of each case, believes that it is reasonable for eviction to be ordered. In practice, therefore, the courts have a very wide discretion to take into account any relevant feature of the case, such as the likelihood that a tenant could control a violent or anti-social nuisance.
      I reassure the House that nothing that we are proposing in clause 23 affects the existing requirement for sheriffs carefully to weigh the evidence presented, and to consider whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances. That is as it should be, and that, as a fundamental feature of the laws of eviction, provides a powerful safeguard against the type of abuse that hon. Members have described.
      Points have been raised about the impact that the Bill may have on domestic violence and on women generally. The Government have pursued a very tough line on that issue since we were elected. We would do nothing to place women in very vulnerable circumstances in jeopardy. We intend to tackle crime, drug dealing and abuse generally, but certainly there will be safeguards—as I believe we said in the guidance—for women in vulnerable domestic situations.
      It follows from what I have said that the spirit behind all the amendments in the group is not unwelcome. The aims very much echo our intentions, and if amendments such as Nos. 83 to 86 were needed to offer protection to vulnerable tenants, especially women, I would not hesitate to accept them. However, in my view, the general test of reasonableness, which I mentioned earlier, renders these very specific caveats unnecessary, and in some cases undesirable.
      Our guidance to landlords will make it clear that the new grounds are intended to tackle serious anti-social conduct. Even if landlords choose to disregard the guidance which we have in place when the measures take effect, the courts will be required to apply the same test of reasonableness as currently applies.
      In our view, amendment No. 101 confuses the two separate grounds for eviction which are we are extending, and it is therefore undesirable. Housing legislation currently holds separate the ground for eviction based on a criminal conviction and that based on anti-social
      892
      behaviour. That separation is maintained in our new grounds, and we wish to retain it. It is not necessary to provide in this way that the offences must impact on the quiet enjoyment of home life; the sheriff's general test of reasonableness already effectively requires the courts to take into account the nature of the offence and its bearing on the tenancy.
      I firmly believe that, in the clause as drafted and the guidance that we shall issue, we are setting out our intentions clearly and promoting extended grounds for eviction which will be clear and limited in their application.
      Yesterday, I visited Easterhouse in Glasgow, and I visited Cranhill. That community lives in fear of the menace of drugs. I was alarmed to hear the comments by the group of mothers I met. Although there are important civil liberties issues, and although it is important that landlords do not use the legislation irresponsibly, there are also very powerful arguments for saying to the women in Cranhill, "Yes, we need solutions to your problem." I think you know of their situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that situation in Glasgow, they want action.
      Although it is not the solution to pass a problem from one part of a town or city to another, it might give the local residents a respite from the dealing, the pushing and the fear that children live in. The House would be remiss if it did not take those arguments seriously. I know that those feelings are shared by Opposition Members. I believe that we have achieved a balance; I hope that the guidance will ensure that that is the case.
      Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply. On the subject of Cranhill, he has made the valid point that, if one removes a person from a community, thereby breaking their links and their network in that community, although one will have moved them into another community, at least it will take them time to build up their network, and then one might use other avenues to deal with them.
      As with everything, no clause of the Bill should be oversold as the magic bullet that will solve the problem. However, if we have these clauses and then provide the resources to those on the ground, if communities are willing and in a mood to make use of them, and if we can build that momentum and keep it going, we may turn the tide of anti-social behaviour and remove some of the menaces that confront us. I especially welcome the assurance on reasonableness, because that is an excellent word, which probably defines things better than we possibly could by amending clause 23.
      In light of those reassurances, the guidelines, the monitoring, and especially the gathering of statistics, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 28

      RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES: ENGLAND AND WALES
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 22, line 27, leave out
      'of, or association with members of,'
      and insert '(or presumed membership) of .
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 17 and 160.

      893
      No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,' .
      Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
      No. 11, in clause 33, page 26, line 9, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108.
      Mr. Straw: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has just sat down on the Treasury Bench; now that he is present, the standard of debate should, as ever, rise to meet his—always high—standard. You know that from personal experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; my right hon. Friend's reputation goes before him.
      Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and the equivalent amendments relating to Scotland—amendments Nos. 102, 103, 107 and 108—are designed to clarify the test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences. In Committee, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), undertook to consider the sort of case in which, for example, a Bangladeshi was the victim of hostility that was intended to be directed at a Pakistani. Those who commit many racially aggravated offences and who go in for acts of racial hatred are typically so ignorant that they see the colour of someone's skin, or their general appearance, and dismiss them as, for example, "Pakis" or other such horrible insults, without knowing from which racial or religious group they come.
      We are determined that no perpetrator of racist attacks should escape proper conviction and punishment because of the perpetrator's ignorance about the victim's racial group. Our amendments in this group will put the issue beyond doubt, and we are grateful to Opposition Members for raising the matter in Committee.
      Our amendments make it clear that, whatever racial group the perpetrator believes the victim to be from, an offence will be racially aggravated if racial hostility or motivation is proved. That should partly deal with the concern which has been expressed to me outside the House concerning the example of a woman who happens to be white, but who is Muslim, who is wearing a chador—a religious face-covering—and who is the subject of racial abuse and racial attack on the grounds that she is a Pakistani. The fact that she turns out to be a white Muslim rather than a Pakistani Muslim will be no defence if racial hostility or motivation is proved, which I suggest it almost always will be.
      I now turn to amendment No. 160 and the equivalent amendment relating to Scotland, amendment No. 103. We have continually made it clear that we are as wholly opposed to religiously motivated violence and harassment as we are to racially motivated violence and harassment. The Bill does not protect some groups and not others; it protects everyone from racist crimes.
      In Committee, several hon. Members asked whether the offences described in the Bill would cover attacks made by, for example, Muslims.
      Mr. Clappison: On Muslims.
      Mr. Straw: I am so sorry; I meant "made on Muslims".
      The Government are aware of the concerns of some religious groups, especially Muslim organisations. Last week, I met Muslim community leaders to discuss that
      894
      issue, as I have done many times. Naturally, they are worried about the way in which the words that were originally in the Race Relations Act 1976, which were replicated in the Public Order Act 1986 and which are now in the Bill, have been judicially interpreted, not least in the case—although it was a non-criminal case—of Mandla v. Dowell Lee, a decision of the House of Lords in 1983.
      We believe that, in practice, most—in my judgment, almost all—cases that appear to have a religious element will also have a racial element. When the perpetrators of these offences, for example, attack Muslims, they do not generally do so because of hostility to the tenets of Islam. I suggest that, in almost every case, they will be wholly ignorant of the tenets of Islam. They make their attacks because of racial hostility towards the victim and towards the ethnic minority groups that are associated with the Muslim faith in this country.
      The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" for the purposes of these offences requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. It follows that, even if there is religious hostility, provided part of the hostility is racist, the offence will be covered by the provisions.
      I took account of the representations made to me last week, and I examined carefully the transcripts of the debates in Committee last week. I believe that we should make it even clearer in the Bill that people charged with these offences cannot claim that they were motivated by religious, and not racial, hatred. For that reason, we have tabled amendment No. 160, which states:
      "It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) … above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on … the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or … any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph."
      7 pm
      Under the clause, as drafted to include those important assertions, even if religious hostility is the principal or main trigger for the hostility, as long as there is some racial element—I suggest that that will be present in almost every case—the offence will be proved, and a conviction should follow. I am only too familiar with the kind of racial harassment and attacks that are suffered by the Muslim community, and I believe that this amendment will cover almost every circumstance in which Muslims are victims.
      I am aware of the provisions of amendment No. 10, to which the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), spoke, and to which the Liberal Democrats have appended their names. The amendment seeks to insert the word "religion" after "race". As I think the supporters of the amendment accept, including that single word would significantly extend the terms of this group of racially motivated offences to cover religiously motivated offences generally.
      We do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward legislation in due course to cover religiously motivated offences in the same way as we are covering racially motivated offences, even where the principal motivation is religious. However, this area requires careful consideration.
      For example, the issue of whether someone belongs to a particular racial group, as defined initially in the Race Relations Act 1976 and subsequently, can be subject to

      895
      an objective test. It is a matter which can be proved by external evidence. It is better defined in clause 28(2), which states:
      "In this section 'racial group"'—
      it is a pretty wide definition—
      "means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
      It is obviously much more difficult to define whether someone is a member of a religious group, which involves a subjective as well as an objective test. That does not mean that it may not be a candidate for future legislation, but it makes the matter more complicated.
      I know that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition, is about to respond. I gently remind the Opposition that, despite the calls from Labour and the Liberal Democrats over many years regarding racially motivated crimes, those calls were resisted by the previous Government, often on the ground of the difficulty involved in defining such crimes. If that was difficult, it is still more difficult to define crimes that are based on religious hostility or hatred. We do not rule it out, but we point to the difficulty involved.
      In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that we were establishing research on the nature and the scale of religious discrimination in order to establish the size of the problem. On 12 May, the hon. Member for Hertsmere asked whether that research would include religious attacks within the framework of the Bill. The Minister replied:
      "They will he considered as part of people's experience of discrimination."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1998; c. 316.]
      That is obviously an important part of the research. However, that research has not yet been concluded—and it could not be concluded before the Bill is likely to become law.
      I appreciate that the changes do not go as far as some groups would wish. However, I remind the House—and particularly those hon. Members who support amendment No. 10—that the Muslim Council of Britain, a representative group which came to see me last Tuesday, issued a statement after I had moved the amendment and the equivalent amendments for Scotland.
      The council said that it welcomed my decision to table the amendment, and also the guidance that we shall publish along with the Bill. It went on:
      "Although the questions of religious discrimination and vilification need to be addressed fully, the British Muslim community feels greatly encouraged by the vision and leadership displayed for the first time by the government. We view this amendment as a small but significant first step towards the economic, social and political inclusion of the Muslim community in the national life".
      I record my thanks to the Muslim Council of Britain for those remarks. Given my comments and the important clarification provided by the Government amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary's important speech, and I am grateful for the care that he has brought to the subject. As was evident to
      896
      all those who are familiar with the way in which it was dealt with in Committee, the matter has been handled sensitively by all sides. We share common objectives: it is a question not of whether we should do what we can to combat racial and religious attacks, but of how we will do so.
      I welcome the Home Secretary's comments about amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They improve the Bill and will deal with the situation that arises when a person from one racial group is attacked by someone who believes that that person belongs to a different racial group. The amendments take the matter a little further and will cover certain cases. We welcome that move.
      I listened to what the Home Secretary said about amendment No. 10, and I am not sure that I can extend as warm a welcome to those remarks—although I appreciate the care that the Home Secretary has brought to the subject. I shall reply gently to the Home Secretary's comments about the previous Government's approach to racial attacks. It has long been established in law that a racial element of a case is an aggravating feature, and the courts regard it as such. There is strong authority—including recent authority given during the lifetime of the last Parliament by Lord Justice Taylor—that racial attacks should be regarded as an aggravating feature by the courts.
      That system applied across the board to all types of offences where there was a racial feature. It was not a question of whether a racial element should be regarded as an aggravating feature—that has always been the case. The Government have their own view about how that should be achieved, and the Bill marks a change in the way in which the law deals with racial attacks. Instead of the question whether a racial element is being decided by the judge in all cases, as at present, the Bill would put that question into the hands of the jury in certain cases.
      It is a slightly wider application, and I shall not go far down this road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to return, gently, a point the Home Secretary made to me. As the Government are minded to change the way in which the courts approach racial attacks, why do they not go the step further that we suggested in our earlier amendments and include all offences, including the most serious offences of personal violence and public order that are not currently included in the Bill? 1 am straying slightly from the main subject, but I wanted to respond to the Home Secretary's point.
      That is not the point at issue in amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which reflect the fact that, as the Bill stands, offences committed because of hostility towards religion rather than race are not regarded as having aggravated features for the purposes of the Bill. We believe that offences committed against individuals because of their religion are every bit as evil as offences committed against individuals because of their race; and that both are extremely evil.
      To attack people because they are wearing a hejab or sporting a beard is every bit as evil as attacking people because they are black or brown. Many would say that there is not a great deal of similarity between those factual circumstances, but the key distinction for the purposes of the Bill as it stands is whether the attack is motivated by racial hostility or religious hostility. Racial hostility is covered by the Bill, but religious hostility is not.

      897
      From what he said, it is evident that the Home Secretary is mindful of that problem, and sympathetic to attempts to deal with it. I listened carefully to his description of the Government amendment, which we have been considering since it was tabled. As the Home Secretary said, its intention is to make it clear that, even where there may be a religious element in a specific crime, if the hostility is even partly racist it will be covered by the Bill. We regard the amendment as an attempt by the Government to move in the right direction, but we fear that, in practice and in effect, they have not moved far, if at all.
      Without the Government amendment, it is clear on the face of the Bill that offences that are motivated "wholly or partly" by hostility towards a racial group are covered by the Bill, so, unamended, it already covers matters encompassed by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment does not take matters a great deal—or, on reflection, I would have to say, any—further. In Committee, both the Opposition and the Government accepted that, where there is even a partial racial motivation, offences that have a mixed religious and racial motivation will be covered by the Bill. The amendment might be designed to make that more explicit, but it is already the effect in law, so the amendment is little more than a restatement of the Bill's existing provisions.
      The Home Secretary said that, in his judgment, in many of the cases involving a religious motive, if not in almost all, there would also be a racial motive. I am not entirely convinced that that is true. It is necessary to go further and cover cases where there is an entirely religious motive and no racial motive.
      Sadly, attacks are made on people purely and exclusively because of their religion. The Bill as it stands will not cover the case referred to by the Home Secretary, of the white woman wearing a hejab, which was related in a recent briefing meeting that I attended. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case would be covered if the person attacking the white woman wearing the hejab thought that she was Bangladeshi. That might be so, but cases where that is not so—where the attacker knows that the woman is white and attacks her purely because she is wearing that badge of religious identity—will not be covered by the Bill. I put it to the Home Secretary that the same would apply whatever the racial or ethnic origin of the person attacked, solely because they were wearing a badge of religious identity.
      Our concern is that, even with the amendment, the Bill will not cover those cases in which a person is attacked purely because of that person's religion, and where there is no racial motive for the attack. The Home Secretary cannot tell the House that such cases will be covered by the Bill. We fear that, if it is not amended, we shall create all sorts of anomalies, whether actual or perceived, and potential sources of injustice.
      The Government are aware that the courts have judged Sikhs to have the characteristics of a single ethnic group, whereas Muslims come from many different ethnic groups; it follows that any offence committed against a Sikh will automatically be covered by the provisions, but that an offence against a Muslim will not necessarily be covered. We are in danger of creating a sense of injustice. The Home Secretary knows that there is widespread concern—especially among the Muslim community
      898
      because of the variety of ethnic backgrounds from which Muslims are drawn, but among other communities as well—about that possible source of anomaly and injustice.
      7.15 pm
      I appreciate that the Government are not closing the door on this matter for the future, but we are concerned about the state of law now. To pass the Bill, even amended, would risk creating anomalies and injustices. In addition, the courts might be left with many practical difficulties. It is not satisfactory for the Government to proceed in this way and to create new categories of racially aggravated offences, while leaving out the question of religion. We would prefer that the two issues be dealt with together. The law would be in a better state if they were.
      I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's remarks on this important subject, which is of interest to many people. We appreciate his efforts, and the care and sensitivity that he has brought to the issue, but we have to say that the amendment he describes will not remedy the problems that we identified in Committee. The amendment does not take matters a great deal, if any, further, and the Bill is not satisfactory as it stands. Because we do not want to pass a potentially bad law that could be the source of anomalies and grievance, we shall seek to press this matter to a vote.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I rise to speak on a matter that is of real concern in my constituency. On the streets of Slough, young Asians attack and maim each other; the excuse for that street-gang violence is that one side is Sikh and the other is Muslim.
      I am deeply concerned about an unintended consequence of the Bill. I have entered into extensive correspondence with the Home Office and with my local police force on the effect of the Mandla v. Dowell Lee judgment, which suggests that one side in that street warfare could be classified as a racial group, whereas the other might not. In the words of my local police superintendent when writing to me:
      "You and I know how fragile an issue this is locally and it seems most undesirable that this piece of legislation should unwittingly make it more so."
      I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment, which will deal with part of the problem. I was glad to hear him declare tonight that he has an open mind on the future. However, I should be more reassured if he could give me three assurances.
      First, it is clear that it is not intended that the Bill should bear more on one side of the street violence than on the other, so would my right hon. Friend agree to monitor charges and sentences in such cases in communities such as Slough? There are, thankfully, few areas where such incidents occur, but in places such as Slough, Hounslow and Southall, where such cases have occurred, sentences and charges should be monitored.
      Secondly, if the result of that monitoring suggests that the impact is bearing unfairly on the Muslim community—I am reassured at present because the police are blamed by both the Sikh and the Muslim communities for being unfair, which suggests that the police may have got it right—or on one community more than the other, I hope that the open mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary declared at the beginning of his speech

      899
      will swiftly be brought to bear on the issue. Such an outcome is clearly not what is intended as a result of legislation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider legislation to protect religious groups in the same way as racial groups are protected by the Bill.
      Thirdly, could the guidance to which my right hon. Friend has referred include advice to the Crown Prosecution Service about how to treat cases such as the ones that arise in my community?
      I believe that if I had the three assurances for which I ask I could say to both of the street gangs, which try to make their violence respectable, that the Bill will not make things uneven but will help us, as indeed the whole Bill does, in preventing youth violence on our streets.
      Mr. Straw: By way of an intervention, I give my hon. Friend the explicit assurances that she seeks in respect of each of the three points that she raised.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I have finished.
      Mr. Allan: We welcome the new offences that are set out in the Bill, and for which we have called for a long time. We particularly welcome the fact that the Government were open to extending the offences to those of criminal damage. The issue was raised by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia in another place. The Government have been open to the issues raised and expressions of genuine concern. We welcome also the amendments that have been tabled in response to various matters that have been put to the Government by various groups and by hon. Members.
      We share the concern of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the Bill as it stands still does not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman referred to specific instances such as the white woman who has a badge of Muslim identity on her and is attacked. I could refer to other instances of conflict between religious groups where the members of each are clearly of the same ethnicity. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned groups of Sikhs and Muslims fighting one another. People in Scotland have experience of instances of violence between Catholics and Protestants, which can destroy communities in the same way as inter-racial violence, but which I believe would not be covered by the Bill.
      Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while this is an extremely difficult issue and that it is often difficult to determine between religious and racial groupings and identities, we quite often find—I speak from experience in having dealt with such matters—that women who take on the clothing, or other things that are associated with a particular ethnic group, might be attacked on a racial basis in a vile way? They are seen to be the partners, or whatever, of men from a different ethnic group. It is a particularly obnoxious and vile form of attack which quite a number of women experience.
      Mr. Allan: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is an obnoxious form of attack. I am reassured to an extent that, in some cases, it will be covered by legislation. Our concern is about the cleverness of defence lawyers—after
      900
      all, they are paid to be clever. Our concern is that a lawyer could take a defence case into court, a white woman is put up in the witness stand, and the defence lawyer could say, "Look, that individual is white, how can there be any form of racially aggravated assault?" The court and the jury are likely to concur with that. That is our concern. Where these instances occur, defence lawyers will use, as they are paid to do, every tool at their disposal. We are keen to ensure that those tools are not available and that in instances of religiously motivated offences, where there is no obvious racial element for the court to perceive, we are able similarly to take severe action to limit damaging assaults, which are often caused by some of the most reprehensible people in society.
      We are grateful to the work of organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain for bringing these matters to our attention, and to other groups such as the Sikhs and the Jews, which have supported the Muslims, even though technically they are covered at present. There has been a broad-based alliance in pushing these matters forward.
      We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service represents the acid test. The staff of the CPS will have to operate the new laws once they are introduced. The current distinctions do not give them the necessary tools to operate in every circumstance, although they will have the tools to operate in the large majority of cases.
      I take issue with the Home Secretary's contention that there is an objective test of race. All definitions of race are vague at best and are quite clumsy tools. In a multicultural society where we have gradations of race and gradations of cultural difference as people properly mix, integrate and take on different cultural norms, traditional notions of race are highly inadequate.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, to which we put our names, includes the idea of religion within a definition of race and is in itself a clumsy tool. However, we believe that it is as good an approximation as any in terms of giving the CPS the tools that it needs, which is the focus that we have all the time. It should have the ability to take the bigots who cause offensive acts of violence and other damage on individuals to court and to make the charges stick. The inclusion of religion will give the CPS the tool that it needs to cover all instances of racially or religiously motivated violence, rather than the 90 or 95 per cent. that I think the Home Secretary might assure us are covered by the Government amendments. We want 100 per cent.
      We believe that amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would take us to a position where every instance of racially or religiously motivated assaults, in whatever form and in whatever division between the race element and the religious element, would successfully be prosecuted by the CPS. The House will then have sent the bigots the message, a message which they will have plenty of time to think on as they serve the sentences that they will rightly be handed down.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am glad to be able to speak briefly in the debate. I welcome the clauses that create the new offence of racial aggravation. I have a specific constituency reason for wanting to do so.
      On Second Reading, I brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the case of a Cambridge United supporter who was caught chanting racial abuse. Unfortunately, the Crown Prosecution

      901
      Service was not able to bring a case against him on a criminal charge under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 because he was chanting abuse by himself and not with others. In the end, a case was brought against him under the Public Order Act 1986, which resulted in his being banned from football matches for two years. Although that is a serious punishment for him, it is not the punishment which I think he deserves.
      Cambridge United has always taken racism seriously and has done everything to educate youngsters as well as taking tough action when it finds racism occurring. It has been involved in campaigns such as "kick racism out of football" and "give racism the red card". When it receives complaints from members of the public about foul language and racial abuse, it takes action. On the occasion to which I have referred an undercover operation was mounted during a game at which Cambridge United was at home playing Scarborough and fielding four black players. The spectators observed the hurling of threatening and abusive language at both players and spectators.
      I believe—I hope that my right hon. Friend will put me right if I am wrong—that clauses 31 and 32 would enable a spectator behaving in that way to be charged under the Public Order Act 1986 for the new offence of racial aggravation. I think that all my constituents would welcome that. It would certainly be welcomed by Cambridge United.
      Mr. Malins: It is customary in court, as a witness is sworn in, for the usher to ask the witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" Depending on the answer, the appropriate oath is administered. The House will be intrigued to hear that only a fortnight ago I was sitting in court hearing a case judicially when a witness was wheeled into court and the usher asked that witness, "Do you have any religious belief?" The witness replied, "No, I don't. I am Church of England." It was difficult to know which oath should be administered.
      The difficulty with this area, which the House might as well admit, is that there will be problems for the courts if we stray into individual preferences, whether they be religious or racial, or in respect of individual states. When one category—race, for example—is covered, it is difficult to resist the pressure for the floodgates to open so that two, three, four or many more categories may be considered.
      7.30 pm
      I foresee difficulties for judges in directing juries. Whether or not something was spelt out in statute, judges would be able to take into account all the circumstances of a case, such as an aggravating factor, when deciding on sentence; indeed, they always do so. It could be dangerous for hon. Members to list too many sections of our society that might need special or individual attention.
      The Bill covers racial hostility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, but not religious hostility. Although the Home Secretary pointed to support for what he said from a particular group, hon. Members should know that the Pakistan Welfare Association, which is a major force, has contacted me through the many people I know in it. It urges hon. Members to support amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and would
      902
      insert the word "religion" in the Bill. For those reasons, it is only proper that hon. Members support our amendment.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I support amendment No. 10. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who rightly said that there would be racial discrimination in almost every case where there was religious discrimination. I am sure that that is statistically correct, and that he earnestly believes it to be correct. I am also sure that it is correct in respect of his constituency and of mine, which is where he has his home, but it is not correct in respect of the place that I come from.
      I shall speak briefly about the situation in the west of Scotland, where there is no racial difference in one section of the population, but a significant religious difference between Catholics and Protestants. It is well known in every community who is a Catholic and who is a Protestant, not only because of the football teams that people support, but because of the schools that they attend. There is certainly antagonism there.
      I know of a young man who was attacked by supporters of the opposing side when travelling home from a football match about 18 months ago. The teams were, of course, Rangers and Celtic, and the attack took place in the centre of Glasgow. The young man, who was 17, was murdered. That was not football hooliganism—far from it; the attack was religious bigotry. I am sure that the Home Secretary will understand the point that I am making: if they do not accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will send the wrong message. They should be sending the message that religious discrimination and intolerance are every bit as bad as racial discrimination and intolerance.
      Speaking of intolerance, I appreciate that I must be brief, because the football supporters and people of differing religions to whom I have referred will be united this evening, just as hon. Members from both sides of the House—and perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will be united in their antagonism to the citizens of Morocco. I mean that in the nicest possible sporting sense.
      Mr. Straw: This has been a brief but important debate. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who represents my home area in Essex, to get away because of other events. She may not be alone in that, and I should say to her that we welcome allcomers in that part of Essex, including Celtic and Rangers supporters.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked whether racial chanting by one person could be a public order offence under clause 31. The answer is yes, it could—if it met the test of "harassment, alarm or distress". It would not be a football offence, but it certainly would be an offence. I hope that that gives her some assurance.
      Considerable reference has been made to the way in which the courts have defined racial groups. Clause 28 uses the words
      "race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

      903
      The leading authority in respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is Mandla v. Dowell Lee. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said:
      "The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long-shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups and … (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance."
      He added other categories which were not essential, but relevant. He added:
      "A group defined by reference to enough of these characteristics would be capable of including converts, for example, people who marry into the group, and of excluding apostates."
      The definition judicially determined, which appears in clause 28, does not exclude religious groups or converts into them. I understand the difficulty in respect of the Muslim community, and I hope and believe that the Government amendments go a long way to meeting the concerns.
      I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who represented her ethnic origins, that we of course recognise the case for laws dealing with religious discrimination and hatred. We are giving it active consideration, but we need to give such offences the same careful consideration that we have given to these offences. For those reasons, and no others, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (1)(a) above—
      "membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
      "presumed" means presumed by the offender.'.
      No. 160, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on—

      (a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or

      (b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

      Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 22, line 33, after 'race', insert 'religion,'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 268.

      Division No. 313]

      [7.38 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Brake, Tom

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Bercow, John

      Burns, Simon

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Chope, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clappison, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brady, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      904

      Cran, James

      MacKay, Andrew

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maples, John

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Duncan, Alan

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Faber, David

      Oaten, Mark

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Feam, Ronnie

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Prior, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Randall, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rendel, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gray, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Greenway, John

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hammond, Philip

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      Horam, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Johnson Smith,

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tredinnick, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Trend, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Wallace, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Waterson, Nigel

      Letwin, Oliver

      Whittingdale, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lidington, David

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Woodward, Shaun

      Loughton, Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Luff, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sir David Madel and

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alexander, Douglas

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Borrow, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Battle, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      905

      Browne, Desmond

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Healey, John

      Burden, Richard

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Byers, Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hill, Keith

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoey, Kate

      Cann, Jamie

      Home Robertson, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caton, Martin

      Hope, Phil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clapham, Michael

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hurst, Alan

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hutton, John

      Clelland, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Cranston, Ross

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Crausby, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Kidney, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Laxton, Bob

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lepper, David

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Levitt, Tom

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Livingstone, Ken

      Doran, Frank

      Lock, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Edwards, Huw

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Efford, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McFall, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flint, Caroline

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McLeish, Henry

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foulkes, George

      McWalter, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      McWilliam, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marek, Dr John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grant, Bernie

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Merron, Gillian

      Gunnell, John

      Michael, Alun

      Hain, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Milburn, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hanson, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      906

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sheerman, Barry

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Singh, Marsha

      Morley, Elliot

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Norris, Dan

      Speller, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Osbome, Ms Sandra

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stringer, Graham

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Pope, Greg

      (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Todd, Mark

      Purchase, Ken

      Touhig, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Radice, Giles

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Rapson, Syd

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooney, Terry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 33

      RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES
      Amendments made: No. 102, in page 25, line 35, leave out
      'of, or association with members of,'
      and insert '(or presumed membership) of.
      No. 103, in page 25, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (2)(a) above—
      "membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
      "presumed" means presumed by the offender.
      (2B) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based, to any extent, on—

      (a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or

      (b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 35

      EFFECT OF CHILD'S SILENCE AT TRIAL
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, leave out lines 16 to 20.
      We now come to the question of removing the right to silence for children aged under 14. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits a court or jury to draw such inferences as seem proper from a defendant's failure to give evidence or a refusal to answer any questions. That was described as ending the right to silence, and I adopt the same description now. The provisions of the 1994 Act on the right to silence were restricted to defendants aged over 14. Defendants aged under 14 still enjoyed what has been described as the right to silence.
      In view of what the Labour party said during the passage of the 1994 Act, we are slightly surprised that the Government are now proposing to abolish the right to silence for children. Having opposed and voted against ending the right to silence for adults, the Government now propose to go a step further and end the right to silence for children.
      We are surprised by that, because in 1994—not all that long ago—the opposition to the ending of the right to silence was led by the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister. He regarded this as a most serious matter to which he gave deep consideration. He told the House of Commons that the right to silence was a fundamental principle and that the case for changing it had not been made. He said:
      "We go further, and say that it is more than merely a matter of high constitutional principle. There is a serious and substantial risk that, in the manner in which the Government have proceeded, we will not merely fail to convict more of the guilty, but that we are in danger of convicting more of the innocent. Those who are in primary danger from the changes will not be, as has been said, the professional and the hardened criminal, but they could well be the weak, the inadequate and the frightened."—[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 261-62.]
      Labour Members may latch on to the phrase
      "in the manner in which the Government have proceeded"
      as though it is a get-out clause. I advise Ministers that they should not see it as a get-out, because the position I described in my opening remarks is precisely the same as "the manner" to which the then shadow Home Secretary was referring. The effect of the Government's proposals for children is precisely the same as that of the 1994 proposals for adults. If there is any attempt to seek a get-out, I shall read out the then shadow Home Secretary's description—although I note that comments from hon. Members on the Treasury Bench have now subsided. That get-out has been closed off.
      This is a serious issue, because the position of children in courts is special. A high-profile campaign has recently been launched by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children about the way in which children who are victims are dealt with in courts. Some of the same considerations must also apply to children of 10 or 11, or 12 or 13, who are defendants. The 1994 Act recognises that special considerations apply to them.
      Children of those ages stood trial at the Old Bailey on serious charges. The case was reported in The Times on 16 January 1998 under the headline:
      "Old Bailey becomes classroom for rape trial of 10-year-olds".
      908
      The report begins:
      "Court 12 at the Old Bailey has been transformed like a stage set into a modern primary school classroom. The only thing missing is a sandpit, a lump of Play-doh or a large frieze showing the letters of the alphabet.
      Yesterday in the court two boys aged ten became the youngest children to be tried for rape. Their alleged victim was a nine-year-old pupil, raped in the lavatories of their primary school. A third nine-year-old boy escaped prosecution because he was too young to face criminal charges while two others are accused of indecent assault.
      Four square tables have been arranged in the middle of the room, each with five or six chairs, just as at school. Each of the ten-year-olds sits at a separate table with his barrister, the barrister's junior, a parent and a child liaison officer.
      The first thing that strikes you is how very tiny the little boys are. One of them looks no more than seven. If they had to stand in a dock they would be invisible."
      Clause 35 would create similar scenes. If the clause is passed unamended, children will lose the protection of the right to silence, which they currently enjoy under the 1994 Act.
      We think that special considerations should apply in the cases of young children, and are surprised that the Government are taking such a course. Although we are glad that they have repented of their opposition in 1994, one surely cannot repent of holding what the then shadow Home Secretary described as "high constitutional principles" or of seeking to avoid the terrible risk of convicting the innocent—which also was dealt with eloquently by the then Home Secretary. We think that such considerations should apply particularly strongly in the case of young children, for the reasons that I have given.
      The Government are taking a very surprising course, which will have to be examined and justified further.
      8 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Amendment No. 63 would remove clause 35 from the Bill entirely. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a rather confusing argument in its favour.
      The purpose of clause 35 is to amend section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which deals with the inferences may be drawn at a trial, if the defendant chooses, in certain circumstances, to remain silent. Currently, such inferences may not be drawn when the defendant is under the age of 14, when the guilt of the accused is not an issue, or when the defendant's physical or mental condition makes it undesirable that he should give evidence.
      It is the Government's intention, as effected by clause 35, to remove the age restriction from section 35 of the 1994 Act, so that the provision may apply equally to all juveniles and adults. The remaining restrictions in section 35 will not be affected.
      There are two principal reasons for making such a change. The first is consistency with the Government's intention to abolish the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax—a proposal which has met with an extremely favourable response among practitioners in the arena of youth justice. Abolition of the presumption may result in a conviction, which will allow a formal opportunity for intervention in what may very well be the beginning of an offending career, so that the young person may be

      909
      turned away from such a path at the earliest opportunity. Such intervention is a key principle behind our proposals. If offending behaviour occurs, our objective is to intervene early, so that we may begin turning that young person away from offending behaviour.
      In keeping with that thinking, clause 35 will allow a court or jury to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant between the ages of 10 and 13. We concluded that the defendant is responsible for his or her behaviour. Consequently, in most cases, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that a child between those ages will be able—if the circumstances are clearly explained to him or her—to understand the consequences of refusing to answer a question in court, or of refusing to speak up on his or her own behalf.
      It is particularly important that a young person should provide any innocent explanation, should there be one, for his or her conduct. To allow a young person to evade that responsibility does him or her no favours. Our whole programme is about getting young people to face up to their offending behaviour, and part of that responsibility is explaining that behaviour. When it seems to the court or the jury that a child does not understand, he or she will still be able to be protected by the provisions of section 35 of the 1994 Act, which allow the court not to draw inferences if it considers that the child's mental or physical state makes that undesirable.
      Mr. Clappison: Is not doli incapax an entirely separate issue? Moreover, if that safeguard has been removed, is there not a stronger case for examining even more carefully the need for other safeguards?
      Mr. O'Brien: The answer to that question is no. Although doli incapax is another matter, it is related to the one that we are debating. If we are to have consistency and logic in what we do, our proposal should follow as a further change.
      In most cases, it is right and appropriate that young people should face up to their responsibilities and give an account of themselves, and that any refusal to do so should be regarded in the same way as would, for example, the refusal of a 14 or 15-year-old to provide an account. Either we should treat young people as responsible for their actions or we should not. If they are responsible, they should be able to provide an explanation for their actions. Amendment No. 63 is effectively a charter for irresponsible behaviour by young offenders.
      The second reason for retaining clause 35 is, once again, to achieve consistency—not, this time, with the Government's new legislation, but with current provisions on juvenile justice. Under section 34 of the 1994 Act, there are no restrictions on drawing inferences from the failure of 10 to 13-year-olds to mention facts when charged or questioned by police. Similarly, all children above the age of criminal responsibility are already treated equally, under section 36 of 1994 Act, which deals with the failure or refusal of the accused to account for objects, substances or marks, and under section 37 of that Act, which deals with the failure or refusal of the accused to account for his or her presence at a particular place. Clause 35 simply brings the position of those young people in court into line with current related provisions.
      By treating all juveniles in the same way, except where individual circumstances clearly merit different treatment, we can ensure an efficient and effective approach to all
      910
      offenders over the age of criminal responsibility, and can nip their offending in the bud at the earliest possible stage. We are not talking about getting a conviction and imposing a draconian penalty on a young person. Our objective is to tackle offending behaviour and divert young people from further offending, and to ensure that the courts have the ability to effect our objectives.
      In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press his amendment.
      Mr. Clappison: I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's explanation. He said that abolition of doli incapax has received a broadly favourable reaction. As he knows, the Committee carefully considered abolition and took the view that the Government's course on the issue was right. However, not everyone took that view. The Minister should know that we received representations from organisations that were concerned about abolition.
      In another place, on the abolition of doli incapax, Baroness Mallalieu—who was one of the counsel in the case at the Old Bailey that I mentioned—said that she hoped that
      "the Minister will not lightly dismiss the concerns of many who practise at the criminal bar about the abolition of this rule."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 833.]
      The Minister would do well to bear in mind those concerns.
      We weighed up the arguments and thought that abolition of doli incapax was the right course to take. We thought that it should not be necessary for the prosecution effectively to have to prove that the child knew the difference between right and wrong. However, we do not think that that belief in itself makes the case for abolishing a child's right to silence in court. The issues are quite separate. If one is removing a safeguard such as doli incapax, the case for carefully examining other existing safeguards—such as the right to silence—is strengthened.
      The Minister was right to say that children do not have the right to silence in other settings, such as when being interviewed by police. However, although that was the position under the 1994 Act, a special view was taken of children in court—because giving evidence in court is different from being asked questions in other circumstances, such as in a police station. With the best will in the world, courtroom proceedings can be very daunting for little children. As I said, in its campaign, the NSPCC has recognised the difficulties of child victims who have to give evidence in court. Realistically, we have to recognise the special circumstances in cases involving young children.
      We wonder why the Government have proposed such a change without consultation—or much fanfare. It would be interesting to know what issues might have been raised if there had been consultation. A bit of fanfare has surrounded the Bill—I do not think that anyone could say that it has been undersold. Perhaps "never knowingly undersold" would be the best description of the Bill. Nevertheless, we are concerned by the way in which the Government have undertaken the change.
      I have expressed our concerns on the matter. However, in order to allow the House to make some progress on other subjects, I shall not press it to a vote. As I said, the Government have taken an extraordinarily contradictory position on a matter that the Prime Minister himself as a matter of high constitutional principle. If principles can

      911
      be abandoned so lightly, we wonder what message will be sent, and what will happen to the principles that the Government are currently espousing.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 42

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 31, line 39, at end insert
      'and the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple form part of the City of London'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 47

      POWERS OF YOUTH COURTS
      Amendment made: No. 19, in page 36, line 8, at end insert—
      '(1 A) Where a person is remitted under subsection (1) above—

      (a) he shall have no right of appeal against the order of remission;

      (b) the remitting court shall adjourn proceedings in relation to the offence; and

      (c) subsections (1B) and (IC) below shall apply.

      (1B) The following, namely—

      (a) section 128 of the 1980 Act; and

      (b) all other enactments (whenever passed) relating to remand or the granting of bail in criminal proceedings,

      shall have effect in relation to the remitting court's power or duty to remand the person on the adjournment as if any reference to the court to or before which the person remanded is to be brought or appear after remand were a reference to the court to which he is being remitted ("the other court").
      (1C) The other court may deal with the case in any way in which it would have power to deal with it if all proceedings relating to the offence which took place before the remitting court had taken place before the other court.'—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 56

      BAIL: RESTRICTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF HOMICIDE OR RAPE
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 43, leave out lines 10 to 16.
      It is a relief to take part in the proceedings, albeit at such a late stage, in view of the fact that other legislation denied me the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, something that 1 had anticipated doing for some months.
      The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced five key changes to the right of accused persons to bail pending trial. At that time, Government estimates were that 50,000 offences were committed each year by people on bail. The changes that were made then contributed significantly to the recent reduction in crime.
      One of the changes contained in section 25 of the 1994 Act provides a bar to bail for defendants charged with or convicted of an offence of homicide or rape if they have a previous conviction for a homicide or rape offence. Clause 56 seeks to amend that provision, to remove the bar to bail and introduce instead an exceptional circumstances test.
      912
      The test would in the main be the responsibility of a police officer, presumably a duty sergeant, or a magistrate before whom the accused person would appear. They would decide whether the exceptional circumstances test was met and, if so, would grant bail. We disagree with that provision; hence amendment No. 64. In Committee, there was a lively debate on this matter, which I read with some interest and which I dare say the Minister will recall. I do not propose to detain the House by rehearsing it again now; nor do I intend to tempt the Minister to anticipate European Court judgments—we think the issues are fundamental and stand on their own.
      It is important to remind the House, however, that in Committee, Conservative Members pressed an amendment requiring any decisions about bail in respect of defendants in homicide or rape cases, where the defendants had a previous conviction, to be taken only by a High Court judge. We do not think that the Minister gave an adequate explanation of why the precaution of having a High Court judge's decision was so unacceptable, given the importance that the Government appear to attach to including the exceptional circumstances test.
      More to the point, we do not believe that the Government have made a case as to why the 1994 Act should be changed at all in this regard. In view of that, amendment No. 64 seeks to delete clause 56, leaving the position as it currently stands—with an absolute bar to bail in such cases.
      The Government's view appears to be that the 1994 Act's provision was not justified. However, Parliament approved it. The argument took place then, and is over. Parliament believed that the measure was necessary to protect the public. Ministers have not thus far provided any compelling evidence that this absolute bar to bail has created difficulty. When the 1994 Act was being considered, Labour failed to support the provision of such protection, although just about everything else in that legislation, which the current Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary, described as "gimmicks", has stood the test of time. Clearly, with the responsibility of government, a more mature view has thankfully emerged.
      8.15 pm
      If the Government get their way, however, and clause 56 remains in the Bill, it will be possible for a convicted murderer or rapist to be allowed out on bail when charged with a similar offence in the future. That is the purpose of clause 56.
      We do not seek to criticise custody sergeants or magistrates in general or suggest that they are incapable of taking decisions about bail. They exercise such powers regularly and do so with considerable care and diligence. However, misjudgments do arise, wrong information is given, and there can be misunderstandings.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that misunderstandings may occur in such circumstances. Can he give me one example of any case before 1994 which is on all fours with what he is proposing and where such a thing has occurred?
      Mr. Greenway: I said that I was not going to repeat all the arguments that were made at the time of the 1994

      913
      legislation. The point is that Parliament accepted that strengthening protection in such cases was necessary. However, the Minister anticipates the point that I was about to make which clearly justifies the need for caution.
      The number of cases in which rapists on release from prison subsequently attack other women—or in which people convicted of murder or, as is often the case, of manslaughter, subsequently kill again—surely indicates that any known offender in these categories who is subsequently arrested and charged with a repeat offence should not be granted bail. That is the only approach that achieves total consistency and the complete elimination of risk. That was the purpose of the 1994 legislation. As I said, in Committee the Minister could not say where there had been any difficulty with that. We believe that in order to ensure the complete elimination of risk and to achieve total consistency there should be an absolute bar to bail in such cases.
      It may be argued that there could be cases in which it might be wrong—I think the Minister tried to advance this argument in Committee—to remand in custody someone facing trial for a second homicide offence if, for example, he was previously convicted of manslaughter which might have involved negligence behind the wheel of a car or negligence in failing to fulfil a professional duty. On the other hand, such a case would not proceed without compelling evidence. A custodial sentence would follow conviction, which tends to suggest that the balance of the argument should be to remand in custody. Such cases would be very rare, and the phrase used in the Bill—"exceptional circumstances"—could well be more liberally interpreted. Only time would tell.
      What is much more likely is that, based on an unreliable, if not erroneous, assessment of an individual's mental state or preponderance to reoffend, someone who would pose a serious risk to the community would be granted bail and released. What are we to say to a victim's family when someone on bail kills someone else or commits rape? It is no good relying on the benefit of hindsight to conclude that a wrong decision was taken. The harm that has been caused cannot be reversed.
      Those difficult and important issues require Parliament to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals with those of society. In our judgment, that balance is best struck by leaving the law as it stands. The bar to bail for defendants convicted of homicide or rape, when subsequently charged with a similar offence, is surely the minimum protection that the public should expect the law to provide. I invite the House to support the amendment to delete clause 56.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's argument relies on the fact that Parliament made a decision on a previous occasion and that it was wrong for Parliament to reconsider the issue. That goes against the basic constitutional principle of one Parliament not binding another. I put that argument aside. Parliament is entitled to reconsider the issue.
      The Labour party argued against the introduction of the provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We continue to believe that it is bad law and against the interests of justice. We have every confidence in the ability of the police and the courts to make the right decision in such cases, just as they could before 1994. We are unaware of any example of bail having been granted
      914
      in such a case. We were mindful then, and remain aware, of public concern about some bail decisions. The decision should remain with those in possession of the full facts, but the public must have confidence in the process.
      We are not repealing section 25 of the 1994 Act; we are improving it. Ordinarily, there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless there are substantial grounds to believe that the defendant will abscond, commit an offence or obstruct the course of justice. In the absence of such grounds, the defendant must be released on bail. Clause 56 reverses that general presumption. The presumption will be that the defendant is taken into custody. The burden will be on the defendant to show that the circumstances of his case are exceptional and justify his release on bail. We do not expect many, if any, defendants to overcome that hurdle.
      There are also existing safeguards to insure against any unacceptable risk to the public as a result of the judicial discretion that we are proposing to restore. First, there is the reversal of the presumption in favour of bail. Secondly, the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which applies to cases involving any offence attracting a maximum penalty of five years or more in prison, gives the prosecution a right of appeal to a Crown court judge against a magistrates court decision to grant bail. The defendant must be kept in custody pending the outcome of the appeal. Thirdly, the Bail Act 1976 says that if a defendant who has been charged with any such offence is granted bail and representations have been made that he should be denied bail, the court must state its reasons for granting bail and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
      The new provision allows some flexibility to prevent injustice, ensures that the protection of the public remains a primary concern and provides a tough additional safeguard against bad bail decisions in particularly serious cases. I shall give an example of an exceptional case—such a case has not happened yet—in which we might want to consider bail.
      Let us consider a doctor who had a previous conviction for manslaughter as a result of euthanasia. He had turned up on all previous occasions while on bail and there was no reason to believe that he would not turn up on bail. A condition of bail when charged with a second offence could be that he should not practise as a doctor, so there would be no danger to the public and nobody would think that there was. There would be every reason to believe that he would not break that bail condition. Would the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) say that the courts and the police should not be able even to consider bail? The public would want to think carefully. An American doctor, whose name I forget, was involved in similar circumstances.
      I am not saying that bail should be granted in such cases, but, if there are exceptional circumstances, we should trust the police and the courts to decide whether bail is appropriate. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, this is about whether we trust the police and the courts. For decades, they have had the power to grant bail. No one has provided evidence of any case in which they could not be trusted. The Tory party has made itself the party that has no trust in the police or in our courts. The Tories are stirring up fears that the public face killers, murderers or rapists on the streets. They seem to believe

      915
      that the police will irresponsibly release such people. They are stirring up those fears with no evidence and great irresponsibility.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale shakes his head. During his speech, he was reasonable. However, he has issued a press release that says:
      "Convicted murderers and rapists could be wandering the streets on bail."
      That is not what he said this evening, but he has put out that statement to the press and the public. That is an irresponsible statement which could stir up fears among the public. If he is serious, he should not make such flagrant attempts to create fear on our streets. The fear of crime is bad enough. A responsible Member of Parliament should not put out such statements. He knows perfectly well that we shall not do anything of the sort. We are trying to make young offenders accept responsibility for their bad behaviour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his irresponsible statement.
      No serious commentator has said that we cannot trust the police or the courts to make the right decisions in such cases. The safeguards are there. The Tories should stop undermining trust in our police and our courts, and stop making wild claims designed to stir up fear on our streets. We are dealing with a serious issue. The hon. Gentleman's press statement does not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.
      Mr. Greenway: Well, we really have touched a nerve. The Minister has made three statements that make our case. First, he said that the situation has not arisen yet. The Government have failed miserably to demonstrate any reason why the 1994 Act should be amended. The fact that the circumstances have not arisen underlines our concern that, if the bar to bail is removed, it will be possible for someone previously convicted of homicide—or, more probably, of rape—to reoffend again if granted bail.
      I made no criticism of the police. I went out of my way to point out that the police do a very good job and do it with diligence. A decision on exceptional circumstances might be taken by a court rather than a custody sergeant. Who knows what the circumstances would be? Our clear view is that there should be a bar as the best means of protecting the public. That is why we implemented the provision in the 1994 Act.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, based on the pre-1994 evidence and the fact that there is no evidence that the police or the courts have ever made what he calls "mistakes" in such cases, he can trust the police and the courts to make those decisions?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Greenway: We have not trawled through every single case, but the Minister must accept that there have been numerous cases where those convicted of rape, murder or manslaughter—most likely manslaughter, which is why they are released much earlier—reoffend when they are released. If they have been arrested and recharged with a further similar offence, common sense suggests that if one is in the business of protecting the
      916
      public from those people, the balance of the issues lies in the public interest, not in granting bail under any circumstances.
      I said that for there to be a question of remand in custody pending trial, the Crown Prosecution Service would have to have considered all the evidence. There would have to be a compelling case, considered strong enough to take to court and, on conviction, there would almost certainly be a long custodial sentence. It therefore seems illogical to argue about whether, in such circumstances, bail is appropriate.
      The Minister also said that he did not expect many defendants to overcome that hurdle. That suggests that the argument is really about a point of principle. There is a meeting of two absolute views: the public generally support our view, which is that there should be an absolute bar to bail; the Government clearly do not agree.
      We have made the argument, and we stand by it. We shall not seek to press the issue to a Division, but we thought it right to have this debate and to draw the public's attention to it—hence the press release put out by central office. We wanted to let people know that the Government say that they are tough on crime, yet on this issue they are failing to give the public the protection that they deserve.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 20, in page 44, line 33, after 'section' insert 'and section 51(2C) below'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 62

      REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 46, line 38, after 'any' insert 'particular'.
      No. 48, in page 47, line 29, leave out
      'by which the order is made'
      and insert 'responsible for the order'.
      No. 49, in page 47, line 34, at end insert—
      '(9) In this section and sections 63 and 64 below, references to the court responsible for a drug treatment and testing order are references to—

      (a) the court by which the order is made; or

      (b) where another court is specified in the order in accordance with subsection (10) below, that court.

      (10) Where the area specified in a drug treatment and testing order made by a magistrates' court is not the area for which the court acts, the court may, if it thinks fit, include in the order provision specifying for the purposes of subsection (9) above a magistrates' court which acts for that area.'—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 63

      PERIODIC REVIEWS
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 47, line 40, leave out 'making' and insert 'responsible for'.
      No. 21, in page 48, line 29, leave out 'one' and insert 'either or both'.
      No. 22, in page 48, line 31, leave out 'or'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 64

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 49, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'give' in line 24 and insert—
      '(1A) Where, in the case of a drug treatment and testing order made by a magistrates' court, another magistrates' court is responsible for the order, the court making the order shall forthwith send copies of the order to the other court.
      (2) Where a drug treatment and testing order is made or amended under section 63(2) above, the court responsible for the order shall forthwith or, in a case falling within subsection (1A) above, as soon as reasonably practicable'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 67

      REPARATION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 52, line 18, after 'sentence' insert
      'or a sentence under section 53(1) of the 1933 Act'.
      No. 24, in page 52, line 21, leave out
      'an action plan order or a compensation order'
      and insert
      'or an action plan order'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 69

      ACTION PLAN ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 54, line 4, after 'sentence' insert
      'or a sentence under section 53(1) of the 1933 Act,' .—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 72

      BREACH OF REQUIREMENTS IN SUPERVISION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 88, in page 56, line 40, leave out from 'him' to end of line 44 and insert—

      '(i) subject to section 16A(1) of this Act, an order under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (attendance centre orders); or

      (ii) subject to section 16B of this Act, an order under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (curfew orders);'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 74
      DUTIES AND POWERS OF COURT
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 59.—[Mr. Michael.]
    Clause 79

      SENTENCING GUIDELINES
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 62, line 27, after 'against' insert
      ', or a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 with respect to,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 87, in page 63, line 8, at end insert
      'and any aggravating factors based on a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability'.
      Government amendment No. 28.
      Mr. Michael: The amendment makes it clear that the sentencing guideline provisions apply to cases before the Court of Appeal when the Attorney-General has made a referral to it, as well as to cases where the offender appeals against sentence.
      The Criminal Justice Act 1988 gave the Attorney-General the power to refer serious cases to the Court of Appeal when a sentence appeared to be unduly lenient. In the past few years, the Court of Appeal has, on occasions, established sentencing guidelines as a result of such cases. An example is the 1989 sentencing guideline on incest in the case of Attorney-General reference No. 1 of 1989. In view of the importance of the Attorney-General's powers, it is clear that such cases need to be covered. The amendment seeks to remove any doubt about whether such cases are covered—they are.
      Amendment No. 87 would require the Court of Appeal to include in its sentencing guidelines aggravating factors relating to the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or disability. The Government have the greatest sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. We deplore offences that are driven by any of the motivating factors in the amendment. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) helpfully suggested that the sentencing guidelines provisions in the Bill might provide an opportunity to establish guidelines on the treatment of homophobic violence. The sentencing guidelines are likely to be helpful in that regard.
      The mechanism of the advisory panel provides a vehicle through which experience and opinion on such matters can be fed. The sentencing advisory panel will be able to receive views from those who have had direct experience of the sort of problems that are highlighted, and will be able to point out concerns about patterns of sentencing in relation to such matters. It will then be able to pass views to the Court of Appeal. Thus, the mechanism will be sensitive to experience in the community of the outcomes of sentencing on such matters.
      Ultimately, it will be for the Court of Appeal to decide on guidelines, having regard to the requirements set out in the Bill. It would not be right for the Court of Appeal to be told that it must include certain aggravating factors; nor is it necessary to do so. Those factors are unlikely to be relevant aggravating factors in many of the cases before the court. For example, none of those factors would be at all relevant to a case of causing death by drink-driving. The aggravating factors in those circumstances are more likely to include matters such as the amount of alcohol consumed, whether the offender failed to stop after the accident, or excessive speed. Although those are important issues, they are not part of the list suggested in the amendment.
      It is widely acknowledged that the courts need to have regard to a multitude of aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing. Does that mean that the factors in the amendment are more important than other factors? Would

      919
      that be the effect in law? Clearly, there are occasions when they should be regarded as important, and others when they should be regarded as less important, depending on the facts of the case. Is an attack based on an offender's gender worse than an attack where a weapon is involved? Those are difficult judgments to make, yet we would raise that issue if we included the provision in the Bill.
      Why do we not require the Court of Appeal to include mitigating factors? We believe that it is best to leave those matters to the courts. After deep consideration, considerable thought and debate, we have created a statutory provision on racial crime because this is a widespread problem, which does specific damage to community relations and social stability. It not only damages the victims and those associated with them, but tears a rift in the fabric of society. That is the difference, as we explained in earlier debates.
      The courts are already required in sentencing to account of all the mitigating and aggravating factors of the offence and the offender. Sentencing guidelines have always included aggravating factors. To give just one example, one of the most well-known sentencing guidelines, the case of Billam, lists a number of serious aggravating factors in rape cases, including where
      "the victim is either very old or very young".
      The sentencing guideline provisions in the Bill are important, but they build and improve on the current system of sentencing guidelines and they are not intended to, nor do they, interfere with the independence of the courts. The amendment carries a much graver risk of interfering with the courts' discretion.
      I hope that, although there may be issues that hon. Members want to raise in the debate, I have explained the reasons why it would not be advisable to put those matters on the face of the Bill, and how they can be dealt with within the structures that we propose.
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for his warm response to the intention behind amendment No. 87, which I tabled, even though he has said that he will not accept it as worded. He was correct to refer to our debates in Committee on homophobic offences—offences motivated by hatred of people because of their sexuality. Amendment No. 87 arises from two of the issues that we discussed in Committee: first, aggravating factors based on age, gender and disability; and secondly, whether such issues should be determined through sentencing guidelines rather than through the mechanism of a new clause, as we originally proposed in Committee. Amendment No. 87 is a constructive attempt to reconcile some of the suggestions that were put to us, including the helpful suggestion from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
      Liberal Democrats remain concerned about these issues. In Committee, we cited a considerable amount of detailed evidence from such bodies as Stonewall, which, in its survey "Queerbashing", pointed out that that offence is committed daily in our streets. We also referred to the fact that, last year, the Home Secretary grouped that offence with offences motivated by racial hatred, with which the Bill, fortunately, also deals.
      I am pleased that the Minister said that the appeal courts would consider these issues, even though the
      920
      Government will not direct them to do so in legislation. Paragraphs (a) and (d) of clause 79(3) specify
      "the need to promote consistency in sentencing"
      and
      "the need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system".
      If we are to achieve those goals, we believe that the courts will have to address the aggravating factors about which we are talking.
      Homophobic assaults are significantly under-reported precisely because of a lack of public confidence. Sentencing guidelines are important not only because of the sentences that they suggest, but because to mention them in open court will be to give a strong signal that the court is taking aggravating factors seriously—if, in sentencing, the judge says that he or she has taken on board an aggravating factor, that will give a huge boost to public confidence, and many more offences will be reported.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are helpful, and may be complemented by two other factors. First, the crime and disorder audit can take account of the experience of particular groups, which can then be considered in decisions on strategy. The second factor is the attitude of the police. The Association of Chief Police Officers, for example, has made it clear that it recognises that the police must listen to and understand the experience of particular groups, such as the lesbian and gay communities, to deal with specific crimes.
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful for those comments. We have strongly welcomed the community safety strategies and the idea that communities should be asked about what they want. We believe that communities will, through those consultation exercises, express their desire to receive the protection that we are talking about. I am also grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has taken on board the issues that we raised—hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of boosting public confidence.
      Action is needed throughout the criminal justice system. The Minister referred to the police, who we believe are now making strenuous efforts. However, the tools must also be given to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that it knows that evidence on aggravating factors must be collected and that such evidence is worth presenting in court.
      Moreover, the courts—including the judges and the magistrates—must also take these issues seriously and treat cases consistently. The experience that has been reported to us is that some aggravating factors are taken more seriously than others. In some cases, they can even be used as mitigating factors—in citing the homosexual panic defence, for example, individuals justify their attacks on gay people by saying, "I was scared because he was making an approach, so I had to hit him, guv." We believe that such a defence is unacceptable, and we hope that the sentencing guidelines will reflect that.
      We are grateful to the Government for their constructive approach. We want to continue dialogue both with Ministers in the Home Office and, crucially, with Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department, who have specific responsibility for the guidance that is offered to the courts. We hope that the measures applying to

      921
      offences motivated by racial hatred will also apply to other offences motivated by hatred—they are often committed by the same people. Moreover, we hope that the courts will maintain public confidence by dealing consistently and seriously with such offences across the country. We must send a message to the people who commit these crimes that the Government and the courts will not accept such behaviour.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of this section, the Court is seised of a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if it has given leave under subsection (1) of that section and the reference has not been disposed of.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    Clause 84

      SEXUAL OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS
      8.45 pm
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 65, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 66.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 104 and 105.
      Ms Cunningham: The Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled amendment No. 149, as I have previously flagged up the issue of removing the limits on extended sentences. He will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for more than a few minutes—both he and I have pressing engagements elsewhere—and that I shall not press the amendment to a Division.
      Clause 84 introduces the concept of extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders, which I believe will become a useful adjunct to the sentencing options that are currently available to Scottish courts. The concept is welcome, but I do not see why there should be a limit on the extended sentence, particularly on sentences that are given in the High Court. People in the profession have queried why High Court judges should have a capping limit of 10 years when, under common law, a life sentence is available. It is understandable that some limits should apply in the sheriff courts for summary and solemn cases, but High Court cases involve only offenders who have committed the most serious offences.
      I am sure that the Minister will not deny that an individual such as Cronin—about whom there has been a great deal of public disquiet both in Scotland and in Ireland—who seems utterly unwilling or unable to change his behaviour, needs to be watched for the rest of his life, whether he is in prison or out of prison. I doubt whether many people would fall into that category—at least, I certainly hope not. The fact that there are only a few, however, is no reason for the Government to set their face against the concept of an extension for life.
      I expect that, like an ordinary sentence, the extensions would be subject to appeal. Perhaps I have overlooked the part of the Bill where that is specified, so I hope that the Minister can confirm it for the record. I hope that he will also say what provisions there will be to review extended sentences to take account of any changed circumstances that may arise.
      Mr. McLeish: I rise to respond at a gloomy moment in the fixture between Scotland and Morocco—my pager
      922
      reliably informs me that, after 18 minutes, we were one-nil down. However, we are an aspirational country, so I await with interest a further message on my pager—[Interruption.] I do not want to be sidestepped into talking about last night's match, but, if pushed, I will.
      I shall respond briefly on amendment No. 149 and speak to the Government amendments. First, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to impose sentences that will protect the public from serious criminals. As the provisions stand—taken together with existing legislation—they will achieve that objective.
      The provisions in the clause will allow the court to impose an additional period of supervision of up to 10 years in the case of a sex offender. That is on top of any determinate custodial element to the sentence, which may in itself be very lengthy. The maximum is longer for sex offenders than for violent offenders because all the evidence shows that the behaviour of sex offenders is more deeply entrenched. The maximum extension period for violent offenders is therefore less—five years, rather than 10, where a determinate custodial sentence of four years or more is imposed. A five-year extension period could be imposed on a violent offender who would have received a custodial sentence of 10 years, but whom the court considered still to be likely to pose a risk of serious harm to the public when he ceased to be on licence. Therefore, he would either be in custody or on licence and subject to recall to custody for 15 years—well past the point at which most violent offenders, unlike sex offenders, have ceased to be a risk to the public. Should the court decide it necessary, it can impose a discretionary life sentence, which is close to what the hon. Member for Perth appears to want to achieve through the amendment; that power already exists.
      The clause contains an additional power. I mentioned the difference between the maximum for sexual offences and for violent offences. If it becomes clear with the operation of the legislation that a longer additional period is desirable in the case of violent offenders, the maximum may be increased up to the same level as for sex offenders by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution. The Government will have no hesitation in seeking Parliament's approval for that change if it should prove necessary.
      I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the clause will provide the courts with adequate powers. Like all legislation, we will keep it under close scrutiny so that we can review what is happening. Our objectives are, I think, the same, but we are content with the current provisions of the clause.
      On appeals, an extended sentence is a sentence and, therefore, appealable like any other sentence. I pointed out earlier that conditions can be removed by the Secretary of State if they are no longer appropriate—for example, on residential changes. There will be monitoring and review, and I think that the point about appeals has been tidied up. Given those comments, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
      Government amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 109 are consequential on the introduction of clause 109 and are intended to ensure that sentence calculation rules apply similarly to extended sentences as to other custodial sentences.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 85

      FURTHER PROVISION AS TO EXTENDED SENTENCES
      Amendments made: No. 104, in page 68, line 45, after first 'to' insert
      'section 1A(c) of this Act and'
      No. 105, in page 69, line 21, after 'In' insert 'section 1A(c) and'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    Clause 88
      REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 106, in page 71, line 29, after 'any' insert 'particular'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Clause 94

      OFFENCES RACIALLY AGGRAVATED
      Amendments made: No. 107, in page 78, line 28, leave out
      'of, or association with members of,'
      and insert '(or presumed membership) of.
      No. 108, in page 78, line 34, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (2)(a) above—
      "membership", in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
      "presumed" means presumed by the offender.
      (2B) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based, to any extent, on—

      (a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or

      (b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

    Clause 97

      POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 81, line 7, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 19 on page 82.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 98, page 82, line 20, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 46 on page 83.
      Government amendments Nos. 161, 109 to 113, 117 to 120 and 143 to 146.
      Mr. Greenway: The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced the concept of tagging offenders as an alternative sentence to imprisonment. As a Back-Bench member of the Standing Committee of that Bill, I recall during its progress and previously being a strong advocate of the tagging option. At that time, the Labour party took a wholly different view, and I make no point other than that we welcome its conversion now.
      924
      However, the House has to ask itself: why the change? We think that the clear and singular answer is concern about prison places, which in turn means concern about the need to save money. I will not labour the point about prison places, except to say that we have yet to be told what the effect of the comprehensive spending review will be on the Home Office budget, and in turn on prison budgets and the provision of new places. We hope that the expansion of prison places in line with the increase in the prison population will continue.
      Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that to be an indefinite process—that prison numbers will continue to expand, and, year by year, spending reviews will continue to provide more money for them?
      Mr. Greenway: That is an important point, but the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the answer is that it is not the House or the Government, or the Opposition parties, who sentence prisoners to custody. The job of the Government and the House is to ensure adequate provision of prison places. I shall deal with an alternative to the Government's proposals in the Bill, which I hope will encourage the right hon. Gentleman to think that the Opposition are not pursuing a lock-everyone-up policy—far from it: the 1991 Act contained many important reforms of non-custodial sentencing, the bulk of which have now bedded down well into sentencing patterns, and I recall that much concern and suspicion was expressed in the Standing Committee on that Bill.
      The proposals in clauses 97 and 98 together provide a detailed scheme for the early release of prisoners serving short-term sentences of more than three months. A prisoner sentenced to four to eight months will serve only a quarter of the term ordered by the court. That means—this has become a colloquial expression—that six months will mean six weeks in prison. For the remainder of the time, up to the point where the prisoner would normally have been released—at the halfway point of the sentence—he or she would be subject to a curfew condition, backed by a tagging requirement to ensure that he or she spent at least nine hours a day on home detention.
      Clearly, that provision will affect large numbers of prisoners, who will as a consequence be released early. Notwithstanding the tagging condition or the risk assessment that we are promised, that is a retrograde step: it will give prisoners the opportunity to reoffend, which will consequently undermine the protection of the public. The Minister and the Home Office ministerial team need to brace themselves for significant public disapproval when such cases occur and are publicised.
      In the exchange a few minutes ago, we were talking about rare cases and cases in extremis. Here we are talking about the run-of-the-mill Johnny Burglar being released early, spending some time at home because he is tagged, but also spending some time out on the street reoffending. We think that this does not achieve honesty or consistency in sentencing, because if the risk assessment is to mean anything, it will determine that some prisoners will not be released early. More to the point—this is why we chose to have this debate on the Floor of the House—we do not believe that this is the best use of tagging and curfew.

      925
      9 pm
      Tagging should be a sentence of the court. I must say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it should be seen as an alternative to custody where some restriction of liberty is thought appropriate and a prison sentence is not. Tagging was never considered as a viable sentencing option that would provide an excuse to halve sentences imposed by the courts. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that prisoners would be released under the procedure towards the end of their sentences. However, the public will see that tagging occurs within weeks, if not days, of sentence. That will not inspire public confidence in sentencing.
      Ministers say that tagging introduces self-discipline, and enables prisoners to be better prepared for life outside prison. Over time, curfew orders certainly can have beneficial effects, and both sides agree that they are a valuable option. Under the Bill, however, many short-term prisoners will have a curfew condition that lasts only a few weeks—it may be as little as two or three weeks. The reduced time served in prison will mean even less time for meaningful work or rehabilitation. We do not believe that the Government's arguments in favour of curfews supported by electronic tagging really make sense.
      Ministers have suggested that a risk assessment for each qualifying prisoner will determine suitability. Who will carry that out? What assurance can we have that the assessment process will not be undermined by the need to reduce overcrowding in prison, or to avoid investment in additional places? The clause also provides power for the Secretary of State to amend the various time periods in the proposals. That gives rise to general concern that the proposals will be used as a means to release large numbers of prisoners into the community long before their sentences have been concluded.
      We oppose the early release of prisoners under the scheme. That is why we tabled our amendment proposing to remove clause 97. We want an extensive scheme for tagging to reinforce curfew orders, but it should be a proper sentence of the court. Courts could then decide to impose curfew sentences as opposed to short-term custodial sentences where circumstances dictated that that would be beneficial. That is a better and more honest way to relieve pressure on the Prison Service, and to ease overcrowding. It is certainly a more appropriate use of tagging-based curfew sentences.
      The Government's approach runs the risk—I say this in all sincerity—of bringing both custodial sentences and the use of tagging into disrepute with the public. The Government would then reap the worst of both worlds. They should think again.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment Nos. 72 and 73 affect clauses that were not opposed in Committee, and would kill off the home detention curfew. The Government therefore oppose them. Clause 97 establishes the new power under which prisoners near the end of short sentences may, subject to passing a risk assessment carried out by the Prison Service, be considered for an electronically monitored curfew. Clause 98 provides the framework under which a prisoner will serve the period of his home detention curfew.
      When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced this initiative, he said that tagging had an important role to play in preparing prisoners for their
      926
      reintegration into society, and that it could help prisoners by establishing some structure and order to their lives and imposing discipline that may assist in taking
      "proper responsibility for working or looking for work, for keeping their families together and for maintaining self-control."—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 454.]
      The case for introducing an element of tagging into the last part of a short-term prison sentence is strong. Rather than imposing an outside discipline in the prison, its impact would be to get people to impose self-discipline so that they begin to take responsibility for their behaviour and understand that they can change it and cease their offending behaviour. The effect of teaching prisoners self-discipline will be safer streets, because there will be less likelihood of crime. The Home Secretary also said that it would be the height of irresponsibility not to take advantage of the opportunities offered by technology, thereby contributing to the safety of society at large by improving the prospect of the prisoner's resettlement.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) appeared rather unconcerned about prison places. In Committee, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) graphically described the consequences of prison overcrowding—the lack of supervision, the opportunities for misbehaviour, and the fact that it produces more, and worse, criminals. The previous Government created legislation that ensured that more people went to prison, but they failed to finance the prison places. As a result, the new Government had to find £112 million to provide further prison accommodation.
      The extra resources announced by the Home Secretary will be used to increase the operational capacity of prisons by 3,820 places. That includes 1,540 new places to be opened in the form of new house blocks, cell reclaims and the continued operation of HMP Weare. Additional resources would also provide staffing and funding for regime activities to support the placing of an additional 2,280 prisoners in existing prisons. In total, the prison building programme will provide 9,700 additional places by the end of 2000, by a combination of expanding existing prisons and building new ones. To date, 4,700 places have been delivered. The new Government accept their responsibility to deal with those issues.
      I stress that not all offenders will qualify for home detention curfew. Certain categories of very serious offenders, particularly sex offenders, will be dealt with very carefully indeed. Even if they do not qualify, they will not be released without restriction. There will be a cut-off point below which curfews will generally be impractical and of little value.
      The home detention curfew is not an easy option. Offenders will be required to spend nine hours a day or more under curfew. The curfew is an on-going part of the sentence and should be seen as such. The sentence does not end with the custodial element, and failure to comply with the demanding curfew will result in the offender being returned to prison.
      The Opposition amendments would stop an important new scheme dead in its tracks. They would mean turning our back on the clear and valuable benefits that can be drawn from this emerging technology. They would perpetuate unnecessary overcrowding and the associated problems that that creates for the Prison Service. They would deliberately prevent us from developing new and constructive ways to manage the transition from custody

      927
      to reintegration into the community. As a result, there would be more offending, not less. They should therefore be resisted.
      Government amendment No. 161 is consequential on clause 99. It is needed because the clause creates an unintended anomaly in respect of an activated suspended sentence. The amendment is uncontroversial, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully explained the need for such an amendment when he wrote to the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to describe the purpose of Government amendments. However, I shall set out that explanation for the record.
      At present, the law allows an activated suspended sentence to be regarded as having begun on the date on which it is activated, or ordered to take effect under section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. Under clause 99, the key date for the purposes of deciding whether sentences are to be aggregated is that on which the sentence was passed.
      Where there is a suspended sentence, there is scope for doubt about whether the key date is the point at which the original court imposed the suspended sentence or the date on which it takes effect. To maintain the current position on how such sentences relate to any others being served by the offender, it is necessary to make it clear that an activated suspended sentence is passed for the purposes of clause 99 at the time it takes effect. Amendment No. 161 achieves that.
      Government amendments Nos. 109 to 113, 117 to 120 and 143 to 146 are minor. They are consequential on the changes in sentence calculation arising from clause 109, or address anomalies in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.
      Amendment No. 145 repeals provisions that require a prisoner released from one sentence and subsequently ordered back to prison under section 16 of the 1993 Act to be released on licence in certain circumstances in respect of the order and any new sentence. The intention is that, under the revised arrangement, the original sentence will continue to exist, and consequently any subsequent requirement to be released on licence from that sentence, regardless of whether a section 16 order of fresh sentence is imposed. That is consistent with the amendments to the 1993 Act made by clause 109.
      The original sentence will not form a single term with a section 16 order and any new sentence. It is therefore no longer considered necessary to require a prisoner to be released on licence in respect of his section 16 order and new sentence.
      I hope that, on the basis of those comments, the hon. Member for Ryedale will be prepared to withdraw his amendments, and that the House will accept the Government amendments.
      Mr. Greenway: I warned the Minister not to argue about the provision of prison places, but he could not resist the temptation. It is clearly on record that, in the years leading up to the 1997 general election, prison capacity increased by over 20 per cent.–11,000 additional places—as a result of the previous Government's prison building programme.
      928
      The anticipation of an increase in numbers arising from criminal justice and public order legislation passed by the previous Government, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, also led to the planning of nine new prisons. It is to the Government's credit that they have continued that programme, but the Minister is wrong to suggest that the previous Government failed to address the need to create improved and additional capacity in the prison service—the facts reveal a wholly different scenario.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt accept that the new Government have applied a certain amount of expenditure restraint. If the previous Government were so free with their largesse on prisons, why does he think that the new Government have had to find £112 million of new money to try to correct the defects that they inherited from the previous Government?
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's very silly argument is that, regardless of circumstances and developments, not another penny will need to be spent on any area of public policy, in addition to whatever public expenditure provisions were in place and planned when a Government of any party took office. It is preposterous nonsense.
      The £112 million that the Minister refers to is very small in relation to the hundreds of millions—I guess it runs to billions—of pounds that was spent on the prison estate under the previous Government. As a Home Office Minister, who travels throughout the country visiting custodial institutions, he can see for himself the huge investment that was made following the riot at Strangeways prison—I think it was in 1990.
      9.15 pm
      If I remember rightly, the Minister was not then a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs; I do not think that he was in the House. Those of us who were, and who had the opportunity to visit Strangeways, made several recommendations. The entire contents of the Woolf report were warmly embraced by the previous Administration. Therefore, we should not, and cannot, take any strictures from the Government about lack of investment in the prison estate. They must respond to the circumstances as they find them: that is the job of Government.
      We are not, as the Minister alleges, seeking to stop any tagging experiment dead in its tracks. On the contrary, we are the party which has advocated the use of tagging. We are suggesting to the Minister an alternative, which would command better public confidence than the alternative in the Bill.
      The Minister prayed in aid the beneficial features of tagging to reinforce curfew orders. We agree, but we believe that if the Government go ahead with the scheme, it will undermine public confidence in custodial sentences that are served up to only a quarter point of the original sentence, and in the use of tagging, which the public regard as a soft option to prison. Obviously, our arguments have fallen on deaf ears, but, as in the previous debate, in which I took part, the Opposition believed it right to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that what the Government are doing is wrong. Now that we have done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 99

      EARLY RELEASE: TWO OR MORE SENTENCES.
      Amendment made: No. 161, in page 84, line 12, at end insert—
      '( ) Where a suspended sentence of imprisonment is ordered to take effect, with or without any variation of the original term, the occasion on which that order is made shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the occasion on which the sentence is passed.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 109

      EARLY RELEASE IN SCOTLAND: TWO OR MORE SENTENCES.
      Amendments made: No. 109, in page 88, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 89.
      No. 110, in page 89, line 27, at end insert—
      '( ) for the words "a prisoner" there shall be substituted the words "an existing prisoner";'.
      No. 111, in page 89, line 41, leave out first 'a' and insert 'an existing'.
      No. 112, in page 90, line 45, at end insert—
      '(8) In relation to a prisoner released on licence at any time under section I 6(7)(b) of the 1993 Act, section 17(1)(a) of the 1993 Act shall have effect as if after the word "Act" there were inserted the words "or a short term prisoner has been released on licence by virtue of section 16(7)(b) of this Act".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Clause 112
      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 91, line 34, after & 61(7)' insert 73(2)(b)(ii)'.—[Mr. Michael.]
    Clause 119

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 95, line 2, leave out 'section 107' and insert 'sections 107 and 109(8)'.
      No. 1, in page 95, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) section (Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful)(3);'.
      No. 114, in page 95, line 26, at end insert—
      '( ) paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to this Act and section 104 above so far as relating to that paragraph;'.
      No. 115, in page 95, line 27, after 'paragraphs' insert '1,'
      No. 116, in page 95, line 27, after 'and (3),' insert '11(1) and (2),'.
      No. 162, in page 95, line 27, after '29,' insert '36B,'.
      No. 2,in page 95, line 31, after 'Sections', insert
      '(Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful)(4).'.
      No. 3, in page 95, line 31, leave out 'section'.
      No. 163, in page 95, line 33, after 'and (3),' insert '36B,'.
      No. 164, in page 95, line 36, after '(3)' insert 36B'.
      No. 165, in page 95, line 39, after '(3)' insert 36B'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 2

      THE YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD: FURTHER PROVISIONS.
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 101, line 41, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 42 and insert
      'out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Board such sums towards its expenses as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 3
      PROCEDURE WHERE PERSONS ARE SENT FOR TRIAL UNDER SECTION 51.
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 105, line 44, at end insert—
      PROCEDURE WHERE PERSONS ARE SENT FOR TRIAL UNDER SECTION 51.

        'Use of depositions as evidence
        .—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, sub-paragraph (2) below applies where in pursuance of paragraph 4 above a person has his evidence taken as a deposition.
        (2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for an offence for which he was sent for trial under section 51 of this Act or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
        (3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if—

        (a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed;

        (b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) above shall not apply; or

        (c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) above applying.

        (4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 4

      ENFORCEMENT ETC. OF DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS.
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 110, line 21, at end insert—
      '( ) After sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(4) In this Schedule, references to the court responsible for a drug treatment and testing order shall be construed in accordance with section 62(9) of the Crime and Disorder Act I998."'.
      No. 54, in page 110, line 29, leave out
      'by which the order is made'
      and insert 'responsible for the order'.
      No. 55, in page 110, line 43, leave out
      'made by a magistrates' court'
      and insert
      'for which a magistrates' court is responsible'.
      No. 56, in page 111, line 24, leave out 'did not make' and insert 'is not responsible for'.
      No. 57, in page 111, line 33, leave out
      'by which a drug treatment and testing was made'
      and insert
      'responsible for a drug treatment and testing order'.
      No. 31, in page 112, line 13, leave out first 'above' and insert
      'of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 5

      ENFORCEMENT OF REPARATION AND ACTION PLAN ORDERS.
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 113, line 41, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) above, a reparation order or action plan order made on appeal from a decision of a magistrates' court or the Crown Court shall be treated as if it had been made by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court, as the case may be.'.
      No. 89, in page 115, line 31, at end insert—
      '(2A) The provisions of section 12 of the 1991 Act (curfew orders) shall apply for the purposes of paragraph 3(2)(a) above but as if—

      (a) in subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "before which he is convicted" there were substituted the words "Where a court considers it appropriate to make a curfew order in respect of any person in pursuance of paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the court"; and

      (b) in subsection (8), for the words "on conviction" there were substituted the words "on the date on which his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order was proved to the court".

      (2B) Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act (enforcement etc. of community orders), so far as relating to curfew orders, shall also apply for the purposes of that paragraph but as if—

      (a) the power conferred on the magistrates' court by each of paragraphs 3(1)(d) and 7(2)(a)(ii) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order, in any manner in which the appropriate court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court;

      (b) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 4(1)(d) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with such a requirement, in any manner in which that court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to its satisfaction;

      (c) the reference in paragraph 7( I )(b) to the offence in respect of which the order was made were a reference to the failure to comply in respect of which the curfew order was made; and

      (d) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 8(2)(b) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the reparation order or action plan order, in any manner in which the appropriate court (if that order was made by a magistrates' court) or the Crown Court (if that order was made by the Crown Court) could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court.

      (2C) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2B)(a) and (d) above, as applied by that sub-paragraph, if the reparation order or action plan order is no longer in force the appropriate court's powers shall be determined on the assumption that it is still in force.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 7

      PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS: POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS.
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 120, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'there' in line 10 and insert—
      '. After subsection (8) of section 7 of the 1969 Act (alterations in treatment of young offenders etc.)'.
      No. 59, in page 134, line 7, after 'who' insert 'on conviction'.—[Mr. Michael.]

    Schedule 8

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
      ' . After subsection (1) of section 56 of the 1933 Act (powers of other courts to remit young offenders to youth courts) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      '(1A) References in subsection (1) above to an offender's being committed for trial include references to his being sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act I 998."'.
      No. 4, in page 135, line 39, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
        'Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)
        In sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 (indecency between men etc.) of the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (punishments etc.), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

        Sexual Offences Act 1967 (c. 60)
        In section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (restriction on prosecutions), for the word "twenty-one" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".'.
        No. 34, in page 135, line 39, at end insert—

        'Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (c.69)
        '. In subsection (4) of section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court), after the words "committed for trial" there shall be inserted the words ", or sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act I998,".'.
        No. 35, in page 136, line 14 at end insert—
        ' . In subsection (2) of section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against sentence following conviction on indictment), after the words "for either way offence)" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (power of Crown Court to deal with summary offence where person sent for trial for indictable-only offence)".'.
        No. 36, in page 136, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'after' in line 16 and insert—
        ' .—(1) In subsection (2) of section 10 of that Act (appeal against sentence in other cases dealt with at Crown Court), the words "(other than a supervision order within the meaning of that Part)" shall cease to have effect.
        (2) In subsection (3) of that section,'.
        No. 60, in page 136, line 37, at end insert—
        '. In subsection (8) of section 7 of the 1969 Act (alterations in treatment of young offenders etc.), for the words from "person guilty" to "were begun" there shall be substituted the words "child or young person guilty of an offence".'.
        No. 90, in page 137, line 11, at end insert—
        ' . After section 16A of the 1969 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

        Application of section 12 of Criminal Justice Act 1991 etc
        16B.—(1) The provisions of section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (curfew orders) shall apply for the purposes of section 15(3)(a) of this Act but as if—

        (a) in subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "before which he is convicted" there were substituted the words "Where a court considers it appropriate to make a curfew order in respect of any person in pursuance of section 15(3)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the court"; and

        933

        (b) in subsection (8), for the words "on conviction" there were substituted the words "on the date on which his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order was proved to the court".

        (2) Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (enforcement etc. of community orders), so far as relating to curfew orders, shall also apply for the purposes of that section but as if—

        (a) the power conferred on the magistrates' court by each of paragraphs 3(1)(d) and 7(2)(a)(ii) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order, in any manner in which the relevant court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court;

        (b) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 4(1)(d) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with such a requirement, in any manner in which that court could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to its satisfaction;

        (c) the reference in paragraph 7(1)(b) to the offence in respect of which the order was made were a reference . to the failure to comply in respect of which the curfew order was made; and

        (d) the power conferred on the Crown Court by paragraph 8(2)(b) to deal with the offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made were a power to deal with the offender, for his failure to comply with a requirement included in the supervision order, in any manner in which the relevant court (if that order was made by a magistrates' court) or the Crown Court (if that order was made by the Crown Court) could deal with him for that failure to comply if it had just been proved to the satisfaction of that court.

        (3) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (d) above, as applied by that subsection, if the supervision order is no longer in force the relevant court's powers shall be determined on the assumption that it is still in force.
        (4) In this section "relevant court" has the same meaning as in section 15 above."'.
        No. 91, in page 137, line 35, after 'years' insert
        'when the order is made'.
        No. 92, in page 137, line 36, leave out from 'by' to end of line 37 and insert
        'a local authority specified in the order."
        ( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(2A) The local authority specified as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above shall be the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside."'.
        No. 93, in page 138, line 3, leave out 'After subsection (8)' and insert 'In subsection (4)'.
        No. 94, in page 138, line 4, after 'orders)' insert
        ', for the words from "a probation officer" to the end there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
        "(a) a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the area for the time being specified in the order (whether under this subsection or by virtue of Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
        (b) a person appointed for the purposes of those provisions by the probation committee for that area; or
        (c) in the case of an offender under the age of 18 years when the order is made, a member of a youth offending team established by a local authority for the time being specified in the order (whether under this subsection or by virtue of that Part)."
        934
        ( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(4A) The local authority specified as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) above shall be the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside."
        ( ) After subsection (8) of that section'.
        No. 95, in page 138, leave out lines 8 to 13.
        No. 38, in page 138, line 13, at end insert—
        ' . In subsection (2) of section 21 of the 1973 Act (restriction on imposing sentences of imprisonment etc. on persons not legally represented)—

        (a) after the words "sentence or trial," there shall be inserted the words "or sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,"; and

        (b) for the words "which committed him" there shall be substituted the words "which committed or sent him".

        . In subsection (1)(b) of section 32 of the 1973 Act (enforcement etc. of fines imposed and recognizances forfeited by Crown Court), after the words "or dealt with" there shall be inserted the words ", or by which he was sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".'.
        No. 39, in page 139, line 40, at end insert—
        '36A. In subsection (4)(c) of section 125 of the 1980 Act (warrants)—

        (a) the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) shall cease to have effect;

        (b) in sub-paragraph (iii), for the words "or 97 above" there shall be substituted the words ", 97 or 97A above; and"; and

        (c) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

        "(iv) paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."
        36B. In section 126 of the 1980 Act (execution of certain warrants outside England and Wales)—
        (a) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect;
        (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
        "(cc) warrants of arrest issued under section 97A above;"; and
        (c) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the words "; and
        (e) warrants of arrest issued under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act I998."'.
        No. 40, in page 140, line 11, at end insert—
        ' . In subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1982 Act (general restriction on custodial sentences), for the words from "remanded in custody" to the end there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

        '(a) remanded in custody;

        (b) committed in custody for trial or sentence; or

        (c) sent in custody for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."'.

        No. 41, in page 140, line 30, at end insert—
        '( ) In subsection (2) of that section—

        (a) after the words "sentence or trial," there shall be inserted the words "or sent to that Court for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,"; and

        (b) for the words "which committed him" there shall be substituted the words "which committed or sent him".'.

        No. 117, in page 144, line 20, leave out from 'prisons)' to end of line 21 and insert'—
        (a) in subsection (7)—

        (i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (7AA) below,";

        (ii) for the words "a short-term or long-term prisoner within the meaning of there shall be substituted the words "any person who is, or is treated as, a long-term or short-term prisoner for the purposes of any provision of';

        (iii) the words from "and the foregoing" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

        (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
        "(7AA) Additional days shall not be awarded under rules made under subsection (7) above in respect of a sentence where the prisoner has at any time been released on licence, in relation to that sentence, under Part I of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and any reference to a sentence in such rules shall be construed in accordance with section 27(5) of that Act.'.
        No. 96, in page 149, line 13, at beginning insert
        'in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on his release,'.
        No. 97, in page 149, line 46, at end insert—
        '( ) After paragraph 12(4) of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following sub—paragraphs—
        "(5) Where—

        (a) the court amends a probation order or community service order under this paragraph;

        (b) a local authority is specified in the order in accordance with section 2(2)(b) or 14(4)(c) of the 1973 Act; and

        (c) the change, or proposed change, of residence also is
        or would be a change of residence from the area of that authority to the area of another such authority,

        the court shall further amend the order by substituting the other authority for the authority specified in the order.
        (6) In sub-paragraph (5) above "local authority" has the meaning given by section 42 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and references to the area of a local authority shall be construed in accordance with that section."'.
        No. 118, in page 150, line 12, at end insert—
        (In subsection (2) of that section at the end there shall be added the words "unless he has before that time been so released, in relation to that sentence, under any provision of this Act".'.
        No. 119, in page 150, line 24, at end insert—
        '. In section 5 of the 1993 Act (fine defaulters and persons in contempt of court)—

        (a) in subsection (1) for the words "and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "to (4)"; and

        (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

        "(4) Where a person has had imposed on him two or more terms of imprisonment or detention mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, sections IA and 27(5) of this Act shall apply to those terms as if they were terms of imprisonment."
        . In section 7 of the 1993 Act (children detained in solemn proceedings)—

        (a) in subsection (1)(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless he has before that time been so released, in relation to that sentence, under any provision of this Act";

        (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

        "(2A) This subsection applies where a child detained under section 208 of the 1995 Act is sentenced, while so detained, to a determinate term of detention in a young offenders institution or imprisonment and, by virtue of section 27(5) of this Act, such terms of detention or imprisonment are treated as single term.
        936
        (2B) In a case where subsection (2A) applies and the single term mentioned in that subsection is less than four years, the provisions of this section shall apply.
        (2C) In a case where subsection (2A) applies and the single term mentioned in that subsection is of four or more years—
        (a) section 6 of this Act shall apply to him as if the single term were an equivalent sentence of detention in a young offenders institution, if that term is served in such an institution; and
        (b) the provisions of this Act shall apply to him as if the single term were an equivalent sentence of imprisonment, if that term is served in a remand centre or a prison."; and
        (c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        here an order under subsection (3) above is made, the making of the order shall, if there is in force a licence relating to the person in respect of whom the order is made, have the effect of revoking that licence."; and
        (d) in subsection (5) after the word "construed" there shall be inserted the words "and sections I A and 27 shall apply".
        . In section 11 of the 1993 Act (duration of licences) subsections (3)(b) and (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
        No. 120, in page 150, line 31, at end insert—
        '( ) Paragraph (b) of that subsection shall cease to have effect.'.
        No. 42, in page 152, line 46, after 'Ace insert '(compulsory disclosure by accused)'.
        No. 43, in page 153, line 7, after 'Act' insert '(time limits: transitional)'.
        No. 44, in page 153, line 12, at end insert—
        '. In subsection (1)(a) of section 28 of that Act (introduction to Part III), after the words "committed for trial" there shall be inserted the words ", or sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,".
        . In subsection (1) of section 39 of that Act (meaning of pre-trial hearing), after the words "committed for trial for the offence concerned" there shall be inserted the words ", after the accused has been sent for trial for the offence under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,".'.—[Mr. Michael.]
        Amendments made: No 122, in page 155, line 13, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)'and insert '7,'.
        No. 121, in page 155, line 13, leave out 'to' and insert '1A, 3,'.
        No. 123, in page 155, line 16, at end insert
        'and
        (ii) after the word "3," there shall be inserted words "6(1)(b)(i) and (iii)";
        ( ) in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for the words "sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraph (3)";'
        No. 124, in page 155, line 19, after "'sections' insert ' I A,'
        No. 125, in page 155, line 36, leave out 'to' and insert '1A, 3,'.
        No. 126, in page 155, line 36, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.
        No. 127, in page 155, line 38, at end insert
        'and
        (ii) after the word "3," there shall be inserted the words "6(1)(b)(i) and (iii),";'.
        No. 128, in page 155, line 40, after "'sections' insert '1A,'.
        No. 129, in page 156, line 27, leave out 'to 3' and insert '1A, 3, 3A'.
        No. 130, in page 156, line 27, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.
        No. 131, in page 156, line 28, after '21' insert 26A'.
        No. 132, in page 156, line 30, after 'Act")";' insert 'and
        ( ) for the words "the 1989 Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act");'.
        No. 133, in page 156, line 32, after "'sections' insert '1A,'.
        No. 134, in page 156, line 32, after '2(4)' insert '3A'.
        No. 135, in page 156, line 32, after '21' insert 26A'.
        No. 136, in page 156, line 36, leave out 'to 3' and insert '1A, 3, 3A'.
        No. 137, in page 156, line 36, leave out 'and (b)(i) and (iii)' and insert '7,'.
        No. 138, in page 156, line 37, after '21' insert 26A'.
        No. 139, in page 156, line 38, after 'Act")";' insert 'and
        ( ) for the words "the 1989 Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act");'.
        No. 140, in page 156, line 41, after -sections' insert '1A,'.
        No. 141, in page 156, line 41, after '2(4)' insert '3A'.
        No. 142, in page 156, line 41, after '21' insert 26A'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

    Schedule 9
      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendment made: No. 166, in page 158, line 25, at end insert—
      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
        'Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty
        . Section (Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty) of this Act does not apply where the offence was committed before the commencement of that section!.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
    Schedule 10

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 45, in page 160, line 28, at end insert—

      '1968 c.19.

      Criminal Appeal Act 1968

      In section 10(2), the words "(other than a supervision order within the meaning of that Part)".'.

      No. 46, in page 161, line 35, at end insert—
      'In section 125(4)(c), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii).
      In section 126, the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c).'.
      No. 143, in page 162, line 5, at end insert—

      '1989 c.45.

      Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989.

      In section 39(7), the words from "and the foregoing" to the end.'.

      No. 144, in page 162, line 47, column 3, at beginning insert—
      'Section 11(3)(6) and (4).'.
      No. 145, in page 162, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
      'Section 16(7)(b).'.
      No. 146, in page 163, line 4, at end insert—'
      Section 130(4).'
      —[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 5, in title, line 5, after 'trial;' insert
    'to reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful;'.—
    [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
    This is a particular pleasure for me. Having considered one criminal justice Bill after another in opposition since 1990, it is exciting to be involved with legislation that has real potential to change the quality of life for our constituents in every part of the country.
    Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the Labour party's determination to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, we have been preparing to undertake ambitious reform of the criminal justice system. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary assumed office, he has won enormous credit and respect for his willingness to take on the difficult issues—not just those that gain immediate plaudits but the tough issues that must be tackled if we are to succeed in our ambition of creating a safe society.
    A most exciting aspect is the way in which we are experiencing genuine enthusiasm from the police, local authorities and communities up and down the country. My hon. Friends referred today to the responses of their constituents when we have discussed with them the day-to-day problems that they experience on housing estates, in communities and in towns and cities throughout the country.
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: Last week in my constituency, the local newspaper the Peterborough Evening Telegraph carried reports of most appalling levels of vandalism and harassment in Heltwate court in the Bretton part of my constituency. That area was once described as a state-of-the-art model housing development, but complaints from residents have tripled

    939
    in recent months. I am sorry to say that the perpetrators of those crimes are often young teenagers and those in their pre-teenage years. Last week, the editor—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am on my feet. Is she making a speech or an intervention?
    Mrs. Brinton: It is an intervention, and it will be brief.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that it can be brief now. Perhaps the hon. Lady will make it very brief.
    Mrs. Brinton: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the editor of the local newspaper called the Government to account and asked when they were going to introduce parenting orders and address the problem. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the parenting orders in the Bill will indeed have that effect?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes one very good point, which is that crime and disorder happen not elsewhere, but in each of our constituencies. It is right that she should concentrate on Peterborough, just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary often draws inspiration from Blackburn and I draw inspiration from Cardiff. It is a serious point that individual communities bear the brunt of crime and disorder, which is all too easy to regard as a set of statistics. I assure my hon. Friend that the measures in the Bill, including parenting orders and anti-social behaviour orders among many others, will make a real difference to the lives of her constituents.
    One of the messages that have been brought home during the discussions leading up to the Bill and during our debates on the Bill is that cutting crime and disorder is a task for each one of us. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for making it clear that our task in Government is not to blame other people, but to be a part of the solution, working with the police, local authorities and everyone else. One of the Bill's most important elements is that it gives everyone an opportunity to be involved at local level, through the crime and disorder audit on which a local strategy to tackle crime and disorder can be built. There is to be a close partnership between the police, the local authority, other agencies and the wider community as they set about the task of reducing crime and disorder in their community.
    It is especially important that the Bill addresses the problem of youth crime and makes it clear that the aim of the youth justice system is to reduce offending and reoffending. It sets about the job to which we are committed of speeding up youth justice and makes it clear that our measures are part of a comprehensive approach. Aspects such as the final warning and the introduction of the concept of reparation into our thinking about how the youth justice system works will make a difference by confronting youngsters with their behaviour and the damage that it does to the wider community, as well as to their victims. The secure detention and training order will help to bring coherence to the system of secure accommodation for youngsters who have to be detained securely.
    940
    Today, we have discussed the problems of racially motivated crime and the necessity of going further in giving confidence to certain communities, especially in response to the concerns of the Muslim community. The Bill sets about filling in the gaps in the system, with the anti-social behaviour order, the drug treatment and testing order and the sex offenders order, each of which is worthy of serious consideration by the House. I am pleased that scrutiny in Committee has led to considerable support for our approach in those matters.
    Above all, it is important to recognise that legislation is the start, not the end, of a process. Later this year, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will be established. We are already working on preparation with police and local authorities and issuing guidance for local crime and disorder strategies. Each of those measures is individually important, but, taken together, they mark an enormous stride forward in the fight against the crime and disorder that has created so much misery for so many people. The aim of the Bill is simple: to build a safer and more responsible society. The Bill will help local communities to fight back against crime and anti-social behaviour. It does not finish, but begins the Government's root-and-branch reform of youth justice; and it will help to reduce delays and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.
    It is only fair to say that hon. Members who laboured in the Committee and those who participated in debates yesterday and today have helped to improve the Bill. In many cases, we have seen the House of Commons, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, at its best. At times, hon. Members have acted in a way that leads to controversy and argument, which are the stuff of political debate, but the result has been to improve the legislation, which is no small feat, given the easy temptation to indulge in knockabout, rather than positive debate. During the two days on Report, we have made significant further improvements. With Opposition support, we have strengthened the law against football hooligans, increased the maximum prison sentence available for those who breach a football restriction order and given the police powers to arrest someone who has, or is about to, breach an order.
    I have referred to the important elements of the protection against racially aggravated offences. The concerns of the Muslim community and those of the Opposition led to the amendments that were considered earlier today to clarify that, under the terms of the new offences, it will be no defence to argue that an attack was based to any extent on religious hostility. Yesterday, the House took a clear view, on a free vote, that the age of consent for homosexuals should be brought into line with that for heterosexuals.
    During more than 50 hours of debate in Committee significant changes were made to the Bill. As I anticipated on Second Reading, the clause establishing a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system was removed from the Bill. The Government argued, and the Committee agreed, that such a body would be neither necessary nor desirable. However, the way in which we could deal with advice and guidance by the Appeal Court was improved and strengthened. That has again been the subject of a positive and constructive debate today.
    Other important improvements include a new power for the police to take truanting children back to school, or to another safe place designated by the local

    941
    education authority. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that if we fail to tackle truancy we are failing our children. We are failing also the wider community but we are failing the children who truant. Children who exclude themselves from education are jeopardising their chances of leading useful and successful lives. They are also more likely to commit crime and to cause distress and nuisance. The measure is part of our wider programme to tackle school exclusions and truancy and so help every child make the most of his or her talents and opportunities.
    I think that it is because of our partnership approach that our proposals were welcomed by the police. The police have always been doubtful about the idea of being lumbered with the problem of truancy. We have a combination of Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and at the Home Office working together and providing a mechanism that allows co-operation at a local level to tackle truancy and the problems that arise from it.
    We have seen added provisions to enable the police, in closely defined circumstances, to require the removal of face coverings. Too often in the past, people intent on violence and intimidation have disguised their identity with balaclavas, for example, causing greater fear and distress to their victims and frustrating the efforts of the police. The powers in the Bill will enable the police to unmask potential troublemakers before violence starts.
    We have introduced provisions to clarify the way in which two or more sentences of imprisonment should be combined. We have given the Crown court the power to impose a confiscation order when an offender is committed to it for sentence.
    Before we complete our consideration of the Bill, I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friends who supported us in Committee that we have been gratified by the support that has been shown for the Bill generally and for many of its provisions. That can be said of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Bill, when implemented, will help us fulfil 12 manifesto commitments. However, it is not a partisan measure. It is a practical measure designed to protect innocent people and to help restore law-abiding responsible communities.
    On Second Reading, the main opposition parties gave the Bill a more or less qualified welcome. I feel that the input of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in Committee, as well as that of Labour Back-Bench Members, however brief and restrained those contributions were, was informed and instructive. Seven of the Government amendments agreed to on Report were inspired by points raised by Opposition parties in Committee. I have referred to several of them during earlier debates today, such as the ability to make an anti-social behaviour order crossing a local government boundary.
    I believe that we will pass the Bill back to the other place considerably improved, and we started off with a pretty good Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keen that many of the measures set out in the Bill should be proceeded with quickly so that the wider community can begin to benefit. In particular, the local crime reduction strategy,
    942
    for example, could be well in place by next April and the start of a new financial year, and a new planning year for both local authorities and the police.
    Only once the Bill is enacted will the real work begin. Successful implementation will depend above all upon successful local partnership. It will be for practitioners and local communities throughout the country to make the Bill work for them so as to cut crime and reduce serious anti-social behaviour and thus make their communities safer and more pleasant places in which to live. I hope that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am eager to see that process start without delay. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.34 pm
    Sir Norman Fowler: We did not vote against Second Reading; nor do we intend to vote against Third Reading, so I shall not detain from the Scotland match those who would prefer to watch it. Given what is happening in the match, however, they may prefer to be in the Chamber.
    We have taken that attitude to the Bill because it includes a number of measures that we want to work. We are at one with the Government in the aims that lie behind the anti-social behaviour orders, the sex offender orders, and the youth care and youth treatment measures. We welcome the policy changes introduced by the Bill. It was refreshing and interesting, although in contrast with what he said in opposition, to hear the Minister of State, Home Office, talk in such admiring terms about tagging and the processes that go with it. My recollection is that that was not quite the attitude that the Labour party took a few months ago.
    No one should be in any doubt about the difficulties that stand in the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), whom I congratulate on the way in which he handled Committee proceedings, was entirely correct to scrutinise, for example, the anti-social behaviour orders. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who was a member of the Committee. Someone who scrutinises a measure to discover whether it will work does not have to be against it in principle. I think that the Prime Minister's point on that was completely barmy, and, on reflection, so will he. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is making a remark from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear it. Perhaps he wants to make a speech.
    Mr. Straw: I was paraphrasing Shakespeare in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 April. I said, "Methinks that he protests too much." He described the anti-social behaviour orders as dangerously unworkable. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, for educating the hon. Gentleman about the workability of the orders.
    Sir Norman Fowler: If that is the only point that the Home Secretary wants to make, we are grateful that he did not make a speech, which we had been looking forward to. He will remember that my hon. Friend

    943
    the Member for Hertsmere dealt with that point comprehensively yesterday, to the entire satisfaction of this side of the House.
    Mr. Allan: Of the whole House.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Even at this moment, the Lib-Lab alliance is breaking apart.
    Another area of obvious difficulty which hon. Members must take seriously is youth crime and youth offenders. 1 recently met the Association of Directors of Social Services. It is in favour of the Bill in principle and wants it to succeed, but it pointed to the difficulties of the client group—if I may put it that way—with which it deals. It has provided me with some figures: 50 per cent. of young people under 18 in prison custody have a care background; 60 per cent. of young people in prison custody admit to misusing drugs; 17 per cent. of male young offenders admit to having suffered physical or sexual abuse; 39 per cent. of young offenders in prison custody have a long-standing illness or disability; and 60 per cent. of remanded male youths and 30 per cent. of sentenced male youths have a diagnosable mental disorder.
    The Bill creates new ways of dealing with those offenders. However, it also creates new duties for a number of services concerned with law and order. The Association of Directors of Social Services is aware of that and has pointed to the crucial importance of resourcing the new orders and the new approaches that are to be set up. A similar point was put by the Central Probation Council, which said:
    "Every aspect of workload is increasing and substantially exceeds the projections on which government plans and budget forecasts were based."
    That is the position now. In no way are those bodies against the Bill, but if new duties are to be created, they are saying that, above all, they will need new people.
    What applies to them applies equally—if not more so—to the police. In trying to get information on police strength, I was less than impressed by the Home Office's ability and willingness to give that information. I was particularly unimpressed by the Minister of State, who began the debate. Following an exchange in The Times between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Home Secretary, I sought to ask what I thought were some fairly standard questions. Two weeks ago, I asked the Home Office
    "how many police constables are currently employed in the police service in England and Wales"
    and
    "what is the current police officer strength of the police service in England and Wales."
    On Thursday 11 June, after four days, I received the reply:
    "I will reply as soon as possible."
    It is slightly amazing that the Home Office was unable to answer basic questions of that kind. That was in stark contrast to the other Minister of State, who answered similar statistical questions on immigration.
    Evidently, the Home Office was able to provide the statistics in the end, but only after Home Office questions the following Monday. I was not unbelievably impressed
    944
    by that either. I do not intend to go into the details of those replies suffice it to say that, at the very best, police strength is levelling out, with a tendency to fall back. That is the fairest way in which I can state the position. Against that background, we are being presented with a Bill which will place new duties upon the police.
    Mr. Allan: I was talking to my local chief constable in South Yorkshire the other day, and he informed me that he has decided to place a senior officer—I think of superintendent rank—in each local authority area to deal with the new provisions of the Bill. It is right that he should take it so seriously, but clearly that has resourcing implications for the entire force.
    Sir Norman Fowler: That is the point. It is one thing to propose and pass legislation, but that legislation clearly has resource consequences. The Bill obviously has resource consequences for the police. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has pointed out, the police are stretched, and police numbers are not increasing.
    I also asked the Minister of State to tell me
    "the real term increase in the budget for the police service in the current year".
    He gave me not the real-terms increase, but the revenue budgets of police authorities. He said that they would rise by £255 million in 1998–99,
    "an increase of 3.7 per cent."—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol.313,c.646.]
    We can take it that the real-terms increase in the police budget is not 3.7 per cent., but that was the question I asked. I assume that either the Minister or his officials are trying to hide the fact that the real-terms increase is much smaller.
    Inflation stands at 4.2 per cent. I suspect that Treasury-measured inflation—which is slightly different and does not include mortgage interest—is more than 3 per cent. At the very best, we are looking at an increase in real-terms spending of less than 1 per cent. I hope that inflation will level out and reduce, but if it continues to increase, it will be fascinating to see what the real-terms increase will be as the year goes on.
    It is difficult to see how all the measures in the Bill can successfully be implemented without a stronger police service. In our period of office, the number of police in post increased by more than 15,000 or 14 per cent. We responded to the new demands, and we want to ensure that the current Government do precisely the same.
    We are giving the Bill its Third Reading, but passing this legislation will not, by itself, reduce crime and tackle disorder. That will be done only if the resources for the new duties, responsibilities and tasks being placed on the law and order services match the Government's objectives. Over the next months, we shall monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. We are not interested in gesture legislation, but in legislation that works.
    9.46 pm
    Mr. McWalter: I realise that there is little time left, but I should like to place on record a few remarks about the Bill. I am a friend of the Bill, but I am a little confused. I hope that, either in my hon. Friend's reply or in the other place, some of my concerns will be addressed.

    945
    The Bill is about crime and disorder. It creates a new category of person: those who need to be ordered. There is much to be said for making people the subject of parenting orders, sex offender orders, drug treatment and testing orders and other such orders. However, I am confused about the clause dealing with orders that deem people to be anti-social. I do not know whether it is easy or hard to be deemed anti-social; I do not know whether it is easy or difficult to become someone who needs to be ordered.
    Perhaps this is the vengeance of someone who was not a member of the Standing Committee. I gather that there is a draft elucidation of how the concept of needing to be ordered may be implemented, but I cannot find it anywhere because I was not on the Committee. It is not in the Library and it is not on the internet. I am left with the thought that perhaps it is easy to be a person who needs to be ordered. After all, under clause 1(1)(a) people who behave in a manner that causes distress have potentially behaved in an anti-social manner.
    Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McWalter: In a moment, because my hon. Friend has had rather a lot of time to speak. I hope that he will forgive me if I resist his intervention for a moment.
    When I was a child, I used to play football tennis. I realise that, as we are 3-0 down, the mention of football may be unfortunate. We played it with a ball bearing, which we kicked against a wall. One day, I kicked the ball bearing, which went through someone's window. Although I did not mean it—of course I did not mean it—my act was clearly capable of causing alarm and distress. Nevertheless, I did it. The concepts of repetition and of malevolence should be crucial in making anti-social behaviour orders, but it is difficult to capture such ideas.
    One would not mind including such concepts in the Bill if implementing it were a matter only of providing an explication of its provisions to our courts. However, the orders will be made by local authorities, and each area will have its own understanding of the meaning of the provisions. Although I welcome devolution of power, and of responsibility for achieving the Bill's laudable objectives, I think we will have to face up to the fact there could be as many interpretations of the anti-social behaviour provisions as there are words in the Bible. I do not think that that was a planned feature of the Bill, and therefore ask for some elucidation of how the Bill will be implemented.
    It may be rather easy, or quite difficult, to be deemed to be "anti-social". Clause 1(1)(b) states
    "that such an order is necessary to protect persons"
    from further anti-social acts. Yesterday, when dealing with an Opposition amendment, the House considered the "necessity" condition, and hon. Members agreed that the condition would be very difficult to meet. We essentially agreed that it would be difficult to establish the necessity of an order.
    Angela Smith: My hon. Friend seems to have some difficulty in establishing what constitutes anti-social behaviour. He should listen to some of my constituents. In my surgery, they have told me how, day in and day out, they suffer from anti-social behaviour, and how the police and the council are powerless to act.
    946
    They know the meaning of the phrase "anti-social behaviour". If my hon. Friend will listen to them and to the debate, he will learn the meaning of the term.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about that.
    There are situations in which there is a clear understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour. However, there are also conflicts in which one person accuses another person of harassment, and the accused accuses the accusor of causing distress. Sorting out such conflicts is extremely difficult. We will therefore have to have a much clearer understanding of the provisions.
    Clause 1(5) essentially states that an order will not be imposed on someone who can demonstrate that his or her behaviour was reasonable. However, the provision seems very much to be loaded in favour of the articulate and of older people. I am not sure that people will be able to secure themselves against a possibly malevolent accusation of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware also of that type of accusation.
    Clause 1(7) makes it clear that someone who is made subject to an order will be put in a nasty and difficult situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore owes it to the House to tell us whether it will be easy for a council to impose an order. If so, many people will be made subject to orders, and there will be a lot of trouble. Conversely, if it is difficult to impose an order, the letter of the provisions will become as dead as that of football restriction orders. Perhaps the orders will be somewhere in between the two extremes. Nevertheless, how will we ensure that there is uniform interpretation of an Act that will he the property of such widely varying authorities?
    9.53 pm
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has raised some points that Liberal Democrat Members raised in Committee and on Report. We share his concerns. However, I think that he has caused "harassment, alarm or distress" to Ministers and to the Whip, who is already writing out a draft anti-social behaviour order which will soon be applied to the hon. Gentleman.
    Despite some reservations—which I shall mention shortly—we think it is well worth giving the Bill a Third Reading, as it has many good things in it. We welcome early intervention in the cases of young offenders, including the potential role of the Youth Justice Board, youth justice plans and youth offending teams in providing constructive responses to young people who offend. The requirement to devise and implement local crime reduction strategies is welcome. Also welcome are the plans to tackle drug-related crime with drug treatment and testing orders, which we see as potentially the first steps towards specialised drugs courts to help break the cycle of drug addiction and crime.
    The Bill also provides for greater protection of the public through greater supervision of serious offenders once they have left prison. We welcome the new sentencing advisory panel, the overhaul of sentencing guidelines to promote greater consistency, and the introduction of racially aggravated sentences, which sends a message on hate crimes—although we still see a gap,

    947
    because religion as such is not included. We welcome what the Government said tonight on that subject, but until the picture is complete, there will be a gap.
    There are things about the Bill that we do not like, however. I have voiced my criticism tonight of the child curfew proposals. Other measures, although not necessarily bad in themselves, have been greatly exaggerated in terms of impact. Part of the answer to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead is that Ministers have made it clear, so far as I can see, that some of the orders will not be widely used and will be quite difficult to secure. Hon. Members who leapt enthusiastically to their feet to imply that a new dawn would break because of the availability of these powers were looking at the wrong parts of the Bill. The parts of the Bill that potentially have the greatest value are those that will encourage and enable the various agencies dealing with offenders to get together and work on co-ordinated strategies.
    In some cases, the order procedures may be of assistance, but, if misused or if used excessively, they will be harmful and, in some instances, will risk alienating young people who are innocent or who have embarked only briefly on criminal behaviour and could be turned away from it if a more positive intervention were made.
    We are concerned about other aspects of the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee the ending of the practice of remanding young boys to prison, despite the pledges given on that. We are anxious to see progress on reform of the youth justice system. It is rather discouraging to hear unsatisfactory elements in the Bill defended because the Government have not yet been able to sort out the youth justice system. We shall be pressing them on that.
    I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that perhaps the most fundamental problem will be the resources required to implement the Bill by agencies which are already severely stretched—the police, the probation service and the almost non-existent youth service in local authorities. All those bodies simply do not have the necessary resources, yet considerable demands are being made of them. Cutting crime is a valuable investment, and if Home Office Ministers needed any assistance in telling their Treasury colleagues that, it has been offered from various parts of the House tonight.
    A final criticism of the Bill is its treatment of Scotland. It was never good practice to shove bits of Scottish criminal legislation—from what the Minister has tonight described as a completely different jurisdiction—into essentially English legislation. I hope and believe that this will be the last time we ever do that, because a Scottish Parliament will very shortly be dealing with these matters.
    Although there was a free vote on it, I personally welcomed the decision to equalise the age of consent. I agonised hard over it when we voted on it a year or two ago. I came to a conclusion that I supported with my vote again this time and I am pleased with the outcome, although I think the Government were given a pretty clear signal by the relatively narrow defeat of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). That shows the extent of the concern that something should be done about predatory people in positions of authority, in relation to heterosexual and homosexual behaviour and in relation to the girls and boys
    948
    who are in their charge. The Government must regard that as a signal to move ahead quickly with the proposals that they mentioned in response to that amendment.
    I must say a word of appreciation to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for their work in Committee. They both testified that it was a rather good Committee and that serious discussion prevailed. We were glad to encounter some liberal-minded Conservatives. Freed from the tyranny of that person who has something of the night about him, they seemed able to express sensible, liberal and constructive views. My two hon. Friends are new to the job and acquitted themselves well—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam who bore the greatest responsibility while simultaneously serving on another Standing Committee and on two Select Committees. We have reduced his load, although that is no criticism of the excellent work that he did on the Bill.
    9.59 pm
    Angela Smith: It is encouraging that the Bill is welcomed by members of all parties, but the real test will be the reaction not of Members of Parliament, but of our constituents, to the practical application of the measures and how they affect them. I should like to give an example that might encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) to be more supportive of the Bill. Considering the time, I shall be brief.
    A father of three came to my surgery. He had suffered harassment and violence beyond what any of us can imagine—not just once or twice, but day in, day out. The police were able to take action on the violence. The men were convicted and sentences were passed, but the day they were released they were back to harassing him and his family day in, day out. His quality of life has been destroyed. He no longer feels at home in his house. He does not feel relaxed; he is fearful and nervous; and his and his family's health has suffered. They are the people whom the Bill should protect. We can all identify one or two similar cases from our experience in which the police and the council are sympathetic—and the Member of Parliament is very sympathetic—but we cannot do anything. The Bill can make a difference.
    The most important aspect of the Bill is that it prevents reoffending. Reducing the level of reoffending is the key to cutting crime. I welcome the measures on community safety partnerships. I pay tribute to my local authorities, particularly to Basildon and Thurrock councils, but also—unusually for a Labour Member; this may be the only time that I do so for a while—to Essex county council, for their work on community safety partnerships. I hope that other Essex Members will join me in also paying tribute to Robert Erith, the former high sheriff of Essex. Basildon does not normally take kindly to men in frilly shirts and tights, but on this occasion we make an exception. Community safety was the issue closest to his heart. He worked particularly hard on it and became a great friend of Basildon. I pay tribute to his work, which will continue after his term of office.
    The real issue is not just crime but the fear of crime. I bring to the attention of Ministers a report from the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, which shows the fear of crime among pensioners. Some 56 per cent. of pensioners say that they go out less at

    949
    night because of their fear of crime. They have not all been attacked, but they are frightened of being victims of crime. That is a serious problem. Some 71 per cent. felt that local policing levels were inadequate. That is why all sections of the community have to be brought on board to work together in community safety partnerships. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure pensioners that everyone will be consulted and involved in community safety partnerships.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will also pay tribute to those local authorities that said that they would work hard on community safety before the House placed a statutory duty on them. The previous Government failed to legislate on the issue, despite the Morgan report saying that they should, but many local authorities have taken on board community safety partnerships. They will provide the model for all local authorities.
    The Bill is widely welcomed. The Minister said that it was an ambitious reform; it is, but it is also long overdue. I commend it to the House.
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Leigh: I pay tribute to my fellow Conservative Back Benchers in Committee, who sustained our debates with very little help from Labour Back Benchers—;although their presence was welcome.
    It was charming to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in action in Committee. For many years, he laboured in the dry soil of the Opposition vineyard, trying to nurture the delicate plants that he has brought with such pride to the House tonight. At the same time, he was uprooting 100 years of Labour tradition in defence of civil liberties. Whatever he says tonight, he will not convince the House or the nation that simply introducing a few bureaucratic orders will make much difference to crime and disorder.
    As a recent Home Office study made clear, the real problem is that the key factors relating to criminality are being male and being brought up by a criminal parent or parents. Those who live with both natural parents were the least likely ever to start to offend; the difference in offending rates was statistically significant, for both males and females in that category.
    As we well know, the problem with crime and disorder relates not to any particular Bill that we may introduce but to the decline in family values in western society. The Labour party may choose to blame the years of materialism and consumerism under Margaret Thatcher, and the Conservative party may blame the increase in dependency brought about by various socialist Governments and socialist councils on council estates. I do not know the answer, but I am certain that the few gushing speeches that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers trying to convince us that the Bill will make a difference go way over the top.
    The former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, described the 27-point plan of the then Conservative Home Secretary as a series of gimmicks to get a headline. That is exactly what the Bill amounts to. Improvements in crime and disorder depend not on the content of the Bill, which will make very little difference, but on the content of the footnotes to the Red Book on the funding of police forces throughout England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton
    950
    Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) hit the nail on the head today with his pertinent remarks about the very small increase in funding for the police force.
    We had some lighter moments in Committee—not least the Under-Secretary's reply to a question I asked him about the abolition of hanging for piracy in the south seas. He said:
    "I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the remit of the Royal Navy to deal with piracy in the south seas. However, if it found any pirates in the south seas whom it was thinking of hanging I suspect that it would not seek to bring them to the Isle of Man to do so."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 June 1998; c. 861.]
    I commend the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has replied to our points with such good humour during the past five or six weeks.
    Will the anti-social behaviour orders make much difference? I suspect that they are just another form of the friendly policeman's pat on the back, which we have known and loved over the years. I suspect that they will make little difference.
    I do not know whether parenting orders will make much difference—it all depends on resources. I hope that the Bill will manage to speed up youth justice. Those of us with experience in the courts have often commented on the delays—usually caused by lawyers—to youth justice. In that respect, I wish the Bill every success.
    I suspect that this is just another well-intentioned Bill. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, which is why there is no point in Conservatives opposing it. Why should we oppose it when so much of it was contained in our own manifesto last year? It is yet another Bill launched by the Home Office—we have had so many in the past—on the stormy seas of the criminal justice system. We shall see it sail away and it will be forgotten in a year's time. Crime and disorder will continue to rise on our estates unless we address the fundamental problems of the decline of moral, social and ethical values in society.
    10.8 pm
    Mr. Clappison: All legislation concerned with criminal justice and public order calls for especially careful and constructive scrutiny, and this Bill is no exception. I should like to think that we have given it the degree of scrutiny appropriate to such legislation.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the part that they played—and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who assisted on the Bill's Scottish measures, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The House will have gathered that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was rightly concerned to delve into every nook and cranny, including whether pirates could be taken from the south seas to the Isle of Man to meet their just deserts. We approached the Bill in a spirit of complete scrutiny, which we believe was appropriate.
    All Governments set great store by presentation—I do not think it too controversial to say at this late hour that this Government are no exception. However, presentation is not everything—it is important to examine the detail and to see what happens to it later.
    We are pleased that some of the amendments that we tabled were accepted, including amendments on such important subjects as stiffening the law against football

    951
    hooligans and allowing victims to receive financial compensation as well as reparation—the latter amendment was passed today. However, we shall have to return to many of the amendments that were not accepted, including those on such important subjects as drugs—further action needs to be taken, especially against people who push drugs. We believe that further detailed consideration needs to be given to fill in some of the gaps in the Bill—on sex offenders, for example.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was absolutely right to say that we need to examine the question of resources and whether the Government's good intentions are followed through in practice: I put the Government on notice that we shall scrutinise that question every bit as carefully as we scrutinised the Bill.
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Michael: I have time only to make one point, and I must combat the message given by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—the shadow Home Secretary—and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), that we shall somehow tackle problems by throwing money at them. The Audit Commission report demonstrated the need for efficiency and effectiveness. The Government have given an increase in resources of 3.7 per cent. to the police this year—that money must be used effectively. The police know that, by co-ordinating the resources of local authorities—
    It being six hours and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair:—
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Israeli-occupied Territories
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I recently had the opportunity to spend a week in the west bank and the Gaza strip with a number of colleagues from the Labour middle east council. I am grateful for this opportunity to describe some of the things that we witnessed and what we were told about the way in which international law operates in that part of the world.
  Today, I and others met and put our concerns to the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The meeting was private, so it would be wrong to discuss in detail what was said. However, the Israeli ambassador asked me to say tonight that I recognised the real concerns of the Israeli people to live in peace and security, and the personal tragedies and losses that so many Israeli families have suffered in the past 50 years of conflict. I willingly do so, and I say without doubt or hesitation that Israel has a right to exist within secure and recognised borders. I accept that—those borders have been internationally recognised since 1948.
  I want tonight to address not the position inside those borders, but the position outside them, in those territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967 and which remain under occupation to this day. Those territories are covered by numerous United Nations resolutions, by the provisions of the internationally ratified Oslo accords and, as occupied territories, by the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention. The people who live there, like people in every part of the world, have a right to expect that they will be protected by the universal declaration of human rights. From our experience in the occupied territories only a few weeks ago, however, I must tell the House that there are considerable causes for concern on each of those grounds.
  At the heart of the Oslo process is the principle of land for peace. Both sides agreed that they would not take actions that would pre-empt the results of negotiation. We still do not know exactly what Israel's final response will be to the United States proposals for a withdrawal from a further 13 per cent. of the occupied land. However, as we travelled round the west bank, we could see that the illegal settlement building was continuing and we witnessed roads being built. The roads criss-cross the west bank—bypass roads built for the most part on confiscated Arab land.
  It is also becoming clear to the local population that that road building seems to be part of a long-term plan to pre-empt the results of the final negotiations. The maps show a pattern developing—a pattern of settlement blocks and bypass roads that reflect political and not natural boundaries and are designed to take in precious water resources. They appear to be splitting the Palestinian centres of population into many small islands, each detached from the others and permanently dislocated from east Jerusalem. When put together with the daily restrictions that Palestinians face on movement, many people have being saying—I think that they can legitimately suggest this—that what appears to be being created on the west bank today is a series of Palestinian Bantustans. Settlement building is not merely illegal; it is a threat to the peace process itself.

  953
  During our recent visit, we were shown around the site of Har Homa at Jabal Abu Ghneim. We could see for ourselves how Israeli plans to develop that prime site in the heart of Palestinian territory on the south-eastern corner of Jerusalem, overlooking the hills that lead to Bethlehem, should have caused such outrage and fear among the Palestinian population.
  During our tour of that area, we were also taken to a point in the north-east part of the city, looking toward the settlement of Maale Adumim and shown an area of open land that has been earmarked for what has become known in the area as the E1 project, which is designed to expand the boundaries of the settlement and create a territorial link between Jewish settlements beyond the green line and the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. A decision to go ahead with that development could be made at any time and would almost certainly lead to the same sort of disastrous political consequences that accompanied the decision to go ahead with building the settlement at Har Homa. That was three weeks ago, and a potentially explosive situation is now being compounded further by the Israeli Cabinet's decision on Sunday to extend further the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and, apparently, annex the land on which a number of settlements have already been built in occupied areas.
  I hope that the Minister will agree with me and use this opportunity to condemn unreservedly that latest illegal act in defiance of the Oslo peace agreement and the provisions of international law that remain applicable to the occupied west bank. I also hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that the Israeli ambassador has been reminded of the commitment of the United Kingdom and our European partners to a peace process that is based on international law and the protection of human rights.
  I hope also that the Israeli Government have been reminded that the United Kingdom and the international community regard east Jerusalem and the west bank as occupied territory and that any changes made to the status of the city of Jerusalem and any borders redefined unilaterally by the Israeli Government are absolutely prohibited under international law.
  Jerusalem is one of the most difficult issues of the peace process. That is why Oslo stipulated that it should be left to final status negotiations and why the architects of Oslo—Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat—wanted to build confidence-building measures that could lead that way. Developments in Jerusalem today are undermining that process and pre-empting those final status negotiations.
  Housing laws operate in a discriminatory way. Homes are scheduled for demolition on the Palestinian side, while we are informed that less than 8 per cent. of east Jerusalem is available for Palestinian development. It is difficult for a Palestinian to get planning permission to extend his or her home. Whole areas of east Jerusalem are being designated as green zones, which apparently has less to do with environmental protection than with preventing building to house the Palestinian people of the area. As their families expand, and their population expands, all too many Palestinian families feel that they have to move out.
  Only 7 per cent. of public services in the municipality are made available to the residents of east Jerusalem. I interviewed Naela Zaru, who is aged 40 and who was recently evicted from her home at 60 Rehov Hasaraya,
  954
  also known as Diskin house, in east Jerusalem. Eviction followed a dispute with a family of settlers over ownership of the apartment. It had been through the Israeli courts twice. Once, the Palestinian woman won, and on the other occasion the Israeli family won. What was interesting was that after the Palestinian woman won, it took no less than nine months to ensure that the court's decisions were implemented and the Israeli family evicted. When it worked the other way round and the Israeli family won, eviction took place within 10 days, and was supervised by both the police and the military.
  When I interviewed Naela, she was sitting on the steps outside a neighbour's house. Her possessions were in a storeroom, having been put out on the streets a few days before. The consequence of her eviction may be the loss not only of her home, but of her very right to live in Jerusalem. One of the most insidious developments is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to alter the demographic character of Jerusalem by denying more and more Palestinians the identity cards that they need to live in east Jerusalem.
  Palestinians in Jerusalem face several inter-related problems. Identity cards can be withdrawn if they cannot prove to the satisfaction of the Israeli authorities that their "centre of life" is in Jerusalem. Withdrawal of an ID card can lead to problems in other areas, such as an inability to register the birth of a child. Anyone who seeks to marry a non-Jerusalemite must apply for a family reunification permit, and the chances are that it will be refused. If so, the person would have to live outside Jerusalem, and living outside Jerusalem for only a limited period means that the chances are that an ID will be withdrawn.
  According the Centre for the Study of Civil and Social Rights, in the period from 1 January 1996 to 24 November 1997, a total of 63 ID cards were confiscated, 313 family reunification requests were pending, 194 had been turned down and 208 cases had been deleted from the computer of the Israeli Ministry of the Interior, so that those Palestinian families had simply disappeared. There had been 130 deportation orders during that period, and 23 cases of lack of permits or tourist visas for Palestinians. There were seven cases of lack of laissez-passers, 16 of inability to register the birth of children and 49 in which Palestinians were unable to replace lost ID cards. In the period between November 1997 and May 1998, there were 425 new cases in those categories.
  There is a way round all that for the Palestinian. He or she can swear allegiance to the state of Israel, gaining permanent status. However, to make fundamental rights conditional on swearing allegiance contravenes article 45 of the Hague regulations, which stipulate that
  "it is forbidden to compel residents of an occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power."
  All this is not only illegal. It creates a climate in which Jerusalem Day, on the 31st anniversary of the occupation of east Jerusalem, was marked by a militaristic parade of armed settlers into the east. It creates a climate in which settlers from the Ateret Cohanim group felt able to move into east Jerusalem with Israeli troops to guard them. When they were eventually told to leave, they secured a deal to be able to guard the area.
  I ask the Minister to agree that all that is contrary to the peace process, and to international law. I hope that he will agree that Britain should join moves at the United Nations to ensure that the fourth Geneva convention is

  955
  implemented more thoroughly, that Israel is reminded of its obligations under UN resolutions —particularly 242 and 298—and that the European Union-Israel trade agreement will not be used to allow importation to the EU on preferential terms of produce from illegal settlements in occupied land. I also ask the Minister to agree that peace will come only when all sides in the middle east recognise that all sides have rights, and that those rights must be protected. That is not what is happening now.
  I close with a short, anonymous poem by a Palestinian that talks about the situation in the occupied territories much more graphically than I could. It says:
  "Theodore Herzl once said the Jews must go to Palestine because it was 'a land without people for a people without land'. I cry, I sorrow, for that land was mine. I am people, the Palestinians are people, and you who have suffered such persecutions, have forced us to pick up your ancient cry:
  'NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM'."
  10.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on raising these issues and on the way in which he introduced the topic. Anyone who had the benefit of hearing him knows that he raised it in a way that reflected his deep, long-standing personal commitment.
  My hon. Friend raised three issues. The first is technical and I shall deal with it straight away. Secondly, he raised the international legal position. Thirdly, and much more importantly, he mentioned the peace process, and development and rights within that.
  On the more technical matter, my hon. Friend referred to the EU-Israel trade agreement, labels of origin and enforcement of the procedures in relation to Israel. That is a matter for the Commission. During the UK presidency, we have supported its actions so far. When it comes to enforce the European law in that respect, we will continue to support it. It is important that countries of origin are clearly labelled and marked so that the consumer can have faith in that labelling. We expect the Commission to enforce that against any country that has a trade arrangement with the European Union.
  My hon. Friend clearly set out his views on the international legal position on settlements. Until a final settlement is agreed, we will base our position on the United Nations Security Council resolutions. International humanitarian law will remain the basis for our policy on the occupied territories. The key to that, as my hon. Friend said, is the fourth Geneva convention of 1949. Again, we have consistently called upon Israel to comply fully with its provisions. Israel ratified it in 1951, so we are asking Israel to do no more than what it has committed itself to for the past 47 years. Successive UK Governments have never accepted the Israeli argument that the convention does not apply to occupied territories. That has been the UK position for many years—many people would say too many years in relation to progress on the issue.
  956
  Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention clearly states:
  "The Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
  It appears difficult not to agree that the purpose of the Israeli settlers, and perhaps of the present Government of Israel, is to change demographically the population and structure throughout the occupied territories. Following that through logically, as my hon. Friend did, it appears to be inconsistent with article 49.
  My hon. Friend also asked what action the UK had taken in relation to the fourth Geneva convention. We have constantly reminded Israel of its obligations under the convention. More recently, the United Kingdom, in its EU presidency, supported the UN resolution in March calling for a full conference of the high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention to discuss the Israeli violations.
  We welcome in particular the efforts of the Swiss Government in making progress on the resolution. This month, President Cotti of Switzerland hosted a meeting of representatives of Israel, Palestine and the International Red Cross to discuss how to improve the situation. It was good to see both parties engaged in the process. We want that process to go further, and to relate to the international law and the spirit behind it.
  My hon. Friend asked me about the Israeli Cabinet decision of this weekend and the United Kingdom Government's response to it. We took the opportunity yesterday to make clear our position, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom, but of the European Union presidency. We expressed our concern
  "at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans which will alter the demographic balance in the Jerusalem area."
  The statement continued:
  "The European Union has repeatedly called for a halt to unilateral activity in Jerusalem. The plans currently under discussion would complicate the peace process at a very sensitive time.
  The EU's position on Jerusalem is well known. We believe that the final status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status talks. Neither side should pre-empt this."
  I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the statement that we issued yesterday on behalf of the EU presidency in response to the Israeli Government's decision clearly stated the EU's position. That position was reinforced at the Cardiff summit a few days ago, and has been consistent from the Luxembourg statement through to the Cardiff statement.
  The key point that my hon. Friend wanted to make was that without progress on the peace process, the sense of frustration and despair will increase significantly. He has drawn that from his experiences in his recent visits to the west bank. I was in the area in January at the beginning of the UK presidency, and I had exactly the same experiences. I sensed the same lack of hope, and the frustration and despair felt by the Palestinians.
  The Palestinians do not have a monopoly on frustration and despair. There are many in Israel who want progress to be made on the peace process. Recent opinion polls in Israel show that 70 per cent. are in favour of peace and the principles of the Oslo peace accord. The obvious act of diplomacy is to bring together those on both sides who want to make peace—the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Our task is to ensure that we can achieve that objective.

  957
  My hon. Friend rightly talked about his visit to Har Homa. I also went to Har Homa and saw what my hon. Friend referred to. That development is significant, not only because of the land that is covered, but because of the trust between the two parties. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Har Homa, he was subjected to some criticism. He was absolutely right to go there because, in doing so, he made a strong and cogent point that if there is action that pre-empts the final status negotiations, it will be impossible to make progress—and it is progress to which we all aspire. It is crucial that no action is taken to pre-empt the final status negotiations. The settlements do that, and we have always said that the status of Jerusalem is a crucial part of those final status talks.
  At the start of the United Kingdom presidency, we set out our own objectives in terms of the middle east peace process. We have always agreed with the policy position taken by the European Union that the real way forward is on the basis of Oslo and on the basis of land for peace, and that, meanwhile, there should be action to build, not undermine, confidence.
  However, we wanted to make a more active commitment to those policy objectives, and we wanted to see what we could do to push the process forward. We were told whenever we visited the middle east—and in the United Kingdom, by those supporting the Palestinian case—that it was important for the European Union to aspire to and achieve a greater role and higher profile in the peace process. I believe that, at the end of the United Kingdom presidency, we have achieved that objective, and that we have shown that the European Union has a complementary role to play in developing the United-States-led peace initiative.
  It is always clear that the peace initiative will be led by the United States, but the European Union role has been to complement that leadership, and I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that, through the activity of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, we have taken a lead to ensure that the European voice is heard throughout that process.
  It is crucial that we recognise the frustration that exists—that we recognise the fact that, without a peace agreement, we shall not see the middle east to which all of us, whichever way we approach these issues, aspire. One of the things that have pleased me in the past few months in the House of Commons is that no one now argues that to be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine, or that to be anti-Palestine is to be pro-Israel. Hon. Members now recognise that we are all committed to the peace process; we recognise the importance of the peace process for Israelis and Palestinians. That is why we took action to try to build up Israeli confidence. For that reason, too, during our presidency, we have tried to help the Palestinians to fulfil their security commitments as part of the Oslo process. That is important to win Israeli confidence—to ensure that the ordinary Israeli believes in, and has faith in, the peace process.
  For that reason also, in a complementary way, we took action to try to build up Palestinian confidence—action to encourage progress on some interim economic measures,
  958
  such as the industrial estate and Gaza airport. Above all, we continued to make clear our commitment that land for peace is the basic requirement for progress in the middle east.
  My hon. Friend, talking eloquently about the feeling of frustration, reflects the point, which is well taken by every hon. Member, that, because we have been unable to resolve this crucial question, the middle east has suffered economically—it has under-performed. My hon. Friend mentioned the gross injustice of there being some affluence alongside poverty. That injustice can be dealt with only by making progress in the peace process.
  We are determined, when we hand over the EU presidency, to continue to play a complementary and supportive role in the process, and to ensure that there is a continued European commitment. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are at a crossroads. The issue is not just about the settlements and it is not just about international law. It is much more about whether there is any belief that progress will be made.
  I would say to the Israelis that 70 per cent. or more of the people of Israel are committed to peace; I welcome and support that, and I believe that we should all work in that direction. However, we must not miss opportunities when they are available. My plea to the Israeli Government is to recognise that an opportunity for peace exists; we must take such opportunities when they become available.
  The Palestinians are now willing to sign up to the offer that the Americans are trying to broker. That initiative was accepted by the Palestinians in an act of statesmanship which will stand them in good stead. It is crucial that the Israeli people—and the Israeli Government in particular—see the opportunity to make progress, recognise the commitments that the state of Israel has already made towards land for peace and try to move that process forward.
  The negatives are apparent. The negative view that says we shall not make progress will lead to a build-up of frustration and despair on both sides of the divide. My simple view is that that is in the interests of neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and it is an outcome which we must avoid.
  My other advice to the Israeli Government—for what it is worth—is to remember that if the negotiations are to make progress, they must involve two parties with self-confidence and self-esteem. It is important to recognise that President Arafat has made significant concessions and has made every effort to keep the peace process going. The Israeli Government, of whatever political persuasion, need a partner in the negotiating process. I urge the Israeli Prime Minister to take the opportunity of negotiating with a partner who is keen to negotiate. The risk involved in that exercise is considerably less than the risk of no negotiations and no progress.
  I recognise the deep feelings that exist in the House and throughout Europe regarding the middle east question. We must make progress, and we shall continue to work to try to achieve that progress. However, if we do not succeed, I share my hon. Friend's concerns that the situation will become more and more difficult to manage. Good people—those who want peace, and who act and vote for peace—will find it very difficult to control others whose

  959
  wishes may be different. That is why this process involves not just a legal position—which my hon. Friend set out clearly in his speech—but politics, diplomacy and, above all, statesmanship. We need political leaders who will look beyond the present and recognise that the true interests of their people lie in a long-term settlement that
  960
  will benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I commend my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he was right to do so—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on aid to Sierra Leone by her Department in 1997–98; and if she will make a statement.
  [46733]

  Clare Short
  My Department provided £3.439 million to Sierra Leone in the 1997–98 financial year.

  Of this, £250,000 was spent on Sierra Leone refugees in neighbouring countries and £250,000 for Government and civil society outside Sierra Leone.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes have been made to the 1998–99 cash and running costs limits for expenditure by her Department. [47538]

  Clare Short
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class Ill, Vote 1 will be increased by £2,261,000 from £1,618,439,000 to £1,620,700,000 and the Department for International Development running cost limit by £2,261,000 from £59,874,000 to £62,135,000.

  The increase is in respect of a running cost transfer of £2,261,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class II, Vote) for the costs of development staff in London and abroad.

  The increase will be offset by a reduction in the FCO's Vote and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, for each of the last four years, all departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside her Department; and in each case if she will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [46835]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not undertaken any departmental inquiries or reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside the department in the last four years.

  Jubilee 2000
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy in relation to the Jubilee 2000 coalition campaign to cancel debt. [46734]
  430
  Clare Short
  Both the Government and the Jubilee 2000 Coalition recognise the important part debt relief can play in the eradication of poverty. We seek the same overall objective—the remission of the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries. Her Majesty's Government welcome the work that Jubilee 2000 and its associates have been doing to raise public awareness of these issues, and thus keep debt relief firmly on the international political agenda. This has helped us to get agreement at last month's G8 Summit in Birmingham to one of the main aims of the Government's Mauritius Mandate—to ensure that by the year 2000 all eligible highly indebted poor countries will have at least begun the process which will lead to debt relief.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the terms upon which media and public affairs consultants have been appointed by the Audit Commission over the last five years, and the total amounts spent each year with each consultant. [46109]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission's press and public affairs functions have been provided externally for more than nine years. These services are market tested every three years in accordance with relevant EC Directives and, following the last market test, two companies—Citigate Westminster and Lawson, Lucas and Mendelsohn—were appointed. Whilst details of the contractual terms are commercially confidential between the Audit Commission and individual contractors, the Commission has incurred the following expenditure on these services in each of the last five years:£174,145: 1 April 1997 to 31 October 1997 (new financial period)
  £311,998: year to 31 March 1997
  £315,255: year to 31 March 1996
  £236,747: year to 31 March 1995
  £172,107: year to 31 March 1994.

  Businesses (Environmental Practice)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage businesses to improve their environmental practices. [46226]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]This Government's long term goal is sustainable development. Under the legally binding targets agreed at Kyoto, the European Union agreed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, on average, by 8 per cent. Under the UK Presidency, we have secured agreement with other Member States on how to meet this European Union target. The UK contribution is to reduce emissions by 12.5 per cent. This, together with the Government's own manifesto commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent., has to be planned for. These are challenging targets and all sectors—business, domestic and transport—need to play their part in meeting them.
  431
  The Government currently have a wide range of existing programmes and initiatives to encourage business to improve its environment practices beyond the minimum standards set by regulation. These include: the Best Practice Programmes for Energy Efficiency and Environmental Technology; the promotion of environmental management within business; energy and environmental labelling schemes; codes of practice covering environmental claims on products and services; producer responsibility for the recovery and recycling of waste; promoting waste minimisation; voluntary agreements with industry sectors; and promoting the wider take up of environmental reporting.

  As part of the wide ranging Opportunities for Change consultation on a revised UK Sustainable Development Strategy, we have just launched a Sustainable Business consultation paper. This sets out and seeks views on the particular challenges posed by sustainable development for business. A further element of the strategy, the Government's recently issued consultation paper on the waste strategy for England and Wales, Less Waste: More Value, stresses the importance of industry action to reduce the environmental impact of their waste, and seeks views on what further action is needed to encourage this.

  Business is taking these matters seriously. In their Climate Change report, the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment suggested that some form of tax on industrial energy may be necessary. In response the Government have set up a task force, chaired by the President of the CBI, Lord Marshall, to examine the role of economic instruments, such as an energy tax.

  In the light of these various developments the Government will be looking across the array of measures they can deploy—regulation, voluntary agreements and economic instruments—to see what else they can do to encourage better environmental performance from business.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve air quality. [46225]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The UK National Air Quality Strategy sets out national air quality objectives for eight key air pollutants to be achieved by 2005. These objectives have been set with reference to air quality standards which represent no or minimal risk of health effects to the public. The Strategy also describes a range of policy options for achieving the objectives and the contribution to be made at international, national and local levels. We announced last year that we would review the Strategy urgently to look at the options for delivering improved air quality more quickly. The review is due to be completed by the end of this year.

  The Government are also taking action on a number of other fronts to improve air quality. At the European level we reached agreement at the Environment Council earlier this month on tough new air quality limit values under the Air Quality Daughter Directive and improved fuel quality standards under the Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels Directive. We have also made significant progress in negotiating tighter fuel quality and emission standards under the Auto-Oil programme. At the national level we
  432
  are implementing the Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control Directive and taking forward fiscal incentives for low emission buses/lorries, alternative fuels and legislation on vehicle emissions. At the local level we have introduced a system of local air quality management and are piloting a scheme for local transport emissions enforcement.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conditions the Highways Agency required to be placed on the planning application for the new Environment Agency offices in Cumbria; what was the cost of complying with them; and which organisation paid. [46371]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Conditions were attached to the planning permission granted by Eden District Council requiring the provision of new traffic signals at the junction of the M6 and A66, together with additional road markings. With regard to the cost of complying with the conditions and which organisation paid, the information is not readily available but I will provide a written response with details as and when they become available.

  US-UK Air Services Agreement
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when talks will resume on the United States of America-United Kingdom Air Services agreement. [46429]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No UK/US air services talks are currently planned. We would expect to resume talks when the outcome of the examination of the British Airways/American Airlines alliance by the competition authorities is known.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when LCR expects to complete the Channel Tunnel Rail Link if Railtrack fails to exercise its option relating to the second phase of construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [46470]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Any such assessment would depend on when Railtrack chose not to exercise its option in respect of the second phase of construction. Railtrack, however, has made clear its expectation to commit to the second phase and LCR expects work to be completed in 2007.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions within what timescale LCR will have to find a third party or complete phase two itself if Railtrack does not exercise its option relating to the second phase of construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [46469]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has an option until July 2003 to construct and purchase Phase 2, but should it decide not to exercise that option, LCR remains, in any event, contractually obliged to complete the second phase to St. Pancras. LCR's current expectation is that the second phase of construction should be completed by 2007.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 637, relating to the future of NATS, if he will make a statement on the powers attaching to the golden share. [46474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The precise details of the golden share are for consideration as the proposal is developed, but it will provide additional rights to the Government to maintain the public interest while allowing the private sector freedom to run the business.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the future of the Scottish and Oceanic Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. [45592]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Contract negotiations for a new air traffic control centre at Prestwick to replace the existing Scottish and Oceanic Air Traffic Control Centre are underway between National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder. NATS will consult with the airlines before seeking CAA Board and Government approval to a contractual commitment. NATS currently envisage that operations will transfer from the existing Prestwick centre to a new one (the New Scottish Centre) during the winter of 2004/2005.

  Private Hospitals (Business Rates)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total sum paid in business rates by private hospitals in England in the last year for which figures are available. [46362]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I estimate that the amount of business rates payable by private hospitals in England was £9.9 million in 1997–98.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the area marine safety sub-committees established by his Department and the former Department of Transport. [45777]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]There are 8 District Marine Safety Committees: East Scotland, West Scotland, Northern Ireland, North East and East England, North West England, Wales, London, and South and South West England; and 26 sub-committees which include: Highland/Moray Firth, Orkney/Caithness, and Shetland. A brochure explaining the work of the District Marine Safety Committees and providing details of all sub-centres will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what issues have been referred by his Department to marine safety sub-committees since 1 May 1997. [45778]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]No specific issues have been referred by the Department to the District Marine Safety Committees since 1 May 1997. The main role of the committees is to keep local marine safety and pollution prevention issues under 434
  review. Where an important issue of more than local significance is identified, this may be brought to the Department's attention.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which marine safety sub-committees were sent a copy of the Coastguard Agency's Five Year Strategy Plan consultation document; in each case when the document was sent out; and which sub-committees have responded to the consultation document. [45779]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]The document for consultation was published on 20 January. District Marine Safety Committees were not directly sent copies of the document, however copies were sent to the then Marine Safety Agency (under whose aegis the District Marine Safety Committees operate) and those organisations or individuals who had registered an interest. Whilst no District Marine Safety Committees responded, some replies have been received from individual committee members.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the number of registered British fishing vessels(a) under 12 metres and (b) over 12 metres in length and the number of fishermen's lives lost from each in each of the last five years. [46477]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of registered British fishing vessels both under 12 metres and over 12 metres in length and the number of fishermen's lives lost from each in the last five years as recorded by the Registry of Shipping and Seamen are as follows:

  year

  12 metres and under

  Number of deaths

  12 metres and over

  number of deaths

  1993–94

  5,376

  16

  1,273

  4

  1994–95

  5,529

  2

  1,296

  4

  1995–96

  5,752

  3

  1,321

  3

  1996–97

  6,030

  3

  1,347

  5

  1997–98

  6,271

  0

  1,373

  7

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of applications for planning permission for gipsy caravan sites were granted by local planning authorities in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c)1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98. [46566]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally. My Department is part-funding a two year research project by the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers (ACERT), to look at the success rate of Gipsy planning applications and appeals. The research is due to be completed next year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review sections 77 to 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [46569]
  435
  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on 10 June 1998,Official Report, column 574.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities in respect of the provision and development of gipsy sites. [46570]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Guidance to local authorities on gipsy sites and planning is given in the Department's Circular 1/94. It aims to provide that the planning system recognises the need for accommodation consistent with gipsies' nomadic lifestyle and to reflect the importance of the plan-led nature of the planning system in relation to gipsy site provision.

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants from public funds were paid to the London Borough of Wandsworth for the year 1998–99. [46497]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The London Borough of Wandsworth will receive Revenue Support Grant of £126,826,149, redistributed Non Domestic Rates of £60,589,879 and Standard Spending Assessment reduction grant of £7,498,940. In addition, the borough is reporting that it expects to receive grants into its General Fund Revenue Account totalling £72,042,000 outside Aggregate External Finance (AEF) and £10,091,000 with AEF; and capital grant totalling about £3.9 million. No comprehensive record of grants disbursed from public funds is maintained by the Department; such grants may be made by Government Departments or other bodies.

  Extinct Species
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the species which have become extinct in the UK over the past decade. [46700]

  Angela Eagle
  There is only one confirmed extinction of a species within the UK during the last ten years. This is of the Greater mouse-eared bat(Myotis myotis), which has been extinct since 1990.

  Freight
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government will take to encourage the movement of freight within the United Kingdom by coastal shipping. [46709]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government will be setting out their proposals for encouraging the movement of freight within the United Kingdom by coastal shipping in the White Paper on Integrated Transport to be published shortly.

  Road Traffic Reduction Legislation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when sufficient data will be available to enable an assessment to be made of the success or otherwise of recent road traffic reduction legislation; and if he will make a statement. [46708]
  436
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 is not yet in force. However, guidance to local authorities on implementing the Act was issued in draft earlier this year for consultation. This stated that local traffic authorities would be expected to produce, by 31 July 1999, reports containing assessments of levels of local road traffic in their area and forecast growth in those levels, together with targets for reducing those levels or their rate of growth. The draft guidance also stresses the importance of local authorities monitoring traffic levels in order to determine whether they are on course to achieve any such targets. It is too soon to judge when it will be possible to assess the likely impact of the Act on traffic levels.

  Unauthorised Camping
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about problems with unauthorised camping. [46498]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department receives representations from Members of Parliament, members of the public, and from local authorities about unauthorised camping on a regular basis.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions(a) have been made and (b) have been successful under the Police and Criminal Justice Act 1994 broken down by the relevant authority against unauthorised camping. [46499]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Road Accidents (Costs)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the average cost to public funds of road accidents involving a single fatality. [46519]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The value attributed to the avoidance of a fatal road accident in 1996 was £983,700. This takes account of medical costs, lost production, human costs based on willingness to pay, the costs of police and courts, insurance administration, and property damage. Included in this value is a sum of £5,200 for the cost to public funds for medical costs and the costs of police and courts. The lost production element includes social security costs but these are not separately estimated.

  Local Authority Development Plans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 859, if he will list the local authority development plans in respect of which he has confirmed the housing requirements put forward by local planning authorities since 23 February. [46965]
  437
  Mr. Raynsford
  The following development plans, or alterations to existing development plans, have been adopted by local authorities since 23 February this year:

  Richmondshire Local Plan

  City of Derby Local Plan

  West Lindsey Local Plan

  High Peak Local Plan

  South Derbyshire Local Plan

  Lichfield Local Plan

  City of Worcester Local Plan

  Carrick Local Plan

  Thanet Local Plan

  East Hampshire Local Plan

  Winchester Local Plan

  Basildon Local Plan

  St. Edmundsbury Local Plan

  North Norfolk Local Plan

  Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan

  Tendring Local Plan

  Sheffield Unitary Development Plan

  Haringey Unitary Development Plan

  Hertfordshire Structure Plan.

  In all cases the plans reached adoption without the Secretary of State having to use his reserve powers of direction in respect of the housing provision proposed by local planning authorities.

  M6
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what extra funding will be provided for increasing the capacity of the M6 following the decision to proceed with the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [46845]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Decisions on increasing the capacity of the M6 are independent of the decision to proceed with the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. More generally, funding for investment in trunk roads is being considered in the Roads Review and in the Comprehensive Spending Review. I cannot anticipate decisions in either of these Reviews.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted annually by a representative sample of 1.5 million cars. [47075]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total car fleet in the UK emitted 19.33 million tonnes of Carbon in 1996. Given that the total car fleet was made up of 22.24 million cars, this translates into an average of 0.87 tonnes of Carbon per car in that year.

  The quantity of Carbon emitted by each car in practice will depend on a number of factors, including: the type of fuel used, the size of the engine, the driving conditions, driving behaviour and the maintenance of the vehicle.

  Bathing Water (Cliftonville)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Environment Agency has not adopted(a) Palm Bay
  438
  and (b) Kingsgate Bay in Cliftonville as designated areas for Beachwater Microbiological Assays of Pathogens. [47248]

  Angela Eagle
  No applications have been received by my Department for Palm Bay and Kingsgate Bay to be identified as bathing waters under the Bathing Water Directive, which would in turn require regular water quality sampling by the Environment Agency. I understand that neither bay is likely to fulfil the Directive's definition of a bathing water, which is where bathing is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers, nor do they possess facilities associated with popular bathing areas.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if any trains operating on the Virgin West Coast Mainline are of the same design as the Great North Eastern Railway trains recently found to have faults in their wheels; [47313]

  (2) what safety checks will be made on West Coast Mainline trains to ensure that they do not possess flaws in design similar to that recently identified in the wheels of the Great North Eastern Railway trains. [47314]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None of the trains operating on the West Coast Main Line is of the same design as the Great North Eastern Railway train which was derailed on 16 June. The immediate cause of the incident appears to have been a fractured wheel, although the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate's investigation is still on-going.

  Immediately after the derailment on 16 June, in which the last coach of a high speed train operated by Great North Eastern Railway (GNER) was derailed at Sandy, Bedfordshire, Railtrack sent out notices to all other train operating companies giving details of the nature of the failure and advising them what action should be taken.

  In addition, the Railway Inspectorate has written to all the train operating companies reminding them of their duties under the relevant health and safety legislation. These require them to identify whether there are similar features on their rolling stock and take appropriate action to ensure safety.

  I am informed that Virgin Trains are inspecting all their vehicles. The bogies and wheelsets involved in this accident are unique to Mark 4 rolling stock which, in the UK, is used only by Great North Eastern Railways (GNER).

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are his plans for English Partnerships following the creation of regional development agencies. [47438]

  Mr. Caborn
  The work of English Partnerships (EP) is to be carried forward in the main by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) as part of the Government's commitment to put decision-making on regeneration and economic development at the regional level. Regeneration will be part of the RDAs' integrated regional strategies. The roles and functions of EP are to move to the RDAs as they are established; the assets will
  439
  transfer from EP to the RDAs; and regional EP staff will transfer to the RDAs in April 1999 (and the following year for London).

  This is a major organisational change and it will take time for the RDAs to get to grips with their new tasks and establish themselves as influential and credible organisations on the regional, national and international scene. Ministers envisage that there will be a transitional period of about five years when the experience and expertise of EP's remaining national capability will be critical in providing the continuity on some major projects and should also prove useful to RDAs as they bed in.

  I am placing a copy of a note in the Library which sets out the background to the changes, the work remaining with EP, and the merger of EP and the Commission for the New Towns in 2000, which I have already announced. The note has been issued today to the Government Offices for the Regions and to EP staff.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1998–99. [47508]

  Mr. Prescott
  My Department's cash limit for class VI, vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, countryside and wildlife, England), will be increased by £1,395,000 from £1,800,144,000 to £1,801,539,000 to reflect a transfer of non-voted provision from the Department for Education and Employment in order to fund European Regional Development Fund expenditure in advance of European Commission receipts on the Liverpool Institute for the Performing Arts. The increase is offset by the transfer and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Local Government Reorganisation (Basildon)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the reorganisation of the district of Basildon; and if he will make a statement. [47142]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today announcing that we have decided not to accept the outstanding recommendations on the reorganisation of the district of Basildon which the Local Government Commission have made. I do not believe that the recommendations offer a satisfactory way forward for Basildon in terms of efficient and convenient local government. We have also decided not to direct a further review by the Commission. This decision should end a period of uncertainty and enable the authorities concerned to plan more confidently for the future.

  Nuclear Discharges
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the Government's policy at the Portuguese conference on nuclear discharges, with particular reference to Sellafield and Dounreay discharges into the sea. [46358]
  440
  Mr. Meacher
  We are looking to make real further progress in protecting the marine environment, and in particular to reach agreement on a strategy that aims to continue reducing sea discharges of radioactive substances.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy towards nuclear discharges into the sea. [46359]

  Mr. Meacher
  All radioactive waste disposals, including discharges into the sea, are closely regulated under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Government departments and the environment agencies carry out monitoring of marine environmental media and foodstuffs around nuclear licensed sites that discharge radioactive waste into the sea. This ensures that any doses to the public are well below internationally agreed limits and that such discharges pose no risk to the environment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Social Exclusion (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to encourage local communities in Coventry to tackle social exclusion. [46593]

  Mr. Michael
  A number of Home Office policies and programmes contribute to tackling aspects of social exclusion. These include, within local communities, its work to promote voluntary and community activity and to support a healthy and cost effective voluntary sector.

  The Home Office has been working closely with the Social Exclusion Unit on the Unit's first three priorities of rough sleeping, school exclusions and truancy, and worst estates. In its recent report to the Prime Minister, the Social Exclusion Unit recognised that rough sleeping and related problems such as begging might be identified as local issues of concern by the crime and disorder audits required under the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]. They would therefore need to be addressed within the local crime reduction strategy.

  The approach required by the Bill of local agencies and the local community working in partnership to address identified local problems with clear priorities and targets is particularly appropriate for tackling issues of social exclusion. I commend the way it has already been adopted by Coventry in production of the Coventry Community Plan.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of withdrawing the passports of convicted football hooligans during the period of the football tournaments involving British teams abroad. [46553]

  Mr. Michael
  The withdrawal of passport facilities to persons convicted of football-related offences would be a very serious step. But we will give consideration to it and to other possible steps that might be required for the future.
  441
  The Football Spectators Act 1989 already allows the courts to impose restriction orders on persons convicted of football related offences. These require them to report to a police station on the day of a football match abroad involving a team from England or Wales.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many restriction orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989 have been made since 1 May 1997. [46567]

  Mr. Michael
  Sixty-nine.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of drug-related offences in each of the past 10 years in(a) London and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom. [47123]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the Home Office has a research programme designed to shed further light on the links between drugs and crime. A study conducted by the University of Cambridge of drug use by samples of people arrested by the police in various English cities was published recently (Home Office Research Study 183—Drugs and Crime: the results of research on drug testing and interviewing arrestees). This research found that, in those places surveyed, around one third of property crime was drug-driven.

  Police (Out-of-court Settlements)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums have been paid out of public funds and in respect of how many cases, for out-of-court settlement of claims made by former and serving police officers against the Police Service. [47085]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not collected centrally. Claims are a matter for the police authority and the individuals concerned. The Home Office has no role to play in their resolution.

  Lloyd Report
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the White Paper on the Future Law on Terrorism based on the report of Lord Lloyd will be published. [47002]

  Mr. Straw
  The consultation paper on permanent, United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation will be published shortly.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Professor Paul Wilkinson of the University of St. Andrews on the suitability of the proposed International Criminal Court for hearing cases involving the aut dedere aut judicare principle. [41122]

  Mr. Michael
  None. Representations have been received recently from Professor Wilkinson proposing that the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction in relation to terrorist crimes. The United 442
  Kingdom Government's position is that the Court should not have such jurisdiction. The policy was revisited in the light of Professor Wilkinson's comments but confirmed.

  There are several reasons for the view that the Court should not be able to deal with terrorism. Paramount among them is the need to protect confidential sources, which would be compromised if an international body were to investigate and prosecute terrorist incidents. In practical terms it would be very difficult for the Court to act in terrorist cases, countries naturally having a predilection not to volunteer sensitive national security information.

  In any event, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in this area is unnecessary given the range of terrorist conventions in place, including the recently concluded United Nations Terrorist Bombing Convention. These require their parties to co-operate against terrorism and, in some cases, to take extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorist crimes. Indeed, the involvement of the Court could even undermine or set back progress in combating terrorism, on which there is increasingly effective international co-operation.

  Prisoners (Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 640, how many new in-cell television sets his Department proposes to procure under the present procurement; and what estimate he has made of future numbers required. [46514]

  Ms Quin
  The invitation to tender stage has not yet been reached, but the Official Journal of the European Communities Notice issued on 1 June was for approximately 20,000 sets over a contract period of three to five years. Extension of in-cell television will be gradual over this period.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to allow the police to retain a proportion of fines resulting from offences detected by cameras. [46528]

  Mr. Michael
  Hypothecating the revenue from fines resulting from road traffic offences detected by cameras would result in expenditure on traffic enforcement being determined by the income generated rather than the relative priority of the activity. We are examining the current funding arrangements for the cameras to see what more might be done.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the approvals process relating to the use of enforcement equipment for prosecutions in the United Kingdom. [46527]

  Mr. Michael
  Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides for the admissibility of evidence from prescribed devices for speeding and other road traffic offences. Section 20(4)(a) requires the prescribed device to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State.

  The Government have no plans to amend or review the current legislation. The type approval process ensures that devices used to provide evidence for prosecutions in the

  443
  courts are both accurate and reliable. The rigorous testing procedures necessary for the type approval process are kept under review.

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change the ballot paper for local, parliamentary and European elections(a) to give greater prominence to party identification and (b) to ensure that candidates' names are listed in a random manner. [46792]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Registration of Political Parties Bill, which is currently before the House, will enable candidates from registered political parties to have their parties' emblems against their names on the ballot paper.

  We have no present plans to provide for candidates to be listed in random order on the ballot paper; but this issue will be considered by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair. Under the new electoral system to be introduced for European Parliamentary elections, candidates from registered political parties will appear on the ballot paper on a party list in the order determined by the party.

  Road Safety
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will develop a pilot scheme based on the road safety policing and education techniques used in the state of Victoria, Australia. [46923]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans at present to develop such a pilot scheme, but we are committed to promoting road safety in innovative ways and will carefully consider any proposals which are put to us.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the rights to compensation of victims where the offence took place before 1 October 1979 and the offender and victim lived together as members of the same family; [46578]

  (2) how many claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme have been rejected because the offence took place before 1 October 1979 and the victim and the offender lived together as members of the same family. [46579]

  Mr. Michael
  Under the tariff-based scheme, effective for all claims received on or after 1 April 1996, 190 claims had been refused by 31 March 1998 by reason of their exclusion from the scope of that scheme under paragraph 7(b). Precise data for the identical exclusion applied in the former scheme based on common law damages are not available. However, I understand from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that between 1,000 and 2,000 claims in this category would have been refused in the period 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1996. The number of victims who have never made any application in recognition of the exclusion is unquantifiable.

  The question of allowing claims arising from intra-family violence before 1 October 1979 has been considered on a number of occasions over the years.
  444
  Change has been rejected on grounds of cost, and because it would represent a departure from the general principle that changes in the law, rules and procedures are not normally made retrospective. We believe those arguments remain compelling, and have no plans to review further this aspect of the compensation scheme.

  Cumbria Police
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police constables were employed by the Cumbria Constabulary between 1979 and 1998; and what was the total police strength in each of those years. [46949]

  Mr. Michael
  The information available is set out in the table. It is not possible to provide information on the number of police constables prior to 1990.

  Cumbria constabulary

  Year1

  Total constable strength

  Total officer strength

  1979

  n/a

  1,071

  1980

  n/a

  1,092

  1981

  n/a

  1,101

  1982

  n/a

  1,106

  1983

  n/a

  1,120

  1984

  n/a

  1,111

  1985

  n/a

  1,110

  1986

  n/a

  1,126

  1987

  n/a

  1,145

  1988

  n/a

  1,145

  1989

  n/a

  1,148

  1990

  860

  1,176

  1991

  871

  1,180

  1992

  891

  1,198

  1993

  904

  1,211

  1994

  879

  1,172

  1995

  865

  1,144

  1996

  860

  1,124

  1997

  902

  1,162

  19982

  911

  1,164

  1 Figures provided are as at 30 September for each year

  2 Provisional figures for 31 March 1998

  Police Grant (Kent)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account is taken in the allocation of police grant to Kent of its proximity to mainland Europe and of the Channel Tunnel. [46924]

  Mr. Michael
  None directly. However, police grant is allocated by means of a formula which predicts police authorities' relative need to spend. Formula components are weighted to take account of both resident and daytime population in a force's area. Any increase in Kent's population as a result of its geographical situation would in time be reflected in its police grant allocation.

  Kent Police Authority received an increase of 4.4 per cent. in its spending power in 1998–99, significantly above the national average of 3.7 per cent. for police authorities.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will conduct research into the
  445
  effectiveness of community policing in the United Kingdom relative to such policing in (a) the USA, (b) South Africa, and (c) other EU countries. [47214]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no current plans for formal research on the effectiveness of community policing in the United Kingdom in comparison with the United States, South Africa or other European Union countries. We do, however, have regular contacts with the police and others covering a wide range of jurisdictions, including those listed.

  Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available the number of men prosecuted for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female; what information is available about the age of the girls involved in these offences; what guidelines have been given to(a) police forces and (b) the Crown Prosecution Service about such prosecutions in relation to offences with girls aged (i) 15, (ii) 14 and (iii) 13 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [46141]

  Number of males prosecuted for offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13 and a girl aged under 16 by age, England and Wales, 1986–1996

  Offence/age group

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 131

  10 to under 18 years

  16

  13

  27

  21

  23

  28

  13

  18

  17

  17

  7

  18 to under 21 years

  13

  19

  17

  13

  18

  23

  20

  12

  16

  11

  5

  21 years or over

  99

  123

  121

  104

  103

  102

  78

  67

  55

  49

  28

  All ages

  128

  155

  165

  138

  144

  153

  111

  97

  88

  77

  40

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 162

  10 to under 18 years

  37

  27

  33

  34

  29

  22

  20

  19

  24

  21

  17

  18 to under 21 years

  76

  72

  84

  77

  63

  58

  53

  40

  47

  36

  33

  21 years or over

  252

  260

  227

  179

  198

  172

  179

  128

  131

  138

  114

  All ages

  365

  359

  344

  290

  290

  252

  252

  187

  202

  195

  164

  1An offence under s5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

  2An offence under s6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

TREASURY

  Mutual Building Societies
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to(a) protect the position of mutual building societies and (b) ensure real competition in the financial services sector. [47086]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Building societies are competing strongly in the savings and loans markets, and continuing to show the benefits that mutuality can offer their members. The Government believe societies should be accountable to their members and therefore increased the proportion of members who must vote in order for any conversion from a mutual society to a bank to succeed from 20 to 50 per cent. last year.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the Question from the hon. Member for Wells for answer on 14 May relating to the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone (reference 41883). [47246]
  446
  Mr. Michael
  Home Office Court Proceedings information on the number of prosecutions for two offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 from 1986 to 1996 (latest available) is given in the table. No more detail is held about the age of the victim.

  No formal guidelines have been given to the police relating to prosecutions in cases of unlawful sexual intercourse. In deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings and to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police will look carefully at the circumstances surrounding each case and will take into account the Code for Crown Prosecutors. However, the police have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to place the welfare of the child as their first priority, and this is detailed in the guidance "Working Together Under The Children Act" which sets out the arrangements for child protection in England and Wales. The Government are consulting on proposals for drawing up revised guidance.

  All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police are reviewed and prosecuted where appropriate, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 106.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much Exchequer revenue will be lost as a result of the sale of the Royal Mint in each of the financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–2001 and (c) 2001–2002. [47312]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The impact on Exchequer revenue of selling the Royal Mint would depend entirely on how this were effected. No decisions have yet been made on the form that a public/private partnership for the Mint might take.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds are generated from producing coins for other countries by the Royal Mint; and how many countries the Royal Mint produces coins for. [47310]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Royal Mint produced coins or blanks for 64 other countries in 1997/98. Overseas sales revenue in that year was £63 million.
  447
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which Commonwealth countries the Royal Mint has contracts for production of their coins. [47311]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Royal Mint produced coins or blanks for 41 Commonwealth countries in 1997–98. Information about individual contracts, obtained in a competitive international market, are commercially confidential.

  Contingency Reserves
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the level of the Contingency Reserve. [46388]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The policy on the Reserve is to set it at a level that allows for emergencies and genuine contingencies, as well as reasonable expectations of take-up of End Year Flexibility.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the level of contingency reserves for(a) departmental expenditure limits, and (b) annually managed expenditure for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–2001 and (iii) 2001–2002; and if he will make a statement. [46393]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Reserves for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02 will be published in the CSR White Paper.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which areas he intends departments to spend the £1.5 billion carried forward from last year as an underspend, in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [46441]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]£1 billion of the £1.5 billion underspend in 1997–98 identified in the March 1998 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" was allocated to programmes in 1998–99 as described in paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1998–99" (Cm 3901). The remaining £0.5 billion was allocated to the Reserve for 1998–99.

  Public Sector Spending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public sector net cash requirement, including windfall tax receipts and associated spending, for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01, (e) 2001–02 and (f) 2002–03. [46374]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]Forecasts of the public sector net cash requirement including the windfall tax and associated spending were published in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the public sector net cash requirement for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–00, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02, and (e) 2002–03, of the new accounting treatment of
  448
  student financial support, as indicated in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report of June 1998; and if he will make a statement. [46389]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The new accounting treatment for student loans in Departmental Expenditure Limits will have no effect on the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement, which is a cash measure.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes to the gross Contingency Reserve for Public Spending have taken place between the publication of the Financial Statement and Budget report of March 1998 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report of June 1998; and if he will make a statement. [46377]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998): The reduction of £0.3 billion in the Reserve from £3 billion in the March 1998 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" to £2.7 billion in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 reflects the transfer of £0.75 billion unspent in 1997–98 and a rephasing of sales of student loans.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in real public expenditure for each year from 1998–99 to 2001–02, in terms of the previously defined, Control Total for Public Expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [46381]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]It would not be possible to produce these figures until full spending plans for each year from 1998–99 to 2001–02 are published at the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement.

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what implications the Stability and Growth Pact has for the conduct of UK fiscal policy; and if he will make a statement. [46400]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Stability and Growth Pact does not place any new legal obligations on UK fiscal policy. UK fiscal policy is conducted with a view to ensuring economic stability which is in the best interests of the UK economy.

  Local Authority Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals to relax the capping regime for local authority budgets, in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report June 1998, page 27. [46394]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently undertook a public consultation on possible reforms to the local government finance system. The Government are considering responses to that consultation and the result will be published in due course.

  Economic and Fiscal Strategy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will restate Table 4.6 in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report (June 1998) to show figures in cash terms. [46396]
  449
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]Forecasts of the current budget, net borrowing and net cash requirement in cash terms were published in Table 4.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR). Forecasts of the cyclically adjusted budget balances in Table 4.6 can be converted onto a cash basis using the money GDP figures in Table 4.1.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend (i) Table 4.A.1, page 49, and (ii) Table 4.A.2, page 50 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report (June 1998) to show the series given for the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. [46397]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]Forecasts of the public sector finances were published in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report on the assumption that the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments averages(a) 3.0 per cent. in 1998–99 and 2.75 per cent. in 1999–2000 and (b) 3.25 per cent. in 1998–99 and 3.0 per cent. in 1999–2000. [46848]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The implications for the public finances of inflation higher than assumed in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report will depend on the reasons why inflation was higher, and the impact of such inflation on the economy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report on the assumption that total managed expenditure grows in real terms by(a) 0.75 per cent., (b) 1.5 per cent. and (c) 2.25 per cent. in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. [46851]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]Full information contained in tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR) cannot be recalculated for different assumptions about the growth of Total Managed Expenditure without information on the composition of that expenditure, in particular the allocation of expenditure between current and capital.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he will take if the cost of social security benefits in 1998–99 exceeds £95.8 billion, in order to ensure that total managed expenditure rises no higher than the figure cited in table 3A.1 in his Economic and Fiscal Strategy report. [46855]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]Table 3A.1 sets out figures for 1998–99 in terms of the new aggregates to illustrate how the new control regime announced in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report would work. That regime does not apply in 1998–99.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reproduce tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report for each of the years from 1991–92 to 1996–97. [46847]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]Many of the series contained in tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 can be found in Annex 4A of the Economic and Fiscal 450
  Strategy Report. Apart from assets sales, the remaining information can be derived from Table 10.1A of Financial Statistics and Table 2.1 of "Economic Trends" (which gives money gross domestic product). These publications can be found in the House of Commons Library. Information on assets sales can be found in Table B 17 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (March 1998).

  Inflation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what adjustment mechanism will be available to the Treasury for public expenditure in circumstances when inflation outturns diverge substantially from Treasury planning assumptions; and if he will make a statement. [46382]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]I refer the hon. Gentleman to Section 3.4 of the EFSR (CM 3978).

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost of introducing taper relief for capital gains tax for each year up to 2009–10; what margin of error is associated with such estimates; what assumptions underlie such estimates; and if he will make a statement; [46768]

  (2) if he will estimate the reduction in Exchequer revenues which will result from the introduction of his policy of a taper relief on capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [46771]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The available information on the effect on Exchequer revenues of the capital gains tax package of reforms is as follows:

  year

  £million (+)yield/(-)cost

  1998–99

  Negligible

  1999–2000

  -25

  2000–2001

  +25

  For later years, the Exchequer effects will depend to a considerable extent upon movements in future asset prices, any behavioural changes and other factors. In the long term the aim is for the changes to be broadly revenue neutral. It is inappropriate to estimate the cost of taper relief in isolation from other elements of the reform package.

  The assumptions for inflation and asset price growth used in calculating the revenue effects of these measures are consistent with the economic assumptions referred to on pages 108 and 109 of the March 1998 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR, HC620 published on 17 March 1998). Equity prices are assumed to grow at the same rate as gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices—"money GDP".

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will delay the implementation of capital gains tax taper relief for a period of one year to allow for further consultations on its effects and implications; and if he will make a statement. [46770]
  451
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]No. It is important that the benefits of the reforms flow through as early as possible.

  The hon. Gentleman's amendments to the Finance Bill on this matter was discussed by a Committee of the Whole House on 29 April and rejected in a vote.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers were involved prior to the March 1998 Budget in formulating the new policies on capital gains tax, including the taper relief on capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [46769]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The Chancellor is responsible for all Budget measures. He receives advice from his Ministerial team and officials as appropriate.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written representations he has received on his 1998 Budget proposals on taper relief for capital gains tax; how many of such representations were(a) favourable and (b) unfavourable; and if he will make a statement. [46767]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]Around 200 comments were received on the Budget proposals, of which approximately 80 mentioned taper relief. Seventy per cent. supported the principle of taper relief. There were varying comments on the detail.

  Tax (Hypothecation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend hypothecation of tax revenue beyond Welfare to Work. [46774]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]We look at each case on its merits. The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (Cm 3798) announced (on Page 28) that departments would be able to keep some levies and similar taxes, netting them off the Departmental Expenditure Limits where this would further the Government's economic objectives and not prejudice spending plans and priorities.

  Current and Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he will use to distinguish between current and capital expenditure. [46850]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]For the purpose of assessing the surplus on the current budget, the Government use national accounts definitions of current and capital expenditure except, as set out in paragraph B53 of the March 1998 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR), that depreciation is treated as current expenditure.

  When the new European System of Accounts (ESA95) is brought into effect later this year, national accounts will treat depreciation as current expenditure and so these expenditure measures will align.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to bring vehicle excise duty on heavy goods vehicles into line with average levels in other European Union countries. [46550]
  452
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]None. In the last Budget, 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 1109, the Chancellor announced a review of the system for setting vehicle excise duty rates for lorries to ensure that the environmental damage caused by lorries is reflected in their vehicle excise duty rates.

  Vehicle Taxation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the revenue from(a) VED, (b) fuel duties on petrol and derv and (c) the total of VED and fuel duties in (i) the current financial year and (ii) each of the subsequent two years. [46772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The table gives the figures requested. The forecasts are consistent with the figures for total tax receipts published in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Forecasts of receipts from vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oil products

  £ billion

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Vehicle excise duty

  4·6

  4·7

  4·8

  Hydrocarbon oil products

  21·4

  23·3

  25·6

  Total

  26·0

  28·0

  30·4

  Education Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual real terms percentage increase in public spending on education in the UK between 1979–80 and 1997–98. [46461]

  Mr. Darling
  1.6 per cent.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possibility that the form of the phase 2 pensions mis-selling inquiries proposed by the Financial Services Authority will invalidate independent financial advisers' professional indemnity insurance. [46804]

  Mrs. Liddell
  That is a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  Diesel Duty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of divergence in diesel duty rates across the EU on United Kingdom competitiveness. [46576]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Diesel duty rates in other Member States are one of many factors assessed in determining the level of UK rates. This assessment has resulted, in the last Budget, in a package of measures which reflects the Government's commitment to the environment and to promoting a more dynamic business sector.

  The Government are committed to achieving their share of the EU target, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent. by 2008–2012. The commitment to increase road fuel rates by at least 6 per cent. on average in real terms each year reflects this. In addition, the Government intend, over time, to adjust the structure of duties on road

  453
  fuels to move towards a fairer treatment of unleaded petrol and diesel, when calculated on an energy or carbon basis, and to encourage diesel users to switch to cleaner ultra-low sulphur diesel.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchen and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 291, if he will list by country the value of the outstanding debts on (a) United Kingdom aid loans and (b) loans guaranteed by the British Government through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, for each of the countries defined by the World Bank as severely or moderately indebted; and if he will give equivalent figures for (i)Afghanistan, (ii) Cuba, (iii) Gibraltar and (iv) Iraq. [44998]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The values of the outstanding claims held by ECGD and DFID, on all of the countries identified by the World Bank in Global Development Finance 1998 as moderately or severely indebted low income countries, are listed in the table. The table also includes the figures for Afghanistan, Cuba, Gibraltar and Iraq. The figures for ECGD's claims give the value of the outstanding principal of the loans at end-1997. The figures for DFID's claims give outstanding principal and interest and are current at end May 1997.

  £ million

  Country

  Value of ECGD's export credit claims

  Value of DFID'S Claims

  Afghanistan

  nil

  nil

  Albania

  nil

  nil

  Angola

  91·2

  nil

  Bangladesh

  nil

  nil

  Benin

  2·7

  nil

  Bhutan

  nil

  nil

  Bolivia

  17·5

  nil

  Burkina Faso

  1

  nil

  Burundi

  nil

  nil

  Cambodia

  nil

  nil

  Cameroon

  61·5

  0.07

  C.A.R.

  0·5

  nil

  Chad

  nil

  nil

  China

  nil

  nil

  Comoros

  0·04

  nil

  Congo-Brazzaville

  123

  nil

  Cote d'Ivoire

  30·5

  nil

  Cuba

  51·2

  nil

  DR Congo (ex Zaire)

  129·4

  nil

  Equatorial Guinea

  nil

  nil

  Eritrea

  nil

  nil

  Ethiopia

  11·7

  nil

  Gambia

  nil

  nil

  Ghana

  3·5

  nil

  Gibraltar

  nil

  nil

  Guinea

  5·1

  nil

  Guinea-Bissau

  nil

  nil

  Guyana

  44·2

  nil

  Haiti

  nil

  nil

  Honduras

  0·36

  nil

  India

  1·6

  9·8

  Iraq

  650

  nil

  Kenya

  43·5

  nil

  Laos

  nil

  nil

  Liberia

  14·5

  0·08

  Madagascar

  27

  nil

  Malawi

  0·7

  nil

  454

  £million

  Country

  Value of ECGD's export credit claims

  value of DFID's claims

  Mali

  4·1

  nil

  Mauritania

  7·1

  nil

  Mongolia

  nil

  nil

  Mozambique

  86·3

  nil

  Myanmar

  25

  nil

  Nepal

  nil

  nil

  Nicaragua

  1

  nil

  Niger

  10·8

  nil

  Nigeria

  3,100

  4·9

  Pakistan

  0·68

  nil

  Rwanda

  nil

  nil

  Sao Tome et Principe

  nil

  nil

  Senegal

  2·9

  nil

  Sierra Leone

  3·5

  nil

  Somalia

  27·5

  nil

  Sri Lanka

  4,000

  nil

  Sudan

  404·8

  nil

  Tanzania

  125·7

  nil

  Togo

  14·2

  nil

  Uganda

  14

  nil

  Vietnam

  10·4

  nil

  Yemen

  6·2

  nil

  Zambia

  234·1

  nil

  Zimbabwe

  0·1

  12·7

  Local Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he made his assessment of the amount that local authorities will be able to realise in annual asset sales; and over what period he expects these to be realised. [47038]

  Mr. Darling
  Local authorities are projected to realise £2¾ billion in asset sales in each of the next three years and in line with recent experience.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what proportion of average earnings(a) a sole earner in a married two-parent, two-child family and (b) a single person with no children would start paying income tax in (i) April 1998, (ii) October 1998 and (iii) October 1999 taking into account family credit and the proposed working family tax credit; and how these figures compare with the position taking account of the equivalent benefits in 1968–69. [45994]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1998–99 a single person will start paying income tax at earnings of £81 per week, 24 per cent. of median full-time earnings (£337 per week). A married couple with one earner and 2 children under 11 will start to pay income tax at earnings of £108 per week, 32 per cent. of median full-time earnings. With the introduction of WFTC a married couple with one earner and 2 children under 11 will start to pay income tax at earnings of £245 per week. Additional help with child care is available to working families through the child care tax credit within WFTC. For example, a 2 earner couple on median earnings with 2 children and child care costs of £80 per week will gain £46 per week to this cost.

  VAT (Safety Helmets)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove VAT from safety helmets worn by(a) cyclists and (b) motorcyclists. [46702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no VAT on safety helmets worn by motorcyclists. There is also no VAT on pedal cycle helmets designed for young children and not suitable for older persons.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action(a) the Government and (b) the Bank of England are taking to assess whether they will be able to make their computers millennium compliant at the same time as making them euro compliant. [45453]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Government Departments have investigated the impact of the introduction of the euro on their operations. Where these occur steps are in hand to make the necessary preparations. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster carries out quarterly reviews across Government on the state of preparedness for the century date change. Copies of the returns from Departments have been placed in the Library. The Bank of England has been undertaking IT preparations necessary for both EMU and Year 2000 for over 2 years. It was decided at an early stage that where there was an overlap in EMU and Year 2000 work and, where it was practical to do so, the Bank would address both issues at the same time.

  HIPC Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department is taking after the G8 summit and the Foreign Ministers' Meeting regarding the HIPC initiative. [43725]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government will continue to work with other bilateral creditors and the International Financial Institutions to take forward the G8 decisions and to ensure that progress is made towards the Mauritius Mandate targets.

  Rating and Council Tax
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the experiment involving the private sector undertaking work in the rating and council tax fields. [47413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The 1995 Next Steps Review of the Valuation Office Agency recommended that experiments be held to establish the feasibility and capability of the private sector to undertake work in the rating and council tax fields. Experiments were held during a 12 month period beginning 1 July 1996 involving contractors in four locations (two performing functions related to council tax and two to non-domestic rating). The results were compared with control offices in the Valuation Office Agency. The experiments have now been evaluated and the conclusions are:that it is feasible for private firms to meet particular operational
  requirements of valuation for rating and council tax; but
  that there is no clear financial or operational advantage in the
  permanent use of the private sector in the work concerned.

  456
  The Government have therefore decided not to take any steps at this stage to contract out rating and council tax valuation work. But if at any time they require valuation work which cannot easily or quickly be delivered within the capacity of the Valuation Office Agency they will look positively at involving the private sector.

  I am very grateful to the private sector firms involved in the experiments for an effective example of public sector/private sector partnership.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash and running costs limits for Her Majesty's Treasury in 1998–99. [47550]

  Mr. Darling
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary summer Supplementary Estimate, the running costs limit for Class XVI, Vote 1 will be increased by £6,400,000 from £59,930,000 to £66,330,000 and the cash limit will be increased by £6,400,000 from £56,665,000 to £63,065,000. The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increases are necessary to provide for the costs of a new service providing information to business about the introduction of the euro in January 1999 and will be offset by foregoing the equivalent amount of unused end year flexibility carryover.

  Pending Parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,400,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

WALES

  Local Deprivation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will prepare an Index of Local Deprivation, similar to the one introduced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. [44967]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office officials are working with the Welsh Local Government Association and other agencies to set up a joint project board to oversee the development of a new Index of socio-economic conditions for Wales. I expect this work, which will take into account the results of the review of the Index of Local Conditions in England, to be completed in about a year.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make changes in the membership of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales prior to the establishment of the National Assembly. [46701]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  On 14 April I appointed 6 new members and re-appointed two existing members to the FEFCW. I am currently considering appointing one further member and will shortly advertise for a new Chairman to replace the existing incumbent, whose term of office expires next Spring.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the voted cash limits for his Department in the current financial year. [47440]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to increase the cash limit on class XIV, vote 2 by £4,300,000 from £828,763,000 to £833,063,000 as a result of changes resulting from the Dearing review. The increase will be offset by a transfer from the Department for Education and Employment, class IX, vote 1 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what educational publicity campaign he plans to undertake, at what estimated cost, to inform electors of the new proportional voting system to be used for the election of the Welsh Assembly. [47140]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I regret this information is not yet available. My Department will be undertaking an educational publicity campaign to explain the proportional voting system but the extent and cost of this campaign have yet to be decided.

DEFENCE

  Royal Yeomanry and Queen's Own Yeomanry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Yeomanry and Queen's Own Yeomanry last underwent the periodic REME examination of their vehicles; and if they passed. [45848]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The most recent Royal Yeomanry Periodic REME Examination was conducted between August 1997 and February 1998. The last Queen's Own Yeomanry Periodic REME Examination was conducted between February and March 1998. The vehicles of both units were graded Satisfactory overall.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Queen's Own Yeomanry last carried out their annual gunnery grading; what result they got; and what were the comparable figures for regular armoured reconnaissance units. [45849]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Queen's Own Yeomanry last conducted a Gunnery Firing Period at Warcop over the period 16–20 April 1997. They carried out all the assessed firing exercises for Territorial Army Yeomanry and achieved a satisfactory standard. The standards laid down for regular armoured reconnaissance units are different from those set for the Territorial Army and therefore it is not possible to make objective comparisons.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the manning levels for officers and soldiers in(a) the Royal Yeomanry and (b) the Queen's Own Yeomanry. [45850]
  458
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The manning level of the Royal Yeomanry as a percentage of its own establishment is 89 per cent. for officers and 82 per cent. for soldiers. The Queen's Own Yeomanry has manning levels of 100 per cent. for officer and 92 per cent. for soldiers.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual budget for personnel costs, including permanent staff, man training days and bounty, for(a) the Royal Yeomanry and (b) the Queen's Own Yeomanry; and what would be the equivalent cost of manning regiments of similar size and roles with regular soldiers. [45853]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The total annual budgets for personnel costs for the Royal Yeomanry and the Queen's Own Yeomanry are £2.976M and £1.418M respectively. Comparable costs for regular regiments of a similar size and role are not available. However, the costs of paying regular and TA soldiers to perform a particular role for a given period of time are broadly comparable.

  Conscientious Objection
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy is operated by the armed forces if serving personnel declare they can no longer, for reasons of conscience, undertake military duties. [46777]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]My Department has a well established appeal procedure for Service personnel who, for reasons of conscience, feel unable to continue service. These cases are first considered by the individual's chain of command, and if the conscientious objection is considered to be genuine, arrangements are made for the applicant to be administratively discharged on compassionate grounds.

  If, after consideration, a conscientious objection is not assessed to be genuine, it will be rejected. Unsuccessful applicants are, however, advised that they may appeal to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors. This Committee is independent of the MOD and its members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It conducts its hearings in public and tenders its advice to the Secretary of State for Defence's representative. A successful appeal to the Advisory Committee is invariably accepted by the Department and the applicant will immediately be granted a release from the Service.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he is currently undertaking with the United States military on systems for the detection of chemical and biological weapons. [46545]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The UK is already party to a trilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States and Canada on chemical and biological defence. Under the auspices of this MOU, my Department embarked upon a programme to develop a joint approach to chemical and biological defence and collaboration across a full range of defensive measures, including systems for the detection of chemical and biological agents. As part of this programme, we have undertaken joint tests and field trials
  459
  with both the US and Canada to establish the effectiveness of available technology for the detection of chemical and biological agents.

  I have recently agreed with the US Defence Secretary that we should increase co-operation to combat chemical and biological weapons. This will further deepen the existing close collaboration in this area.

  Dundrennan Test Range
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the most recent environmental and radiological survey undertaken at and around the Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire, test range. [46783]

  Mr. Spellar
  The survey to which the hon. Member refers was conducted by the Radiation Protection Services section (DRPS) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Arrangements were made last June, through the Parliamentary Branch of the Ministry of Defence, for an updated list of all unclassified DRPS reports to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The list includes details of published reports of the most recent environmental and radiological survey undertaken at and around the Dundrennan test range in Kirkcudbrightshire. These are DRPS Report No 6/97, "1996 Environmental Depleted Uranium Baseline Survey Report DTEO Kirkcudbright" and DRPS Report No 10/97, "1996 Marine Environmental Survey Report DTEO Kirkcudbright". It was decided at the time that it was not a practical option to place reports (including DRPS Reports 6 and 10/97) themselves in the House Library but that copies would be available on a case by case basis on request. I understand the hon. Member has made such a request and that arrangements are in hand for him to receive copies of the reports in question.

  Berlin Airlift
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Ministry of Defence Postal and Courier Services are taking to commemorate the Berlin Airlift; and if he will make a statement. [47076]

  Mr. Spellar
  The British Forces Post Office, BFPO, a part of the Defence Postal and Courier Services, is issuing a philatelic cover bearing a special handstamp on 26 June 1998 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the start of the Berlin Airlift. These special commemorative philatelic covers will be available from the BFPO on that date.

  Air Transport Procurement
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the leasing of four Boeing C-17 transport aircraft; and what effect this will have on the Future Large Aircraft; [47309]

  (2) how many jobs will be created in the UK in the production of those C-17s to be leased by his Department. [46964]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our air transport requirement has been scrutinised closely in the Strategic Defence Review. Any decision on future air transport procurement will be made in light of the conclusions of the Review and of the responses to the Requests for Proposals.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to protect British(a) public funds and (b) exporters where defence exports on a Government to Government basis are paid for in oil and gas; and how he seeks to protect the volume and value of such exports from falling oil and gas prices. [46468]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no Government to Government defence projects which involve Her Majesty's Government taking oil or gas as payment.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Creative Industries
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the creative industries in(a) the North West Region, (b) Liverpool and (c) Merseyside in terms of (i) jobs, (ii) turnover, (iii) company formation and (iv) tourism. [46233]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The creative industries can be a powerful economic driving force in local and regional economies, but detailed statistics on the scale of their economic impact in particular parts of the country are not currently available. The Creative Industries Task Force has collated data which show that the creative industries nationally generate revenues of around £55 billion, contributing 4 per cent. to GDP, and employ some 1.5 million people. The Task Force is now turning its attention to assessing the position in different regions.

  Tourism
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the aims and objectives of his policy on tourism; and what the achievements of these policies have been since 1 May 1997. [46663]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]We are in the process of developing a comprehensive strategy for tourism. We want to see quality tourism development which is economically, environmentally and socially sustainable, and which supports the Government's employment objectives and their wish to see a more inclusive society. Our aims and objectives for tourism will be set out in more detail when we publish the new strategy later this year.

  Achievements since last May include the establishment of an expanded, fully representative Tourism Forum; and the establishment of new Working Groups on Strategic Planning, Widening Access and Domestic Tourism, with sub groups on Quality, Distribution and Sustainability. These have now reported, as have the Working Groups on Communications, Business Tourism, People and Visitor Attractions. In addition, we have launched Tourism—Towards Sustainability, a nationwide consultation exercise on sustainable tourism and have held the first sectoral conference on New Deal for the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry, which has led to a very positive response from the industry.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the operation of the Public Trust Office. [45605]

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the operation of the Public Trust Office. [45610]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the hon. Members are aware the Office will be subject to the usual five yearly review in 1999. This will be a comprehensive examination of all aspects of the Office's performance.

  Community Disputes
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times he has met local authority representatives to discuss uniformity of decision making in community disputes. [45607]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not met local authorities to discuss this subject.

  Barristers' Earnings
  37. Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the level of legal aid fees paid to senior Queen's Counsels. [45608]

  Mr. Hoon
  Criminal higher expenditure on QCs rose by 167 per cent. between 1991/92 and 1994/95, from £15m to around £40m. In the last three years total expenditure under this head has remained more or less at that level in real terms. Figures for civil legal aid are not available.

  Litigation (Offshore Companies)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that litigants in civil disputes with companies are not denied redress as a result of company registrations in the Channel Islands. [45609]

  Mr. Hoon
  If a company is registered in the Channel Islands enforcement action can still be taken against assets held by it in England and Wales.

  Women Judges
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many women judges have been appointed since 2 May 1997; and what percentage this is of the total number of appointments. [45611]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 2 May 1997, six women Circuit Judges have been appointed out of a total of 34 (18 per cent.); seven women District Judges out of a total of 26 (27 per cent.); and one woman Stipendiary Magistrate out of a total of four (25 per cent.). During the same period nine High Court Judges, five Lord Justices of Appeal and one Lord of Appeal in Ordinary were also appointed. None of those was a woman.

  Personal Injury Claims
  41. Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to regulate the activities of unqualified claims assessors in personal injury claims. [45612]

  Mr. Hoon
  1 am considering representations made to me by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers when I met them recently to discuss their concerns about claims assessors.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will(a) meet a deputation from the Association of Essex Councils over the closure of magistrates courts in Essex and (b) halt the closures pending a policy review involving the association. [45613]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) During the course of this appeal I have already met with both parties and three local MPs. Essex County Council and Braintree and Uttlesford District Councils have been fully involved throughout.(b) Closures cannot be halted for any reason other than a successful appeal in accordance with section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 from a magistrates' courts committee's determination or by the rescinding of such a determination by the magistrates' courts committee. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to conduct a policy review.

  Legal Aid (Divorce Proceedings)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the availability of legal aid for divorce proceedings. [45614]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have announced their plans for modernising the delivery of publicly funded legal services for all types of proceedings including divorce.

  Family Law
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Advisory Board on Family Law intends to publish its first annual report. [47388]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Advisory Board on Family Law has today published its first annual report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places were available for teacher training in each year since 1990; and how many were filled in each year. [46844]
  463
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the target and actual intake to initial teacher training for the years 1990–91 to 1997–98.

  Target and actual recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses1 in England, 1990–91 to 1997–98

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  1990–91

  12,250

  13,155

  10,995

  8,919

  23,245

  22,074

  1991–92

  12,660

  14,777

  11,275

  11,830

  23,935

  26,607

  1992–93

  13,070

  16,658

  11,300

  12,849

  24,370

  29,507

  1993–94

  13,937

  15,775

  13,968

  13,689

  27,905

  29,464

  1994–95

  12,990

  13,743

  16,600

  15,509

  29,590

  29,252

  1995–96

  12,115

  13,603

  17,000

  15,226

  29,115

  28,829

  1996–97

  11,500

  12,465

  18,900

  15,965

  30,400

  28,430

  1997–982

  11,050

  11,749

  19,500

  15,966

  30,550

  27,715

  1Includes School Centred ITT and Open University

  2 Actual intake for 1997–98 is provisional

  Sources:

  Actual intake:

  1990–91 to 1993–94: DFE ITT Annual Recruitment Survey

  1994–95: Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Early Statistics Survey

  1995–96 to 1997–98: TTA ITT recruitment survey

  Target intake:

  DfEE

  Teacher Vacancies (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current number of teacher vacancies in each of the education departments of local authorities covering the Greater London area. [46973]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total number of teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in the Greater London area at January 1998 (the latest available information) was as follows:

  LEA

  Vacancies

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  19

  Greenwich

  58

  Hackney

  63

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  53

  Islington

  44

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20

  Lambeth

  12

  Lewisham

  52

  Southwark

  60

  Tower Hamlets

  66

  Wandsworth

  49

  Westminster

  21

  Barking and Dagenham

  19

  Barnet

  22

  Bexley

  8

  Brent

  35

  Bromley

  15

  Croydon

  20

  Ealing

  52

  Enfield

  20

  Haringey

  30

  Harrow

  12

  Havering

  15

  Hillingdon

  29

  Hounslow

  23

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6

  Merton

  8

  Newham

  83

  Redbridge

  22

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  4

  Sutton

  10

  Waltham Forest

  48

  Total

  999

  Further Education (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges in Hampshire had a budget deficit in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [46005]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows the number of colleges in Hampshire which had operating deficits for the academic years ended 31 July 1996 and 1997 and forecast an operating deficit for the academic year ended 31 July 1998.

  Colleges in Hampshire with operating deficits

  Year ended

  Number of colleges with budgeted deficits

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  11

  1997–98 (forecast)

  13

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the average efficiency savings made by further education colleges in Hampshire in 1997–98. [46002]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department calculates efficiency gains for the FE sector on a national basis only. The expected efficiency gain for the financial year 1997–98 is 3.0 per cent.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the transfer of responsibilities for setting NVQ standards from his Department to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [47287]

  Dr. Howells
  From 1 April 1998, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, acting jointly with the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and in consultation with the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and the Training and Education Agency for Northern Ireland, became responsible for the procurement and approval of the national occupational standards which form the basis of National Vocational Qualifications and Scottish Vocational Qualifications.

  Universities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to provide funding for the updating of facilities in universities. [46595]

  Dr. Howells
  For 1998–99 my right hon. Friend has provided a funding package which will allow an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education. This includes an additional £125 million for universities and colleges in England to maintain and improve quality and standards, and to make a start on the backlog of maintenance and equipment replacement.

  Decisions on funding for higher education for 1999–2000 and beyond will depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, due to be announced next month.
  465
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics his Department collects on the staff to student ratio in universities. [46596]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department uses data on staff and students collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency in order to calculate a sector level student to staff ratio in higher education institutions in England.

  The latest available student to staff ratios, as published in the 1998 Departmental Report, are 16.5 in 1994–95 and 16.6 in 1995–96.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the curricula taught in universities(a) nationally and (b) the West Midlands. [46598]

  Higher education enrolments in UK higher education institutions and those in the West Midlands analysed by subject, 1997–98

  Subject

  UK

  percentage of total

  West Midlands

  percentage of total

  Medicine and dentistry

  41,579

  2·4

  1,724

  1·3

  Subjects allied to medicine

  156,863

  9·0

  12,825

  9·5

  Biological sciences

  86,559

  5·0

  6,138

  4·6

  Veterinary science

  3,311

  0·2

  14

  0·0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  15,393

  0·9

  1,902

  1·4

  Physical sciences

  72,190

  4·1

  4,835

  3·6

  Mathematical sciences

  20,230

  1·2

  1,514

  1·1

  Computer science

  78,019

  4·5

  7,198

  5·4

  Engineering and technology

  129,186

  7·4

  13,044

  9·7

  Architecture/building and planning

  43,686

  2·5

  2,509

  1·9

  Social, Economic and political studies

  128,572

  7·4

  10,229

  7·6

  Law

  54,341

  3·1

  5,177

  3·8

  Business and administrative studies

  216,752

  12·4

  19,346

  14·4

  Librarianship and information science

  20,175

  1·2

  1,309

  1·0

  Languages

  89,708

  5·2

  7,862

  5·8

  Humanities

  59,970

  3·4

  4,598

  3·4

  Creative Arts and Design

  92,889

  5·3

  7,455

  5·5

  Education

  128,208

  7·4

  9,183

  6·8

  Combined

  304,002

  17·5

  17,677

  13·1

  Total

  1,741,633

  100·0

  134,539

  100·0

  Collective Acts of Worship
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement. on the Government's policy on collective acts of worship in schools. [47285]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to the current statutory requirements: the School Standards and Framework Bill is applying these requirements to the new school framework with minimal adjustments.

  Sixth Form Education
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils have entered secondary school sixth forms to study A-levels(a) in the West Midlands and (b) Staffordshire in each of the last five years; and what was each figure as a percentage change on the previous year. [45856]
  466
  Dr. Howells
  The Secretary of State has no plans to review the curricula taught in universities either nationally or in the West Midlands.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics his Department collects on the ratio of students to faculty in universities(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [46597]

  Dr. Howells
  The available statistics on enrolments as at 1 December 1997 are analysed by subject of course rather than faculty.

  In 1997–98, the latest year for which information is available, the number and proportion of full-time and part-time students by course subject in higher education institutions in the UK and in the West Midlands were as given in the following table:

  Dr. Howells
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of 16 year old pupils studying A levels in maintained secondary schools

  West Midlands and Staffordshire LEA area

  Position in January each year

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  West Midlands

  11,239

  11,061

  11,422

  12,464

  12,440

  Percentage change (year on year)

  —

  -1.6

  3.3

  9.1

  -0.2

  Staffordshire

  2,451

  2,497

  2,586

  2,887

  23,050

  Percentage change (year on year)

  —

  1.9

  3.6

  11.6

  5.6

  1Provisional

  2Stoke became a unitary authority separate from Staffordshire in April 1997; the provisional figures for Staffordshire (excluding Stoke) and Stoke LEA areas in January 1998 were 2,897 and 153 respectively

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students entered the further education sector to study A-levels(a) in the

  467
  West Midlands and (b) Staffordshire in each of the last five years; and what was each figure as a percentage change on the previous year. [45857]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table contains the available figures on the number of students in the further education sector in England studying A/AS levels, and the percentage change from the previous year.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  West Midlands

  Number of students

  31,261

  30,511

  30,670

  Percentage change from previous year

  —

  -2.40

  +0.52

  Staffordshire

  Number of students

  5,718

  5,533

  5,696

  Percentage change from previous year

  —

  -3.34

  +2.85

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to(a) encourage and (b) aid schools to create consortia to provide a range of A-level courses in their area. [45855]

  Dr. Howells
  We are working with the Local Government Association (LGA), Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and TEC National Council (TNC) to promote greater collaboration in post-16 education. This may include partnerships between schools or between schools, colleges and other parties, building on existing arrangements where appropriate. We expect this collaborative activity to improve the quality of educational opportunities, breadth of curriculum and choice for young people. We support the efforts of existing partnerships, the Tamworth Opportunities Post-16 collaboration being one example.

  Music
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the role of music in the curriculum. [47284]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has received a number of representations from organisations and individuals about the contribution which music can make to every child's education and its importance in supporting their cultural, spiritual and social development. Music remains a National Curriculum foundation subject and will continue to be taught in schools.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes he plans to announce to cash limits and running costs limits within his responsibility for 1998— 99. [47412]

  Dr. Howells
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Revised Estimate, the cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1, Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services will be amended as follows:

  £

  Class

  Vote

  Existing cash limit

  Change

  New cash limit

  IX

  1

  10,359,290,000

  -2,870,000

  10,356,420,000

  468
  The reduction is the net effect of a machinery of government change in policy responsibility whereby £1,130,000 of provision for early years is being transferred from Class XI, Vote 2 (the Department of Health), offset by a transfer of £4,000,000 to Class XI, Vote 1 (the Department of Health) to take account of changes arising from the Dearing Review. The transfer is part of an overall transfer of £6,600,000 to the Department of Health, the remainder of which is being found from the Department's non-cash limited expenditure. £4,300,000 is also being transferred from our non-cash limited provision to Class XIV, Vote 2 (the Welsh Office) as a result of the Dearing changes.

  The running costs provision within the Control Total will be increased by £715,000 from £249,833,000 to £250,548,000. £75,000 of this increase is due to the machinery of government change and the remaining £640,000 is as a result of a virement from Section B of the Vote to cover increased administration costs in connection with the Skills Programme.

  The non-voted cash limit, DfEE/ERDF, will be decreased by £1,395,000 from £ 26,912,000 to £25,517,000 as a result of a transfer to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class VI, Vote 2) in connection with the Liverpool institute of Performing Arts.

  The control total elements of the increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  School Performance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he applied in compiling the list of the top 100 schools. [46496]

  Mr. Byers
  In order to be included in the list, schools had to show sustained improvement in the proportion of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A*-C or the GNVQ equivalent in each of the years from 1994 to 1997.

  School Inspections
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures he has instituted to ensure that Ofsted inspectors and their teams meet the minimum standard laid down by him. [46501]

  Mr. Byers
  HM Chief Inspector of Schools is responsible for monitoring standards in the school inspection system. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) headteachers and governing bodies and (b) other organisations and individuals have so far responded (i) favourably and (ii) unfavourably to his proposals for further delegation under the Local Management of Schools initiative. [46719]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's consultation paper "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" was issued on 29 May, with a request for responses by 31 July. No detailed analysis of responses has yet been undertaken.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the maintained special schools in the United Kingdom, by local education authority, and indicate the special educational needs for which each school caters. [46427]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The special schools maintained by each local education authority in England have been listed in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The list is drawn from schools' returns to the Department in January 1998. These returns include updated information about schools' specialisms; this has not yet been analysed, but I will write to the hon. Member with further information as soon as possible.

  Information about special schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which Ministers in(a) his Department and (b) other departments received copies of the information on alleged United Nations sanctions breaking by Sandline International prepared for Baroness Symons on 10 March; and on what date it was received by each private office; [46019]

  (2) Ministers in (a) his Department and (b) other departments were provided with or informed of the information on alleged United Nations sanctions breaking by Sandline International prepared for Baroness Symons on 10 March; and on what date and by what means the information was transmitted to the Ministers; [46018]

  (3) if the information on alleged United Nations sanctions breaking by Sandline International provided for Baroness Symons on 10 March was copied to (a) his Private Office (b) the office of another Minister in his Department and (c) any other Minister of Her Majesty's Government. [46020]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]A side-copy of briefing provided for my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for her answer to a Parliamentary question on 10 March 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 99–101, was marked to the office of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), but, as would generally be the case for briefing prepared for another Minister, he was not shown it. The briefing was copied to no other Minister.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the last four years, all departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by 470
  individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [46832]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I list in the table those inquiries and reviews set up by Ministers in the last four years and chaired by someone from outside Government. The list excludes advisory committees established to provide on-going advice (such as those advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1997") and inquiries set up routinely in pursuance of responsibilities under statutory requirement.

  Inquiry/review

  Established

  Chairman

  Review of Overseas Allowances

  26 January 1996

  Sir Derek Hornby

  Sierra Leone arms investigation

  18 May 1998

  Sir Thomas Legg

  Pakistan
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. [46920]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Although the rights of religious minorities are protected by Pakistan's Constitution, there are reports of abuses against minorities by groups and individuals, and concerns about the implementation of the blasphemy laws.

  Our High Commission in Islamabad led an EU demarche to the Pakistan authorities on 14 May about the situation of religious minorities. We made clear the EU' s concern about the death penalty imposed on Ayub Masih, a Christian, for blasphemy, and the negative effect such cases can have on inter-faith relations in Pakistan.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1998– 99. [47551]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Revised Estimate, the cash limit for Class II, Vote 1 (Overseas Representation) will be reduced by £2,261,000 from £590,265,000 to £588,004,000. This reduction takes account of transfers of responsibility to the newly established Department for International Development (Class III, Vote 1). It also reflects the movement of the Wilton Park executive agency from a net running cost regime to a gross running cost regime. This does not change the overall cash limit.

  The gross running costs limit on Class II, Vote 1 will be reduced by £509,000 from £511,044,000 to £510,535,000.

  The changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards
  471
  the creation of the International Criminal Court, indicating those areas of jurisdiction for such a Court which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support. [45780]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to support the establishment of an effective International Criminal Court, and will do all we can to ensure a successful outcome to the Diplomatic Conference which is currently taking place in Rome. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 191, I drew attention to a paper on Government policy towards the proposed Court which we had placed in the Libraries of the House. My noble Friend Lord Whitty also made a detailed statement of our policy on the Court in a debate in another place on 11 June 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 947–62. We believe that the Court should have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We also believe that the Court should have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression where the UN Security Council has determined that an act of aggression has taken place, and provided that the crime is properly defined in the Statute.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the appointment of an international prosecutor to investigate independently crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in circumstances where(a) the UN Security Council and (b) individual members of the national Government have not given their consent. [45781]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have reserved our position on whether the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court should have the power to initiate investigations on his or her own authority in circumstances in which a situation has not been referred either by the UN Security Council or by a State Party to the Court. Irrespective of how an investigation is initiated, however, we believe that the Prosecutor should be independent of Governments in the conduct of his investigations. The consent of the State where an alleged crime had taken place should not be required before an investigation or prosecution in respect of that crime can take place, if that State is a Party to the Treaty establishing the Court. Nor should the approval of the Security Council be necessary for an investigation or a prosecution to take place.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the granting of full civil rights to inhabitants of the sovereign bases in Cyprus. [45818]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to change the arrangements for the administration of the Sovereign Base Areas.

  The Sovereign Base Areas are administered in accordance with the "Declaration by Her Majesty's Government regarding the Administration of the Sovereign Base Areas", included as Appendix 0 to Command 1093, in which HMG published the Treaty of
  472
  Establishment and other documents concerning the 1960 Cyprus settlement. In accordance with Appendix 0, the "main objects to be achieved" in the administration of the Areas are:

  1. Effective use of the Sovereign Base Areas as military bases.

  2. Full cooperation with the Republic of Cyprus.

  3. Protection of the interest of those resident in the Sovereign Base Areas.

  Appendix 0 makes provision for freedom of access and communications to and through the Sovereign Base Areas; freedom of employment and cultivation in the Sovereign Base Areas; full protection of the rights of Cypriots (and others resident in the Republic) and Cypriot communities and corporations in regard to property; arrangements for legal proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations in which all parties are Cypriots to take place in the Courts of the Republic; and for the enforcement within the Sovereign Base Areas of the judgments and orders of such Courts in such proceedings.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrests have been made of civilians in the sovereign bases in Cyprus in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [45819]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Sovereign Base Areas are a British Overseas Territory of 98 square miles on the island of Cyprus and operate under British civil law. The laws of the Sovereign Base Areas are as far as possible the same as the laws of the Republic of Cyprus. SBA laws are enforced by the SBA Police, a civilian force comprising mainly of Cypriot officers. The Areas have their own properly constituted civilian court, with an independent civil judiciary.

  Some seven thousand Cypriot civilians live in the Areas, and many other civilians travel through them by road, especially during the summer tourist season.

  In the year to 31 March 1998, the number of arrests of civilians in the Sovereign Base Areas was 236.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools (Capital Works)
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which schools are under consideration for major capital works; what the estimated cost is of each project; on what dates the Department of Education recognised that each school satisfied categories 1, 2 or 3 of the school capital priorities schedule or equivalent; and on what dates her Department approved in principle the appointment of an architect to put in place a suitable scheme. [46282]

  Mr. Worthington
  There are over 200 major works projects in the Schools Capital Priorities Planning List and I will write to the hon. Member giving details of these schemes. Estimated costs are not available for many of the schemes which are at a very early stage of planning or where planning has been suspended.

  There are 125 projects in priority Categories 1, 2 and 3. All projects in these categories have received approval to take forward detailed planning. Information is not

  473
  readily available about the dates each project entered the Planning List or when approval was given to the appointment of consultant architects in each case, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Rita O'Hare
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to pursue extradition proceedings against Ms Rita O'Hare. [46283]

  Mr. Ingram
  The High Court in the Republic of Ireland ruled in 1978 that Rita O'Hare should not be extradited to Northern Ireland, on the ground that the offences that she was alleged to have committed fell within political offence exemption. That does not preclude the possibility of the Government seeking Ms O'Hare's extradition if she were to travel to another jurisdiction with which extradition arrangements exist. However, as to the future, it is not the Government's practice to disclose whether or not extradition proceedings are planned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her oral statement of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 507–19, if she will list the range of estimates her Department has produced relating to the impact of a minimum wage on employment levels. [47141]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government share the Low Pay Commission's view that the national minimum wage set at the level proposed should have no significant impact on employment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the net cost or benefit to(a) Government, (b) employers and (c) employees of the minimum wage proposals in the first 12 months of its operation. [47235]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The national minimum wage will bring benefits to all. It will encourage people to move from dependence on state benefits into work; employers' productivity will improve as the morale of their workforces rises and staff turnover falls. The minimum wage set at the level proposed will help some 2 million low paid workers escape from poverty pay.

  Patent Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints her Department has received about the cost of lodging an objection with the Patent Office in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [47046]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are two routes available under the Trade Marks Act 1994 to anyone who wishes to object to an application to register a trade mark. Section 38(2) provides for any person to lodge opposition. The present fee for this is £200, and the opponent then becomes a party to proceedings before the Registrar. However, under section 38(3), a person may make written observations without payment of any fee, and without becoming a party to proceedings.
  474
  In the 12 month period to the end of May 1998, over 1,600 oppositions and more than 130 observations were filed. The Registrar is aware of only one formal complaint in that period about the cost of filing opposition.

  Seafarers
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if United Kingdom seafarers are covered by the proposed fairness at work legislation. [47132]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The proposals in the White Paper will apply to seamen to the same extent as they are covered by existing legislation in the areas dealt with by the White Paper.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the use of EU structural funds for the recreational uses of inland waterways as part of rural employment policy. [46957]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The uses to which the Structural Funds can be put are determined by programme documents agreed between the Government and the Commission. They concentrate on activities which will increase employability and competitiveness in the regions concerned.

  In rural areas eligible under the Funds these programme documents will include tourism as one of their priorities. Projects which increase tourism potential, including those for recreational uses of inland waterways, will be eligible. In all cases, projects will be selected on the basis of criteria which will seek to maximise value for money.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of how many women will benefit from the proposed extension of maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. [46991]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The extension of statutory maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks will improve the statutory right to leave for the 2.3 million women employees with less than one year's service who could choose to exercise it in the event that they become pregnant.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of how many women will benefit from the proposed reduction from two years to one year in the qualifying period for extended maternity leave. [46996]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]The reduction in the qualifying period for extended maternity absence will extend this statutory right to a further 1.4 million women employees who could choose to exercise it in the event that they become pregnant. This is one of a package of family friendly policies which will also benefit families, including children, and the labour market.

  Export Credit Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the dates on which export credit loans to Governments and Government agencies have been rescheduled since 1990, indicating in each case for what values and with which countries. [46487]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government do not provide export credit loans direct to other governments. Official export credits are those guaranteed or insured by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. ECGD has negotiated over 100 debt rescheduling agreements with 45 countries since January 1990. It should be noted that many debts originated in the seventies and eighties and have been rescheduled several times. Consequently details of debt rescheduled for the first time under each agreement are not readily available. To aggregate the debt under all agreements with each debtor country would result in a high degree multiple counting. The figure shown in the third column of the table is the approximate amount of debt treated under the latest signed agreements only.

  Bilateral debt agreements negotiated since 1 January 1990

  Country

  Date(s) of agreement(s)

  Debt treated under latest agreement (approximately) £million

  Algeria

  7 December 1994

  81

  18 December 1996

  Argentina

  17 March 1992

  39

  8 February 1993

  Benin

  16 November 1993

  4

  28 April 1997

  Bolivia

  19 March 1991

  30

  8 September 1992

  11 September 1995

  25 June 1996

  Brazil

  14 January 1993

  631

  Bulgaria

  14 October 1992

  2

  25 March 1993

  Burkina Faso

  13 January 1992

  2

  24 July 1997

  Cameroon

  29 November 1990

  22

  3 November 1993

  12 September 1995

  9 December 1996

  1—

  Republic of Congo

  10 December 1994

  54

  26 May 1995

  18 February 1997

  Costa Rica

  7 June 1990

  0.7

  12 November 1991

  18 November 1993

  Cote d'Ivoire

  18 October 1990

  13

  30 July 1992

  1 February 1995

  1—

  Croatia

  4 April 1996

  88

  Ecuador

  30 May 1990

  16

  30 July 1992

  13 January 1995

  Egypt

  21 April 1992

  450

  Ethiopia

  12 August 1993

  6

  8 October 1997

  Gabon

  12 March 1991

  36

  9 August 1995

  9 September 1996

  Guinea Republic

  27 February 1991

  2

  3 November 1993

  12 February 1996

  9 July 1997

  476

  Bilateral debt agreements negotiated since 1 January 1990

  Country

  Date(s) of agreement(s)

  Debt treated under latest agreement (approximately) £million

  Guyana

  15 May 1991

  125

  12 February 1994

  12 May 1997

  Jamaica

  28 May 1991

  2

  13 March 1992

  3 December 1993

  Jordan

  29 August 1991

  59

  5 January 1993

  29 June 1995

  Kenya

  15 July 1994

  58

  Macedonia

  5 September 1996

  4

  Madagascar

  25 October 1990

  21

  4 April 1991

  21 October 1997

  Mali

  14 February 1990

  19

  9 November 1990

  14 February 1997

  Mauritania

  13 July 1991

  1

  19 October 1993

  18 February 1996

  Mexico

  22 March 1991

  148

  Morocco

  28 March 1991

  30

  7 September 1992

  Mozambique

  20 April 1990

  24

  29 March 1991

  15 December 1993

  11 March 1997

  Nicaragua

  22 February 1993

  2

  Niger

  6 April 1990

  3

  16 December 1991

  20 June 1995

  12 October 1997

  Nigeria

  10 June 1991

  542

  Peru

  17 September 1992

  122

  30 December 1993

  4 November 1996

  Philippines

  15 March 1990

  15

  13 November 1991

  Poland

  4 October 1991

  1,576

  30 December 1991

  Russia

  5 June 1992

  80

  25 May 1994

  28 February 1995

  26 February 1996

  1—

  Senegal

  26 October 1990

  0.5

  9 April 1992

  26 December 1994

  13 January 1995

  Sierra Leone

  6 March 1991

  0.4

  1 November 1993

  15 December 1994

  15 July 1996

  Tanzania

  26 June 1990

  76

  4 March 1991

  24 August 1992

  1 July 1997

  Togo

  3 April 1990

  8

  9 August 1991

  12 December 1994

  25 October 1995

  Trinidad and Tobago

  9 October 1990

  5

  Uganda

  24 June 1993

  17

  28 February 1996

  1—

  Vietnam

  1 December 1994

  21

  Yemen

  26 August 1997

  9

  Zaire (DRCongo)

  23 July 1990

  35

  Zambia

  20 May 1991

  47

  5 June 1997

  1In neg. 1998

  477
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries have asked for the cancellation or rescheduling of export credit loans since 1 May 1997 which have not yet been agreed. [46488]

  Mrs. Roche
  None. Jordan, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Nicaragua, Uganda and Senegal have approached the Paris Club for debt reduction and/or rescheduling since 1 May 1997. Agreement has been reached in all cases. No other debtor countries have formally sought rescheduling through the Paris Club during this period.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) amount and (b) percentage of the United Kingdom's electricity supply were supplied by renewable sources in each year since the non-fossil fuel obligation was introduced in 1989. [43224]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]The following table shows information on electricity from renewable sources for the years since 1989. Generation from all renewable sources is included, not just those sources supported by the non-fossil fuel obligation. The amount of electricity available from hydro sources in a particular year depends on rainfall in the preceding period. Dry weather affected output from hydro stations in 1991, 1993 and 1996. When hydro electricity is excluded, other renewable sources are shown to be providing an increasing proportion of generation in the UK, and their contribution in 1997 was 47½ times that in 1989.

  Since coming into office I have repeatedly stressed my commitment to renewable energies. Indeed within weeks of the election I announced a review of renewable energy policy including consideration of what would be necessary and practicable for the UK to achieve a 10 per cent. contribution from renewable resources towards electricity generation by 2010. I can confirm that we remain committed to the 10 per cent. target and expect to make a further announcement in due course. The announcement of policy proposals for the fifth non-fossil fuel obligation round which I made on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 507–10, will be the first step in our new and strong drive for renewables and I expect NFFO-5 will contribute substantially to reducing greenhouse gases and encouraging internationally competitive industries. I expect to make this Order later this year.

  Electricity generated from renewable sources (GWh)

  Renewables as a proportion of total generated (percentage)

  Year

  Total

  Total excluding hydro

  Total

  Total excluding hydro

  Total electricity generated in the UK (GWh)

  1989

  5,496

  710

  1·9

  0·2

  292,896

  1990

  5,894

  687

  2·0

  0·2

  298,495

  1991

  5,411

  787

  1·8

  0·3

  301,490

  1992

  6,504

  1,073

  2·0

  0·3

  321,043

  1993

  5,884

  1,582

  1·8

  0·5

  323,102

  1994

  7,307

  2,213

  2·2

  0·7

  324,978

  1995

  7,242

  2,404

  2·2

  0·7

  334,047

  1996

  6,036

  2,675

  1·7

  0·8

  347,369

  19971

  7,341

  3,213

  2·1

  0·9

  345,786

  1 Data for 1997 are provisional

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics, includes figures that have been revised since the Digest for 1997 was published

  Buried Ordnance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's Government have made a declaration to The Hague in accordance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention in connection with buried ordnance at East Gomeldon in Wiltshire; and if she will make a statement. [46025]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]In May 1997 the United Kingdom submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague an initial declaration of old chemical weapons, predating 1 January 1946, unearthed on its territory. This information is updated as necessary. The Convention does not require the. declaration of chemical weapons buried before 1 January 1977 and which remain buried.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if sections 5 and 6 of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 apply to the land adjacent to the Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Centre at Winterbourne Gunner where buried ordnance has been identified; and if she will make a statement. [46024]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]The Chemical Weapons Act 1996 provides the legislative framework to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention in the United Kingdom. All areas of the United Kingdom are covered by sections 5 and 6 of the Act.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the implications for the duties of The Health and Safety Executive of the EU Directive on the organisation of working time and the protection of young people at work; and if she will make a statement. [46754]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The recent Government proposals outlined in the consultation on draft Working Time Regulations proposed an enforcement role for the HSE. The details of this and an estimate of the costs of enforcement are set out in a consultation document published on 8 April. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the percentage of companies in the United Kingdom which employ fewer than 20 persons. [46731]

  Mrs. Roche
  At the start of 1996, the latest date for which data are available, 97.7 per cent. of enterprises in the UK (including sole traders) employed fewer than 20 people.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the number of employees in the United Kingdom who work for companies that employ fewer than 20 persons. [46732]

  Mrs. Roche
  At the start of 1996, the latest date for which data are available, there were 4.3 million employees in enterprises in the UK employing fewer than 20 persons.

SCOTLAND

  Celtic Heritage
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to improve cultural links relating to Celtic heritage between Scotland and(a) Wales, (b) Cornwall, (c) the Isle of Man,(d) Brittany and (e) Ireland. [45579]

  Mr. McLeish
  Cultural links between Scotland and the other peoples of the Celtic heritage are being made by a variety of organisations, including the Scottish Arts Council and the Gaelic National Arts Agency. I expect that these bodies will continue to develop their links.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Agenda 2000 proposals for EU structural funding. [45580]

  Mr. Dewar
  As I said when I spoke for the UK at the Informal Council of Ministers meeting on Regional Policy in Glasgow on 9 June, the reform of the Structural Funds must be affordable, durable and transparent. The reform must also be fair to all Member states whether acceding or established.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Enterprise on the development of a strategy for the textile industry in Scotland. [45581]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet representatives of Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. As the hon. Member is aware, I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of Scottish Borders Enterprise, in his company, on 18 June. I also plan to pay a further visit to the Borders next month.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of plans for investment in improvements to the trunk road network. [45583]

  Mr. McLeish
  We will consult shortly on a draft revised appraisal framework for prioritising investment on the trunk road network and intend to complete the strategic roads review later this year.

  Exchange Rate
  14. Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the effects of the current exchange rate on Scottish manufacturing industry. [45584]

  Mr. Wilson
  Although the current level of sterling is a concern to many businesses, Scottish firms retain an impressive ability to compete successfully in both domestic and overseas markets.

  The latest official data show that Scottish manufactured output rose by 7.7 per cent. in 1997.

  Breast Cancer Services
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve breast cancer services for women in Scotland. [45585]

  Mr. Dewar
  Cancer, including breast cancer, remains one of the priority areas for the NHS in Scotland. We are therefore doing a great deal, all of it geared to providing the best possible service for those suffering from this devastating disease.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of direct labour organisations in Scotland. [45586]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) today,Official Report, column 831.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet Glasgow city council to discuss local government finance. [45587]

  Mr. Dewar
  I consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on local government finance and am also in regular contact with Glasgow City Council.

  Public Sector Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of investment in public sector housing in Scotland since 1990. [45588]

  Mr. McLeish
  We are already tackling the legacy of under-investment in housing which we inherited. We have committed an extra £66 million, including £45 million for New Housing Partnerships. We are also looking at housing investment within the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment to discuss entry qualifications for higher education. [45589]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have no plans to do so; entry qualifications are primarily a matter for individual higher education providers.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of interest rates on the Scottish economy. [45590]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am in regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Scottish economy.

  We are agreed that low inflation is in the interests of every part of the United Kingdom. Interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to meet the Government's inflation target of 2½ per cent.

  Schools (Early Intervention and Literacy Programmes)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in introducing the early intervention and literacy programmes to Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement. [45591]

  Mr. Wilson
  Early intervention schemes are under way in all education authority areas in Scotland.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the minimum wage in Scotland. [45593]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend addressed the STUC Annual Congress on 20 April 1998 on a range of issues, including the proposed National Minimum Wage.

  North Lanarkshire
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on(a) the number of electors and (b) the amount of council tax raised per household in 1997–98 in the North Lanarkshire local authority. [45594]

  Mr. Dewar
  There were 246,452 persons on the electoral roll of North Lanarkshire at 16 February 1997.

  The number of chargeable dwellings, on 7 October 1996, was 128,980. North Lanarkshire budgeted to raise £71.8 million in council tax in 1997–98, an average of £556.30 per chargeable dwelling.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which committee of North Lanarkshire council is responsible for the direct labour organisation. [45596]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Construction Services Committee is responsible for the Direct Labour Organisation within North Lanarkshire.

  Health Service
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will issue guidelines concerning primary care trusts and local healthcare co-operatives. [45597]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have no immediate plans to issue guidelines. Development of primary care trusts and local healthcare co-operatives is being taken forward through local discussion and meetings. I do not wish to impose any central blueprint on that process but we have set up a central organisational development team, with a £1 million budget, to help Health Boards develop LHCCs.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future configuration of national health service trusts in Scotland; and when he expects to introduce proposed legislation. [45598]

  Mr. Dewar
  Detailed proposals for new NHS Trust configurations are currently the subject of public consultation in each Health Board area. Subject to the outcome of public consultation, I expect to be in a position to take decisions about the new configurations in late summer. No new primary legislation is required to 482
  establish NHS Trusts in Scotland to a new configuration. Legislation required to implement some of the proposals set out in "Designed to Care: Renewing the National Health Service in Scotland" (Cm 3811) will be introduced when a suitable opportunity arises.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the economic impact on Scotland of the Government's proposed changes in the North sea oil and gas tax regime. [45599]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any assessment will depend on the North Sea fiscal regime consultation document, which has yet to be issued. I am well informed on the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Scottish economy.

  Export Initiatives
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Council Development and Industry to discuss export initiatives. [45595]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I meet the Scottish Council Development and Industry from time to time to discuss a range of economic development issues. The Scottish Council is also represented on the Scottish Export Forum, which I chair and which met only the other week.

  Skye Toll Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he took of Schedule 1 to the Skye Bridge Crossing Toll Order in allowing the sale of books of 20 discounted tickets for the Skye Toll Bridge. [46717]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order (Variation) Order 1997 (S.I.1997/2941) was laid on 11 December 1997 and came into force on 1 January 1998. Under the terms of this Order, Schedule 1 to The Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order 1992 (S.I.1992/1501) was varied to set lower base tolls for all categories of vehicles eligible for discounts and to provide for the sale of books of 20 non-transferable discount vouchers for motorcycles and cars. These variations implement the toll reductions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 July 1997,Official Report, columns 288–90.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of additional funding which will be allocated to Ayrshire and Arran Health Board in 1998–99. [47080]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board received a base general revenue allocation in October 1997 of £229.344 million for 1998–99. Subsequent allocations totalling £12.393 million have since issued, of which £1.482 million is attributable to the extra resources made available for tackling waiting lists. Further allocations will issue in-year as appropriate.

  NHS Workers
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the timetable to establish a uniform rate of terms and conditions for NHS workers. [47079]

  Mr. Galbraith
  We have a UK-wide approach to reviewing conditions of service. The Government are considering the overall picture and the options for the way forward.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate memorandum, a Summary of the Dounreay FCA Inspection Findings, was brought to his attention; what assurances he(a) sought and (b) received from the HSE that Dounreay was a suitable destination for the waste from Georgia; what action he took in response to the document; and if he will make a statement. [46784]

  Mr. Dewar
  The memorandum was brought to my attention by way of a letter dated 11 June 1998 from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I advised that the full report should be published and this was done on 15 June. The report highlighted a number of concerns in respect of the Fuel Cycle Area which led to a programme of improvements. The independent regulators are currently conducting a comprehensive audit of the management of safety, which inter alia will examine the effectiveness of the improvement programme.

  The report of the audit will be made public later this year. The recommendations emerging from that audit will be considered fully by Ministers in due course.

  The HSE was consulted before it was decided to accept the Georgian consignment and was satisfied that the material could be stored safely at Dounreay.

  Small Business Loan Scheme
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 380, if he will place a copy of the independent evaluation of the Small Business Loan Scheme in the Library. [47077]

  Mr. Wilson
  Yes. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Reconditioned Diesel Engines
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the recycling industry about SRO3 in so far as it prevents the use of reconditioned diesel engines to produce bio-oil. [46806]

  Mr. Wilson
  Officials in The Scottish Office received a recent representation about this issue from Ormrod Diesels, Skelmersdale, Lancashire. The company was advised to raise their concerns again in any consultation following the Government review of renewables policy.

  Health Service Review Panel (Neonatal Deaths)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the report by the independent review panel into 484
  neonatal deaths and disabilities at the Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy, was passed to the Kirkcaldy Acute Hospital NHS Trust; [46789]

  (2) when the findings of the independent review panel into neonatal deaths and disabilities at the Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy, will be published; [46790]

  (3) if the full report by the independent review panel into neonatal deaths and disabilities at the Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy, will be released to the families directly concerned. [46791]

  Mr. Galbraith
  A draft of the Independent Audit Panel report commissioned by Kirkcaldy Acute Hospital NHS Trust and Fife Health Board was received by them on 9 February 1998. I understand that the final report is likely to be published within the next 2–3 weeks. The Trust and Board have indicated that all 34 families who submitted written complaints will receive a copy of the report.

  Further Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Further Education Funding Council, with particular reference to(a) its membership, (b) its policy remit, (c) the openness and transparency of its operation and (d) its relationship with the colleges as regards long-term funding commitments. [47252]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to establish the Scottish Further Education Funding Council on 1 January 1999, or as soon as possible thereafter.

  The post of chairman of the new Council was advertised earlier this month. Advertisements relating to membership will appear shortly.

  The precise range of functions to be delegated to the new Council, and therefore its policy remit, are still under consideration. The new council will be expected to conform to the highest standards of openness and accountability which the Government require of all non-departmental public bodies and, in carrying out its functions, to establish effective working relations with the FE colleges.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that no staff member at a college or university in Scotland is made redundant or forced to take early retirement for purely financial reasons. [47250]

  Mr. Wilson
  Decisions on employment of staff are entirely a matter for colleges and universities.

  Freshwater Fishing
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve access to freshwater fishing. [45577]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government will continue to encourage the provision of greater access for public angling consistent with sound management and conservation. We have also made it clear that action will be taken when access proposed as part of Protection Orders granted under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 fails to materialise or is withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which approved pesticides are considered(a) systemic and (b) non-systemic. [46699]

  Mr. Rooker
  To classify all approved pesticides as systemic or non-systemic pesticides would incur disproportionate cost. Pesticides are approved only if they can be used safely and any resulting residues in crops are at an acceptably low level.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all pesticides containing organophosphates currently approved in the UK. [46698]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have placed a list of the organophosphate-based pesticide products currently approved by the Department for use in the United Kingdom in the Library of the House.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlie the compensation rates paid to(a) dairy farmers and (b) lowland suckler producers. [46458]

  Mr. Rooker
  Dairy farmers and lowland suckler producers may benefit from payments under a range of Schemes. Most of the terms and conditions of these Schemes are determined at the EU level.

  If my hon. Friend has queries relating to a particular Scheme, I would be happy to address them.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 303–04, concerning live animal exports, if, in the case of pigs, he has received all the completed route plans certifying that the journeys took place in accordance with the statutory requirements. [44296]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]Central records are not kept which show the numbers of route plans returned. The arrangements in place are designed to follow up instances of non-return of route plans, so that either the returned plan is held at the Animal Health Divisional Office that issued it in case queries subsequently arise, or the failure to return the plan is logged against the record of the transporter concerned to enable enforcement action to be considered. We attach importance to making these arrangements as effective as possible and have recruited a local authority enforcement officer to assist us in this.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report and advice from the Expert Group under Professor Bourne's chairmanship regarding the implementation of the report by Professor Krebs on badgers and bovine tuberculosis. [47256]
  486
  Mr. Rooker
  I expect to receive the Expert Group's first report, on the design of the culling experiment recommended by Professor Krebs, shortly.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of his consultation following the publication of Professor Kreb's report on badgers and bovine tuberculosis. [47257]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am hoping to make an announcement before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on the results of the Thornbury experiment. [46763]

  Mr. Rooker
  The policy employed in the area around Thornbury was not conceived as a scientific experiment but as a means of controlling the spread of tuberculosis from badgers to cattle. This involved the systematic removal of badgers from a defined geographical area around Thornbury, Gloucestershire during the period from 1975 to 1981, after which re-colonisation was allowed. The average incidence of TB in cattle herds fell from 5.6 per cent. in the 10 years prior to the clearance, to 0.45 per cent. in the 15 years following the clearance.

  Professor Krebs' recent report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers concludes that, whilst the policy applied in the Thornbury area provides strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that badgers represent a significant source of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle, it does not prove a causal link, nor does it constitute a proper experimental basis to enable conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness, or cost-effectiveness, of different badger culling strategies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what validated results might be expected, and when, from the experiment proposed in the Krebs report. [46759]

  Mr. Rooker
  The purpose of the experiment proposed by Professor Krebs is to provide the data needed to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of badger culling as a means of controlling TB in cattle. I am awaiting advice from the Expert Group which is working on the detailed design of the experiment, including the data which must be collected.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet Professor Stephen Harris of the University of Bristol School of Biological Sciences. [46764]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plans to meet Professor Harris in the near future. However, I met him last year with the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who meets and corresponds with him regularly.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the scientific, methodological and humane objections which he has received to the proposed Krebs experiment. [46762]
  487
  Mr. Rooker
  A number of such objections have been raised, and have been referred to the Expert Group to be taken into account during the work of designing the experiment. The objections featuring most frequently in correspondence have concerned the risks that denial of access to private land, or interference by badger rights activists or farmers illegally culling badgers, could undermine the statistical validity of the experiment; the numbers of badgers which could be killed; the possibility that lactating sows might be culled; and the fear that snares could be used to trap badgers. There have also been claims that the experiment is unnecessary both because badger culling has been shown not to work, and because it has been proved effective.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the range of increase expected in TB herd breakdowns in 1999. [46758]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is too early to make informed estimates of the number of TB herd breakdowns likely in 1999.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list and summarise each of the major reports on badgers and bovine TB considered by his Department since 1970. [46756]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been three major reports on badgers and bovine TB commissioned and considered by this Department since 1970:The report from Lord Zuckerman in 1980 (Badgers, Cattle and Tuberculosis);
  The report from Professor Dunnet in 1986 (Badgers and bovine tuberculosis); and
  The report from Professor Krebs in 1997 (Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers).

  Copies of these reports, each of which contains a summary of the main findings/recommendations, are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a detailed response to the letter to him dated 6 May about the Krebs report and the proposed badger culling experiment from Professor Stephen Harris of the University of Bristol School of Biological Sciences. [46761]

  Mr. Rooker
  I replied to Professor Harris's letter on 22 June, inviting him to discuss his concerns in detail with officials.

  Payment rates (£ per head)—sheep annual premium scheme, suckler cow premium scheme, hill livestock compensatory allowances

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19985

  Sheep annual premium: including LFA supplement

  Cash prices

  24.21

  22.21

  26.95

  19.04

  16.76

  n/a

  1997 prices

  27.32

  24.28

  28.47

  19.64

  16.76

  n/a

  excluding LFA supplement

  Cash prices

  19.25

  16.96

  21.26

  13.66

  11.61

  n/a

  1997 prices

  21.55

  18.54

  22.46

  14.09

  11.61

  n/a

  488
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers proposed to be killed in the Krebs experiment are expected to be(a) snared and (b) trapped. [46760]

  Mr. Rooker
  We shall take no decisions on the conduct of the culling experiment until we have received advice from the Expert Group. This will include advice on the method or methods to be used to capture badgers.

  Poultry
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken to ensure that poultry meat imported into the United Kingdom meets EU and United Kingdom rules and legislation; and what steps he will take to ensure fair competition in the UK poultry meat market. [46977]

  Mr. Rooker
  All fresh meat, including poultrymeat, imported into the UK, whether from other Member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules. These rules require all meat which is intended for sale for human consumption to fulfil the required public health standards. This means that it must be produced in EC approved establishments and, to signify this, must be stamped with a health mark before leaving the plant.

  Ensuring that all Member States comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying Community rules is the responsibility of the European Commission, whose Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection carries out regular programmes of inspections visits to all Member States. The inspection, approval and monitoring of poultrymeat slaughterhouses in third countries are also the responsibility of the European Commission.

  In addition, meat imported from third countries must be accompanied by agreed animal and public health certification which is issued at the plant of origin and must take place via approved Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where they undergo veterinary checks to ensure that they comply with EU animal and public health legislation.

  Livestock Support
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the levels of(a) suckler cow, (b) ewe premium and (c) HLCA payments for beef and sheep per animal in cash prices and at 1997 prices for each of the last five years and his proposals for 1998–99. [23484]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 June 1998, c. 455]: The information requested is set out in the following table. This has been updated in respect of payment rates for 1997 and, where possible, for 1998.
  489

  Payment rates (£per head)—sheep annual premium scheme, stickler cow premium scheme, hill livestock compensatory allowances

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19985

  Suckler cow premium: including extensification premia

  Cash prices

  93.90

  115.12

  143.04

  155.15

  1159.48

  1152.75

  2146.52

  2140.34

  1997 prices

  105.12

  125.83

  151.10

  160.03

  1159.48

  n/a

  2146.52

  excluding extensification premia

  Cash prices

  65.73

  87.49

  114.43

  124.12

  117.36

  112.41

  1997 prices

  73.58

  95.63

  120.88

  128.02

  117.36

  n/a

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances:

  SDA Beef Cow

  Cash prices

  63.30

  47.50

  47.50

  47.50

  397.50

  47.50

  1997 Prices

  70.86

  51.92

  50.18

  48.99

  97.50

  n/a

  DA Beef Cow

  Cash prices

  31.65

  23.75

  23.75

  23.75

  469.75

  23.75

  1997 prices

  35.43

  25.96

  25.09

  24.50

  69.75

  n/a

  SDA High Rate Ewe

  Cash prices

  6.50

  5.75

  5.75

  5.75

  5.75

  5.75

  1997 prices

  7.28

  6.28

  6.07

  5.93

  5.75

  n/a

  SDA Lower Rate Ewe

  Cash prices

  3.60

  3.00

  3.00

  3.00

  3.00

  3.00

  1997 prices

  4.03

  3.28

  3.17

  3.09

  3.00

  n/a

  DA Ewe Rate

  Cash prices

  2.86

  2.44

  2.44

  2.65

  2.65

  2.65

  1997 prices

  3.20

  2.67

  2.58

  2.73

  2.65

  n/a

  1Where stocking density is less than 1 livestock unit (LU) per hectare

  2 Where stocking density is 1 LU/ha or more, but less than 1.4 LU/ha

  3Includes Beef special aid of £50.00

  4 Includes Beef special aid of £46.00

  51997 cash prices for 1998 are not available. 1997 is the latest full year for which RPI figures are available

  Note:

  LFA = Less Favoured Area

  SDA = Severely Disadvantaged Area

  DA = Disadvantaged Area

HEALTH

  Young Carers
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 on young carers; and what estimate he has made of the number of assessments made of young carers under the Act. [46572]

  Mr. Boateng
  We continue to monitor the implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, through commissioned research and as part of the social services inspection programme. Estimates of the number of young carers' assessments under the Act are not available.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if support for young carers will be included in the national strategy for carers. [46568]

  Mr. Boateng
  The national strategy will be concerned with all carers. We take a close and active interest in the needs of children and young people who undertake responsibility for the well-being of a relative or friend with a disability or chronic illness.

  Newspaper Rounds
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect EC Directive 94/33 will have on the employment of young people in the home delivery of newspapers. [46983]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.

  Nurses Day
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives the Government took to promote the UN International Nurses Day on 12 May. [47220]

  Mr. Milburn
  We were involved in a number of initiatives to promote the United Nations International Nurses Day on 12 May, and during that week.

  The Chief Nursing Officer for England, Mrs. Yvonne Moores, attended and supported the international gathering of global senior nurses at the 51st World Health Assembly in Geneva, organised by the International Council of Nurses on International Nurses Day.

  To mark International Nurses Day, and the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union, the Chief Nursing Officer for England, supported by her UK Chief Nursing Officer colleagues, hosted a "masterclass" for European Union Government Chief Nurses, in London

  491
  from the evening of 12 May to 14 May. The "masterclass" aimed to debate the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to public health. The keynote address to the conference was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health. Other invited speakers included senior nurses and others from the World Health Organisation, the EU, the Commission and senior nurse colleagues from member states. A report of the "masterclass" is being prepared.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chief Nursing Officers for England, Scotland and Ireland, with many of the European Chief Nurses, attended the Florence Nightingale memorial service in Westminster Abbey on 14 May.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1998–99. [47439]

  Mr. Dobson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, the cash limit for Class XI, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) will be increased by £6,600,000 (from £31,385,613,000 to £31,392,213,000). This allows for a transfer of £6,600,000 from Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) to reflect the initial transfer of funding responsibilities for students in health care professions.

  The cash limit for Class XI, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £1,130,000 (£75,000 running costs), from £1,097,507,000 to £1,096,377,000. This reduction allows for the transfer of responsibility for childcare and early years policy to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27 March 1998, Official Report, column 296.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be increased by £4,425,000 from £258,490,000 to £262,915,000 for additional work being carried out by the National Health Service Pensions Agency on missold pensions (£4,500,000) less part of the transfer mentioned above.

  All increases will be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other Votes and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy conclusions he has drawn from the lecture on medical negligence presented by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton at the Royal Society of Medicine on 20 June, with particular reference to problems facing junior doctors. [46787]

  Mr. Milburn
  Lord Justice Otton's speech makes a number of wide-ranging suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently invited interested parties from both the National Health Service and legal spheres to submit ideas on how to reduce clinical negligence litigation, and how to manage better that which 492
  will inevitably occur. Lord Justice Otton's proposals will form part of that debate, but it is too early yet to draw any firm conclusions.

  Residential Child Care Initiative
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of staff who have qualified under the Residential Child Care Initiative and continue to work in local authority residential child care(a) nationally and (b) by local authority. [47001]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, an evaluation of the residential child care initiative (RCCI) undertaken for the Department by the Tavistock Institute showed that 455 local authority staff were seconded under the initiative and 35 bursaries were awarded for staff in the voluntary sector. The research concluded"that RCCI, considered with other changes taking place at a local level, was contributing to an overall increase in the proportion of qualified staff in residential child care".

  The proportion of RCCI secondees who had not returned to the residential child care sector was found to be relatively small (13.5 per cent.).

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of a national organisation for young people in care. [46998]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are pleased to be able to report that we have agreed funding for an initial three year period to assist in the creation and establishment of a national organisation for young people in care and care leavers. The grant to the new organisation will be channelled through First Key—The National Leaving Care Advisory Service.

  Residential Social Workers (Training)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the recipients of the training support grants allocated for the training of residential social workers undertaking NVQ level 3 completed the course in each of the last two years; what was the average time taken to complete the course; and what steps are being taken to ensure that NVQ assessors are available. [46999]

  Mr. Boateng
  The sub-programme of the training support programme to train residential social care staff to National Vocational Qualification level 3 began in 1998–99. It is the responsibility of the assessment centres approved by awarding bodies for National Vocational Qualifications and employers to ensure the availability of assessors for the National Vocational Qualifications in care.

  Health Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 309–10, concerning health services in

  493
  Worcestershire, if he will make it his policy to set a target date for deciding on service reconfiguration in the county; and if he will make a statement. [47253]

  Mr. Milburn
  No.

  Anti-acne Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received of adverse reactions following the use of the anti-acne drug Roaccutane/Accutane; and if he will make a statement. [42061]

  Ms Jowell
  [pursuant to her reply, 18 May 1998, c. 267]: 1 regret the number of prescriptions quoted in my previous reply was incorrect. This information was derived from data held by the Prescription Pricing Authority which cover only prescriptions written by general practitioners. There is no national scheme for gathering drug usage in hospitals; hence the estimate for the use of Roaccutane has been derived from sales figures. The majority of prescriptions for Roaccutane are written in hospitals; therefore the previous estimate of 11,000 prescriptions underestimates the true usage.

  Information from the manufacturer provides an estimate of 136,563 prescriptions for Roaccutane covering the period 1993 to 1997 in the United Kingdom. These prescriptions cover both general practice and hospital usage. During this period, the Medicines Control Agency/Committee on Safety of Medicines have received a total of 280 reports covering 467 suspected adverse reactions reported in association with Roaccutane therapy. These reports cover a range of effects; the most frequently reported include skin and subcutaneous tissue reactions, musculoskeletal disorders and gastrointestinal disorders.

  Roaccutane (oral isotretinoin) is available only on prescription for the treatment of severe acne which has failed to respond to antibiotics. It is recommended for use

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Great Britain

  Total number of decisions following application of the all work test (AWT)1

  914,656

  1,270,284

  1,237,982

  Number disallowed following application of the AWT2

  105,027

  208,981

  222,290

  Number of appeals received against a decision on the AWT

  40,665

  91,550

  n/a

  Number of decisions in appellant's favour

  4,122

  31,036

  n/a

  Leaside District3

  Total decisions following application of the AWT1

  5,494

  6,091

  6,946

  Number disallowed following application of the AWT2

  438

  1,380

  1,192

  1Includes some Severe Disablement Allowance cases and a few decisions following application of the Own Occupation Test of incapacity

  2 Includes disallowances following failure to return the all work test questionnaire or failure to attend medical examination without good cause

  3 Leaside District includes the Benefits Agency local offices of Edmonton, Wood Green and Tottenham

  Sources:

  100 per cent. count of the Incapacity Benefit Computer System, Benefits Agency and Independent Tribunal Service

  Council Tax Relief
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors and costings are taken into account in establishing the personal allowance for council tax relief for(a) single people and (b) couples. [47000]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The single person's and couple's rates of the personal allowance used in the calculation of Council Tax Benefit are intended to represent the cost
  494
  under the supervision of a consultant dermatologist. The product information for doctors and patients includes information on its adverse effects.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Average Earnings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 377, what rates of real increase in average earnings for the years to September (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 were derived from the data and evidence available at the time of the Pre-Budget report; and what would be the corresponding rates of real increase based on the data and evidence now available. [44820]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]At the time of the Pre-Budget Report the latest figures for average earnings showed growth of 4.3 per cent, and RPI excluding mortgage interest payments was forecast to be 3 per cent. in 1998 and 2.5 per cent. in 1999.

  The latest figures now show average earnings growth running at 5.2 per cent. At Budget time the forecast for RPI excluding mortgage interest payments in 1998 was revised down to 2.75 per cent. and the forecast for 1999 was unchanged at 2.5 per cent.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of incapacity benefit(a) nationally and (b) in Leaside District have had their case reviewed; how many of those have had their benefit stopped; how many have appealed; and how many of those appeals have been upheld in each of the last three years. [45095]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  of day to day living. The rates are uprated by Parliament annually. Additional allowances or premiums can be included in the calculation for those single people and couples identified as having extra needs, for example those who are long-term sick, elderly or with children.

  Benefits Agency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance she has issued to the Benefits
  495
  Agency on access to benefits for people with learning disabilities who are in the care of a health trust but who have been discharged from hospital beds. [47286]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been no special guidance issued to the Benefits Agency (BA) about access to benefits for people with learning difficulties who have been discharged from hospital beds but who remain under the care of an NHS Trust.

  The BA is currently overhauling its leaflet programme in line with Active Modern Service. It is aimed to make the material simpler and much more customer focused, giving a better entry point into the Social Security system. The first set of products is due to be launched around October 1998.

  There is a core series of leaflets which provide general information on disability benefits (FB2—Which benefit?, FB4—Young Peoples Guide to Social Security, and FB28—Sick or Disabled). Specific benefit leaflets to which these general leaflets refer, together with others on specific topics like being in hospital are also available (IS1 & IS20—Income Support, IB202—Incapacity Benefit, NI252—Severe Disablement Allowance, DS702—Attendance Allowance, DS704— Disability Living Allowance, NI6—Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and NI9—Going into hospital).

  The Benefit Inquiry Line gives general disability benefit advice over the telephone while the Agency's network of local offices advises about any benefit or pension.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Cumbria have(a) been disallowed benefit and (b) received increased benefit as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. [45664]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefit Agency. He will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Maclean, dated 22 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Cumbria have (a) been disallowed benefit and (b) received increased benefit as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).
  The information concerning the BIP is not available in the format requested. To provide geographical information routinely would incur high costs and disrupt the processing of ongoing casework.
  As at 30 April 1998, a total of 172,026 cases, including 27,991 renewal cases have been selected for action under the BIP. At the same date a total of 81,221 cases have been examined. Of the total cases dealt with 1,864 have had their benefit increased, 63,380 have remained unchanged, 10,058 have had their benefit reduced and 5,919 have had their benefit stopped.
  The total included 16,366 renewal cases of which 505 had their benefit increased, 8,407 have remained unchanged, 4,436 have had their benefit reduced and 3,018 have had their benefit stopped.
  A monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

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

Digital Broadcasting: Decoder Boxes
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now confident that viewers of digital terrestrial television and viewers of digital satellite television will not be required to purchase separate decoder boxes when digital services are launched later this year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I told the House in April, the design of the receivers of broadcasting services is a matter for the manufacturers and broadcasters operating on those platforms, subject to the relevant regulations and licence conditions which apply. It is still not clear whether the digital receivers which will go on sale later this year will provide access to both digital terrestrial and digital satellite services. The Independent Television Commission which licenses and regulates all commercial digital television issued a consultation paper on interoperability and open access on 13th May. The ITC is discussing the issues set out in that consultation paper with all interested parties, including digital satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that response, which is very much in line with his Answer to a Question that I tabled three months ago, does the noble Lord agree that this is a significant issue in which the Government have an interest? Does he agree that if the result of the consultation exercise that is being carried out by the ITC is that people will have to buy decoder boxes to watch digital terrestrial that are different from those required to watch satellite television it will be a significant set-back for the Government's digital television programme? Does the noble Lord agree that the danger is that the switch-off of analogue television that the Government want to see as soon as possible will be postponed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have an interest in the sense that it would be deplorable if there were no interoperability between digital satellite and digital terrestrial broadcasting and, therefore, members of the public had to buy two set top boxes. It would not be quite as bad as that because, as in France and Italy, it would be perfectly possible to establish Simulcrypt arrangements whereby both sides provided interoperability. Although the Government's interest on behalf of the public is clear, it does not extend to being able to dictate to the broadcasters what they should do.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it government policy that all terrestrial channels should be available on digital satellite and, if so, why?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not have a policy on these matters. This is a matter for the Independent Television Commission as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ITC has insisted that both terrestrial digital and satellite digital should be compatible but what is needed is a commercial agreement between the two companies? Further, does the noble Lord agree that in order to make the two systems interoperable a simple adapter is required to operate the two systems, bearing in mind that in order to receive digital satellite one must buy a new satellite receiver and dish?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that it is more complicated than that. It is not just a matter of having a commercial agreement. There are two levels of interoperability: one is the application's programming interface and the other is what is provided for conditional access. The noble Viscount is quite right that it is possible to provide interoperability by way of an adaptor or sidecar that goes on the back of the BDB set top-box, but that does not meet all of the requirements of interactivity; still less does it provide for a full electronic programme guide.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm or deny the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that it is government policy to close down analogue broadcasting of television channels? The noble Lord's statement appeared to imply that everyone would be forced to enter the new digital era.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to say that. The Government issued a consultation paper on the future of analogue broadcasting in February of this year. We have always made it clear that, although it is too early to set a date, we do not want to close down analogue television until digital is at least as widespread as analogue television is today.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one will have take-up of these new services only when the public is offered something simple and cheap on top of the box? At the moment one has a battle between two titans, British Digital Broadcasting and BSkyB, for perfectly good commercial reasons. That process may take some time. How long will the Government tolerate the continuation of that battle and when will they wish to intervene?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Viscount's somewhat emotive language. To an extent he is right. Clearly, it is in the public interest and also in the interests of both digital satellite and digital terrestrial television for the two systems to be interoperable, because that is the way

113
in which digital television will catch the public imagination and develop successfully. Unfortunately, that recognition does not yet appear to be in the minds and hearts of both broadcasters.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an estimate of the cost of one box, if not two?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is difficult to say what the boxes will cost. The price will start high and go down as demand increases. If demand is held back by the need for two set top boxes, clearly it will take longer to get down to the £200 or so which we expect with mass production.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the word "sidecar". I thought a sidecar went on a bicycle. What is a sidecar in relation to a television set?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, among the many technical terms that I have had to learn, and which I have tried to spare the House, is the word "sidecar". It means the adaptor put on the back of the set top-box. It is nothing more complicated than that.

Red Squirrel Conservation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider their policies to conserve the native red squirrel are being successful.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the red squirrel is one of the priority species for biodiversity action plans. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to conservation of the red squirrel, and will continue to strive for its long-term survival. However, we recognise that the measures currently in place and those being investigated do not identify an immediate quick-fix solution.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, bearing in mind that, on the Forestry Commission's figures, between 1959 and 1991 the distribution of the red squirrel declined in England and Wales by more than 75 per cent., does the Minister agree that it is time for some quick, new and effective policies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am tempted to ask, "which immediate and effective plan?". We share the noble Lord's concern and compliment him on the work that he does in the North West to try to protect and to enhance the numbers of red squirrels. The Forestry Commission is managing successfully a variety of projects to protect the red squirrel. Research is continuing into new methods of protection. One of the problems is that the red squirrel prefers dense coniferous woodlands. As many noble Lords will be aware, there
114
is strong pressure, on other environmental grounds, for the extension of deciduous forests. The Forestry Commission is doing all that it can.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the reasons why red squirrels are deteriorating is that they are being forced out by the grey squirrels? Will the Government take whatever action they can to publicise the damage done by grey squirrels and the fact that they should be wiped out?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the varied response from Members of your Lordships' House indicates the difficulty of adopting a policy of eliminating grey squirrels. There is a conflict of interest. We take the view that it is important to try to protect and enhance the number of red squirrels, but we are advised by all the agencies which are working closely with the Government that a policy of attempting to kill all grey squirrels would not meet with universal approval, patently not even in your Lordships' House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in areas such as the one in which I live where we have red squirrels, and love them dearly, a policy of keeping out grey squirrels is essential for the survival of the red squirrels? Why does she not revert to a policy of paying for the tails of grey squirrels? That would keep the numbers down.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have to stress that the area of conservation and management under biodiversity protection is not one which has an easy or universally acceptable result. With the Forestry Commission's sponsoring of a three-year testing project at Sheffield University, we hope that we will develop a successful sterilisation project which would avoid the measures mentioned by the noble Lord.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we are investigating ways of increasing the number of red squirrels while doing nothing to control the grey squirrels, we must revert in the meantime to a policy of shooting on sight to control the numbers? I accept that we will not wipe them out, but that is the best form of control that we have found.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I cannot agree with a policy that involves the indiscriminate shooting of any wild animal. I speak for myself as well as for the Government on this. I am conscious that parents who derive enormous pleasure from taking their children to feed grey squirrels would write to me in their thousands were I to agree with the noble Viscount.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that starvation has been one of the main causes detrimental to red squirrels? Can the noble Baroness give a little more information about the success of planting trees from which red squirrels can eat? Furthermore, does she agree that it is a great pity

115
that a sterilisation programme for those squirrels is not carried out in the London parks, with the introduction there eventually of red squirrels?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree that that issue is important. That is why the Forestry Commission is committed to introducing a wider range of trees which form the right habitat for the red squirrel. Grey squirrels eat smaller nuts; and there can be a conflict if the nuts are not large enough for the red squirrels. I appreciate the concern. However, I return to the point: many people in the country would fail to recognise the necessity for totally eliminating grey squirrels and would seek to protect them in a way that they may not wish to protect, for example, rats.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether any birds or beasts prey upon red squirrels? If so, which are they?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any birds or beasts which prey on red squirrels. However, it occurs to me that there are those with two legs and guns who appear to wish to do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that in parts of south-west Scotland red squirrels are coming back thanks to a determined policy of destroying grey squirrels?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes, I shall bear that in mind and ensure that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment is aware of the success of that policy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that squirrel pie was, I believe, a delicacy during the war? I recall having a discussion with the noble Baroness about shoots for the table. Would she promote the delicacy of squirrel pie in an effort to get rid of some of the grey squirrels?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there are unexpected pitfalls when standing at the Dispatch Box! I understand that squirrel pie, along with hedgehogs baked in earth, are delicacies enjoyed by some people. If any cookery book writer were to find a range of those recipes, I am sure that they would receive invaluable assistance from the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, have the Government consulted the fur breeders trade association based in Newcastle-on-Tyne? It has members from all the northern hemisphere countries and has great experience and knowledge on how to preserve and conserve endangered species, in particular mink. As the Minister will agree, her party is trying to banish mink farmers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware that those who have agricultural and rural community interests are often in conflict with the existence of mink. It is not only those concerned with the fur trade who have an interest in mink.
116
As regards advice and expertise that can be given, I refer to my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It is a serious question which needs tackling. I am sure we would welcome any advice that the fur traders association can offer.

Tuberculosis in the United Kingdom
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Long Viscount Long asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the underlying trend in the incidence of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom has increased or decreased since 1990.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there has been a small increase in the number of cases in the United Kingdom since 1990, when there were 5,897. That increase peaked in 1993 at 6,564. The figures have now levelled out just below that number. Drug resistant TB remains at low levels in this country. This success reflects the excellent record of TB control which we have and are determined should continue.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. Recently fizzy drinks were withdrawn from sale because a cancer ingredient was suspected. Does the Minister agree the chewing gum could equally be suspected of being a carrier of tuberculosis and other diseases, especially those from the eastern European countries, India and Persia? Who is monitoring the situation? Is it the EC matrons of Europe or some of our noble medical associations?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lord, I shall deal with the different strands in that question. The high rates of TB in Asia and Africa impinge on other countries. The noble Lord asked about the European Union. A collaborative pilot study of surveillance of TB in member states has been successfully completed and extended to include drug resistant TB. A series of annual meetings on TB has addressed best practice. Several east European countries are participating and contributing to the exercise.
As regards chewing gum, there is no medical or scientific linkage with TB. TB is spread by bacteria in droplets coughed out by an infected individual. Anything spat out by an infected person might have an effect, but it would contain saliva rather than droplets from the lung. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my being so explicit. There is no direct link between TB and chewing gum.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is within the memory of most noble Lords present that tuberculosis was virtually extinguished in the United Kingdom? Have not social conditions—those affecting the very poor, the homeless, those who are on the receiving end of most of the disabilities of modern life—been a significant cause of the recurrence of the disease which at one time we boasted we had almost eliminated?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there was a decrease in notified cases from around 50,000 in 1950 to 5,745 in 1987. The number then peaked in 1993 at 6,564. However, the figures are still comparatively low. In 1996 there were 6,238 cases. The provisional figure for 1997—the numbers are always high because doctors register suspected cases and the figures have to be sorted out afterwards—was 6,430.
The noble Lord mentioned social conditions and poverty. The groups which are considered at risk of TB in Britain today are certain ethnic minority populations, especially from the Indian sub-continent and black Africa, older white people who were exposed to TB when they were young, homeless people and HIV infected individuals. Many of those groups are hard to reach. Homeless people often do not complete their treatment or are lost to the health service. Any social condition which reduces the level of people's health and their ability to withstand infection will increase a disease like TB which is transmitted by bacteria.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if it is right that drug resistant TB spreads, does the noble Baroness believe that there are sufficient specialised rooms with negative and positive pressurisation in which to treat infected patients?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we are alive to the problem of drug resistant TB, although in Britain the number of cases is comfortingly low—43 were registered in 1994, 49 in 1995 and 60 in 1996. A programme is in place throughout the country; there are specialist clinics in every area; and TB patients are kept separate.
TB is the only disease whose exact timing of treatment was worked out a considerable time ago by British scientists. The treatment lasts six months. I am sure that the noble Baroness is well aware from her background and her membership of the Science and Technology Committee of this House that multi-resistant TB often occurs because people do not complete their prescribed programme of drugs. In Britain, we have several safeguards against that happening. I repeat that we have in place a concentrated programme and that we are alive to the problem of drug resistant TB. We are confident that we are still on top of the problem.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think that we should move on.

Electronic Vehicle Identification
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission studies on the future need for electronic vehicle identification by an electronic number plate or licence identification, situated within the body of the vehicle at time of manufacture and not easily removable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government are aware that electronic vehicle identification could offer a range of benefits, including improvements in enforcement and security. However, there are technical issues which need to be resolved. We shall review our research programme in this area in line with the conclusions of the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and wonder whether she will agree to some of the benefits that the use of electronic number plates could bring. Does she agree that they would significantly reduce the number of unlicensed vehicles travelling on our roads; that they would be a support and reduce the cost of road-pricing and motorway tolling; that they would support a single database across all interested parties, including insurers, motor insurance bureaux and government agencies; and that there would be recoveries for the Government in terms of unpaid car tax and for insurers as regards claims made by uninsured drivers? There would be a general administrative reduction too. Does she accept that decisions made today affect how we live tomorrow; that it will take at least 15 years to fit all vehicles with an integrated inset manufactured identity; and that therefore we should begin the process now?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that the time-frame for such technically challenging developments is long and therefore it is important that the fundamental research is done now. It is also important that we undertake research on an international basis so that countries do not go in different directions and we do not ask people to fit systems which are not interoperable with those in other countries to which they may travel.
The noble Viscount suggested certain advantages which could result from electronic developments; we agree that they could make a significant contribution to vehicle security as well as to dealing with traffic offences and the evasion of vehicle excise duty. He pointed out that they are used in the implementation of electronic road-pricing systems. There are many potential advantages and it is important that we have correct many of the great technical challenges.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although electronics have been used successfully in the fight against vehicle crime, many of us are concerned about individual liberty? We wonder how the technology may expand, because it can already do what the noble Viscount suggests, and whether the vision of Big Brother is looming even larger, with the prospect of being tracked wherever one goes and whatever one does.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right to raise the issue. As regards tracking systems, there are data protection and civil liberty implications which we must take into account. It is important that

119
when we develop policy in this area we look not only at what is technically feasible but also at what is socially desirable. We must harness the technology to the policies rather than the other way round.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, if such devices are to be used for road-pricing or motorway tolling, at least the revenue will go towards improving transport facilities and not just to the Treasury? At present the motorist is taxed by the Treasury at the rate of 5 to 1.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern that the practice of the past—certainly during the 18 years of the previous government when any income from transport went into the general revenue—should not continue under this Government. He will be well aware that these issues have been discussed at length during consultation on the White Paper and he will not have to wait long for the conclusions to be published.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as regards the technical problems which the Minister mentioned in her first Answer, if she cannot give a summary in reply to the Question, can she place a document in the Library which sets them out in great detail? Can she also say what consultations we are having with our partners in the European Union to ensure that these technical problems are solved in common and not separately in each country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not know how much detail the noble Lord would like.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, lots!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall give the noble Lord an obvious example. The microwave tag, which is often suggested as the most useful form, cannot be used inside a metal structure. Therefore, fitting it during manufacture is difficult. It is also a difficulty in the developments in windscreen technology, which are becoming metallised. Therefore, simply reading though a windscreen, which through plain glass with a microwave is acceptable, is not feasible. That is a difficulty.
Technical issues are also involved in global satellite positioning, which has been suggested as another way of keeping track of vehicles. Some of the many issues are dealt with in the report of the Transport Research Laboratory on electronic-tolling, which is in the Library of the House. However, I shall ensure that other material is made available to the noble Lord.
As regards work within Europe, we and the Commission are concerned that there should be interoperability between potential road-pricing systems within Europe so that people do not need to have
120
different transponders within different countries. Discussions are taking place at inter-government level on that issue.

Building Regulations (Energy Rating Information) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (145) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

("(da) religious bodies involved in the provision of education,

(db) parents of pupils,").

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 27 and 141.
The GTC will be the professional body for teachers. It will represent the highest of professional standards and promote a positive image of teaching both within the profession and outside. It will play a very important role in improving standards of teaching and the quality of learning and will maintain and improve standards of professional conduct among teachers.
The council's work must command the respect of teachers, of parents and of the public. Getting the composition of the council right is a vital part of achieving that aim. We must achieve a council which is authoritative, balanced, effective and independent.
The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the composition of the council. During previous debates I indicated that we would be issuing a consultation document on this issue. That consultation document was issued on 22nd April, with a closing date of 31st July. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation document asks a number of questions about how we can secure the right balance of interests on the council.
We introduced an amendment in this House at an earlier stage which requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations on the composition of the GTC, to

121
ensure that a majority of the members are registered teachers who are either currently serving as teachers or have such recent experience as may be prescribed. The consultation document invites views on how these teachers may be elected or appointed.
We envisage that employers will welcome their employees serving on the council. They will be making an important contribution to the education system. It should also be of benefit to the individual's personal development and make a contribution to the work of their organisation. There may, however, be some exceptional cases where this may cause genuine difficulties for employers. For example, in a small primary school meeting the cost of supply cover might be a disproportionate burden on the school and could act to deter some candidates from putting themselves forward. Amendment No. 141 allows the GTC to reimburse employers where an employee is away from work serving on the council or its committees. This will help to ensure that teachers at the chalk face are not prevented from serving on the council.
During our earlier debates I also undertook to consider further how we make clear our intention that the Churches should be represented on the council. Denominational schools and teacher training institutions employ and train large numbers of our teachers. I know that they are committed to ensuring high standards among the teaching profession and that they will provide a valuable contribution and perspective to the work of the council. We therefore brought forward Amendment No. 1 which adds to the list of interests which the Secretary of State should have regard to when making regulations on the composition of the GTC. We have referred to,
"religious bodies involved in the provision of education",
to ensure that no relevant religious interest is artificially excluded. In our consultation document we propose that the Church of England and the Catholic Church should each be able to nominate one member of the council, as they have by far the largest number of schools and teacher training institutions. The document asks for views on this proposal.
I also think it is right that the GTC should be an outward-looking body. Its concerns should extend beyond protecting the interests of its own members. It must be prepared to speak out where standards are not as they should be. As with other professional bodies, the membership of the council should be wider than just teachers to ensure that the council can command the respect and authority of the wider public. Amendment No. 1 also ensure, that, when making regulations on the composition of the GTC, the Secretary of State must have regard to the interests of parents. The consultation document invites views on how parents should be represented.
We also introduced during our earlier debates a provision requiring the Secretary of State, when making regulations on the composition of the GTC, to have regard to the interests of persons concerned with the teaching of pupils with special educational needs. Amendment No. 27 places a similar duty on the
122
Secretary of State for Scotland when making nominations to the Scottish GTC. The Government are committed to including all learners in their crusade for higher standards. I believe it is right that the interests of those with special educational needs should be represented on both councils. Our consultation paper on the GTC for England invites views on how these interests should be represented.
I believe these amendments will help to ensure that we get the composition of the council right. We will carefully consider the outcome of our consultation exercise. Before we proceed with the drafting of the regulations, we want to be sure that there is widespread agreement. The regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure when we will have an opportunity to have a further debate on this issue.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
The GTC will ensure that for the first time teachers have a say in how their profession develops. As with other professions, teachers should have a major role in regulating their own profession. I am afraid to say that the amendment introduced in this House which gave the GTC power to remove teachers from its register on grounds of misconduct, including in child protection cases, was, in the Government's view, irresponsible. The public has a right to expect a coherent and rigorous barring system which covers all people—not just teachers—who have access to children across maintained schools, independent schools and FE colleges. It would have been misguided and potentially dangerous to fragment the child protection system by passing responsibility for cases involving teachers to the GTC.
This Government attach the utmost importance to child protection. My honourable friend Alun Michael, Minister of State at the Home Office, announced on 4th June that we are establishing an inter-department review of measures aimed at preventing unsuitable people from working with children. Among other things, the review will be looking at whether it should be made a criminal offence for persons who have been convicted of crimes involving children to work with children in any setting. I believe this is the right way forward and that we should not therefore pass responsibilities for child protection to the GTC at the present time.
We have, however, carefully considered how we might give the GTC a significant and responsible role in regulating the profession. We have reflected on the extremely constructive proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and have sought to implement his suggestions in full. In another place, we introduced

123
a new clause and a new schedule—which are covered by Amendments Nos. 14 and 142—which provide for the GTC to determine disciplinary cases which involve unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence.
More than half of the cases dealt with by the department's teachers' misconduct team are clearly about child protection and they account for some three-quarters of the barring of restriction orders on teachers. These cases will remain with the Secretary of State, although he will take advice from the GTC on cases involving registered teachers.
Many of the other cases have little or no child protection dimension to them. They involve such matters as teachers making false claims about their qualifications; misappropriating school funds; or, I am afraid, helping pupils to cheat in exams. Those cases will be dealt with by the GTC.
A small proportion of cases may not be so easily classified. For example, there may be cases of serious offences which may not involve children directly but in which the offending behaviour may indicate a possible risk to the safety or welfare of children. Examples are cases of serious violence against adults or dealing in drugs.
We intend that those cases will be referred initially to the Secretary of State to consider whether a case raises issues of child protection and to decide whether he should deal with that case or whether it should be more properly considered by the GTC. Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(5) of the new schedule allow for regulations to define the respective responsibilities of the GTC and the Secretary of State in more detail. Our primary concern in doing so will be to make absolutely sure that no case can ever slip between the cracks.
Amendment No. 26 ensures that employers are to be required to report cases when someone has been dismissed on grounds of misconduct, incompetence or ill-health or where a person has resigned in circumstances where dismissal might have been considered.
We have accepted, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, proposed, that the GTC should be able to strike teachers off the register for serious professional incompetence as well as unacceptable professional misconduct. That corresponds with the powers of most other professional bodies such as the General Medical Council. Those new powers for the GTC will not cut across the procedure agreed last year with the employers and the teaching unions for handling incompetence in teachers. That procedure which is now being implemented in schools provides for incompetent teachers to be removed from a classroom within two terms or, in extreme cases, within four weeks.
We intend that the GTC's role will only come into play only after the teacher has been dismissed or has resigned to avoid dismissal. The GTC will then consider the case and decide whether the incompetence demonstrated is so serious that it should be taken forward with a view to striking the teacher off the register or placing conditions on his or her practice as a teacher.
124
Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the new schedule set out the range of sanctions which will be open to the council. They are similar to those available to other professional bodies. The council will have a graded range of sanctions for responding to misconduct or incompetence of differing severity. The schedule will allow the GTC to issue a reprimand; to attach conditions to a teacher's registration; to suspend that registration for a period of up to two years; or to strike a teacher off its register.
People aggrieved by a disciplinary decision of the GTC will have a right of appeal to the High Court, under paragraph 6 of the schedule. That is similar to the appeal mechanism for other professional bodies, including the GTC for Scotland where appeals are made to the Court of Session. I am advised that since the GTC for Scotland was established in 1966, there have been only two appeals, so we envisage therefore that the number of appeals will be small.
It is important that the GTC has open and transparent procedures for dealing with any disciplinary cases and paragraph 1 of the schedule allows such matters to be set out in regulations. Paragraph 7 of the schedule allows, among other incidental and supplementary provision, for employers to be bound by the council's disciplinary orders and for any order to have common currency across England and Wales, whether made by the GTC for England or the GTC for Wales.
Those powers will provide the GTC with a full and substantial role in regulating the teaching profession. Our approach was welcomed in the other place and, I believe, will be welcomed by teachers and the wider public. For the first time, teachers will take a major role in regulating their own profession.
Amendment No. 13 is also closely linked with the new schedule. We debated at earlier stages whether the council ought to have a statutory power or duty to issue a code of conduct or practice for registered teachers. We were not, at the time, convinced that we should legislate for this, but I believe it is now appropriate to do so given the GTC's enhanced disciplinary role. None the less, this will be an area where the Government and the council will wish to tread carefully as there is not necessarily a consensus within the profession that such a code would be a positive step. We shall watch progress with some interest north of the Border, where the GTC for Scotland has issued a draft code for consultation.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 apply the same proposals to Wales. Child protection cases will continue to be determined by the Secretary of State or the national assembly, with professional misconduct and serious incompetence dealt with by the GTC for Wales.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 and 15 are consequential amendments which remove the wider powers accorded to the GTC by this House at Third Reading and reinstate the advisory role we envisage in these areas. Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 133 are all minor technical amendments linked to the GTC's new disciplinary powers.
Amendments Nos 7 to 10 clarify and tighten up the eligibility requirements for registration with the general teaching council. We have sought to ensure that, whenever a person is legally prevented from practising as a teacher, that should also render him or her ineligible for

125
registration. In particular, we have now made ineligible any person barred from teaching under legislation governing independent schools; and made sure that any person de-registered by the GTCs for Scotland and Northern Ireland should not be eligible for registration in England or Wales.
Amendment No. 17 removes the need for stamp duty to be paid if any assets are transferred from a GTC for England and Wales to a new GTC for Wales. This provision should not be needed, as my ministerial colleagues at the Welsh Office have announced that they intend to establish a GTC for Wales from the outset.
The remaining amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 25 and 134 introduce a single definition of employer/employment at the end of the Bill rather than having a number of repetitive references throughout the GTC clauses. Amendment No. 16 removes unnecessary wording, as it is clear that the GTC will be holding a register of teachers. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 3, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

("(za) standards of teaching;

(zb) standards of conduct for teachers;").

4 Page 3, line 25, leave out ("and").
5 Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("; and
(d) medical fitness to teach.").
6 Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) The Council may be required under subsection (3)(b) to advise the Secretary of State on any matter relevant to a decision by him as to whether any power exercisable by him by virtue of section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (prohibition or restriction on employment of teachers) should or should not be exercised in any particular case.").
7 Page 4, line 1, leave out from ("if") to end of line 7 and insert
("he is a qualified teacher within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 and he is not for the time being—

(a) prohibited from being employed, or otherwise engaged to provide his services, as a teacher as the result of a direction given by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 218(6) of that Act (prohibition or restriction on employment of teachers), or

(b) subject to a disciplinary order made under Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council) to this Act by virtue of which he is not eligible for registration, or

(c) disqualified from being employed as a teacher in any school by virtue of an order made—

(i) by an Independent Schools Tribunal under section 470 of the Education Act 1996, or

(ii) by the Secretary of State under section 471 of that Act, or

(d) (subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by, or determined by the Secretary of State under, regulations) ineligible for registration as a teacher, or disqualified from being a teacher in any school, by virtue of any prescribed provision of the law of Scotland or of Northern Ireland.").

8 Page 4, line 8, after ("(4)") insert ("Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed,").
9 Page 4, line 9, after ("with") insert ("regulations under").
10 Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("for the purposes of those regulations.").
11 Page 4, line 41, leave out ("a direction given by") and insert—
("(i) a direction given by the Secretary of State by").
12 Page 4, line 43, at end insert (", or
(ii) a disciplinary order made under Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council) to this Act.").
13 After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR REGISTERED TEACHERS
(".—(1) Regulations may make provision for, and in connection with, authorising the Council to issue, and from time to time revise, a code laying down standards of professional conduct and practice expected of registered teachers.
(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the consequences of any failure by a registered teacher to comply with the provisions of the code;

(b) for the provision by the Council of copies of the code, either on payment of a reasonable charge decided by the Council or, in such circumstances as may be determined in accordance with the regulations, free of charge.

(3) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (2)(a) may provide for any failure by a registered teacher to comply with the provisions of the code to be taken into account in any proceedings against him under Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council).").
14 Insert the following new clause—
DISCIPLINARY POWERS OF COUNCIL IN RELATION TO REGISTERED TEACHERS
(". Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council) (which makes provision for certain disciplinary powers to be conferred on the Council in relation to registered teachers and persons applying for registration) shall have effect.").
15 Clause 6, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may under that subsection require the Council to give him such assistance as he may specify in relation to the exercise of his power under section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to determine, in accordance with regulations made under that provision, whether a person is a qualified teacher.").
16 Page 5, line 20, leave out ("as teachers").
17 Clause 7, page 5, line 46, at end insert—
("(5) Subject to subsection (6), stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to the General Teaching Council for Wales effected by virtue of subsection (3).
(6) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed in pursuance of subsection (3) shall be treated as duly stamped unless—

(a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section be liable, or

(b) it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.").

18 Clause 8, page 6, line 2, leave out ("sections 3 to 6") and insert ("the following provisions, namely—
sections 3 to (Code of practice for registered teachers),
section (Disciplinary powers of Council in relation to registered teachers) together with Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council), and
section 6,").
19 Clause 9, page 6, line 16, leave out ("subsections (2), (3) and (6)") and insert ("subsection (2) or (3)").
20 Page 6, line 19, leave out ("or direction").
21 Page 6, line 22, leave out ("or direction").
22 Page 6, line 24, leave out ("or direction").
23 Page 6, line 26, leave out ("or direction").
24 Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or direction").
25 Clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 20.
26 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS IMPOSED BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(". Regulations may make provision requiring employers of persons falling within section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to provide all or any of the following, namely—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the General Teaching Council for England, and

(c) the General Teaching Council for Wales,

with prescribed information in respect of cases where such persons are dismissed on the grounds of misconduct or incompetence or on medical grounds, or resign in circumstances where their employers would have dismissed them, or considered dismissing them, on any such grounds had they not resigned.").
27 After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS TEACHERS ON GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND
(". In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 (composition of General Teaching Council for Scotland), after sub-paragraph (8) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(9) In nominating members of the Council under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Council reflecting the interests of persons concerned with the teaching of persons with special educational needs.").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 27.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 27.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 16, page 9, line 28, after ("at") insert ("relevant").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. In doing so, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 43 to 45.
The amendments in this group will enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations those schools which will be able to provide an induction period. New teachers at maintained and non-maintained special
128
schools will have successfully to complete a period of induction if they wish to remain eligible for employment at these schools.
The amendments make clear that independent schools may also provide an induction period in prescribed circumstances. However, they do not make the successful completion of an induction period a condition governing employment in an independent school. Independent schools were not able to offer the former probation arrangements. Their inclusion in the induction programme reflects the new spirit of partnership that we have established with the independent sector.
However, we will only be prepared to permit independent schools to participate in the new arrangements where we are certain that the new teacher can be guaranteed the same professional experience and the same level of support and guidance. The monitoring and assessment arrangements must also meet the same standards. We also intend to stipulate in regulations that only those independent schools which can offer appropriate experience of the national curriculum will be able to provide an induction period.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out ("one school year") and insert ("three school terms").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 42. The amendments in this group cover the length of the induction period, those schools which will be able to participate in the induction programme, the funding and appeal arrangements and the role of the local education authority in the process.
Amendment No. 29 makes clear that the induction period will last for three school terms. At earlier stages of the Bill we discussed the concept of the academic year. We envisage that for most teachers the period will run from the beginning of September until the end of July in the following year.
Amendment No. 31 will enable us to specify the periods of employment which will count towards the induction period. This is designed to take account of individual circumstances, for example, where a new teacher is able only to gain temporary employment in the first instance, and as a consequence has to move between schools during the period.
Amendment No. 31 will also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to preclude a teacher from serving more than one induction period. There will be exceptions to this rule where either the appropriate body or the appeal body decides that a teacher should serve a further induction period. They would only make such a decision in circumstances where the evidence did not appear to support the head teacher's recommendation, or where procedures were not properly followed at the school.

129
Amendment No. 31 will also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to preclude teachers from serving an induction period in certain categories of school. We intend this to preclude teachers from serving an induction period in failing schools and those in special measures. This follows up the undertaking which my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Byers made to members of the committee in another place.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 confer on all inductees aggrieved by a decision on induction a right to appeal to the general teaching council, once it is established, and prior to that, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The detailed operation of the appeal arrangements will be prescribed in regulations.
A number of the amendments in this group clarify the role and functions of the local education authority in the induction process and the range of decisions which the LEA may take at the end of the induction period. Amendment No. 35 will enable LEAs to make reasonable charges for services which they provide in respect of induction, in such circumstances as may be prescribed. We have in mind here that LEAs may charge independent schools for providing these services.
Amendment No. 35 also spells out the arrangements which will apply when a teacher fails satisfactorily to complete an induction period and then submits an appeal. In such circumstances the regulations will require the employer of a teacher at a maintained school or a non-maintained special school to secure either the termination of his or her employment, or that he or she undertakes only such teaching duties as may be determined in accordance with the regulations. We intend to prescribe in regulations that teachers in such schools will only undertake a limited range of teaching duties pending appeal. In practice, this is likely to mean that they would undertake the sort of teaching duties that teaching assistants would undertake under the close supervision of a more experienced colleague. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the regulations will require the employer to secure the termination of the teacher's employment after a short period of notice. All of this is consistent with good employment practice.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are technical amendments designed to ensure that where a teacher continues to be employed at the same school, but is not undertaking his normal teaching duties there, his salary costs will not be met from the school's delegated budget, unless the LEA has good reason for deducting the costs from that budget.
Amendment No. 40 enables regulations to provide that any expenditure incurred by local education authorities for the purpose of implementing the induction programme will count as eligible expenditure for standards fund purposes. This will allow us to ring fence and target the money on those schools with new teachers, and will ensure the money is properly directed to where it is needed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Whitty.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not notice Amendment No. 40 in that group but that may be due to a fault in the list that I have. I wish to discuss Amendment No. 31. The National Association of Head Teachers has expressed alarm—which I share—at this amendment. The association writes in a letter to me that there has been no consultation and hardly any debate on this amendment. The amendment was tabled at the last minute. I believe it includes a provision that regulations may preclude certain schools—which would be identified by the Minister—from being schools at which newly qualified teachers may serve their induction period.
The NAHT was extremely disappointed that it was not consulted on this issue. It is also concerned at the practical implications that this measure will have for the staffing of schools, along with the reduction in the autonomy of head teachers and governing bodies. As the noble Lord is aware, and as the NAHT's letter states,
"There is currently a recruitment crisis and shortage of teachers, particularly in certain subjects. School budgets remain tight … and the reality is that in many cases newly qualified teachers are the keenest, if not the only ones willing, to take on the challenge of teaching in those schools that require a new way forward. Neither does the Government's amendment differentiate between those schools which remain subject to special measures but which have a new head teacher and other staff in place, and those in which the leadership and the rest of the teaching in the school remains in question.
"If responsibility is to be delegated to heads, as indeed it should be, why cannot the decision be left to the head? He/she can decide whether the school can deal with the needs of a teacher in the induction period".
The letter also states that head teachers cannot,
"understand why a head teacher of a primary school, if he/she is fortunate enough to find a talented newly qualified teacher, who is keen to take on the challenge of teaching in a school subject to special measures, should be prohibited from doing so. Why should a head teacher of a secondary school be prevented from recruiting a talented newly qualified maths, physics, or any other subject teacher? Although the Government's argument may be that the amendment is designed to safeguard pupils from poor teaching, it needs to be recognised that it does not necessarily do so. It might actually have the opposite effect by prohibiting the appointment of more talented, although newly qualified staff, and by inhibiting the replacement of those teachers considered to be underperforming. Indeed, it would be dangerous to conclude that all, or even the vast majority of teaching in a special measures school, is poor".
As I have said, there has been no consultation with the very people this measure will affect. We believe that it will work against the best interests of a school that may be failing but wants to improve.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I received exactly the same letter from the NAHT as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Like the noble Baroness, I share that association's concerns. It is not necessary for me also to read out the letter, but I endorse all that it says. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us and the association on this matter. If what is stated in the letter is correct, the association was not given the opportunity to comment during the consultative stages of the Bill.

131
I have one or two further comments. Amendment No. 31 states,
"precluding a person from serving more than one induction period except in any prescribed circumstances".
What does the Minister have in mind with regard to the prescribed circumstances? I think all of us would accept that it would be far from the norm for someone to serve more than one induction period, but I can envisage occasions where that is appropriate, for example after someone has taken a long career break.
I now turn to Amendment No. 29. As the Minister quite rightly said, we have discussed previously the issue of what a school year comprises and how many terms it should include. I am slightly puzzled at this measure. I understood him to say that one school year is recognised as lasting from September to July. I believe that is what most of us in this country understand to be one school year. However, I understand the words "one school year" will be replaced by the words "three school terms". That provision has been introduced at a time when there is much public debate on whether a school year should consist of four or even five school terms. If the Government intend the period to last from September to July—which is what I understood the Minister to say—why are they now changing that to what might be interpreted as a rather shorter period?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first I shall discuss the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The head teachers' organisation may feel that it was not consulted between the time when the Commons amendment was tabled and returned to your Lordships' House. However, during a previous consultation period it was quite clear that the vast majority of people did not think that the induction period—or the probation period, as it used to be called—should be undertaken in failing schools. We have a duty to ensure that we do not place potentially vulnerable teachers in a school which is already failing. I take the noble Baroness's point that "under special measures" can include schools where measures have been taken to ensure that the leadership and the whole ethos of the school are changing. I understand her argument that in those circumstances perhaps we should take on new teachers.
These provisions are not intended entirely to exclude that possibility. They would certainly exclude induction in schools that are determined to be failing. As to schools under special measures, the regulations may well prescribe certain exceptions. In general, schools under special measures have yet to prove themselves able to take on new teachers and provide sufficient support for them in addition to the other problems that they face in terms of turning the school round in total, however good the new school leadership may be and however effective are the other measures being introduced. In general, we wish to protect the position of new teachers and not place them in schools that are under special measures or in failing schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised questions in relation to prescribed circumstances. Regarding a second induction term, I indicated that there would be circumstances where either the local education authority,
132
as in most cases, or an appeals body following an appeal would consider that a head teacher's decision did not entirely justify the failure of the induction period. In that case a further period of induction could be provided. There would be other circumstances—possibly where there was a break and the three terms had not been consecutive either as a result of illness or because there was no permanent position—where the induction period would possibly be extended or an additional induction period would be most appropriate.
I confess that the noble Lord has something of a point in relation to four school terms. Nevertheless, a school year is defined in any case as 12 months. Therefore, were a particular school to adopt a new pattern, appropriate changes would be acceptable under this legislation. In general, as the noble Lord recognises, three school terms is the definition of what is effectively accepted as an academic year in every school as at present. The change has not been made to allow for four or more terms to be a normal undertaking in our schools. Three school terms is the easiest way of describing more exactly what we mean by an academic year since it is capable of several different interpretations. The education year is a 12-month period and would relate to a three-term academic year. That seemed to us the best definition of the period of induction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful to him for his concession to my noble friend Lord Tope. However, is he aware that in trying to define an academic year both by calendar month and length of term he risks running into the same difficulty as occurs at the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel? It dates a matter by four different events, which are now widely believed to have all happened in different years?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I bow to the noble Earl's non-religious scriptural knowledge. I greatly admire it. However, in this case matters are consistent. The three terms have to take place within a 12-month period, which would normally be taken to describe an academic year. I am not sure that I actually went as far as making a concession to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I accepted that he had a good point. The aim is quite clear. We all agreed during earlier stages of the Bill that the academic year is what we meant and that in general circumstances three terms describe that period. That is the sensible period for an induction.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, from my experience in this House being told that I have a good point constitutes a major victory. I do not want to make a big issue out of this. I merely continue to be confused. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that I am right. I believe it will be possible, for instance, under the education action zones that are to be set up for the governing bodies of schools, if they so choose, to move to, say, a five-term academic year. As I understand it, they would be free to do so. That may well become the norm. I do not wish to discuss today whether that is desirable. But if and when it happens, shall we not have to amend this Bill? I simply do not understand why we are passing

133
an amendment that would seem to make the position less clear than the reference to one school year, or an academic year if preferred.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment will alter the terms of the Bill from, "not less than one year", to, "not less than three terms". Although that may not be entirely clear from the amendment, that is its effect. Were there to be a change in particular schools to four or five terms, no doubt they could adapt and remain within this legislation. We are talking about a normal academic year, presently defined in normal practice as three terms. I think that "not less than three terms" would meet the noble Lord's concerns.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are grateful for that clarification that a four- or five-term year would be acceptable and legal within the terms of the Bill.
Perhaps I may return to the noble Lord's response to the concerns of the National Association of Head Teachers. The noble Lord's defence was that the majority of people who took part in the previous consultation, which did not include this particular point, had said that they would not wish young teachers to have a probationary year in such a school.
The National Association of Head Teachers represents a very large proportion of head teachers in this country. They are the people who will be in the front line managing induction programmes for new young teachers. They are in the best position to make that judgment. It seems unfortunate that the noble Lord is not prepared to take into account in drawing up the regulations the powerful points that they have made.
When a school is failing, it is not necessarily failing in every department. If there is a shortage of teachers in a subject such as maths, science, technology or languages, and a very bright, talented person with good credentials comes along who could enhance the school and help it to reform, should not an opportunity be given? That should happen so long as, first, the head teacher has control as to whether it is appropriate that the school should offer an induction period. Secondly, as there is a right of appeal for the person undertaking the induction programme to appeal against its quality, it seems to me that all the safeguards are already built in.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the National Association of Head Teachers has a broad-based membership and we are right to take account of its concerns. However, the Government's concern must be that we would not wish to place any newly qualified teacher, however bright or dedicated, and however rare his or her speciality, in a situation where in a different context a school had been designated as failing. That would mean a managerial failure in the school. To place the mentoring and induction of a new teacher, or a series of new teachers, into that context would add to the problems of turning that school round.
I accepted that there might be particular circumstances in which a school that had clearly turned the corner might be in a different situation. In general, schools which are
134
still deemed to be failing schools or which are under special measures would not be an appropriate environment for newly qualified teachers. That would divert managerial effort from the fundamental turn-around required in those schools.
We note the concern. However, we feel that the interests of new teachers, and therefore the long-term interests of the teaching profession and the quality of education, require us to try to find places for newly qualified teachers in schools that are not in that category.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out ("a school") and insert—

("(a) a relevant school, or

(b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, an independent school.").

31 Page 9, line 33, at end insert—

("(aa) as to periods of employment which are to count towards the induction period;

(ab) precluding a person from serving more than one induction period except in any prescribed circumstances;

(ac) precluding a relevant school, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, from being one at which an induction period may be served:").

32 Page 9, line 40, leave out from ("decide") to end of line 43 and insert ("whether a person—

(i) has achieved those standards and has accordingly satisfactorily completed his induction period, or

(ii) should have his induction period extended by such period as may be determined by the appropriate body, or

(iii) has failed satisfactorily to complete his induction period;").

33 Page 9, line 45, leave out ("on the matters referred to in paragraph (d)") and insert ("as to whether a person has achieved the standards mentioned in paragraph (c)").
34 Page 10, leave out lines 1 and 2.
35 Page 10, line 5, at end insert—

("(h) requiring the employer of a person employed as a teacher at a relevant school to secure—

(i) the termination of that person's employment as a teacher, or

(ii) that he only undertakes such teaching duties as may be determined in accordance with the regulations,

in such circumstances following a decision that he has failed satisfactorily to complete his induction period as may be prescribed;

(i) authorising or requiring the appropriate body to exercise such other functions as may be prescribed (which may include functions with respect to the provision of assistance to schools or of training for teachers);

(j) authorising the appropriate body in such circumstances as may be prescribed to make such reasonable charges in connection with the exercise of its functions under the regulations as it may determine;

(k) requiring any person or body exercising any prescribed function under the regulations to have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that function.").

36 Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under this section shall include provision conferring on a person aggrieved by a decision under subsection (2)(d) a right to appeal against the decision to one of the following, namely—

(a) the Secretary of State, or

(b) the Council or the General Teaching Council for Wales;

and any decision made on such an appeal shall be final.
(3B) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (3A) may make provision for, or for the determination in accordance with the regulations of, such matters relating to such appeals as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.").
37 Page 10, line 10, after second ("body") insert ("(including a local education authority)").
38 Page 10, line 11, after ("by") insert (", or determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with.").
39 Page 10, line 11, at end insert ("; and such regulations may provide for an appropriate body which is not a local education authority to include a representative of such an authority.").
40 Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) Regulations may provide for references to "eligible expenditure" in section 484 of the Education Act 1996 (education standards grants) to include such expenditure incurred by local education authorities in consequence of any regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) as may be prescribed.").
41 Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("(5B) Where, in accordance with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(h)(ii), a teacher employed at a school maintained by a local education authority—

(a) continues to be employed at the school, but

(b) is not undertaking his normal teaching duties there,

any costs incurred by the local education authority in respect of the teacher's emoluments shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year except in so far as the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.
Nothing in this subsection applies to a maintained school at any time when the school does not have a delegated budget.").
42 Page 10, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
("(aa) any reference to a school's budget share or to its not having a delegated budget has the same meaning as in Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and").
43 Page 10, line 20, leave out first ("schools") and insert (""relevant schools"").
44 Page 10, line 20, leave out ("subsection (12) of that section") and insert ("section 218(12) of the Education Reform Act 1988").
45 Page 10, line 21, at end insert ("and
(c) "independent school" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996.").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 45.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 45.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Clause 17, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("and section 42A(2) to (4) of the School Inspections Act 1996 (publication of inspection reports) shall apply in relation to the publication of any such report as they apply in relation to the publication of a report under any of the provisions mentioned in section 42A(2).").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 47.
Clause 124 in the School Standards and Framework Bill amends the School Inspections Act 1996 to provide for the publication of school inspection reports by electronic means—for example, on the Internet. Amendment No. 46 places the publication of teacher training inspection reports on the same statutory footing as reports on schools, publicly funded nurseries and LEAs. Publication of these reports on the Internet is consistent with the Government's policy on freedom of information and open government. The Internet is an efficient and cost-effective means of relaying information to a wide audience.
Amendment No. 47 makes clear that the chief inspector's right to inspect and report on any in-service training of teachers, as specified in subsection (1)(b) of this clause, includes training provided to a teacher serving an induction period within the meaning of Clause 16 of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 17, page 12, line 15, after ("(b),") insert—
("(ba) "in-service training" includes any training provided to a teacher serving an induction period (within the meaning of section 16 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998);").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 19, page 13, leave out line 2 and insert ("which are designated for the purposes of this section by or under the regulations.").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. In doing so, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 56, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 92 to 95, 98, 112 to 117, 144 and 145.
This is a fairly large group of amendments, all of which relate to the new student support arrangements which we shall be introducing in the coming autumn term. The amendments do not deal with the principles and substance of those new arrangements; we look

137
forward to the opportunity to debate that aspect when we come to Amendments Nos. 64 and 123 a little later on. The amendments in this group relate purely to the way in which the new arrangements will be administered and to a handful of relatively minor technical issues. I shall deal briefly with the technical amendments first.
First, Amendment No. 48 will enable the Secretary of State to designate courses at private institutions as eligible for support through administrative act rather than regulations, as now. Secondly, Amendment No. 49 will ensure that where payment of a grant or loan is discretionary—for example, in the case of hardship loans—the body responsible for determining entitlement can exercise a broad discretion rather than having to adhere to detailed criteria laid down in regulations. Thirdly, Amendment No. 112 will enable the regulations governing the student loans scheme in Scotland to deal appropriately with borrowers who are declared bankrupt or are sequestrated. Finally, Amendments Nos. 115 and 117 are minor drafting amendments which simply tidy up the wording of the Bill. All of these amendments are purely technical.
I turn now to the more substantive amendments, most of which have equivalent amendments for Scotland. In this context, the group of amendments is larger than it might otherwise be because of having to repeat the arrangements for Scotland.
Amendment No. 67 and Amendment No. 93 relating to Scotland clarify the Secretary of State's powers to transfer and delegate the powers given to him in respect of student support. They replace and improve upon the provisions already made in the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House will note that the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State alone to make grants or loans to students. This is different from the current student support legislation, which gives the Secretary of State powers to make arrangements for the making and collection of loans and, in England and Wales, places duties on LEAs in respect of mandatory and discretionary awards. A variety of bodies will be involved in the administration of the new loans scheme, including local education authorities, higher education institutions, the Student Loans Company and the Inland Revenue. Amendments Nos. 67 and 93 accordingly provide for these bodies to exercise powers instead of, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State.
In particular, these new provisions allow functions to be transferred to local education authorities and higher education institutions, which, as independent bodies, already have distinct responsibilities for administering aspects of the existing awards and loan schemes. Functions will not be transferred to other bodies but delegated. This means that the Secretary of State will retain overall responsibility for those functions and will himself be subject to judicial review. We believe that this is more appropriate in the case of a body such as the Student Loans Company, which is wholly owned by two Secretaries of State, or the Inland Revenue, which will be collecting loan repayments on the Secretary of State's behalf.
138
The new provisions also enable the Secretary of State to establish an appeals procedure in respect of functions which are transferred or delegated. We are considering the details of the appeals mechanism, but I am happy to repeat the undertaking that my honourable friend made in another place that a right of appeal will be put in place in relation to the collection of student loans.
These two amendments also provide for the Secretary of State to make payments to bodies to which functions are transferred or delegated or which are appointed to hear appeals, either to meet the costs of making grants or loans or as payment for administering the scheme.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 98 delete the references to government departments in Clauses 19 and 24 of the Bill. References to government departments are superfluous in this context since they would anyway be covered by the references to "other persons or bodies". More importantly, we do not envisage that the regulation-making power in Clause 19(5) and the equivalent Scottish provision will be used to place duties on government departments—in practice, the Inland Revenue. Instead, the relevant functions will be delegated to the Revenue using the powers which I have just described. This will mean that the Secretary of State remains ultimately accountable for the actions of the Revenue in relation to loan collection.
Amendments Nos. 92, 94, 113, 116, 144 and 145 also relate to transfer and delegation and are consequential on the previous two groups.
The next substantive group is Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which are necessary to ensure that the existing administrative arrangements can be adapted to accommodate changes in the pattern of student support. Our proposals to replace grants with loans and to introduce means tested support for fees have implications for those bodies which are currently involved in managing the system. As I have already mentioned, in England and Wales this means LEAs, the Student Loans Company and also a small central unit within the Department for Education and Employment. In Scotland student support is administered by the Student Loans Company and the Student Awards Agency for Scotland.
We shall need to consider how functions should be allocated between these bodies in the most efficient way in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. For example, it is possible that as time goes on, the central unit, which was established mainly to administer means testing arrangements for EU students, might take on other responsibilities. The Bill in its previous form provided for existing student support functions to be transferred, but only in association with the repeal of the existing student support legislation. Given that we intend to repeal the existing legislation this year—albeit with savings provisions—these amendments are necessary to allow functions to be transferred at different times in the future as the regime changes. Amendment No. 71 deletes the existing provisions which Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 replace. Amendments Nos. 95 and 114 make similar provision for Scotland, while reflecting the different administrative arrangements that already exist there to which I have already referred.

139
We consider that these amendments will be necessary for the smooth administration of this scheme. They do not raise issues of substance.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Brightman: My Lords, can the Minister explain the exact effect of Amendment No. 48? That amendment seeks to,
"leave out line 2 and insert ('which are designated for the purposes of this section by or under the regulations.')".
I have in mind Clause 29 which defines "prescribed" as meaning prescribed by regulations. It also provides that "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Bill. It would seem to me therefore that Amendment No. 48 does not in fact do anything at all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope my interpretation is correct. The amendment removes the requirement for prescription to be under regulations. It allows the Secretary of State to designate clauses by administrative action rather than by regulation, therefore providing additional flexibility.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Clause 19, page 13, line 10, leave out ("the amount available") and insert (", or enabling the determination of, the amount required or authorised to be paid").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 19, page 13, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
("(g) prescribing requirements or other provisions, whether as to repayment or otherwise, which are for the time being to apply in relation to loans under this section (including requirements or other provisions taking effect during the currency of such loans so as to add to, or otherwise modify, those for the time being applying in relation to the loans);").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 to 55, 57 to 63, 65, 68, 96, 97, 99 to 111 and 118.
The amendments we have just discussed related to the payment of loans; the ones we are now discussing relate to the repayment. We will be introducing the arrangements from 1998–99 onwards. The arrangements have been widely welcomed as fair and progressive and a great improvement on the current mortgage-style system. Indeed, repayment through the Inland Revenue
140
was subject to widespread support at earlier stages within this House and no less than the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was generous enough to congratulate the Government on succeeding where he had failed in persuading the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor of the day to take on the task of collecting loan repayments.
Repayment of loans through the Inland Revenue has been widely welcomed in all parts of this Chamber. However, there are inevitably problems of repaying through the Inland Revenue. This agreement was reached at a fairly late stage of the proceedings in your Lordships' House and the changes, introduced in another place, try to put flesh on the bones of repayment via the Inland Revenue system.
While income-contingent repayments through the tax system will be fairer and more straightforward for borrowers, the mechanics will in some respects be quite complex. As the details of the system have been worked up in consultation with the Inland Revenue, the Student Loans Company and others, it has become apparent that the Bill needed to be amended in various ways. I should stress that none of these amendments affects the principles of income-contingency to which we are committed, but they are about the technicalities of putting those principles into practice.
Amendment No. 50, and Amendment No. 109 in relation to Scotland, will mean that the terms and conditions relating to the repayment of loans will not be fixed immutably when the loans are first made. Instead, the provisions governing repayment will be set out in annual regulations which will apply to all loans that are outstanding. This is necessary to enable the collection arrangements to be modified from time to time to take account, for instance, of any changes in the operation of the tax system on which those arrangements depend. For example, if the scope of self-assessment was broadened to encompass taxpayers who are currently outside it, revised repayment arrangements would need to be made for those borrowers affected, and those would need to be reflected in the regulations. We would also, of course, expect to raise the repayment threshold over time, for example, to reflect changes in average earnings.
Noble Lords will wish to be aware that it is our intention that the detailed repayment arrangements for loans made this autumn will not be contained in the 1998 loan regulations. Loans will not fall to be collected on an income contingent basis until April 2000 at the earliest and for a relatively small number of students, and the repayment arrangements will be set out fully in the regulations applying at that time, which we expect will be published early in 1999. That will give us time to ensure that the regulations fully reflect the detailed technical work being carried out by the Inland Revenue and Student Loans Company in designing the new administrative arrangements.
This does not mean that students will not know the terms on which they will be taking out loans this autumn. We have already publicised the key elements of the repayment terms widely, and will be publishing

141
a more detailed guide later this summer which will give students all the information they need to know before applying for their loans. We have given careful thought to the best way of getting this important information to students and concluded that a layman's guide, written in plain English and widely disseminated, is of much more use to students than regulations which, by their very nature, tend to be difficult to understand and will contain much material which is irrelevant to students. The regulations will of course be in place well before the first students are actually due to make repayments.
Amendment No. 51 serves a number of purposes. First, along with Amendments Nos. 62 and 105 in relation to Scotland, it allows for a relationship to be established between the student support provisions of this Bill and other legislation governing deductions from income. The amendments will permit other legislation to be amended accordingly.
These amendments are necessary to take account of the fact that students and graduates may be subject to other deductions from their income. For example, a court might impose an attachment of earnings order. At the same time, there is a limit on the total amount that employers may deduct from an employee's income. This is the "protected earnings rate", and is designed to ensure that the employee is left with enough to live on. Where the total deductions payable exceed that limit, it is obviously necessary to determine which should take priority. These amendments enable provision to be made in regulations for determining the priority in these limited circumstances as between student loan repayments and other amounts due from borrowers, via their pay packets.
Our decision to arrange for student loan repayments to be deducted at source through the tax system, as recommended by the Dearing Committee, will inevitably have an impact on other legislation governing deductions from income. These amendments would accordingly permit other legislation to be amended, through regulations, to take account of the impact of loan repayments. At the same time, these amendments would allow income from student loans or grants to be taken into account when calculating a person's total income for the purpose of making some other deduction.
Amendment No. 51, along with Amendment No. 96 for Scotland, would allow payments of hardship loans to students to be made by higher education institutions rather than the Student Loans Company. My honourable friend made clear when this amendment was debated in Committee in another place that no decision had at that point been taken about the appropriate method of payment of these loans. In the event, we have now decided that the payments should be made by the SLC at least in the first year. However, this amendment leaves open the possibility of taking a different approach in the future if experience suggests that that would be desirable.
Amendment No. 51, along with Amendment No. 111 for Scotland, will have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to put in place appeals mechanisms where functions have not been transferred or delegated under the new provisions which we will be discussing
142
later but are imposed under regulations; for example, where they are undertaken by employers. I hope Members of your Lordships' House will agree that these provisions offer borrowers full protection against any potential maladministration of the scheme by whoever it might be.
Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 65 and 108 put a cap on the maximum rate of interest that may be charged on loans. Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that we have already made explicit provision in the Bill to ensure that the rate of interest charged will be no more than is necessary to maintain the value of loans in real terms. This will be achieved by linking the interest rate to the RPI. These amendments leave that provision in place. I can therefore give an absolute assurance to the House that no borrower will have to repay, in real terms, any more than he or she borrowed.
It is necessary, however, to make this small technical change to the Bill to ensure that, in addition, the interest rate remains below the level specified for exemption from regulations under the Consumer Credit Act. It is an established principle—reflected in the EC directive—that loans which have low interest rates and are not available to the general public should be exempt from the consumer credit provisions which govern other kinds of loans. It is clear that the new income-contingent loans meet those general requirements. The interest rate is well below normal commercial rates and eligibility is circumscribed by regulations. However, because the general criteria for exemption are described in terms of a relationship to bank base rates rather than the RPI, there is a relatively low risk that at some point in the future the interest rate on student loans might for brief periods exceed the specified limit for exemption.
This amendment will remove that risk by providing that the interest rate, while generally tracking the RPI, cannot at any point rise higher than the limit set out in the Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order. I trust that noble Lords are clear about this. The effect is that borrowers will pay interest either at the level of the RPI or at the level specified in the exempt agreements order if that is lower. There is therefore no question of the interest rate rising above the RPI.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 107 for Scotland deal with a different kind of interest provision. They will allow the Secretary of State to pay interest on refunds of loan repayments in the event that borrowers overpay. The Bill must provide for borrowers to be compensated in this way if overpayments have been significant. The details of the circumstances in which interest would be payable will be set out in regulations in due course.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 102 ensure that provision can be made for the imposition of penalties on borrowers, or those persons required to make deductions from borrowers' pay, in the event of default. These amendments provide for the imposition of interest and penalties on borrowers who fail to make repayments which are due or provide information when required to do so. They also provide the means to impose penalties on those charged with making deductions from the borrower's salary where they wilfully or negligently fail to carry out those obligations. It is necessary to have the power to recover public money which might be lost

143
as a result of wilful default. These provisions will have no effect on those employers and borrowers who meet their obligations.
The precise penalties which apply will be set out in regulations, but we envisage that they will not exceed those which apply in the event of non-payment of income tax or national insurance contributions. For employers, this might mean the imposition of a penalty in the event that they failed to make deductions from the borrower's salary or to transmit payments to the Inland Revenue. For borrowers, interest would be charged on any outstanding repayments, and in the event of persistent default further surcharges might be applied on which interest would also be charged. I should stress that the charging of interest is not intended to be punitive but is necessary to cover the losses to public funds. Similarly, any penalties are intended to be no higher than is necessary to discourage the sorts of wilful or negligent default I have described.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 118 for Scotland provide for the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Scotland, to the Department for Education for Northern Ireland and, by extension, to bodies to which functions are transferred or delegated under this Bill. In practice, this will allow the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Student Loans Company to which the Secretary of State's functions in relation to loan repayments will be delegated. For example, the Inland Revenue will be able to provide details of repayments made via employers to enable the Student Loans Company to update borrowers' accounts.
These amendments are necessary to allow the Inland Revenue's legal duty of confidentiality to the taxpayer to be set aside in the specific case of information required for the collection of loan repayments. Without it, it would be impossible to collect repayments through the tax system. I hasten to add that the normal requirements of the Data Protection Act will continue to apply in respect of any information which is disclosed under this provision. There is thus no question of general details of a borrower's tax affairs being disclosed.
Finally, this group includes a number of purely technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 53 and 110 for Scotland improve the wording of the Bill to reflect the fact that there will be no deferment, as such, under the new arrangements. Borrowers will not become liable to repay until their income reaches the £10,000 threshold. Amendments Nos. 57, 61, 63, 99, 104 and 106 bring the wording of the Bill into line with the relevant tax legislation and define "employer" for the purposes of this part of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 58 and 100 extend the duty to keep and produce records to persons or bodies other than employers, while Amendments Nos. 59 and 101 make the requirements on borrowers in this respect consistent with those placed on employers. Finally, Amendments Nos. 97 and 103 are purely drafting amendments.
Taken together these amendments will ensure the smooth operation of the new student support repayment arrangements while providing additional protection for borrowers and for the taxpayer.
144
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Lord Whitty.)
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as the Minister said, many of us agree with the principle that students should have loans to help with their costs when they are at university. As the Minister also said, many of us welcome the fact that repayments will be made through the tax system. However, that is where we on these Benches begin to part company with the Government. The explanation we have heard from the Minister shows exactly why we are concerned. The concerns that we had at earlier stages of the Bill still remain.
Our prime concern is about the haste with which this is happening and the problems that that will give the Government—and most of all the problems that that will give the students when they have to deal with these arrangements. When they begin to take out loans they will not really know what they are taking on.
The Minister gave an explanation of what he thinks students will require to know before they take out the loan. But I think that we will be setting an incredibly bad example to our young people if we expect them to enter into this type of agreement when they do not know exactly how it will work out. No one in his right mind takes out a loan without assuming that he has some kind of legal agreement. We are all free to decide whether we read the small print; but at the end of the day there is a legal agreement which we have signed. What status will any agreement that students enter into have if the regulations have not properly been laid before us and if some of the facts are not written down? I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point. It has been said that the students will be given only what they need to know. I suggest that if one enters into a legal agreement, one needs to have the lot, whether or not one bothers to read it.
No one wants to be held up very much today but we on these Benches want to make it clear that we are not at all happy with what is proposed. If the Government had waited another year before introducing this system it would have been a good deal easier for people all round. It is difficult for students to find out what is happening, but it is even more difficult for local authorities dealing with their queries.
Perhaps I may conclude by illustrating why I think next year will be a bad year. We may have three sets of regulations in operation at the same time. We have been told that the regulations for the repayment of loans are not expected until early 1999; there are regulations for the transition year, which were published three weeks ago; and there is already a scheme up and running. There are three different systems all running at the same time. That illustrates the haste with which the Government are proceeding. I think that they will repent in haste. But worst of all, I feel sorry for the students on the end of this and what may happen to them in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness has just said. Local authorities up and down

145
the land are very concerned about what is happening. Contrary to what the Minister has continued to say, that the students know what is going on, they do not. Some of us met students only today in this House. They do not know what is going on. I received a letter recently from the noble Baroness about the delay in introducing regulations. That is inexcusable, but it is no more than was predicted on these Benches and on the Liberal Benches at the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill. We said that this was being done too quickly and that the Government should wait one more year to put everything in place in an orderly way so that all those who were affected by the measures in the Bill not only understood them but had a proper legal underpinning for them.
Lord Desai: My Lords, what my noble friend said about issuing guidelines for students is probably necessary for everybody. Needless confusion has been created about the simplest loan system there is. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that there are three regimes being followed and that there is confusion. But every year there are three cohorts of students going to college and they are different. Therefore, no one has to know all three systems. The students know that. I am a great devotee of the income contingent loan system. The beauty of it, once it is made clear, is that it is not like a mortgage or hire purchase. It is flexible, but one has to write down all the rules. Once that message has been put across, perhaps more to local authorities, teachers and politicians rather than to students, then it will be clear that we are adopting one of the easiest systems to cope with. The existing student loan system is much more stringent.
What my noble friend and the Commons amendments are doing is to make the system much more transparent and not only user friendly, but friendly also to the tax authorities. Therefore, we should welcome the scheme. When the system is seen in operation there is no confusion. The income contingent loan is the easiest thing to explain. I hope that my noble friend will take up this idea. Perhaps we should have a one-sheet A4 explanation or maybe 10 or more sheets, if necessary. It is a very simple idea. The beauty of the idea has not been conveyed properly to people.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. His first point is absolutely right. There are always three systems in operation even when moving from one system to another. That is no different from other circumstances. Repayments under the scheme will not start until April 2000 and even then it will apply to a limited number of students. As I said at an earlier stage of this amendment or as regards a previous group of amendments, we intend to spell out in clear English what the students' entitlements are and what the repayment system will be. It is in that form, rather than through regulations, that students will come to understand the system, if they do not know it already.
I do not believe that we can move from one system, which was not providing sufficient resources for universities, to another without moving through the
146
three stages of changing the regulations governing them. I believe that there was universal support for both income contingent repayment and repayments through the Inland Revenue system. All who come into the salaried or other income brackets will have a whole range of tax regulations which they may or may not fully understand but which they will have to comply with.
The Inland Revenue provisions are the simplest way of making repayments. I believe that that is generally accepted. However, tax regimes alter from time to time. There are mistakes under that system both by the payers and the administration itself. They have to be rectified. All the amendments do is allow regulations to be changed when there are changes in the tax regime or something impacts on it. There is provision for compensation or penalties when the system does not work properly and mistakes are made, deliberately or otherwise. That applies in all Inland Revenue collection systems.
We are not inventing a new principle here but simply applying the best method of loan recoupment through the Inland Revenue to the new system. I believe that in practice graduates will find this system a much easier method of repayment than almost any form of loan repayment that existed under the previous regime. I make no apology for the fact that we have to tailor the scheme to the Inland Revenue system. I make no substantive apology for the fact that it has come somewhat late. That was because agreement had not been reached among government departments when the Bill first appeared in this House. At the point we announced that in principle we were going to pay through the Inland Revenue, everyone agreed that that was a good method. These are the consequences, and I believe we should accept them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the system count against the PSBR?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, do the loans apply against the PSBR? The noble Baroness will have to wait until there is a further announcement in that regard. Clearly, administrative costs are part of public expenditure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, not the administration costs, but the loans themselves.
Lord Whitty: They do at the moment. As your Lordships will know, the whole question of public sector accounting is now subject to discussion. There may be changes and I cannot pre-empt them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that expenditure on student maintenance is public expenditure? Even the Opposition must remember that from a year ago. It counts on that side of the balance sheet. In due course, when the loans are gradually repaid, they will count on the revenue side of the balance sheet and that will lower the PSBR. Perhaps the noble Baroness will agree with me that we should recast our public sector accounts so that none of this expenditure gets into the PSBR. When one argued that

147
some years ago, what are now the Opposition opposed it vehemently because they lived and died by the concept of the PSBR, which was a mistake.
I also support my noble friend in pointing out that my right honourable friend the Chancellor is working very hard to sort out the public accounts and I hope that we will not have this nonsense in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 19, page 13, line 27, at end insert—

("(i) requiring prescribed amounts payable to eligible students under loans under this section to be paid directly to institutions who have previously made loans of any prescribed description to those persons;

(j) modifying any enactment or instrument (whenever passed or made) so as to provide for the treatment, in connection with any calculation with respect to the income (however defined) of persons to whom grants or loans are made under this section, of amounts due from or payable to such persons under such grants or loans;

(k) for appeals with respect to matters arising under the regulations (including provision for determining, or enabling the determination of, the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals).").

52 Clause 19, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("(ba) for the payment, in respect of amounts overpaid by borrowers, of interest at such rate, and calculated in such manner, as may be determined by the Secretary of State from time to time;").
53 Clause 19, page 13, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
("(c) for a borrower not to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan—

(i) during such period as may be prescribed from time to time, or

(ii) in such circumstances as may be so prescribed,

including provision for the cancellation of any further such liability of the borrower in any such circumstances;").
54 Clause 19, page 13, line 41, after ("(3)(a)") insert—
("(i)").
55 Clause 19, page 13, line 43, after ("loans") insert (", and
(ii) shall at no time exceed the specified rate for low interest loans").
56 Clause 19, page 14, line 5, leave out (", any government department,").
57 Clause 19, page 14, line 10, leave out ("remuneration") and insert ("emoluments").
58 Clause 19, page 14, line 16, after ("employers") insert (", or such other persons or bodies as may be prescribed,").
59 Clause 19, page 14, line 20, after ("the") insert ("keeping and").
60 Clause 19, page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("(ca) requiring the payment, by persons or bodies to whom requirements imposed in pursuance of any of paragraphs (a) to (c) apply, of—

(i) penalties in cases of non-compliance with, or otherwise framed by reference to, such requirements, and

(ii) interest in respect of periods when such penalties are due but unpaid;

(cb) requiring the payment by borrowers, in respect of periods when amounts due under their loans are unpaid, of—

(i) interest (applied to such amounts at a rate calculated otherwise than in accordance with subsection (4)(a)), or

(ii) both such interest and one or more surcharges (together with further interest in respect of periods when such surcharges are due but unpaid);").

61 Clause 19, page 14, line 28, leave out ("Income Tax") and insert ("Taxes").
62 Clause 19, page 14, line 30, at end insert—
("(f) determining the priority as between deductions falling to be made by virtue of paragraph (a)(i) and deductions falling to be made, from emoluments payable to borrowers, by virtue of other enactments (whenever passed).").
63 Clause 19, page 14, line 30, at end insert—
("(5A) In subsection (5)—

(a) "employers" means persons who make payments of, or on account of, income assessable to income tax tinder Schedule E, and

(b) "the Taxes Acts" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Management Act 1970.").

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 63.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 63.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Clause 19, page 14, leave out lines 31 to 49.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 64
64A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64 but propose the following amendment in lieu—
64B Page 14, line 31, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that, in any regulations made under this section in relation to any eligible student for any prescribed purpose for any academic year—

(a) the maximum amount of any loan made available to that student is no greater than half the prescribed cost of maintenance for such a student for that purpose for that year, and

(b) provision continues to be made for maintenance grants to be payable to such a student, subject to—

(i) a maximum amount of half the prescribed cost of maintenance, and

(ii) assessment of any contributions applicable in his case.").

Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64, but do propose Amendment No. 64B in lieu thereof.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government, somewhat artfully, linked two issues in one amendment. This House had completely separate debates. They are completely separate issues. One is to do with maintenance and the other is to do with equal treatment throughout the United Kingdom and is related to tuition fees. By linking the two together we have had to burn quite a lot of midnight oil during the course of the week to be advised on how to deal with them technically. We have been successful. Therefore I shall be speaking to the maintenance section of Amendment No. 64.
I invite the House to ask the Government a second time to reconsider their proposals on student finance. The grounds on which I take this very serious step are justice and fairness. Put simply, the Government have introduced proposals which will result in students from lower income families leaving college and/or university with a greater burden of debt than students from more affluent families. There can be no justification whatever for such unfairness.
The Government say in defence of such unfairness that the tuition fees are means tested and that some students will not be required to pay them at all. That argument was put by Ministers both in this House and in another place, and even by the Prime Minister himself. It misses completely the point about student finance. As far as the student is concerned, he or she will have to borrow for tuition fees, where that is appropriate, and for the maintenance grant. For students from low income families the maintenance grant is by far the greater sum. So students from low income families must borrow the whole of their maintenance costs and students from more affluent families are asked to borrow only half.
At no time during debates in this House or in the other place, has a single Minister, including the Prime Minister himself, produced a credible defence for such an injustice to students from low income families.
The response of the Government to the Dearing Committee was issued ahead of the publication of that report; it was leaked in detail the weekend before its publication. Therefore, the Government had made up their mind. It was a Treasury-led decision, and certainly Mr. Brown was in the driving seat at that time. For the purposes of my amendment I should like to refer the Government to paragraphs 103 and 108 of the report:
"103. The widespread view in evidence was that an additional contribution from graduates should be sought by converting the existing support for student living costs from 50:50 grants and loans … We [the Dearing Committee] looked carefully at this option".
"108. We would be particularly reluctant to see any reduction in public subsidies being concentrated on students from the poorest families and even more reluctant to see the funding released by this, and more, being used to increase the subsidies for others".
The Government have been extremely reluctant to guarantee that moneys raised and/or saved at the expense of higher education students will benefit higher education in particular in real terms; that is, not simply held by the higher education institutions, which we understand will be the case, but that such moneys should not displace funds from the state. That has not been agreed. Any moneys raised at the expense of higher
150
education students and spent on any other part of the education service, even on further education, represents a tax on those students. To place greater financial burden on students from low income families in this way is unfair and unjust. I call upon this House to invite the other place to think about this yet again. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64, but do propose Amendment No. 64B in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak straightaway and set out the Government's position. With the leave of the House, I should be grateful for the opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate to respond to any further points that are made. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She starts from the position that there should be equal access to higher education for students from all backgrounds, in particular those from lower income groups. That is a position to which the Government are absolutely committed. Indeed, our proposals are built on the principle that access to higher education should not depend upon ability to pay. Moreover, we have announced a range of measures that specifically target support for those students who need the most help. I shall say more about that later.
The noble Baroness seeks to make capital out of the fact that our proposals for student support are different from the preferred option of the Dearing Committee. I am not ashamed to acknowledge that they are different even though they arise from the same objective as securing access and equity. On a number of occasions during earlier debates on the Bill I have spoken about the thinking behind the proposals and why they differ from the preferred option of the Dearing Committee. In particular, I have explained that we believe it is right to provide support in the form of grants for fees to those who need them rather than require all students to pay those fees. I have also explained how this, combined with our system of income-contingent loans, will ensure that the largest public subsidies go to students from the poorest backgrounds. I pointed out that our proposals would generate considerably more resources for reinvestment in further and higher education than the previous government were prepared to put into them.
I could go on. However, rather than engage in a narrow debate about comparative funding options I should like to return to the real issue of how best to secure participation in high quality higher education by students from all socio-economic backgrounds, particularly those groups that are currently under-represented. In doing so, I hope that we can at least agree upon the facts rather than engage in speculation. There is a wealth of evidence to show that participation by lower social groups in higher education remains poor but that, crucially, this cannot be put down to finance. The reasons why students enter higher

151
education are much more diverse and complex than that. I believe that to suggest otherwise does students from low income backgrounds a great disservice.
The facts indicate, nevertheless, that there is one fundamental factor which determines whether young people are likely to enter higher education. Quite simply, they are more likely to go to university if they have the school qualifications that universities demand. Yet survey after survey shows that students from lower income backgrounds either do not get the opportunity to study for those qualifications or are unsuccessful in exploiting them. It is in this respect that students from lower income backgrounds are disadvantaged and why they are not entering higher education in the numbers that we wish to see. We are determined to put that right and we shall do so by developing a school system aimed at securing progression for all who have the ability and by raising standards, expectations and achievements.
We have already brought forward measures in the School Standards and Framework Bill to promote excellence in schools. These measures will give students from lower income backgrounds the chance to get the grades that they need in order to enter a university. We hope that they will also help to create a learning culture in which higher education is not seen as the privilege of the better-off few. Although there are more important factors influencing access to and participation in higher education, I do not deny that student support has its part to play, but it would be helpful if we considered the facts about the impact of grants and loans on access.
Noble Lords opposite are unhappy that we propose to replace maintenance grants with a fair and progressive system of income-contingent loans. I might share their concerns if I thought that grants promoted access or loans hindered it. But, as I have pointed out already, in the five years before loans were introduced, when students still received support from grant alone, participation among students from lower income backgrounds rose by only two percentage points. Between 1990 and 1995—during which time loans were introduced and the proportion of support available through loans increased—the rise was much greater: it was over seven percentage points. This shows that students from less advantaged backgrounds were not deterred from entering higher education by the flawed loan scheme introduced in 1990. There is all the more reason to believe that they will not be put off by the much fairer loans that we shall make available.
Noble Lords opposite may wish to consider the latest figures which show that home applications for places in higher education this autumn from under 21 year-olds are nearly 1 per cent. up on last year. The position in respect of those aged 21 and over is also improving. Overall, home figures are about 2 per cent. down on 1997. This is hardly surprising given the increase in students entering in that year. Nor is there any evidence from the University and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) that potential applicants from lower income families have been deterred by our proposals. On the contrary, application levels appear to be holding across all social classes. This suggests that students understand that the Government's proposals will give them access to the resources that they need and that they will not be
152
expected to contribute more up front to the cost of their education than they would under the current system. Furthermore, it suggests that they recognise that the income-contingent loan repayment arrangements that we are introducing will be both fair and progressive. The level of repayments that graduates will be expected to make will be directly linked to their incomes. Graduates who earn less than £10,000 will repay nothing at all, and over time the total amount that graduates repay will be no more in real terms than they borrowed as students.
Members of your Lordships' House, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and Members of another place have suggested that the poorer students will end up with the largest debt. As I have sought to make clear on previous occasions, under the new arrangements less well-off students will get the most support towards their fees and living costs. The noble Baroness is laughing; I am not sure why. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships' House will take issue with that; it is a fact. No doubt noble Lords will argue that that is fair.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was amused because what is there in the system, what is there in the proposals and what is there in the Bill that makes up for the 50 per cent. maintenance grant that the poorer students have to borrow that the more affluent students do not have to borrow?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was just about to complete what I was saying about the poorer students ending up with the largest debts. I can make an immediate reply to the noble Baroness as to what does make it up. They will have a loan scheme which is income contingent and fairer and which they can pay back according to their income rather than the loan scheme which existed under the previous government that required them, regardless of income, to pay back all that they owed within five years.
I shall return to one of the basic principles underlying our proposals. It is one that I have heard no noble Lord dispute. It is that graduates, as the clear main beneficiaries of higher education, should make a larger contribution to its costs. That was a Dearing principle that we accepted and to which we are adhering. It is wrong to see the fairness of the student loan arrangements just in terms of the size of the debt. As I have just said, the fairness of the student loan arrangements lies in two things: the availability of support and cash for living costs for those who need it most and whose access to higher education might otherwise be hindered. It is the making of fair terms for the repaying of those loans based on the ability to pay.
As I have just said, students will not repay their support on the basis of their current position but on the basis of their future earnings. Students will repay their loans as earning graduates, not as school-leavers from poor backgrounds. In most cases graduates will repay their loans over a longer period than they would, as I said, under the current arrangements. I am sorry to reiterate this, but it is important that noble Lords understand that. Students from less well off backgrounds who take out the full loan available will be eligible to

153
receive the largest public subsidy over time. That subsidy is of course additional to the support that they will receive towards the cost of their tuition, which is considerable, because that group of students will not be making a contribution towards their tuition.
I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of your Lordships' House of the Government's commitment to securing wider participation in higher education. I hope also that noble Lords will reflect upon the evidence that I cited. I have not yet mentioned the specific steps that we announced to target support on those students experiencing the greatest need.
I should like to take the opportunity to remind noble Lords again that students from lower income backgrounds—that is, about 30 per cent. of the total—whose parental income is to be taken into account will not be required to contribute towards the costs of their tuition. Many students from middle income backgrounds will also receive help towards their fees. We have pumped more money into the access funds. We have broadened the eligibility to include part-time students. That is an important broadening of eligibility. We are also making available an additional £250 loan for those students in particular hardship. We have ended the means testing of the disabled students' allowance. We are retaining supplementary allowances for students with dependants and those who are lone parents.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 8th June that we will be extending loans for students aged under 55 at the start of their courses from the academic year 1999–2000. That will help the development of our policy on lifelong learning.
We are not complacent. We shall continue to monitor closely the pattern of applications and entry to higher education among students from different socio-economic backgrounds. That is obviously important. My department has also commissioned regular surveys of student income and expenditure. We shall look carefully at the impact of our proposals on student finances once they have fully taken effect. On the basis of all the evidence available, and taking into account the specific measures that I have outlined, I am confident that our proposals will secure improved access to higher education.
Finally, I should like to remind the House that the replacement of maintenance grants by a system of income-contingent loans was a manifesto commitment. The amendments we are debating overturn amendments made during our earlier debates on the Bill which would prevent the Government from carrying out that commitment. I hope therefore that the House will abide by the Salisbury Convention and will not seek to reinstate the amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for intervening early in this debate. I am not sure that all noble Lords agreed with what she said, but it was helpful that she said it. Perhaps I may correct her on one point. She referred on a number of occasions to
154
"noble Lords opposite". There are at least two groups of noble Lords opposite. I hope that she and her Front Bench colleagues might distinguish occasionally between the two different groups.
On a more serious point, we are all concerned about the position of students, or potential students, from low income families going to university. I have no doubt that fear, whether real or perceived, of debt is an inhibiting factor. It may be more of an inhibiting factor for students from low income families who may be more used to and more ridden by debt. The real concern—the Minister referred to this—is that many people from low income families never seriously consider becoming university students. They are given no expectations at school. They almost certainly do not obtain the necessary qualifications through the school system even to consider whether to have a student loan or whether to go to university. That is an issue which may be outside the realm of this debate, but it is an issue of greater concern to us all than the worry about debt.
We have debated this issue in your Lordships' House many times during the Bill's progress. I do not need to prolong the matter. I shall merely restate briefly the position of these Opposition Benches on this issue. We are concerned to maintain and increase the numbers in higher education. We are at least as concerned to maintain and improve the quality of higher education.
We are, on principle, opposed to the student payment of tuition fees. I have rehearsed that argument many times in your Lordships' House, and do not need to do so again today. If additional funding has to come into higher education, and it does, then with some degree of reluctance we have had to accept that the maintenance grant must go. It is important therefore that it is replaced by a system of loans with a fair repayment process—an income-contingent repayment system.
Here again I agree with the Minister that the system that we support is one that will be based not on the prospective student's family's income or position but on the earning capacity of that student when he or she becomes a graduate and, it is hoped, will have a higher earning capacity. That is an important difference. We are talking about the income of the family at the start of the process. We are talking about the income of the graduate as he or she progresses in his or her career.
That is our position. It has been our position throughout. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is fully aware of it. She often repeats it for me to audiences that we share, as she did at lunchtime today. For those reasons, we cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment today.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in resisting these amendments. Not only has this issue been debated many times in the course of the Bill's progress but it has also been debated many times going back to the days before the setting up of the Dearing committee. The whole question of student finance has been a difficult financial and political issue for all the political parties. It was as a result of not having a solution to the problem, or of not

155
being prepared to find a solution to the problem, that noble Lords opposite, when they were in power, set up the Dearing committee.
Even before the establishment of the Dearing committee, there was much discussion about the future of student maintenance and student loans. I remember discussions on that in this House. I remember from this side of the House, when the Conservative Party was in power, references being made to the high cost of higher education in the United Kingdom and to the fact that that resulted largely from the generous maintenance grants which were paid by the British Government and which no other country paid to its students. The debate then was very lively. First, we had the introduction of student loans partly to replace the maintenance grants. That discussion resulted in even the National Union of Students being prepared to accept that maintenance grants would have to go.
Then we had the advent of the Dearing committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the Government acted too quickly and prior to the publication of the Dearing report. However, the fact is that continual discussions were taking place even while the Dearing committee was meeting. I remember being at meetings and conferences held under the auspices of several organisations which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, attended and where he discussed the issues with those present. Clearly, both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have been considering the issues before the Dearing committee reported, ready to look at that report in the context of all the arguments and ready to come up with their responses.
In responding to the report, the Government accepted the main thrust of it. They accepted the recommendation that students should themselves make a contribution to the costs of higher education because they would be the beneficiaries. It was recommended that the loans system should be income-contingent. Again, the Government accepted that recommendation. Therefore, it seems to me that the main thrust of the report was accepted.
Having said that, the whole question of how to increase the finances available to higher education arose and we saw the introduction of the £1,000 contribution towards tuition fees. That was introduced on the basis of it being an income-contingent scheme. Like many noble Lords, I had reservations about that and about its effect on the higher education participation rate, particularly for those from lower income families. I have two points to make about that.
First, the participation rate from lower income families has never been high. It is growing slowly, but it is much lower than the participation rate of students from other social groups. The reason is exactly that which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated: parents (and children) in low-income families do not think of their children attending a university. They must become part of the learning culture to which my noble friend referred before they will anticipate and expect that their children will have the benefit of higher education. Statistics from universities now seem to suggest that, despite the introduction of the fee, applications from 18 to 20 year-olds are increasing rather than declining.
156
My reservation about the introduction of the fee was that the situation needs to be monitored. At an earlier stage in our proceedings I tabled an amendment to that effect and my noble friend the Minister assured me that there would be a monitoring system to watch what happens to the participation rate.
My second reservation was that the finances raised should go to the institutions concerned. We have had assurances to that effect, but I should like them to be reiterated so that we know that more money will go into the higher education system and to the universities. I accept what my noble friend has said all along, that there will be more money for further education, but we need more money for higher education as well. I should like those assurances to be reiterated because the universities have been starved of finance over the past 20 years or so. The unit of resource per student for universities has declined considerably. If we are to have a university system which is internationally competitive, we need it to be better financed. Therefore, I hope that money from the students' contributions will result in an increase in the funding available for higher education.
In her introduction my noble friend approached the problem much more positively by saying that we need to encourage a culture of learning both at an earlier age and throughout the system so that there is an effect on all sections of society. That would be the best way of moving forward and ensuring that our participation rate in higher education is not only equivalent to those of our colleagues in the rest of Europe and the western world but begins to exceed theirs. I believe that the way in which the present Government have approached the problem is the right one and that returning to student maintenance grants and not proceeding with an income-contingent loan would be a regressive step.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have always warmly supported income-contingent loans, but I am concerned because the Government seem to be concentrating on getting people to university but they are not thinking about the effect of these changes on students when they are at university. Many students now, because they are increasingly concerned about money—and the poorer their background, the more likely they are to worry about that—are working in term and damaging their academic prospects. They are also removing any prospect of having a good extra-curricular life. We must consider the fact that the Confederation of British Industry and all those who will be employing the graduates—all those who are the source of all these well paid jobs—will ask, "Did this man (or woman) take part in an expedition to the Maldives? Did he act? Was he president of the union?", and they will find that all that that student did was to stack shelves in Sainsbury. Full student CVs will no longer exist.
That sounds cynical but it is a practical fact. Everyone is supposing that all of these unfortunate undergraduates will go out and automatically find well paid jobs. If they have bad academic results, they will not get such jobs. Moreover, I am concerned about the people who do not want such jobs, but who want to serve the community as teachers, social workers or in other such roles. They

157
will be worrying too. It is terrible short-termism to think only of getting people to the starting post and not about how they will run the race.
5 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister speaks to students any more. If she does, she will find that there is widespread dismay at the financial package with which they are now confronted. I refer to student fees as well as student loans.
The noble Baroness referred to the Salisbury convention. Let us nail that canard at once. I do not recall any statement about student fees in the manifesto. What we on this side of the House and many students firmly object to is the package which will have a disincentive effect on students. When speaking in his report of his preferred option, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, spoke of maintenance grants. He said that,
"their withdrawal … [will be] a disincentive to potential students".
That is surely right. The Minister implied that if she thought loans hindered access they would not be something she favoured. Of course loans have a negative effect. It may be that we cannot accept the reality of student loans as part of the package, but that is what the amendment is about. It limits the extent of loans. That is all it seeks to do. The amendment provides that the loan that students take out will not be more than one half of the overall maintenance costs.
Many of us are concerned at the cumulative effect, and the burden on students. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the heavy burden that students from low income families will have to bear when they enter the wage-earning world. If one talks now to students, there is no doubt that that is a powerful disincentive. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of a culture of learning. I was interested to hear the concept. I agree with it. I found the speech of the noble Baroness entirely appropriate as she outlined the need to generate a culture of learning among those who might come to university. We might have heard a great deal more about that in earlier debates on the Bill. However, those perfectly valid points do not justify the extraordinary financial burden that the Bill is likely to put on would-be students and on students at the time of their graduation.
For those reasons I firmly support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, as the villain of the show and one who has not spoken before on the issue, perhaps I may contribute to the debate, although I suspect that we have made up our minds separately.
The committee was appointed because there was a crisis in the funding of higher education. I read what the three main national political parties said, in particular in the run-up to the election. The first priority was education. But the first priority was not higher education; it lay elsewhere. It was clear that there was little prospect of higher education receiving more money from whatever government were elected.
158
Yet our terms of reference made clear—it was the first item—that society aspired to maximisation of participation in higher education. Where was the money to come from to meet that very desirable aspiration? We were driven reluctantly to the conclusion that we must look to the graduate in work to make an income contingent contribution. To help us judge those issues, we set up a number of working groups. One was to judge the justification for asking the student to make a contribution. The evidence was that on average the benefit to the student from participation in higher education was about twice that to society as a whole. That provided the justification for calling upon the graduate, depending on the income, to make a contribution.
We set up another group to consider on what basis that contribution should be founded. The majority of the group initially was minded to recommend that the contribution come through the conversion of maintenance grants into loans. However, as our work proceeded and we debated the issues, the opinion of the group progressively moved. The considerations that weighed with us were these. Financial issues are not the major cause of the low participation by young people from poorer homes. That was not the main cause of the inverse correlation between social class and participation; it was the earlier experience in life. As the Minister said, it is in response to that that the main answer must lie.
Nevertheless, we were concerned that the one differential advantage for children of the poor might be removed. We concluded that the better course was a tuition fee with an equal contribution from all students. We were concerned that the 25 per cent. contribution to tuition fees would amount to £1,000 whereas the loss of the maintenance grant, with its conversion to a loan, for the poorer student would be £1,500.
There were other considerations too. As an old civil servant, a former Treasury official, one learns to be careful. We were mindful that by drawing from the maintenance grant, as opposed to asking the student to contribute towards tuition, we were in a less strong position to say to the Treasury, "That money is for education." If the contribution came from a tuition fee, people would never forget in three, four or five years' time from where the money came. We were clear in our mind that the justification for asking for this money from the student, or the graduate in work, was the need to discharge our remit to maximise participation in higher education. We saw that as the greatest security.
We believed that over time we should move the funding more to the student so that it was channelled through the individual student—rather than through a funding council such as that I chaired—so that the individual was more responsible for his or her choice. To treat all students the same in relation to a contribution to tuition fees was moving in that direction.
It was not an easy decision. We understood the alternative argument: that the contribution would be out of income after graduation rather than related to parental circumstances. But we felt that there was an overhang of parental backgrounds and attitudes towards debt.

159
There was also a realisation that the student who came from a well-heeled family might look to the family if circumstances were adverse, whereas a student from a poor home might feel an obligation to contribute to the family budget. Therefore on balance we came down in that direction.
I wish to acknowledge that the Government changed their position from that in the manifesto. Noble Lords asked why the Government were able to move so quickly. The truth is that I went to see the Secretary of State at my own request. I was desperately concerned about the urgency for decisions because of the crisis in the funding of higher education. I outlined the options as I saw them. I told the Government that I believed the option in their manifesto was wrong; it would not work well. I was glad to find that the Government moved a substantial way towards us; they accepted and enlarged our proposals for support for the poorer part-time and full-time student, and moved to help the disabled student. I was delighted when the Government agreed to monitor and publish the implications of participation. But, on balance, being suspicious of my Treasury past and concerned about participation of the poor, I remain with the Committee's original recommendations.
Lord Desai: My Lords, a great attribute of the British middle classes is that they can justify any subsidy for themselves by invoking the working classes in their defence. I have been teaching for 32 years and during much of that time have been grossly subsidised with free tuition and free grants. They have always defended their free education by invoking the working classes.
The working classes never had access. Therefore, as my noble friend cogently explained, we should leave the access of working class students out of the debate. It has nothing to do with it whatever. It will not be improved by cutting all the maintenance grants and tuition fees because we have lived through a golden period when working class access was practically negligible. Money is not the issue.
Let us deal with the equity of the present system of loans. I believe that noble Lords obliquely opposite have almost understood the economics of it—not quite, but almost—and I welcome their education. They are still a little confused about tuition fees, but we will respect them for that.
Noble Lords opposite still have a problem about understanding income contingent loans. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, cogently made the case for the Government. I put it to her that at present many of my students are not given grants by their parents. Many of my students work overtime and at nights because the loan system is not a good system. The loan system is a very bad system. The present system entirely reflects the concerns of the noble Baroness. However, if students had a full loan payable from future income—I will deal with low paid people in a moment—they would not have such anxiety and would not have to work overtime.
What happens if someone wants to become a monk? Why not? The income contingent loan is simple; that person will not have to pay back very much. Therefore, the income contingent loan taken for a whole cohort of
160
students is a very redistributive arrangement where the lower paid people—those who do not want to apply for highly paid jobs—will not pay the full amount. No one will pay more than the full amount, but many people will pay less than the full amount. That progressivity will be decided by the future income of the people who have graduated.
Once we understand that, the equity of the system is clear. Access is a fake argument and we have an equitable system. All the talk about people being burdened with debts and so forth is irrelevant. If the system were like the present student loan system or a mortgage debt I would agree, but it is not like the present system. People will not be burdened with a particular size of debt which they must repay or their house will be repossessed. They will pay from a income stream and when they retire from their jobs the loan will be finished. It will be burnt out even if they have not paid the full amount.
Once one understands that, the beauty of what the Government have done is obvious. One must accept that the way in which the maintenance grant has been constructed presents an equitable system. If people understand that and get parental income or students' present income out of their heads and think in terms of future income—which, in terms of economic theory, is the correct way to think of such things—they will see that we have an equitable system. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, in this intricate issue my main concern is how fair will it be to students who must pay back loans when they have finished university. The Minister said that those who earn £10,000 or less will pay nothing. It was nice to hear that because, whatever salary the graduate receives, he should not accumulate too many loans. One knows that in life there will be other loans. Indeed, one is being encouraged too often by too many people to borrow money, saying, "Come on, let me help you to get this or to do that with a loan". Some of us know that we must be firm. As a clergyman, I know how firm one must be because only in recent years has a clergyman's salary become reasonable. When I started it was very low.
I am in a difficult position. I understand and see the principle put forward by my noble friend Lady Blatch because it is terrible when people are enticed to take out too many loans. Yet—perhaps some of my noble friends will be surprised to hear me say it—the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, have almost persuaded me not to vote for the amendment if there is a Division. I do not think that I would vote in the same lobby as noble Lords opposite. I believe that most probably I would abstain because there is a conflict. I am voting with my thinking, my mind and my spirit and not just on the party Whip. That is how Members on this side sometimes ought to vote. I apologise if my noble friend Lady Blatch is sorry but, although I agree with the

161
principle she put forward, I have been able to see clearer, especially after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven for speaking to the amendment, No. 64B. The words "tuition fees" do not appear, although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, managed to mention them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. But that is up to them because your Lordships are always incredibly nice and do not mind what anyone talks about, whether or not it is concerned with the amendment. The amendment is about the contingent maintenance grant.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In a general sense, we are debating a Bill which the amendment amends. The remarks must relate to the Bill as well as to the amendment. That is what I was endeavouring to do.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. The rules of this House—and I have been here longer than him—are that we try (at least some of us try) to debate the amendment before us. That does not mean that we succeed. I do not criticise the noble Lord—I am sure that if he were to look up my record he would find that I had occasionally drifted from the point. I simply believe that on this occasion we might as well stick to the amendment before us, which is concerned with maintenance grants and alternative ways of financing them.
I have bored your Lordships previously in pointing out that I wrote my first paper on student loans 35 years ago. A long time has passed since then. I have never embarrassed my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place by referring to the way in which they screamed at me for my reactionary views on the subject and of being in favour of loan schemes. They came to them slightly later than I did.
I was not the first person to advocate loan schemes. Two of my teachers had written papers on the subject. One was devoted to the Conservative Party and was an economist at the LSE and the other was absolutely devoted to the Liberal Party as it then was. What staggers me about the current position of the Conservative Opposition—I shall take the admonition and stick to that—is that the person regarded as the world's greatest figure in conservative economics, Milton Friedman, was the original advocate of loan schemes for students as being the right way to go. He was a figure the party opposite used to revere. I have to tell them that he is not yet dead, although he is old and would be astonished to hear the remarks made from the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Back Benches, as if it were to do with Conservatism, which amazes me. The noble Baroness may like to reflect on that matter.
The essence of the loan scheme was described by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, better than any of us have managed on this side; and it is particularly favourable to under-paid clergymen. I think that is part of the point he intended to make, because assuming the Church of
162
England continues with its relatively low remuneration for clergymen, I cannot believe that any vicar would have to repay a loan for his or her higher education. I take it that that is why the noble Lord feels that he has at least to abstain.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, the only loan that I have had from the Church was in connection with getting a car.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should not be concentrating on the Church of England; I gather that Roman Catholic priests get an even worse deal.
The serious point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Desai is fundamental—that we should not approach student support in terms of the student's present position. The essence of the correct economics in the view of the Government is the prospective view: to say students are always broke today—and those of us who were students were always broke, no matter how much money we had—but that they are part of an affluent section of society and that we should look at people's income prospectively. I do not deny that that represents a major change, but I have been convinced for many years that that is the right way to approach student maintenance. It is to say the Government will invest in you so that you can be a student. But it is different from the Conservative loan scheme because we will essentially buy an equity interest in you rather than operate a fixed interest loan scheme and we will expect to be repaid if, viewed prospectively, your prospects turn out to be as good as we hope they will be. I hope that we can persuade noble Lords opposite of the essential correctness of that approach to student finance. I am absolutely convinced that that is the correct way to do it.
I can foresee technical problems arising. I was much more junior in the Treasury than the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, but I never trust the Treasury. Implicit in a loan scheme is that the size of the loan will rise as GDP rises so that the relative position of students does not deteriorate. I do not trust the Treasury to come through on that, but it will be for us to make points of that kind in due course.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the right thing to do. It means that the student will become independent from 18 and beyond and will essentially be the person who takes this decision. Noble Lords opposite may regard this as an extremely Right-wing view, but how well off the parents are is neither here nor there. What matters is that they are 18 years of age and more and grown up; and what matters in determining maintenance is how well off they are.
Again, it is off the point, but the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, struck home to me. Times have changed and students in most universities earn income. I have been extremely irritated on a number of occasions when I have been told that I cannot teach at a certain hour because no one will be there because they will be in Sainsbury's stacking shelves. The greatest university system in the world, that in the United States, has no difficulty at all with students who earn. When I was at Princeton the rich students were incredibly rich, beyond

163
anything I had ever seen, and the poor students used to serve the rich students in the refectory. I do not think it did the poor students any harm and I am not sure that it did the rich students any harm. I am reactionary about this kind of thing, but I can live with the idea of students earning money.
In regard to what determines whether one goes to university, I believe overwhelmingly that the Minister is right and that the view that it is determined by marginal cost is not right. I also agree that for the kind of person we are trying to attract to higher education the situation is incredibly bewildering, and we have to explain what it is about. It is nothing to do with loan schemes. When I was 16 and thinking of going into the sixth form I remember my father asking why I did not want to go out to earn money, and I said that I wanted to go to university. He asked me: "What is a university?" I had not the faintest idea. I thought with any luck it would be just like school and I could go on without having to do much work and passing exams, which I have managed to stick to for the rest of my life.
The serious point for those who wish to address the issue of participation is that we still have a long way to go and I am appalled at the social class mix in universities. The entrée is in the schools and in education. A proper contingent loan scheme cannot be harmful, and I am absolutely convinced that it is the right way forward. I very much hope that my few words have convinced the noble Baroness opposite to say that is the right way forward and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I asked whether I could pick up on one or two points made earlier in the debate and I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, because he was quite right to reprimand me for referring to noble Lords opposite without indicating that I meant noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, not those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Our plans are in accordance with the principles of the Dearing Report and we have built on those principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, stated. We endorse the Dearing case for student contribution to tuition fees and share Derek Dearing's concern about targeted support towards living costs. We have acted on Dearing's call for extra provision for students in need. We are implementing contingent loan repayment arrangements as recommended by Dearing, with repayment through the Inland Revenue.
The Government are abolishing grants because they believe that a system of grants no longer has a place in a modern student support system. It is right that students' living costs should be met out of their future earnings and in part by their parents, if they can afford to do so. We stated clearly in our manifesto that we would abolish grants and replace them with income contingent loans, and that was accepted by the National Union of Students. We have no intention of going back on that manifesto commitment. We believe that it would be more acceptable, on balance, to mitigate the fee and
164
not charge poor students for tuition but abolish living cost grants and replace them with a loan to be paid back later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated that we rushed our response to the Dearing Committee's report. But as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, discussion took place between himself and the Secretary of State before his report was published. We had time to think about it. We responded rapidly and decisively. Having inherited a worsening financial crisis in higher education, we could not stand by idly once Dearing had reported. We had to act quickly, and that quick response resulted in an extra £165 million for the higher education sector in this coming financial year. I believe that the HE sector is grateful for that and that it wishes to see the Bill enacted as soon as possible.
Nor did we leave students and their parents in the dark during the summer as important decisions were made. That is why we mobilised our information campaign so quickly. LEAs and institutions have been notified of the details of the new procedures. We have consistently kept them informed of developments and will continue to do so.
When one considers the scale of our information campaign and the positive response we have had to it, it is deeply unconstructive of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches to persist in suggesting, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier, that students are in the dark. We know from research conducted some time ago that a high proportion of would-be students had read the information and understood what the new arrangements meant to them.
Student awareness of the new arrangements and how they affect them has continued to increase. We have continued to provide information. Most recently, we published and disseminated through appropriate channels advice to disabled students.
I was rather puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said because she implied that students will have less money up-front while they are at university. That is not true. In fact, students who are in some financial difficulty will have more money. They will have access to a £250 hardship fund and we have doubled access grants which are to support such students.
The noble Baroness said also that she thought it was important that we should support students who wish to serve the community. We are doing that. We are having an income-contingent scheme, unlike the present one, so that those graduates who wish to support the community in jobs which are lower paid will not have to pay back so quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested that increased loans will deter less well-off students and those unaccustomed to debt. I can only repeat what I said. Loans have not deterred less well-off students in the past from going to higher education. It seems to me that there is absolutely no reason why they should in the future. By far the most important factor in determining whether a student gets into a university or goes on to higher education is the level of attainment which that student reached at school. Quite simply, if a young

165
person achieves good A-level results, whatever his social background, he is likely to go into higher education. Financial considerations are secondary in making that decision.
Nevertheless, the key point is that providing maintenance support in the form of loans does not act as a disincentive. That is the evidence. We must look at the evidence rather than simply staring it in the face and pretending that it is not there. Perhaps I may express the matter in another way. There is no evidence to suggest that grants help to encourage students from lower socio-economic groups to enter higher education. What matters is that students have access to the funds they need while they are studying.
We must put right the under-representation of lower socio-economic groups in our higher education system which, up until now, the system we have had in place has so lamentably failed to do. We shall do so by creating a level playing field leading up to, and in, sixth forms by developing a school system focused increasingly on progression for all who have the ability; and by raising standards, expectations and achievements. The measures we are introducing to create excellence in schools are all about that. We must try to make sure that talented students from lower social groups have the same opportunities and expectations as their peers from better-off backgrounds to achieve the grades that they need to go on to university.
We are introducing a new and fairer system of loans, accepting the principle that students who benefit greatly from higher education should pay back their living costs as graduates when they can afford to do so. No one will be expected to pay for the cost of their higher education living costs up-front.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks at the beginning of the debate and for the full response she made at the end of it. But, again, almost everything that the Minister said misses the particular point of my amendment.
At least the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, threw some light on why we had such a precipitate response from the Government in relation to the Dearing Report. It had not emerged at all throughout the whole of the discussions both here and in another place that before the report was published the Government had discussed openly the conclusions of the report and that that was the reason for such a speedy response.
Nor has the £165 million extra money found for higher education this year anything whatever to do with this Bill. It is to do with the rescheduling of payments, and the noble Baroness knows that. Therefore, that money was found irrespective of this Bill and independently of it. It is one-off money which I suspect, over time, will need to be built into the base revenue for higher education.
The noble Baroness referred to a 1 per cent. student increase from school leavers this year. However, she did not refer to the fall of 11.5 per cent. of those aged 21 plus and the fall of 15 per cent. for those aged
166
25 plus. Nor did she refer to a 15 per cent. fall in the numbers of those entering on a four-year course to become primary school teachers. That is something the country can ill afford.
The noble Baroness and others who support the Government's stand make much of the very generous repayment schemes which will be available to students. That is the same whether the student is affluent or from a poor family. The volume of loan will be twice as great for a student from a poor income family that it will be for a student from an affluent one.
The noble Baroness made much of the Salisbury convention. The manifesto, in relation to maintenance grants, did not mention the package in the context of the introduction of tuition fees. Nor did it mention that those grants would be abolished completely and in the first year of this Government. That was one promise that was not made quite specifically.
The noble Baroness invoked the National Union of Students as being in support of this measure. I have spoken at length to that body and it says that its acquiescence was secured before the election in the context of some phasing-out of maintenance grants but not in the context of the introduction of tuition fees at the same time. A confidence trick was played on those students and they accepted it without knowing the full facts.
I am pleased that it was the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who made the comments that he did about the poor students serving the rich students. The noble Lord said that he saw nothing wrong with that. It was the most patronising comment I have heard as regards students from low-income families.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is getting preposterous. The noble Baroness has done this throughout the Bill and some of us do not like the suggestions she makes. I was a poor student both here and in America. I have no problems with that in the society in which we live. If I were a waiter in a restaurant, I should probably be serving people who are richer than I am, but I can live with that kind of society. I really wish that the noble Baroness would stop making such interventions which are not only irritating but actually offensive.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I found the remarks of the noble Lord offensive when he was talking about poor students from low-income families. The system that we now have in place will disproportionately disadvantage students from low-income families. They will lose the grant they receive now and must make up the difference by taking out a loan. Therefore, they will leave university with a greater burden of debt than students from more affluent families. That is the truth.
The Minister said that survey after survey shows that students from lower income families are disadvantaged. The Government's response to that is to put in place a system that doubly disadvantages students from low income families. I commend my amendment to the House.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 64B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McConnell, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bethell, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Biddulph, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Biffen, L.

Manton, L.

Blackwell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blaker, L.

Marsh, L.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Middleton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Byford, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Dearing, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denbigh, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Prior, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Fookes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Geddes, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Gormanston, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trenchard, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Waddington, L.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wynford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Calverley, L.

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amos, B.

Carter. L. [Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

Borrie, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Desai, L.

Buchan, E.

Dholakia, L.

Burlison, L.

Dixon, L.

168

Dormand of Easington, L.

Meston, L.

Dubs, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L.

Newby, L.

Gilbert, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Paul, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Razzall, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hayman, B.

Rochester, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sewel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shannon, E.

Hoyle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jacobs, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thurso, V.

Levy, L.

Tope, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Varley, L.

Longford, E.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ludford, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walpole, L.

McNair, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McNally, L.

Whitty, L.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.47 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Clause 19, page 14, leave out lines 31 to 49.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 64
64C That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64 but propose the following amendment in lieu—
64D Page 14, line 31, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall ensure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth or any subsequent year of study at a higher education institution in England or Wales apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence

169
for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64, but do propose Amendment No. 64D in lieu thereof.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 64D I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 123A standing in my name and Amendments Nos. 123B and 123C which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
Here we return to the question of English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students at Scottish universities. Your Lordships will recall that in Scotland the honours degree in both the arts and the sciences lasts for four years, whereas in England the degree lasts for three years. Therefore, when the Government decided, quite surprisingly, to impose tuition fees, the position became that Scottish students would pay £4,000 for their honours course whereas English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students would pay only £3,000 at their universities. That was obviously unfair. It was also an interesting contrast to the remarks made by Tony Blair in the Evening Standard in March 1997 before the election when he said that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees. Never mind. I suppose we can leave that aside. We have rewritten history in that regard. The idea was certainly not to introduce tuition fees in a way that was discriminatory against Scottish students and Scottish universities.
The Scottish Office quickly realised that there was something wrong. Its policy changed to a position whereby the fourth year of a Scottish honours degree would not be charged and, therefore, Scottish students would pay only £3,000 like their fellow students going to universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the good sense of the Scottish Office did not seem to transmit itself to the Department for Education in the South and to the Northern Ireland Office, which insisted that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland attending a Scottish university should pay £4,000.
It is that discrimination that we are examining. It is discrimination against the Scottish universities and their traditional four-year honours degree. It is also discrimination against youngsters from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, many of whom wish to attend Scottish universities. Clearly, that flow from England, Wales and Northern Ireland is important for Scottish universities, and is more important for some than for others. For example, Dundee, St. Andrews and Edinburgh have a higher proportion of students from the three other parts of this still united kingdom than other universities, including my old university in Glasgow. So it is a particular problem for some of the universities, and a problem in part for all of them. It is therefore a Scottish problem, but it is also an English, Welsh and Northern Irish problem.
That is why I am disappointed that, yet again, the Government have fielded the Scottish Office Minister, when the Scottish Office has in fact solved the problem, realised the injustice and done something about Scottish students who would be asked to pay £4,000 as opposed to £3,000 elsewhere. I am sorry that once again it is the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who has to take the brunt of these arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has once again ducked out of the argument altogether.
When the Bill came before this House it contained that iniquity. Noble Lords agreed with me and amended the Bill to be sent back to the House of Commons. Our amendment was removed in Committee in the other place. We shall no doubt be told that we should not undo what the House of Commons has done.
However, I have in front of me an interesting letter from Mr. David Bleiman of the Association of University Teachers. He tells me:
"Although in general it may be said that the House of Commons has greater democratic legitimacy than the Lords"—
but we never tire of hearing that from the Government—
"on this occasion there was not a single Scottish MP on the Standing Committee".
The Government did not put one single Scottish Member of Parliament on the Standing Committee. That is quite hard to do, considering the number of Labour MPs in the other place from my country. But the Government managed to do it.
At Report stage an attempt was made to insert a new clause into the Bill to do what I am now asking your Lordships to do. When the vote was called in the other place, there was a significant number of Scottish Labour MPs who suddenly had things to do other than vote. I noted that the names of Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. McAllion, and even Mr. Jim Murphy, a former president of the NUS, were absent from the Division List. It is interesting that retribution has been visited on poor Mr. Canavan, who had the temerity to speak. He is not even being allowed on to the list of those who have a chance of going to the Scottish parliament, such is the control opposite.
When we discussed these matters previously at one Question Time, when I managed slightly to sidestep a question on another subject and move it into this field, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, argued that students outside Scotland could enter at the second year because there were differences between Scotland and the rest of the kingdom in the way school education was conducted.
In fact, not many students do enter at the second year. I have the statistics before me. They were given last year in a Parliamentary Answer. The figures are 6 per cent. from England; 7 per cent. from Wales; and 7 per cent. from Northern Ireland. This year there has been an increase. I almost said a considerable number, but the percentage has just about doubled. The vast majority of students from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland still enter at the first year.
There is a total misunderstanding—and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, subscribes to it—that somehow or other as long as someone has some A-levels, he or she can enter university at the second

171
year. It is simply not true. It may be true in a very limited number of cases if someone's A-levels are extremely good; but it is certainly not true in the generality of cases.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is unfortunately not able to be present, has done a lot of work for the Scottish universities. I am indebted to her for a letter that we have received from the Association of University Teachers. In answering the question that will no doubt be put to the House later by the Minister regarding entry at the second year, I can do no better than read out some of the contents of the letter about the whole issue of Scottish student fees. It refers to,
"the Scottish Minister of State for Education's recent intervention stating that more 'A' level students should apply for, and gain access to, the second year in Scottish institutions",
which was echoed by the Minister last time round, and will no doubt be echoed again. The letter continues:
"The number of students who presently enter directly into the second year is only 8% for all nationalities. Even at this manageable level, there is anecdotal evidence from our members and student associations that many students find the transition too difficult and either drop down into the first year or have to retake the second year".
Indeed, just a few hours ago I spoke to a young student from Heriot-Watt university. He said that the view in the student association there was that roughly half of the students entering in the second year fall back within a few weeks of the start of the session and restart the first year. He tells me that that is the position; and it is the position referred to by the Association of University Teachers.
There was one time when a word from the Association of University Teachers meant that the Labour Party simply did what it was told. The world has changed significantly. I even find them on my side, so it has changed quite a lot. Frankly, the letter makes compelling reading.
Even more compelling is the simple fact that the Minister will be unable to give the House any statistics in relation to the outcomes for those students who enter at the second year—how many drop back to the first, how many achieve a poorer degree than they ought to, or how many drop out of university altogether. That information is simply not held.
The Association of University Teachers goes on to say:
"This line of policy threatens the very existence of the Scottish four-year honours degree as Scots with 'A' levels, and in the future advanced highers, will wish to have the same treatment as English students".
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said previously that most Scottish students go to university at the age of 17 because they do only five years at school. That is simply not true. Although it was 20 years ago, I speak as someone who taught in a Scottish school. The great majority, indeed almost all, of our students who went to university did a sixth year at school. So the idea that they were fifth-year students and 17 year-olds is not completely true. By the end of their sixth year some students are still just 17. Some Scottish Office statistics pointed out to me by the AUT indicate that only 7.4 per cent. of higher education students were 17 on 31st December 1995, when the survey was taken.
Interestingly, the association goes on to point out that,
"the number and proportion of direct second year entrants has decreased over the last three years, hence this politically enforced increase",
which is the Government's intention,
"would buck the academic trend and require institutions to radically rethink their admissions policy. It also raises a purely academic problem in that degree courses will have students with differing academic backgrounds in the first 3 years of honours programmes where traditionally the first year has been used to harmonise the academic standards of the students. This may well increase the workloads incurred by a minority of students".
There is more to it than that. For many degrees the students will not have comparable A-levels. Let us say that a student is good at languages, has A-levels in the traditional languages taught in an English school and decides to go to university in Scotland to study Russian. He will have to start at year one. If he goes to study engineering at, for example, Strathclyde or Heriot-Watt university, he will have to start at year one. He will not have done the width of courses at A-level that are necessary to skip that first year.
The same is true of students who decide that they would like to study, say, geology, not having done it at school. They will have to start at year one. I could go on and mention a range of subjects for which there will be no option but to start at year one. The only people who will have any degree of certainty of being able to start in year two will be those with very good A-levels, not just ordinary, run-of-the-mill A-levels.
Your Lordships will be interested to hear about the cost of the change I propose. As the National Union of Students said in a letter from Andrew Pakes, the national president elect:
"The amount of money involved is negligible and it is hard to understand how the Government has allowed this situation to develop".
In England it would cost £1.5 million to do the sensible thing that the Scottish Office has done; in Wales it would cost £45,000; and in Northern Ireland, because of the large number of Northern Irish students who go to Scottish universities, it would cost £550,000. We are talking about a couple of million pounds in order to right a great wrong which I believe the Government are doing to students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who choose to go to Scottish universities.
But that is not the end of the oddities that occur. Here I quote from a letter from Richard Baker, the president elect of the National Union of Students in Scotland:
"An added irony exists in that students who are nationals of other European Member States will be treated as Scottish domiciled purely for the purposes of the final year fee waiver and will also be excused the final year tuition fee charge. It would seem that the Government recognise that to practise such discrimination against European Union citizens studying in the UK is in breach of the Maastricht Treaty, and would constitute racial discrimination. Although European law does not protect UK citizens under these circumstances this discrimination is wholly unjustifiable".
Your Lordships will remember that I told you about the exchange with Mr. Brian Wilson on the "World at One" programme. The "World at One" presenter said to Mr. Brian Wilson: "So the youngster from France going to Scotland will pay £3,000; a youngster from England will pay £4,000. Why is that?" "Ah", said Brian Wilson,

173
"France is in the European Union", to which the interviewer said, "Isn't England?" I thought that that said it all. As the NUS letter concludes,
"It remains absurd that students from Birmingham and Belfast should be expected to pay £1000 more for that choice than students from Munich or Motherwell".
I hate to bring this to your Lordships' attention, but I have two grandchildren. I would not like to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Sewel! One lives in Kent, and her parents pay their taxes to the UK. The other lives in Italy, and her parents pay their taxes to the Italian government. In the fullness of time, if they decide to follow their parents and grandparents to Glasgow University, the one in Italy will be charged £3,000 for tuition fees; the one in Kent, in the United Kingdom—the same country, supposedly—will be charged £4,000. That is simply not fair.
There is a combination of people who think that that is not fair. The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom think that it is totally unfair; the Liberal Democrats think that it is totally unfair; my noble friends think that it is totally unfair; I trust that many members on the Cross-Benches think that it is totally unfair; and I suspect that not a few members on the Government Back-Benches think that it is pretty unfair as well.
I invite your Lordships to join me today in asking the Commons to think again on this issue and to give it serious consideration. Two million pounds is not a lot of money to sort out an internal anomaly in the United Kingdom and an anomaly as far as the European Union is concerned.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64, but do propose Amendment No. 64D in lieu thereof.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the grouping of the amendments now before us. The noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have rightly grouped their amendments for the convenience of the House so that the issues raised can be discussed in a single debate. The amendments proposed to Clause 25 appear, however, to be alternative ways of making a similar point. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, proposes to disagree with the Commons amendment, while the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, offers an amendment in lieu.
I should indicate to the House that, should the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, press his Motion No. 64C to a vote and win, we on these Benches will accept that decision as binding on Amendment No. 64D and on Motion No. 123A, both of which also stand in the name of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord's Motion No. 64C is carried, I shall therefore accept Amendment No. 64D and Motion No. 123A without a further vote.
174
The Government believe, however, that the House should have an opportunity to form a separate view on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, given that this provides an alternative approach to the same question. Accordingly, if the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, chooses to move his Motion No. 123B when it is called at its place in the Marshalled List, the Government will oppose that Motion, although I hope that the House will, having already debated the issues in the grouping now before it, proceed swiftly to a Division if the noble Lord presses his Motion at that point.
I hope that this clarification will allow the House to proceed to an orderly debate on these questions. I shall, of course, seek the leave of the House to speak again at the end of the debate and will save my substantive remarks until then.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole House in thanking the Minister for that clarification—if such it was, because I am not myself a great deal clearer than I was before. What I proposed to say—and I hope that it is consistent with the advice we have heard from the noble Lord—was that I was rising primarily to speak to the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrat group in this House and that in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would not be making an error if, in replying to the debate, which we would have welcomed, she were to talk about the Opposition in a more collective way than happened in the previous case. I am content, generally speaking, to support the arguments that were put with such force by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
I am aware that the amendment standing in my name is a flawed amendment, though not through any fault of ours. It does not, for example, refer to Northern Ireland, which is a very necessary part of the issues we are discussing in terms of tuition fees.
I shall not at this stage seek to repeat the powerful arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on this issue. I shall confine myself to saying that in principle the Liberal Democrats have always been against student fees in general, and that position has been made clear during the long debates on the Bill. We take the view that, if we have to have student fees, it is doubly unacceptable for them to discriminate against those whose parents reside in one geographical part of the United Kingdom rather than another. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that the Government's policy in their Amendment No. 64 destroys the principle of equal treatment and will do great damage to Scottish universities.
I speak with, I hope, appropriate diffidence since I have not previously intervened in the prolonged debates on this piece of legislation, although I hope I have reasonably conscientiously and enthusiastically trudged through the voting lobbies on this issue. However, I thought that perhaps, after 14 years as the chancellor of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, I might be entitled to say something on this matter at this final stage. Heriot-Watt University is an intensely Scottish institution, but I think it is fair to say that it is

175
a technological university of international standing. Thirty per cent. of our students come from England, so we are typical of the problem.
The other university with which I have a modest connection—many years ago I was an evening student there when it was a different institution—is the University of Abertay in Dundee. Its principal, Professor Bernard King, spoke to the Scottish Council (Development & Industry) the other day and warned about the Government's proposals in relation to student fees. He believed that in the long run it would have a devastating effect on Scottish student numbers, on the Scottish university system, on the funding of Scottish universities and even perhaps on the number of Scottish universities.
The Government's argument that English students or students from Wales and Northern Ireland should try to join the second year of Scottish courses—an argument dealt with by the noble Lord—would have a disruptive and destabilising effect in the Scottish universities. If that process was persisted in, it would set up a momentum which would end the four-year course altogether.
There is some misunderstanding about that rather glib solution of trying to reconcile the different Scottish tradition to the different English tradition of people joining in the second year. The Scottish four-year course is an integral and coherent programme. The first year is not a disposable bit of bolt-on do-gooding. The Government's cavalier encouragement to English students to join Scottish degree courses in year two is driven by cost cutting and certainly not by academic considerations. The four-year degree course is part of a long and honourable tradition in Scotland of broadly-based education. In fact, 70 per cent. of Scottish university courses are four-year courses.
I am conscious that in joining with the Official Opposition in this House on this matter, we come under the criticism of "flying in the face" (as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone) of the Salisbury convention. I believe I have a proper regard for the legitimacy of the other place—the elected Chamber. But coming to this matter at this stage with suitable diffidence I hope, though late in the day, I am baffled by the way in which the Government persist in their obstinate refusal to change their position. All those who have been in government in the past go through this process. Proposals are made, often initially because of Treasury aspects, and that may be the case here. They are then debated. They are shown to be ludicrous, absurd and anomalous. But the more that they are shown to be ludicrous, absurd and anomalous, the more the Government stick to them. I begin to feel that that is the state of the present Government on these proposals.
I conclude with this remark. I believe that there are wider than educational implications for the consequences of the Government's stubbornness in this matter. There are implications for the unity of the United Kingdom at the very time that the Government are embarking on the brave policy of devolution. Large numbers of English students at Scottish universities and a smaller number of Scottish students at English
176
universities are an important part of the cement of the United Kingdom. If I may say to the noble Lord who will have the thankless task of replying to the debate, he is a splendid example. I believe I am right in saying that he is an English academic with a distinguished academic record in Scotland and is now a Minister in the Scottish administration within the present Government.
I recall a year or two ago a vigorous correspondence in the letter pages of the Scotsman where the narrower nationalists in Scotland—there are a few of them around—were complaining about the numbers of English students in Edinburgh and some other Scottish universities. They were seeking to make the point that it was turning the Edinburgh University "un-Scottish". There may be a longer-term consequence of the Government's stubbornness over this. The narrower English nationalists who are beginning to raise their heads—we heard something of them in our debate on the Scotland Bill the other day—may begin to mutter as well and there may be an English backlash.
University education should be something that binds the nations of the United Kingdom together instead of dividing them, just as it should bind the nations of the European Union together. Educationally, it is totally absurd that for a saving of around £2 million the Government should treat students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland differently from those from the rest of the European Union, of which we are members. But seriously, constitutionally, to save £2 million will seem a high price in terms of the United Kingdom's sense of unity and that precious aspect of the unity which is provided by our educational system and is so necessary to make a success of devolution.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for a variety of reasons—touched upon, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have a granddaughter who has just successfully completed four years at the University of St. Andrews on the basis of English A-levels. There is nothing I know about that university, of which I am an honorary professor, which would lead me to think that she or anyone else would have done better by joining that course at the beginning of the second year.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is far more important. The Scottish universities are among Scotland's main contributors to the history of the United Kingdom. Indeed, their history precedes the creation of the United Kingdom. The ancient Scottish universities were there before the Scottish Parliament and may indeed survive the parliament that we are apparently about to set up. One reason has been that they have been part of an international flow of study and learning. From the 18th century—one must not always look at things in terms of the past few years—to achieve a Scottish university education was one of the objectives of anyone preparing himself for a number of major professional or

177
public service fields in England. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, reminded us that there has been a flow in another direction as well and they have all contributed to the common culture of the United Kingdom.
I know that governments are, by their nature, obstinate. But this is a curious case where obstinacy is combined with self-contradiction. It was only a few days ago that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, emphasised to this House that nothing in the devolution measures should be thought to diminish the unity of the United Kingdom. Anyone who suggested that it was part of a primrose path to Scottish separatism was out of his mind. Yet the same noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is apparently prepared, for the sake of £2 million—one could obtain a couple of nude statues of Mr. Peter Mandelson and erect them in the Dome for that price—to damage one of the most important and obvious facets of the common culture of our United Kingdom. How he can live with himself in the face of that self-contradiction I find extremely difficult to understand.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I am against discrimination and I find it hard to think of any other word to describe a proposal whereby full fees are paid to Scottish students and to students from all the countries of the European Union but are denied to other students in the United Kingdom from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Over many years there has been a strong connection between Northern Ireland and the Scottish universities. As has already been explained, many students go from Northern Ireland to the Scottish universities. That should not be harmed by a proposal of this nature.
When it is said that other European Union countries will get the full grant, does that include the Irish Republic? Will students from the Irish Republic get the full grant whereas students from Northern Ireland or from England or Wales will not? I think it is time that the Government thought this matter through and decided to act in a fair and equitable way.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, in speaking in support of the Conservative amendment in the previous debate, I described myself as the villain of this show. I think I am the excoriated villain of this issue.
When the committee was considering what principles it should work from, one of those it chose was to seek greater equity between all the citizens of the United Kingdom. In its recommendations it sought to gain greater equity between students going to further education and higher education—that was one of the justifications for introducing tuition fees, as there are in further education—and greater equity between part-time and full-time students. Part-timers are often paid; full-timers are not.
In expanding that principle we came to perhaps a very simple view that all students—wherever they were, whatever the course was and whatever the course cost—should make the same contribution. Whether it was a one-year course, a two-year course, a three-year course or a four-year course, it should be a straight, flat £1,000. One could say that was unfair to those taking a one-year
178
course because they would not get government subsidies like other citizens for three or four-year courses. But it seemed a simple principle and one which was equitable. Therefore, we said that that should be the principle.
However, in the case of Scotland we recognised that a number of students had not had the advantage of an extra two years after compulsory schooling at public expense. So we recommended to the Government that Scottish students who had only one year's education after statutory schooling, many of whom under current arrangements would choose to take a four-year honours degree, should not make a tuition contribution for one of their years in higher education. That was fair do's. Then we said that beyond that it would be a matter for consideration for the Secretary of State for Scotland. He exercises his discretion in relation to the funding of the universities and in relation to participation. We thought that this would be another occasion. Perhaps we had in mind that if he exercised his discretion it should be more widely than he has chosen to do it. But I would say this to the House. If the House were minded to the view that if a course is for four years the student should be let off one year, I would point out that there are many programmes in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland that last for four years. The cost would not be £2 million. I do not know what the cost would be, but it might be 10 times £2 million.
Therefore, in debating this issue we have to consider that the extension of that principle might widen programmes throughout the United Kingdom and that we would be breaking the very simple and equitable principle that for every year you make a contribution.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have an interest to declare. I was an English student who went to a Scottish university. I left just over a decade ago. When I reached Scotland I discovered just how different the Scottish system is. People talk about taking out the first year. After I was halfway through the first year I was told that I could have done that. The reason it is there is that it is a four-year course. It is unit constructed and has the option of becoming an ordinary degree after three years and goes into honours at the end of the second year. It is a very different beast to the English degree. One of its strengths is that students do not have to specialise straight away. They can find out the subjects they are good at under university conditions. Students do not have to go straight in and decide the minute they arrive. I transferred, quite ironically, from politics to history.
The system is so different. It is designed to fulfil different educational functions. Furthermore, the system is not dependent on the very narrow A-level examination. I have heard much in this House and beyond as to just how limiting A-levels can be. If you fail those exams or you change around you suddenly find yourself in a strait-jacket. The Scottish system allows broader entrance. It is a system which answers many of the questions which we are asking about our own higher education system.
The idea of fairness has been dealt with very well by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Why should someone who comes from outside the Scottish system but from inside the United Kingdom be treated

179
differently from someone who comes from outside the Scottish system but from inside the European Union? That is ridiculous. The Scottish system has many supportive features and thus creates better educational opportunities. The universities are very much the property of their communities—that was certainly true at Aberdeen University—in a way that has not been achieved in England. In England there is the idea that you bus in your students. In Scotland they are predominantly for locals. When a university is expanded to take in students from outside, I have a nagging suspicion that you end up damaging a local community and a local resource. We can always bandy around statistics, but there is always that danger.
The more one looks at this the more it becomes apparent that, for what is effectively about a quarter of what the National Lottery gives away every weekend, the Government are prepared to damage opportunities for people from England to experience a different type of education system that allows them greater variation in their choice of subjects and the chance to get the right course. I support the Motion.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I declare an interest because I am an unofficial guardian of two orphans who attend Edinburgh University. Those of the friends of the family who can afford to make some contribution are finding it fairly difficult to do so. For that and many other reasons, I support the Motion.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence to support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I have voted only once before in all the proceedings on the Bill. That was on this very issue first time round. I feel it is a total travesty and a complete nonsense to discriminate in the way that the Government propose. Twenty-two thousand students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland currently study in Scotland. I gather that the latest figures show that in the Scottish institutions entries are down by 4.5 per cent., while the number of English students entering the second year is up by 99 per cent. At a time when we are trying to promote a Scottish parliament, there is something seriously wrong if we are discriminating against Scottish universities and discriminating against students from within the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope that the House strongly supports my noble friend.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am chair of the Further Education Funding Council (England), although I believe that that position has nothing at all to do with my contribution to this debate. Far from regarding the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, as the villain of the piece, I regard him as the hero of the exercise in identifying proper, fair and equitable support and funding for each student.
Let us get the position clear as regards Scotland and the case which has been deployed from the Opposition Benches. I feel a great deal more secure when the Opposition are debating this issue now rather than something like the previous amendment when it was
180
suggested that their concern was overwhelmingly for those from poorer backgrounds. That is an issue which scarcely categorised the past 18 years of the previous administration. But now we are clear that the Opposition are talking about the defence of a middle-class perk. After all, those from poorer backgrounds are not affected by this issue because the Government have taken the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, with a guarantee that no tuition fees will be charged for those who come from poorer backgrounds. So the issue does not obtain as regards that category of student.
Therefore, we are talking about students who come from homes which are in a position to make some kind of contribution. Let us be clear, for example, about the kind of contribution that can be made by the parents of the grand-daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. They are already indicating that they are prepared to support the young person for four years instead of three. There will be additional costs involved from forgone earnings.
Noble Lords will recognise that a very high percentage of students who attend Scottish universities from England come from the southern counties and the more prosperous parts of southern England. Is that entirely surprising? Inevitably over a four-year period extra costs are involved in regular travel from and to their homes and the Scottish universities. That cannot be a marginal cost when one considers, for example, the journey to St. Andrews.
We are talking about a proposition which states that the Government should be supporting students who come from backgrounds in which the additional costs involved in going to Scottish higher education have been, or will be, absorbed. It is maintained that it would be quite unfair, if not catastrophic, if the Government withdrew their subsidy in that regard.
This issue cannot be calamitous for Scottish universities. Either the numbers are so limited at present that the potential loss of support is no great matter, or if there are significant numbers, it is quite clear that extra subsidy has been going from the state to support the students. But there is no subsidy the other way. I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the advantages of cross-fertilisation by people from different parts of the United Kingdom, but I have not heard of a proposal in recent years suggesting that a very significant subsidy should be given to Scottish students to encourage them to attend English universities. That has always been regarded as a matter of choice on their part and not for society, the government and the taxpayer to subsidise. Therefore, why should it be suggested that subsidy should be considered the other way round?
The answer for the Scottish universities is quite clear. All the figures we have at the moment show that there is no reduction in applications to Scottish universities in the light of the new proposals. The argument put forward in the last debate is surely right. Of all the issues which condition whether people go into higher education and where they choose to go, the marginal costs that we are talking about are not at stake when students make a decision. If such decisions, however

181
marginal, prove to be somewhat damaging to Scottish universities I oblige them to widen their appeal to students from poorer backgrounds in England who would be able to go to the universities without the extra impost. I suggest that would be a development that we would all welcome.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has overlooked one or two points. I would not describe Northern Ireland as full of rich people. It is filled with rather poor people who at this particular moment more than any other need reassurance that we support them. They are bound to be thinking that it is strange, to say the least, that students from Eire will be getting an advantage and that they will not. That is the first point.
Except for the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth,—incidentally, I strongly support his feeling about the importance of the Union—no one has spoken enough about the anxieties felt in Scotland both among students and their teachers about the future of the four-year course. On the advice of the Government, the influx of students into the second year is distorting it and can only continue to do so. That is bad for education. According to the Association of University Teachers and others, they are anxious that this measure may bring universities to consider a three-year course. In turn, that will have an impact on what is taught at the top level in secondary schools in Scotland. There will be a complete educational upheaval, which is nonsense when we are talking about a relatively small sum of money. That is the second point.
I come back to the general matter of fairness. It is difficult for any student to understand how it can be fair that someone from Portugal who lives in this country will gain advantage while someone from England, Northern Ireland or Wales will not. It is not an issue of rich and poor but a question of fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, told an excellent story about questions on the radio. It is very curious indeed that, having just put the Treaty of Amsterdam through this House, when we talked about everyone being a citizen of the Union—including us, I suppose—suddenly for the purposes of this Bill we are not citizens of the Union. We do not have the advantages of any other member of the European Union. That is very strange.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will in future desist from using the Orwellian argument, "Mr. Jones will come back". It is not for me to defend the record of the party physically on my left, and the noble Lord knows that it has not been my habit to do so. But it is not relevant to the debate on this amendment. If the noble Lord wants to challenge me or my Benches to a contest on concern for people from poorer backgrounds, I will take him up on that any time. We do not have to keep the House waiting to listen to it.
I was grateful to be able to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, describing the good intentions which paved the road to where we have now arrived. I believe
182
we heard a classic description of the dangers of excessive addiction to formula funding. It is like taking a wildlife site and carefully planting it. One tends to iron out all the idiosyncrasies and all the vital individualities which are there because they have grown there. Scottish education is good because it has been allowed to grow that way. It has not been pulled up by the roots to see how it is growing.
I am glad that my noble friend said what he did about the danger of national separation in universities. When I went across the water to Yale I found one of the world's great universities. I will never say otherwise. But it did disconcert me deeply to find a national flag carried in front at a degree ceremony. We do not want to get that in what we believe should remain the United Kingdom.
I have one further point. We have here discrimination by national origin within the European Union. That bears a prima facie appearance of contravening Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. I raised this point in Committee and the Minister replied that the Government were "confident". I have heard that before. When the Minister replies, I hope that he can give me better reasons than that for believing that what the Government are now doing will not result in our ending up in court.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish because I am on the councils of both Dundee and St. Andrews universities. I studied at Dundee and graduated from St. Andrews because at the time they were one and the same university. I should like to advise noble Lords opposite who have been going on about paying fees that I paid my own fees, which were £25 a year. I paid them by working at picking soft fruit and potatoes. I lived at home and I hitchhiked in because I could not afford the bus fare.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, oh to be in St. Etienne now that Scotland is there! I think that I share a certain fellow feeling with Mr. Jim Leighton this evening, but I hope that he has more success than I am likely to have. We have had this debate several times previously and it is not surprising that a number of the arguments and, indeed, a number of the personalities and characters involved have reappeared, even down to what is now the standing army of relatives of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Perhaps I may deal first with a point raised by the "diagonal Opposition" and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The Government are not in any sense relying on the Salisbury convention in the context of this debate. That simply does not arise in any way, shape or form.
Although we have been around this track a number of times in this House and in another place, it is clear that there is still much misunderstanding over why the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to introduce a concession on fees for Scottish students in the fourth or additional year of the generally longer honours degree courses offered in Scotland.

183
It has to be remembered that Scottish universities and colleges are not the only institutions in the United Kingdom which provide four-year honours degree courses. There are institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which also provide such courses. The concession made for Scottish students is not intended to be a subsidy for Scottish institutions at the expense of those institutions elsewhere in the United Kingdom which provide four-year honours degree courses; rather, it is intended to compensate Scottish students who may enter university after having received only one year's education after the statutory school leaving age, often at the age of only 17.
To some extent, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that an increasing number of Scottish students are going to university a year later, at 18, not, however, following an integrated two-year course, as is the case in England, but having taken two separate lots of Highers. The degree of intellectual development involved in adding up the number of Highers that one has gained is very different from the intellectual development involved in the two-year integrated A-level course. That is why it has always been recognised that because of the earlier starting point—in the past "earlier" meant in terms of chronological age but is now taken in the sense of the student's intellectual development—a four-year course is more appropriate for Scottish students than is a three-year course. Those studying in Scotland and those studying in the rest of the UK finish at the same point in terms of intellectual development. That is why, in line with the recommendation in both the Dearing and Garrick reports, most Scottish students will not be required to pay tuition fees in the additional year, which is, typically, the fourth year.
The other point that can be made about Scottish students' intellectual development at the start of their university degree can be seen from the low proportion of Scottish school students who attend English universities. It is a very restricted and narrow flow. It is difficult to make the transition across the two very different systems in that direction. It is much easier to make the transition from south to north.
Students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland spend longer in school education before entering university. Indeed, not only do they spend longer at school, but they go further in their school education. They spend two years studying an integrated A-level course or its equivalent. There is no reason why, having had that extra year's school education, they too should have one year's tuition fees paid for them regardless of their family's income just because they attend Scottish universities rather than universities in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. If we are concerned about poor students from Northern Ireland—and I am concerned—I must point out that such students will not pay that amount because they will be covered by the income factor.
Scottish higher education rightly has a high reputation. I have been proud to be a member of the Scottish higher education system for nearly 30 years. I have a commitment—the Government have a commitment—to maintaining that high standard. We
184
recognise that many students in the rest of the United Kingdom can, and wish to, benefit from studying at a Scottish university—perhaps in particular those who, like the children of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, have family ties with Scotland. I quite understand that they may wish to make use of the high quality education provided by the University of Glasgow, following in the footsteps of their parents or even grandparents. However, no student will be prevented under our proposals from benefiting from Scottish higher education because they cannot afford the fees for a fourth year. Students from low-income families—wherever they may happen to be living in the UK—will in any case have their fees paid for them while those from middle-income families will receive help, depending on the level of their income.
The Motions tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will benefit only those who can well afford to pay fees for a fourth year. It amounts to a subsidy for the better off and runs counter to the Dearing principle that those who benefit from higher education should share the costs.
In any case, in choosing to undertake a four-year course at a Scottish institution, UK students not ordinarily resident in Scotland have already made a decision to forgo potential earnings and to take on extra maintenance costs by choosing to study for an extra year.
Taken together, the additional costs of doing an extra year in a Scottish university amount to approximately £20,000, taking forgone earnings into account. The additional fee of £1,000 is 5 per cent. of the total cost which is the product of the decision to attend a Scottish, as opposed to an English, university and to take a four-year degree there.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may say that it is not the 5 per cent. that counts, but the principle. That principle is equality of treatment across the United Kingdom for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students alike. That is superficially an attractive argument but it does not bear that much scrutiny. It was the Dearing inquiry, in the light of representations from its Scottish Standing Committee (the Garrick Committee), that recommended that Scottish students at Scottish institutions should not have to pay for one of the four years that they must normally spend to acquire an honours degree. The reasoning behind this was clearly concerned with equity. It was to compensate Scottish students who had had one fewer year's education at public expense before entering university. On that reasoning there are no grounds for giving English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students the same concession of a free year's tuition.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that his argument carries considerably less weight as far more students are staying a year longer in Scottish schools?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I believe that I dealt with that point earlier in my speech. I accepted that an increasing number of Scottish students stayed on at school, but that in terms of intellectual development they were not

185
following the same integrated two-year A-level course as in England. They were staying on and, for the most part, just adding to a number of Highers. Therefore, they do not reach the same stage by the time that they leave school as English students. That degree of development rightly and properly takes place in the first year of a four-year honours degree.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I would have had greater respect for the Minister's argument had he said that the Scottish school system in the fifth and sixth forms was different from the English system, which is much more selective. The idea that somehow or other the Scottish secondary school system in the fifth and sixth years is intellectually inferior to the English system is very curious, coming as it does from a Scottish Minister.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has made that point. I do not say that it is intellectually inferior but that it is fundamentally different. In Scotland the main qualification that students take at the end of their school life is the Higher. That course is studied over a period of just over two terms in most cases. I believe that the noble Lord will agree with that. That is a matter of fact. In England one has the two-year A-level. I do not say that the A-level is superior to the Higher or anything of that kind. The Scottish system under which students take more subjects than under the A-level system has a lot to be said for it. However, one does not get as far down the road in a particular area of study or intellectual development in Scotland as in England by the time one gets to university. The four-year Scottish degree has always recognised that by incorporating that work in the context of university study.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was impressed by the argument of the Minister that the better-off in England should pay. What about better-off Scots? I know a good number of Scottish students who come from well-off homes. Why should they not pay?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have ways and means of making sure that the rich Scots pay, but we do not say that there are many of them. As far as concerns Scottish students, one must look at the bundle as a whole. Here and there is a contribution that the graduate will be expected to make.
I return to my argument. I maintain that there are no grounds for giving English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students the same concession in order to provide a free year's tuition at university level when it is recognised that that year is spent within the school system. I believe that we shall be here for a considerable time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if there is no case for making this concession to English, Welsh and Northern Irish students, why is there a case for making it to French, German, Italian and Finnish students?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to get on I shall deal with that point later. That may
186
be an incentive to others. The arguments and reasons for equity provide much stronger grounds for resisting rather than supporting the amendment of the noble Lord. It would lead to inequality between English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students in the fourth year at Scottish institutions where all tuition-fee support would be paid without means-testing, and students at English, Welsh and Northern Ireland institutions where tuition-fee support would depend on means-testing. One comes back to the argument that there are institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which already have four-year degree courses.
I see no reason why a student from Northumberland should have his fees paid in the fourth year regardless of income if he attends St. Andrews but not if he studies at Durham or Newcastle. Similarly, why should a student from Northern Ireland automatically have his fourth-year fees paid at Glasgow but not at Queen's University, Belfast? That is where the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, falls down. It does not deal with the students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who attend institutions in those countries that provide four-year degree courses. They will still be in the position of having to pay.
We have yet to hear from the noble Lord how he would justify exempting students from fees in the fourth year of courses at Scottish institutions but not those in the fourth year of courses at institutions in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Why is it right that a four-year course at an English institution should cost an English student up to £4,000 when a four-year course at a Scottish institution would cost that same student only up to £3,000? So much for that appeal for equity. That breaks down. Our proposals would ensure that all students across the UK could if they so chose get an honours degree for up to £3,000 in fees. That is the test of equity which these proposals pass.
The stance that is taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his noble friends on the Front Bench directly opposite is curious. I remind them of their much-vaunted endorsement of the Dearing Report lock, stock and barrel at the time of its publication. They have encouraged the Government to stick closely to it and then criticise them when they do so. They claim to be the party of Dearing and in favour of tuition fees, yet they speak against the Dearing Committee's very own Recommendation 81 and in support of exempting all students from tuition fees in the fourth year of Scottish courses, however wealthy their background. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain how he reconciles his party's support of Dearing with such disregard for that committee's Recommendation 81.
We have heard arguments that the Government are treating Scottish institutions unfairly. On the contrary, the Government have already made a significant concession to Scottish institutions which benefits them. To go further than that and provide non-means-tested grants for all English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students in the fourth year of courses at Scottish institutions would give Scottish institutions an unfair advantage over English, Welsh and Northern Ireland institutions. What the noble Lord appears to argue for is

187
a subsidy for Scottish institutions. But given the high reputation of Scottish universities I do not believe that that is necessary or right.
The noble Lord referred to Scottish institutions suffering from the loss of applicants from other parts of the UK. Application figures for 1998–99 do not bear out the argument that the geographical diversity of the Scottish student base has been damaged by our arrangements. By mid-May the drop in the number of English applicants was, at some 4.1 per cent., less than the 4.5 per cent. drop in the total number of applicants to Scottish institutions while the number of Welsh applicants had risen by 4.5 per cent.
It is also worth remembering that the number of applicants from within the UK but from outside Scotland—at about 33,000—easily outnumbers the 27,000 or so Scottish applicants. There is not the slightest evidence that these proposals are having a deleterious effect or consequence on the number of non-Scottish UK students applying to Scottish universities. There is not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
It is of course open to Scottish universities to admit more students into the second year of their courses from the rest of the UK. That is a point that I have made a number of times before. That is up to them. They must exercise their judgment. I taught at a university where a relatively small proportion of students did that. They did it without any great disruption. The time is now right for various universities in Scotland to look at the way in which they structure their courses. The straightforward, rigid, conventional four-year degree structure, and perhaps the rigid three-year structure—although it is not for me to pronounce upon it—may not be universally appropriate for all students. A greater degree of flexibility, of entry at different stages, at different levels, perhaps exiting at different stages and different levels might be more appropriate to meet the needs of an increasingly large undergraduate population. It is up to the universities themselves to decide that. We will not decide it for them. I am convinced that entry at different levels recognising prior qualification, is a sound academic route for the universities to go down.
There is a further argument against the Motions set down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Students are currently required to have been ordinarily resident in a particular area on a certain date prior to the start of their higher education course in order to qualify for an award from the body responsible for awards in that area. We intend to maintain ordinary residence as a criterion for eligibility for financial assistance with fees. It would thus be ordinary residence which would determine whether a student would be eligible for assistance from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, or from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, or from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. It is those students who are eligible for assistance from the Scottish Student Awards Agency who would receive the concession announced for Scottish students studying in Scotland.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord would in effect circumscribe the use of ordinary residence as a criterion for financial support for student fees. They
188
would require the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to extend any arrangements for financial support for fees made under English and Welsh legislation to students ordinarily resident in Scotland in their fourth year at English or Welsh institutions. Is everyone happy with that? This would apply for the fourth year of courses only, not for the preceding three years. So, a student ordinarily resident in Scotland could apply to an English local education authority for means-tested support for the fourth year but not for the preceding three years, when the student would have to apply to the Scottish Student Awards Agency for support.
Likewise, any arrangements made available under the Scottish provisions for financial support with fees would have to be extended to students ordinarily resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in their fourth year at Scottish universities. Again, this would apply for the fourth year of courses only, not for the preceding three years. So, under the present administrative arrangements, a student ordinarily resident in England could apply to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland for non-means-tested support for the fourth year, but not for the preceding three years, when the student would have to apply to an English local education authority for means-tested support.
This would lead to considerable confusion, not least for students. It would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory piece of legislation, which would undermine the current use of ordinary residence as a criterion for eligibility for financial support with higher education.
For practical considerations but more importantly for reasons of principle, I urge the House to resist the noble Lord's Motion. As I explained earlier, the proposals do not accord with the principles of the Dearing Committee. Our proposals protect the diversity of the higher education system in the UK, without giving an unfair advantage to Scottish institutions over other institutions in the UK. They promote equality by ensuring that, across the school and higher education systems as a whole, students in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK can receive the same number of years of education at public expense. And they provide all students in the UK with the opportunity to study for an honours degree for the same maximum contribution towards tuition costs, while ensuring that those from lower income families, from all parts of the UK, will receive free tuition.
This Motion is inappropriate and misguided. For practical considerations—but more importantly for the reasons of principle—I urge the House to resist the noble Lord's Motion.
My Lords, I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In his Motion the noble Lord argues that our policy will result in unfairness and inequality. On the contrary, our proposals mean that all students in the UK will have the opportunity to study for an honours degree for a maximum contribution of £3,000 towards tuition costs. Our policy thus recognises and preserves the diversity of the UK higher education system, which we value, while also offering equality of opportunity.

189
Let us also be clear that no student, from any part of the United Kingdom, will be prevented from attending a Scottish university or college because he or she cannot afford a fourth year of tuition fees. Students from outside Scotland who come from low-income families will in any case be entitled to free tuition. Many more from middle income families will receive financial assistance with fees. To extend free tuition to all UK students in the fourth year of honours courses at Scottish institutions, regardless of financial circumstances, would help only those from better off families.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House and might help the Minister were I to say that in the light of the procedural situation described initially I shall not move my Motion in due course.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That will help me to abbreviate my comments. I regret that I am detaining the House, but I had a number of lengthy and detailed interventions at the beginning of my speech. I am sure that the House would wish me to cover in full the points that have been made.
I want now to turn to the problem of cost. It would cost approaching £2 million a year to meet the fees of all fourth year students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland on Scottish courses. But, as I have said, that in itself would create an anomaly and would no doubt lead to mounting pressure on the Government to meet the fees for all UK students on the fourth year of degree courses at institutions throughout the UK, because once one makes the point that the fourth year is covered automatically for all students in Scotland, regardless of where they have come from or what they have done before, it is, in all fairness, impossible to say that we will not do the same for students attending courses at English universities. That seems to follow inevitably. Throughout the course of the Bill, I have heard no argument that those who support the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will draw the line there and will not argue for that extension.
If that extension takes place, which I believe is inevitable, it will cost 10 times as much—in the region of £27 million a year, and possibly quite a lot more. Such an exemption would benefit the well off since only they would be required to contribute towards tuition fees. I repeat that it would do nothing to benefit those most in need of assistance. In practice, a subsidy of £20 million or so for better off families would mean £27 million less in public funding for universities and colleges.
I accept that there are Members opposite who started to go down that path for understandable reasons of equity. I believe that when noble Lords properly understand the situation—students come to Scottish universities from different school environments and traditions, having reached different stages—it is clear the Government's proposals answer the test of equity. The Opposition's proposals raise the anomaly as regards people attending four year courses in English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities. If they propose that the
190
new anomaly they have created should be resolved, an extra £27 million will be taken out of the resources of the universities and colleges. Is that what they want? I think not; I hope not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his first intervention. The noble Lord indicated that if Amendment No. 64D were carried by your Lordships, Amendment No. 123A would be accepted by the Government. I am grateful for that.
As regards his second intervention, I hope that Scotland do a good deal better in a few minutes than the noble Lord has done in defending the Scottish goals. He seemed to spend most of his time passing the ball back which, as some noble Lords will know, is a dangerous occupation in football.
I do not wish to take too long, but I shall make a few points. I find it far from the reality of Scottish education when I hear that in Scottish schools there is only one year after the statutory leaving date. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, repeated that. I do not know where the Minister and noble Lord get their information. It is 20 years since I taught at Oban High School as principal teacher of mathematics. The vast majority of my pupils stayed on for two years after the statutory leaving date. They gained Highers and the certificate of six years study which was every bit as good as A-levels. They went into the first year of universities. I worry that our education policy has been based on a totally fallacious view of Scottish school education.
The Minister did not answer the other point. What about the Republic of Ireland, Italy or France? Do all those pupils leave at 17? Do they only have five years of schooling? Of course not. They leave at 18-plus. The noble Lord failed to mention Europe. I am not surprised. He made no attempt, for example, to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am not surprised. The noble Earl asked me many questions in my time and sometimes they were difficult. The question tonight was clearly so difficult that the Minister did not even try to convince the noble Earl that government policy is not contradictory to European law.
The essential unfairness is lost, it would appear, on the noble Lord, Lord Davies. It would be bad enough if it involved only England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it involves the Republic of Ireland with students from Northern Ireland. I gave the example of Italy, and the rest of the European Union. That is the other anomaly that the Government have not addressed.
The Minister referred to students in Northern Ireland: no one is having his or her fourth year paid at Queen's University, Belfast. That is the point: no one is. I should complain if Northern Irish students were having their fourth year paid and no one else was. That is the point: the Minister seems to have lost it altogether.
I do not believe that the Government have made their case. I believe that noble Lords would be reasonable and correct, and defending not only the Scottish tradition but also the interests of those students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who wish to go to Scotland for their education, if they voted with me this evening.

191
I can do no better than to leave your Lordships with the words of Mr. Dennis Canavan—a man who will not find it easy to be bracketed in the same group as your Lordships, both life and hereditary, and especially the latter. Mr. Canavan said that he appealed to the Government to see reason; it is a plea for justice. That is the plea I make. I ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 64D in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 64.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 64D) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 212; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cross, V.

Ackner, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Addington, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Ailsa, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Aldington, L.

Davidson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Denham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Attlee, E.

Dholakia, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Balfour, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elles, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Elton, L.

Berners, B.

Falkland, V.

Bethell, L.

Fookes, B.

Biddulph, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Biffen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Birdwood, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Glenarthur, L.

Blackwell, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blaker, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blyth, L.

Greenway, L.

Bowness, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hampton, L.

Bramall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brentford, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hardwicke, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Hereford, Bp.

Butterworth, L.

Higgins, L.

Byford, B.

Holderness, L.

Cadman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Calverley, L.

Home, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hooper, B.

Carlisle, E.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Howe, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Chesham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Inchyra, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Colwyn, L.

Jacobs, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Jopling, L.

Courtown, E.

Kenyon, L.

Cox, B.

Killearn, L.

Cranborne, V.

Kingsland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

192

Kinnoull, E.

Razzall, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Redesdale, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rennell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Renton, L.

Leigh, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Limerick, E.

Renwick, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Long, V.

Rochester, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ludford, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Luke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Lyell, L.

Russell, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

McConnell, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

McNair, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharples, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stair, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Meston, L.

Strange, B.

Middleton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Swinton, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Teviot, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Moynihan, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Munster, E.

Thurso, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tope, L.

Newby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norrie, L.

Trenchard, V.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Norton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Ogmore, L.

Vestey, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Vivian, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Waddington, L.

Palmer, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Prior, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Burlison, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Gregson, L.

David, B.

Hanworth, V.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Haskel, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hayman, B.

Dearing, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Desai, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

193

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Orme, L.

Hoyle, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Islwyn, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sewel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Monkswell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitty, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
65 Clause 19, page 15, line 12, at end insert—
("(9A) In subsection (4)(a) "the specified rate for low interest loans" means the rate for the time being specified for the purposes of any exemption conferred by virtue of section 16(5)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (exemption of certain consumer credit agreements by reference to the rate of the total charge for credit).").
66 Page 15, leave out lines 13 to 19.
67 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OR DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS RELATING TO STUDENT SUPPORT
(".—(1) If the Secretary of State so determines, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 19 shall, to such extent as is specified in his determination, be exercisable instead by such body as is so specified which is either—

(a) a local education authority for the purposes of the Education Act 1996, or

(b) the governing body of an institution at which eligible students (within the meaning of such regulations) are attending courses.

(2) A body by whom any function is for the time being exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that function.
(3) Where any function is so exercisable by a local education authority, the function shall be taken to be a function of that authority for the purposes of—

(a) section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities), and

(b) section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (contracting out of functions of local authorities).

(4) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for any person or body specified in the arrangements to exercise on his behalf, to such extent as is so specified, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 19 (including any such function in relation to appeals).
(5) Any arrangements made under subsection (4) shall not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the function in question himself.
(6) The Secretary of State may make provision for enabling appeals—

(a) to be made with respect to such matters arising out of the exercise by any person or body of any function by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) as he may determine, and

(b) to be so made to a person or body appointed by him for the purpose.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay to any body or person by whom any function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (4)—

(a) such amounts as he considers appropriate for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body or person—

(i) in making grants or loans under section 19, or

(ii) by way of administrative expenses,

in, or in connection with, the exercise of that function;

(b) in a case where the function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (4), such remuneration as he may determine.

(8) Any payment under subsection (7)(a) may be made subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may determine; and any such conditions may in particular—

(a) require the provision of returns or other information before any such payment is made;

(b) relate to the use of the amount paid or require the repayment in specified circumstances of all or part of the amount paid.

(9) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body appointed by him under subsection (6) such remuneration or administrative expenses (or both) as he may determine.
(10) In relation to any function which, by virtue of subsection (1) or (4), is exercisable to a specified extent, references in any other provision of this section to the exercise of that function are accordingly to its exercise to that extent.").
68 Insert the following new clause—
SUPPLY OF INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH STUDENT LOANS
(".—(1) This section applies to any information which is held—

(a) by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or

(b) by a person providing services to those Commissioners and in connection with the provision of those services.

(2) Information to which this section applies may be supplied to—

(a) the Secretary of State or the Department of Education for Northern Ireland,

(b) any person or body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or that Department under the delegation of functions provisions, or

(c) any authority or governing body by whom any function of the Secretary of State or that Department is for the time being exercisable to any extent by virtue of the transfer of functions provisions,

for the purpose of enabling or assisting the recipient to exercise any function in connection with the operation of the student loans scheme.
(3) Information supplied under subsection (2) shall not be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied—

(a) to a person or body to whom it could be supplied under that subsection, or

(b) for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the student loans scheme.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) extend only to the supply of information by or under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section.
(6) In this section—

(a) "the delegation of functions provisions" means section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support)(4) of this Act or section 73ZA(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;

(b) "the transfer of functions provisions" means section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support)(1) of this Act or section 73ZA(1) of that Act; and

(c) "the student loans scheme" means the provisions of—

(i) regulations under section 19 of this Act so far as having effect in relation to loans under that section, or

(ii) regulations under section 73(f) of that Act made with respect to loans;

and in this subsection any reference to a provision of this Act includes a reference to any corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.").
69 Clause 20, page 15, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
("(1) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for any function which is or may be conferred under or by virtue of a relevant enactment—

(i) to transfer to, or otherwise be exercisable by, the designated person or body, or

(ii) to be replaced by such function exercisable by the designated person or body as is specified in the regulations,

to such extent as is so specified;

(b) for any function exercisable by the designated person or body by virtue of paragraph (a)(i) to be exercisable in such modified form as is so specified;

(c) for the transfer to the designated person or body of rights or liabilities arising under or by virtue of any relevant enactment;

(d) for any such enactment to have effect with such modifications as are so specified;

(e) imposing on persons or bodies of any description so specified requirements with respect to the transfer and preservation of records.

(1A) In this section "the designated person or body" means the Secretary of State or such other person or body as may be designated for the purpose by regulations under this section.").
70 Page 15, line 28, at end insert—
("so far as that enactment continues in force by virtue of any savings made, in connection with its repeal by this Act, by an order under section 32(4).").
71 Page 15, leave out lines 29 to 40.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 to 71.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 to 71.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
72 Clause 21, page 15, line 43, leave out ("Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act")") and insert ("1992 Act").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 to 91, 119 to 122 and 146.
Amendments Nos. 72 to 91 and 146 relate to the English and Welsh provisions and Amendments Nos. 119 to 122 to the Scottish provisions. They clarify how the Secretary of State's reserve power to place conditions on grant in respect of the fees charged by further and higher education institutions would work in practice. They also respond to concerns expressed by Members of your Lordships' House when we considered Clause 21 earlier. But I should make clear from the outset that these amendments do not contain any changes in policy. They are all essentially technical changes aimed at improving the clarity of the provisions.
In our earlier debates, we discussed at length the principles behind Clause 21 and the parallel Scottish provisions in Clause 25. Let me remind the House that Clause 21 gives the Secretary of State power to require, as a condition of giving grant to the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and for Wales, that they should in turn impose a condition on the grant that they give to higher education institutions. A condition on grant given by a Higher Education Funding Council would require an institution to charge certain categories of students on particular courses fees at the level of the maximum grant available to them for the payment of fees. The categories of students are to be prescribed in regulations but must exclude students who are not connected with the UK or the EU or who are on part-time or postgraduate courses other than courses of initial teacher training. In prescribing the courses to which a condition may apply, the Secretary of State may not single out courses of initial teacher training by subject or other courses by area of study or research.
It is clear from this that initial teacher training courses are intended to be covered by the powers this clause gives the Secretary of State. But most of the funding for initial teacher training courses in England is provided by the Teacher Training Agency rather than by the Higher Education Funding Council. So the Secretary of State needs to be able to impose the same conditions upon the TTA as he can upon the higher education funding councils. Amendments Nos. 72, 74–78, 82, 86–88 will give him the necessary powers.
Amendments Nos. 73, 79, 80 and 84 are technical amendments that tie down the period for which a condition imposed on an institution should operate.

197
Amendments Nos. 81 and 120 are also technical amendments which ensure that, like HE institutions, FE institutions may not be subject to conditions of grant which control the level of fees charged to overseas students. Amendments Nos. 91, 119, 121, 122 and 146 are minor technical drafting amendments. They have been made in the interests of clarity and consistency.
Amendment No. 85 does just that. It makes clear that, where one institution—let us call it the parent university—claims funding council grant in respect of certain students, then that institution retains a responsibility for the fees charged to those students by any other institution, such as a college, which partly or wholly provides the course for those students. But, in the event that the parent university claimed no HEFC or TTA funding for those students and the college relied wholly on private finance, then the parent university would have no such responsibility and no sanctions on its grant could apply.
Amendment No. 89 ensures that a publicly-funded institution cannot charge extra fees for awarding or accrediting any qualification to students, nor can an institution which provides some or part of the course. Amendment No. 90 thus ensures that universities and colleges can continue to provide field trips to students in future and can continue their current practice of charging for them.
All these amendments are intended to clarify the extent and exercise of the Secretary of State's power to impose conditions in relation to university and college fees. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
73 Clause 21, page 16, line 6, after ("that") insert (", in respect of the relevant academic year,").
74 Page 16, line 10, leave out ("in relation to grants paid to") and insert ("or section 7(1) of the 1994 Act in relation to grants paid to one of the following bodies, namely").
75 Page 16, line 11, leave out ("or").
76 Page 16, line 12, at end insert ("or
(c) the Teacher Training Agency,
as the case may be.").
77 Page 16, line 13, leave out ("Council") and insert ("body").
78 Page 16, line 15, leave out ("the Council under section 65 of that Act") and insert ("that body under section 65 of the 1992 Act, or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act,").
79 Page 16, line 18, after ("that") insert (", in respect of the relevant academic year,").
80 Page 16, line 24, leave out ("an") and insert ("the relevant").
81 Page 16, line 32, after ("subsection") insert ("(2) or").
82 Page 16, line 47, at end insert—
(""the 1992 Act" means the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
"the 1994 Act" means the Education Act 1994;").
83 Page 16, line 49, leave out ("course or any") and insert ("or").
84 Page 16, line 50, at end insert—
(""the relevant academic year", in relation to a course, means the academic year applicable to the course which begins at the same time as, or during, the period in respect of which the grants, loans or other payments to which the relevant condition under subsection (2) or (4) relates are made;").
85 Page 17, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—
("(9A) Where—

(a) a condition is imposed under subsection (2) or (4) in connection with any grants, loans or other payments made to the governing body of a relevant institution, and

(b) those payments are to any extent so made in respect of persons attending a course which is provided in whole or part by any other institution,

then, for the purposes of this section, fees payable by such persons to the other institution shall be regarded as fees payable by them to the relevant institution.").
86 Page 17, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("or the 1994 Act").
87 Page 17, line 10, after ("(3)") insert ("or the Teacher Training Agency").
88 Page 17, line 15, at end insert ("or that Agency").
89 clause 23, page 17, line 38, leave out from ("payable") to end of line 40 and insert ("to an institution for awarding or accrediting any qualification where the institution does not provide the whole or part of the course and is not a publicly-funded institution,").
90 Page 17, line 41, at end insert—
("(ba) fees payable for field trips (including any tuition element of such fees),").
91 Page 18, line 2, after ("grants") insert (", loans or other payments").

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
92 Page 18, leave out line 29.
93 Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("loans"") to end of line 42 and insert—
("( ) After that section there shall be inserted—
"Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support.
73ZA.—(1) If the Secretary of State so determines, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations made under section 73(f) of this Act shall, to such extent as is specified in his determination, be exercisable instead by such body or person as is so specified.
(2) A person or body by whom any function is for the time being exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) above shall comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that function.
(3) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for any person or body specified in the arrangements to exercise on his behalf, to such extent as is so specified, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 73(f) of this Act (including any such functions as to appeals).
(4) Any arrangements made under subsection (3) above shall not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the function in question himself.
(5) The Secretary of State may make provision for enabling appeals—

(a) to be made with respect to such matters arising out of the exercise by any person or body of any function by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above as he may determine; and

(b) to be so made to a person or body appointed by him for that purpose.

(6) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body by whom any function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above—

(a) such amounts as he considers appropriate for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that person or body—

(i) in making grants or loans by virtue of regulations under section 73(f) of this Act, or

(ii) by way of administrative expenses,

in, or in connection with, the exercise of that function;

(b) in the case of any such person, or of any body with which the Secretary of State has made arrangements under subsection (3) above, such remuneration as he may determine.

(7) Any payment under subsection (6)(a) above may be made subject to such terms and conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Secretary of State may determine.
(8) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body appointed by him under subsection (5) such remuneration or administrative expenses (or both) as he may determine.
(9) In relation to any function which, by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above is exercisable to a specified extent, references in any other provision of this section to the exercise of that function are accordingly to its exercise to that extent.").
94 Page 18, line 44, leave out ("73(1)") and insert ("73").
95 Page 19, leave out lines 1 to 14.
96 Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) Regulations to which this section applies may make provision requiring such amounts as may be prescribed, payable under loans granted by virtue of such regulations, to be paid directly to institutions providing courses of education who have previously made payments of any prescribed description to persons attending such courses to whom such loans may be granted.").
97 Page 19, line 18, leave out ("under section 73(1)(f) of this Act") and insert ("by virtue of such regulations").
98 Page 19, line 20, leave out ("any government department").
99 Page 19, line 28, leave out ("remuneration") and insert ("emoluments").
100 Page 19, line 34, after ("employers") insert (", or such other persons or bodies as may be prescribed,").
101 Page 19, line 40, after ("the") insert ("keeping and").
102 Page 19, line 42, at end insert—

("(ca) requiring the payment by persons or bodies to whom the requirements imposed in pursuance of paragraphs (a) to (c) above apply, of—

(i) penalties in cases of non-compliance with, or otherwise framed by reference to, such requirements, and

(ii) interest in respect of periods when such penalties are due but unpaid;

(cb) requiring the payment by borrowers, in respect of periods when amounts due under their loans are unpaid, of—

200

(i) interest (applied to such amounts at a rate calculated otherwise than in accordance with subsections (3C) and (4) below), or

(ii) both such interest and one or more surcharges (together with further interest in respect of periods when such surcharges are due but unpaid).").

103 Page 19, line 49, leave out ("under section 73(1)(f) of this Act or under this section") and insert ("to which this section applies").
104 Page 20, line 2, leave out ("Income Tax") and insert ("Taxes").
105 Page 20, line 4, at end insert—

("(f) determining the priority as between deductions falling to be made by virtue of paragraph (a)(i) above and deductions falling to be made from emoluments payable to borrowers by virtue of other enactments (whenever passed);

(g) modifying any enactment or instrument (whenever passed or made) so as to provide for the treatment, in connection with any calculation with respect to income (however defined), of amounts due from or payable to such persons under loans granted by virtue of regulations to which this section applies.").

106 Page 20, line 4, at end insert—
("(3A) In subsection (3) above—

(a) "employers" means persons who make payments of, or on account of, income assessable to income tax under Schedule E, and

(b) "the Taxes Acts" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Management Act 1970.").

107 Page 20, line 4, at end insert—
("(3B) Regulations to which this section applies may make provision for the payment, in respect of amounts overpaid by borrowers, of interest at such rate, and calculated in such manner, as may be determined by the Secretary of State from time to time.").
108 Page 20, line 5, leave out ("(4) Regulations") and insert—
("(3C) A rate of interest, prescribed by regulations to which this section applies, to be borne by loans shall at no time exceed the rate for the time being specified for the purposes of any exemption conferred by virtue of section 16(5)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (exemption of certain consumer credit agreements by reference to the rate of the total charge for credit).
(4) Subject to subsection (3C) above, regulations").
109 Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) Regulations to which this section applies may prescribe requirements or other provisions which add to or otherwise modify, during the currency of a loan, requirements or other provisions (whether as to repayment or otherwise) which apply in relation to loans granted by virtue of such regulations.").
110 Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(5B) Regulations to which this section applies may make provision for a borrower not to be liable to make any repayment in respect of a loan—

(a) during such periods as may be prescribed from time to time, or

(b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed,

including provision for the cancellation of any further such liability of the borrower in any such circumstances.").
111 Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(5C) Regulations to which this section applies may make provision for appeals with respect to matters arising under such regulations (including provision for determining, or enabling the determination of, the procedure to be followed in connection with such appeals).").
112 Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(5D) Regulations to which this section applies may, in relation to a borrower's discharge under or by virtue of section 54 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or on an order being made under paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to that Act, make provision for the treatment of any debt or liability to which a borrower is, or may become, subject in respect of sums received, or which he is entitled to receive, after the date of his sequestration.").
113 Page 20, line 17, leave out ("73(1)(f)") and insert ("73(f)").
114 Page 20, line 17, at end insert—
("Transitional provisions and savings on repeal of Education (Student Loans) Act 1990.
73AA.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional provision and savings in connection with the repeal by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") as he considers necessary or expedient including—

(a) provision for any function which has been conferred under or by virtue of the 1990 Act to transfer to, or otherwise become exercisable by—

(i) the Secretary of State; or

(ii) such other person or body as may be prescribed,

to such extent as may be prescribed; and

(b) provision for the transfer to the Secretary of State or any such other person or body of rights or liabilities arising under or by virtue of the 1990 Act.

(2) Regulations made by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above may, in particular, provide for—

(a) any such function to be exercisable in pursuance of such regulations in such modified form as may be prescribed;

(b) the 1990 Act to have effect with such modifications as may be prescribed.").

115 Page 20, line 19, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
116 Page 20, line 19, leave out ("73(1)(f)") and insert ("73(f)").
117 Page 20, line 20, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").
118 After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
SUPPLY OF INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH STUDENT LOANS: SCOTLAND
(". After section 73B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Supply of information in connection with student loans.
73C.—(1) This section applies to any information which is held—

(a) by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or

(b) by a person providing services to those Commissioners and in connection with the provision of those services.

(2) Information to which this section applies may be supplied to—

(a) the Secretary of State or the Department of Education for Northern Ireland,

(b) any person or body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or that department under the delegation of functions provisions, or

(c) any person or body by whom any function of the Secretary of State or that department is for the time being exercisable to any extent by virtue of the transfer of functions provisions,

202
for the purpose of enabling or assisting the recipient to exercise any function in connection with the operation of the student loans scheme.
(3) Information supplied under subsection (2) above shall not be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied—

(a) to a person or body to whom it could have been supplied under that subsection, or

(b) for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the student loans scheme.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above extend only to the supply of information by or under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section.
(6) In this section—
"the delegation of functions provisions" means section 73ZA(3) of this Act or section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) (4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;
"the transfer of functions provisions" means section 73ZA(1) of this Act or section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support)(1) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998; and
"the student loans scheme" means the provisions of—

(i) regulations under section 73(f) of this Act with respect to loans; or

(ii) regulations under section 19 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 so far as having effect in relation to loans under that section,

and in this subsection any reference to a provision of this Act includes a reference to any corresponding Northern Ireland legislation."").
119 Clause 25, page 21, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
120 Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("(2BB) No condition under subsection (2B) above shall apply in relation to any fees which are payable, in accordance with regulations under section 1 of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (fees at universities and further education establishments), by students other than those falling within any class of persons prescribed by such regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) of that section (persons connected with the United Kingdom etc.).").
121 Page 21, line 45, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("connection with").
122 Page 22, line 27, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1) above by virtue of").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 122.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 122.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
123 Clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 31 to 39.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 123
123A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 123B and 123C to Commons Amendment No. 123 not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
INSPECTION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS IN WALES
(".—(1) This section applies to training leading to an external qualification which is provided in Wales in pursuance of arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 2(2)(f) of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
(2) The Chief Inspector shall, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, arrange for any person providing training to which this section applies to be inspected under this section.
(3) A request by the Secretary of State under this section may relate to one or more such persons, and shall specify—

(a) the person or persons concerned, and

(b) the form or forms of vocational training to which the inspection is to relate.

(4) Before making any such request the Secretary of State shall consult the Chief Inspector as to the matters to be specified in the request in accordance with subsection (3).
(5) Any inspection under this section shall be conducted by one or more of the following, namely—

(a) any of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Wales, or

(b) any additional inspector authorised under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the School Inspections Act 1996;

but such an inspector or inspectors may be assisted by such other persons (whether or not members of the Chief Inspector's staff) as the Chief Inspector thinks fit.
(6) In conducting an inspection under this section, the inspector or inspectors shall act in accordance with any instructions or guidelines given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(7) Where an inspection under this section has been completed, the inspector or inspectors shall make a written report on the inspection, and shall send the report to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may arrange for any report of an inspection under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate; and section 42A(2) to (4) of the School Inspections Act 1996 shall apply in relation to the publication of any such report by the Secretary of State as they apply in relation to the publication of a report by the Chief Inspector under any of the provisions mentioned in section 42A(2).
(9) In this section—
"the Chief Inspector" means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;
"external qualification" means a vocational qualification awarded or authenticated by such person or body as may be specified in or under regulations.").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 125.
The situation in Wales, as provided for in this clause, is that the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales should include the inspection of government funded vocational training and careers services, and the amendment to the Long Title is simply a consequence of that inclusion.
The Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in Wales already carries out inspections of further education colleges on behalf of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. That is unlike the situation with Ofsted in England. Given the links between work-based vocational training and that carried out in colleges, it makes sense for the same body to arrange the inspection of both aspects. In Wales OHMCI also inspects the quality of careers education provided by schools and colleges. The inspectorate therefore has considerable knowledge in this area and there is logic in drawing on this expertise to enable the chief inspector to inspect the work of the careers service. The extension of the chief inspector's remit would therefore streamline the current arrangements and in particular it would end the arbitrary division of inspection responsibilities between careers education carried out in schools and colleges and the work of the careers service. The providers and the services to be inspected would be specified by the Secretary of State for Wales in the first instance and agreed with the chief inspector. Inspection would be carried out by the office of the chief inspector, with the inspectorate free to draw in specialist staff to support this work, as appropriate, and the framework of inspection would be non-statutory, implemented through contracts with the organisations concerned.
This is a useful amendment reflecting the different situation in Wales.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
INSPECTION OF CAREERS SERVICES BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS IN WALES
(".—(1) This section applies to relevant services provided in Wales in pursuance of arrangements made or directions given by the Secretary of State under section 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
(2) The Chief Inspector shall, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, arrange for any person providing, or arranging for the provision of, relevant services in accordance with such arrangements or directions to be inspected under this section.
(3) An inspection of any such person under this section shall consist of a review of the way in which he is discharging his responsibilities under or by virtue of the arrangements or directions in question, having regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State with respect to the provision of relevant services.
(4) A request by the Secretary of State under this section may relate to one or more such persons, and shall specify both—

(a) the person or persons concerned, and

(b) the relevant services to which the inspection is to relate.

(5) Before making any such request the Secretary of State shall consult the Chief Inspector as to the matters to be specified in the request in accordance with subsection (4).
(6) Subsections (5) to (8) of section (Inspection of vocational training by HM Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales) shall apply in relation to an inspection under this section as they apply in relation to an inspection under that section.
(7) In this section—
"the Chief Inspector" means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;
"relevant services" has the same meaning as in sections 8 and 9 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (provision of careers services).").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
126 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF FUNDING COUNCILS IN ENGLAND AND WALES TO SECURE PROVISION OF CERTAIN FURTHER EDUCATION
(".—(1) Section 3 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (functions with respect to part-time education and full-time education for those over 18) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) A council may secure the provision of facilities for education within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above—

(a) for the population of their area, where they are not required to do so by virtue of that subsection, or

(b) for other persons."

(3) In subsection (5), for "to which subsection (1) above applies" there shall be substituted "within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above".").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126. This amendment clarifies the powers of the Further Education Funding Councils. Its effect is to confirm that councils have the power to secure the provision of facilities to further education outside Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Broadly speaking, Schedule 2 covers those
206
courses leading to a range of academic and vocational qualifications as well as courses in adult basic education.
The Further Education Funding Council has a duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for this kind of FE. Non-Schedule 2 courses are those of a recreational nature and generally do not need formal qualifications. LEAs have a duty to secure provision of adequate facilities for non-Schedule 2 FE. They also have a power to secure a Schedule 2 provision. The effect of the amendment is to make it plain that the council, in addition to its duty to secure Schedule 2 provision, has the power to fund non-Schedule 2 provision which does alter the position established in 1992 that the duty to provide adequate non-Schedule 2 provision rests with the LEAs.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
127 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
JOINT EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF FUNDING COUNCILS IN SCOTLAND
(". Before section 60 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 there shall be inserted the following section—
Joint exercise of certain functions.
59A.—(1) The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council ("the councils") may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into arrangements for the joint discharge of such of their functions as may be so approved.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, arrangements under that subsection may include arrangements—

(a) for an individual to hold appointments as both—

(i) the chief officer of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to this Act; and

(ii) an equivalent officer under an order under section 7 of this Act establishing the Scottish Further Education Funding Council;

(b) for such functions to be carried out by—

(i) a joint committee of the councils,

(ii) a member of either of the councils, or

(iii) an officer or employee of the councils or of either of them;

(c) permitting the creation by the councils of a body corporate to carry out such of their functions to which such arrangements relate as the councils may delegate to it;

(d) for staff to be employed jointly by the councils;

(e) for the staff of either of the councils—

(i) to carry out such functions on behalf of the other council;

(ii) to be transferred to any body corporate created in accordance with such arrangements.

(3) Where a body corporate is created by virtue of subsection (2)(c) above—

(a) employment with that body shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply; and

207

(b) the councils shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to paragraph (a) above in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that Act.

(4) In this section—
"functions" includes powers and duties; and
"joint committee" includes any sub-committee of such a committee.".").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 127.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 127.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
128 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL: "RELEVANT BODY" FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 19(5) OF THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995
(". In section 19(6) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (meaning of "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5)), after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
"(ff) the Scottish Further Education Funding Council established by an order under section 7(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;".").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
129 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
UNAUTHORISED USE OF "UNIVERSITY" IN TITLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ETC
(".—(1) A relevant institution in England or Wales shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services, do so under a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is—

(a) authorised by or by virtue of any Act or Royal Charter, or

(b) approved by the Privy Council for the purposes of this section.

(2) A person carrying on such an institution shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services through the institution, use with reference either to himself or the institution a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is authorised or approved as mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) or (2) applies where the educational services are made available, or (as the case may be) the offer to make such services available is made, in any part of the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) the inclusion of the word "university" in any name shall not be taken to be authorised by or by virtue of a Royal Charter relating to a university by reason of any provision of the Charter with respect to—

(a) the affiliation or association of other institutions to the university, or

(b) the accreditation by the university of educational services provided by other institutions.

(5) In approving the inclusion of the word "university" in any name for the purposes of this section the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid names which are or may be confusing.
(6) The Privy Council's power of approval under subsection (1) or (2) shall not be exercisable in a case where the inclusion of the word "university" in the name in question may be authorised by virtue of any other Act or any Royal Charter.
(7) In this section—
"relevant institution" means an institution within the further education sector or the higher education sector as defined by section 91(3) or (5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
"university", in the context of the reference in subsection (4) to a Royal Charter relating to a university, has the meaning given by section 90(3) of that Act.").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 130, 139, 147 and 151.
These amendments implement recommendations of the Dearing Report. Unfortunately, some institutions are using unofficial titles such as "university college" which have no clear meaning and are confusing to students and others. The Dearing Committee recommended action to put an end to this confusion. The amendments will prevent institutions in the further and higher education sectors in England and Wales from using unauthorised titles including the word "university".
The Dearing Committee also believed there was a place for a new category of "University College" for higher education institutions which fall short of full university status but have the power to award their own degrees. The Government accepted this recommendation but there are some technical obstacles to implementing it under the present legislation in England and Wales. The amendments remove these obstacles.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
130 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
(" . At the end of section 77(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (use of "university" in title of institution), there shall be added ", unless in that name that word is immediately followed by the word "college" or "collegiate"." ").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130.

209
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
131 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
CHARITABLE STATUS OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATIONS
(".—(1) After section 125 of the Education Reform Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Charitable status of a higher education corporation.
125A.—(1) A higher education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

(a) is administered by or on behalf of any higher education corporation, and

(b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,

shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993."
(2) After section 22 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there shall be inserted—
"Charitable status of a further education corporation.
22A.—(1) A further education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

(a) is administered by or on behalf of any further education corporation, and

(b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,

shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993." ").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 150.
These amendments deal with the exempt charitable status of further and higher education corporations. This is not a new matter. The last government made provision in the Education Reform Act 1988 to give higher education corporations exempt charitable status. The same arrangements were made for further education corporations when further education colleges became independent. Exempt charitable status confers certain financial advantages; for example, in respect of VAT treatment and rate relief.
Part of Clause 21 of the School Standards and Framework Bill makes comparable provision to deal with the exempt charitable status of the governing bodies of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools. It is desirable to have consistent legal treatment of the school, further and higher education governing
210
bodies that should have this status so that there is no doubt that they all are, or continue to be, exempt charities. Accordingly, the wording of Amendment No. 131 is designed to be consistent with Clause 21 of the schools Bill. But because further and higher education matters do not fall within the scope of the schools Bill, the necessary provision is included here.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 Clause 29, page 27, line 10, at end insert—
(""functions" includes powers and duties;
"modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions, and "modify" shall be construed accordingly;").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 135 to 138, 140 and 149.
These are purely technical amendments. Amendment No. 132 simply defines the terms "functions" and "modifications" for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 135 to 138 amend the provisions of the Bill which relate to its geographical extent. For the most part these amendments are simple consequentials; for example, to enable the new clause relating to the Scottish GTC to extend to Scotland. In addition, there are a number of technical changes needed to ensure that the new student support regime can operate effectively on a UK basis.
Amendment No. 140 simply removes the standard subsection that was inserted to allow the Bill to be properly debated in this House. It needs to be removed to allow the Bill to work once it has received Royal Assent.
Finally, Amendment No. 149 is a consequential technical drafting amendment which provides for the repeal of certain provisions in the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 and the Education Act 1980 which will become redundant when the Education Act 1962 is repealed by an order made under this Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
133 Clause 29, page 27, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert—
(""registered teacher" means (subject to paragraph 8 of Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council)) a person for the time being registered under section 4;").
134 Page 27, line 13, at end insert—
("(2) In the following provisions of this Act, namely—

(a) sections 11, (Prohibitions or restrictions on etnployment of teachers imposed by Secretary of State) and 16, and

(b) Schedule (Disciplinary powers of Council),

"employer", in relation to a teacher, includes a local education authority, governing body or other person who engage (or make arrangements for the engagement of) that

211
person to provide his services as a teacher otherwise than under a contract of employment, and "employed", "employment" and any expressions relating to the termination of employment shall be construed accordingly.").
135 Clause 31, page 27, line 21, leave out ("to 21") and insert (",(Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support), (Supply of information in connection with student loans), 20 and 21").
136 Clause 32, page 28, line 1, leave out from ("Scotland") to the end of line 5 and insert ("only—
sections 14 and (Representation of special educational needs teachers on General Teaching Council for Scotland),
section 18,
sections 24 and (Supply of information in connection with student loans: Scotland), except that subsections (3) and (5C) of section 73A, and section 73ZA so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of those subsections, of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (which are inserted by section 24) shall also extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,
section 25, and
sections (Joint exercise of functions of funding councils in Scotland) and (Scottish Further Education Funding Council: "relevant body" for purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995).").
137 Page 28, line 5, at end insert—
("(6A) The following provisions also extend to Scotland—
section 19 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(d) or (5) of that section,
section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised.
sections 26 and 27,
section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of educational institution, etc.),
section 28, and
this section.").
138 Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
("section 19 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(d) or (5) of that section,
section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised,").
139 Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
("section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of educational institution, etc.),").
140 Page 28, leave out lines 12 to 15.
141 Schedule 1, page 30, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) The Council may pay to the employer of a person who is a member of the Council (or a member of any of their committees but not a member of the Council) such compensation in respect of the loss of that person's services as the Secretary of State may determine.").
142 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("DISCIPLINARY POWERS OF COUNCIL
Investigation, hearing and determination of disciplinary cases
1.—(1) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the investigation by the Council of cases where—

(a) it is alleged that a registered teacher—

(i) is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence, or

(ii) has been convicted (at any time) of a relevant offence, or

(b) it appears to the Council that a registered teacher may be so guilty or have been so convicted,

and the hearing and determination by the Council of such cases where it is found on investigation that a registered teacher has a case to answer.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) requiring the Council, where any proceedings are being taken against any person under this Schedule—

(i) to serve a notice on him outlining the case against him, and

(ii) to give him the opportunity of appearing and making oral representations;

(b) entitling such a person to be represented, by any person whom he desires to represent him, at any hearing of the Council at which his case is considered;

(c) requiring the Council, where they do not find the case against such a person proved, to publish at his request a statement to that effect;

(d) empowering the Council to require persons to attend and give evidence or to produce documents or other material evidence;

(e) about the admissibility of evidence;

(f) enabling the Council to administer oaths;

(g) for the procedure to be followed by the Council in connection with proceedings under this Schedule to be such as may be specified in or determined under the regulations.

(3) No person shall be required by virtue of the regulations to give any evidence or produce any document or other material evidence which he could not be compelled to give or produce in civil proceedings in any court in England and Wales.
(4) The regulations may make provision for any functions conferred on the Council by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) to be excluded or restricted in such manner as may be specified in or determined under the regulations, including such provision for excluding or restricting any such functions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with a view to taking account of any powers exercisable by him, by virtue of section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988, on the grounds of the safety and welfare of persons under the age of 19.
(5) In framing any regulations under section 218(6) of that Act the Secretary of State may similarly take account of the functions conferred on the Council by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (so far as not excluded or restricted by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)); and any such regulations may include provision with respect to the allocation of cases between the Secretary of State and the Council and the reference of cases by one of them to the other.
Disciplinary orders: general
2.—(l) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with authorising the Council to make disciplinary orders in relation to persons who in proceedings under this Schedule are found by the Council—

(a) to have been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence; or

(b) to have been convicted (at any time) of a relevant offence.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for the Council to serve on any such person notice of the disciplinary order which has been made in relation to him, and of his right to appeal against the order under paragraph 6;

(b) as to the time when any such order takes effect, whether in a case where any such person exercises that right of appeal or otherwise;

(c) for the Council to publish, in such manner as may be prescribed, such information relating to the case of any such person and any disciplinary order made by the Council as may be prescribed.

(3) In this Schedule a "disciplinary order" means—

(a) a reprimand,

(b) a conditional registration order,

(c) a suspension order, or

(d) a prohibition order.

Conditional registration orders
3.—(1) Where a conditional registration order is made in relation to a person, he shall continue to be eligible for registration under section 4, but he shall comply with such conditions relevant to his employment as a teacher as may be specified in the order.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) the conditions which may be specified in a conditional registration order include conditions for requiring the person in question to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his becoming a competent teacher; and

(b) conditions may be so specified (whether for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or otherwise) that will involve expenditure on the part of that person.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), any condition specified in a conditional registration order shall have effect either—

(a) for such period as may be so specified, or

(b) without limit of time.

(4) A person in relation to whom a conditional registration order has been made may, in accordance with regulations, apply to the Council for them to vary or revoke any condition specified in the order.
(5) Regulations may make provision authorising the Council, if satisfied that such a person has failed to comply with any such condition, to make a suspension or prohibition order in relation to him.
Suspension orders
4. Where a suspension order is made in relation to a person—

(a) he shall cease to be eligible for registration under section 4, and

(b) if he is a registered teacher at the time when the order is made, his name shall be removed from the register accordingly,

but he shall become so eligible again at the end of such period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order.
Prohibition orders
5.—(1) Where a prohibition order is made in relation to a person—

(a) he shall cease to be eligible for registration under section 4, and

(b) if he is a registered teacher at the time when the order is made, his name shall be removed from the register accordingly,

and he shall not become so eligible again unless the Council, on an application made by him in accordance with regulations, so direct.
(2) No such application may be made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date when the prohibition order takes effect or such longer period as may be specified in the order.
Appeals against disciplinary orders
6.—(1) Regulations shall make provision for conferring on a person aggrieved by a disciplinary order made in relation to him under this Schedule a right to appeal against the order to the High Court within 28 days from the date on which notice of the order is served on him.
(2) On such an appeal the Court may make any order which appears appropriate.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any decision of the Court on such an appeal.
Supplementary provisions
7.—(1) Regulations may make provision for such incidental and supplementary matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with any of the preceding provisions of this Schedule, including provision—

(a) for the Council, where a disciplinary order takes effect in relation to a person, to serve notice of the order on that person's employer;

(b) requiring the employer of any such person to take in relation to that person such steps in consequence of the order (which may include his dismissal) as may be prescribed;

(c) authorising the delegation of functions conferred by virtue of this Schedule and the determination of matters by any person or persons specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations may also, in relation to any time after the date specified in an order under section 7(1), make provision for securing that any disciplinary order made under this Schedule as it applies in relation to England or (as the case may be) Wales has the corresponding effect in relation to Wales or (as the case may be) England.
(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may modify any provision of this Act.
Interpretation
8.—(1) In this Schedule—
"disciplinary order" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(3);
"registered teacher" includes—

(a) a person who was a registered teacher at the time of any alleged conduct or offence on his part, and

(b) a person who has made an application to be registered under section 4;

"relevant offence", in relation to a registered teacher, means—

(a) in the case of a conviction in the United Kingdom, a criminal offence other than one

215
having no material relevance to his fitness to be a registered teacher, and

(b) in the case of a conviction elsewhere, an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a);

"unacceptable professional conduct" means conduct which falls short of the standard expected of a registered teacher.
(2) Where regulations under paragraph 9(1)(b) of Schedule 1 require the Council to establish a committee for the purpose of discharging any of the functions conferred on them by virtue of this Schedule, references in this Schedule to the Council shall be construed, in relation to those functions, as references to that committee.").
143 Schedule 2, page 33, line 4, at end insert—
(""A body corporate created by virtue of section 59A(2)(c) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.",").
144 Page 33, line 20, leave out ("73(1)(f)") and insert ("73(f)").
145 Page 33, line 26, leave out ("73(1)(f)") and insert ("73(f)").
146 Page 33, line 30, at end insert—
("Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (c. 40)
. In section 1(6) of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (fees at further education establishments), for "section 27(6) of the Education Act 1980" substitute "section 218(9) of the Education Reform Act 1988".").
147 Page 33, line 33, at end insert—
("Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)
. In section 17 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ("further education corporation" and "operative date"), at the end of subsection (1) add "or which has become a further education corporation by virtue of section 47 of this Act".
. In section 90(3) of that Act (interpretation), after ""university"" insert "(except where the context otherwise requires)".").
148 Page 33, line 33, at end insert—
("Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)
. In section 3 of the Charities Act 1993 (the register of charities), after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) In subsection (5) above, paragraph (a) shall be read as referring also to—

(a) any higher education corporation within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988, and

(b) any further education corporation within the meaning of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992." ").

149 Page 34, line 33, at end insert—

("1980 c. 20.

Education Act 1980.

Section 19. Schedule 5.

1983 c. 40.

Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983.

In section 2(3), paragraph (a) and in paragraph (b) the word "other".").

150 Page 34, line 41, at end insert—

("1993 c. 10.

Charities Act 1993.

In Schedule 2, paragraphs (h) and (j).").

151 In the Title, line 6, leave out from ("them") to ("to") in line 8 and insert ("; to make provision with respect to the funding of higher education institutions and certain further education, and other matters relating to further and higher education institutions;").
152 In the Title, line 8, after ("institutions;") insert ("to enable the higher and further education funding councils in Scotland to discharge certain functions jointly;").
153 Line 9, after ("training;") insert ("to make provision with respect to the inspection of training and careers services provided in pursuance of arrangements or directions under the Employment and Training Act 1973; to provide that the Scottish Further Education Funding Council shall be a relevant body for the purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;").
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 153.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 135.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the early completion of our deliberations on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill means that the time available for the Unstarred Question on Guardsmen Fisher and Wright is no longer limited to a one-hour dinner adjournment debate. The debate can now run for a maximum of one-and-a-half hours. That change does not affect the time available to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or to my noble friend Lord Dubs, but it increases the maximum time available to other speakers from three minutes to six minutes.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
7.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when Guardsmen Fisher and Wright can expect release from life imprisonment.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. In particular, I thank the Government Chief Whip for his tremendous help, even at this late stage, to enable us to do justice to a serious problem which concerns us all.
The expectation of release remains as deferred until well beyond six years spent in custody. The Secretary of State, on reasoned analysis of the findings of the trial judge, has so decided and, for my part, that decision is not called in question because the trial judge found that there was no possible justification for either of the accused to have opened fire as they knew that they were not exposed to any appreciable degree of danger and that the man they shot was unarmed. Both Secretaries of State—fortunately one is present—were entitled to rely on those findings which inevitably slighted release: and are not open to criticism for having done so.
But the purpose of this Question is to challenge the rectitude of such findings on material deposed to on affidavits handed to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and placed in the Library; and so to seek immediate release pending judicial resolution as an exercise of ministerial discretion—a delegation of the Royal Prerogative—as acknowledged by Section 23 of the Northern Ireland Prisons Act. That is an exercise of discretion on which immediate release is not to be inhibited by treating these

217
cases as scheduled for accelerated release or by "comparable culpability" which in this context does not arise.
The merits of that argument (grounded on those affidavits) have not as yet been considered by either Secretary of State (in context with release) or judicially (in context with conviction) because Lance Sergeant Swift, in charge of this four-man foot patrol, and Guardsman Williams, the fourth man (whose evidence would have been in stark contradiction to those findings of the judge to which I have referred) were not called to testify at the trial.
These affidavits were sworn by the lance sergeant in amplification of his recorded interview by the RUC on 10th September; the colonel then in charge of the 1st Battalion of the Scots Guards; the company commander; and the search training officer of the battalion. The recorded interrogation of Williams by the RUC on 9th December 1992 is also included. They are all in the Library.
On 4th September, after the shooting these men returned to Girdwood barracks and were questioned by the colonel, who saw them with the company commander before they were arrested by the RUC and taken to the North Queen Street station, where they were questioned on 4th and 5th September. On 5th September there was a protest demonstration of about 500 who had gathered around the station. On the afternoon of that day the RUC charged them with murder. In Northern Ireland when British soldiers on duty have killed a civilian, the charge of manslaughter is not available.
When seen by the colonel and the company commander, according to the colonel's affidavit, these guardsmen were shocked and they said that they believed their lives, the lives of the patrol and of others were at risk, and that they acted in good faith in accordance with their terms of engagement. The colonel also deposed that these men indeed did act in accordance with the terms of engagement as armed soldiers on the streets of Northern Ireland, and under his command were in danger 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The evidence deposed shows that the findings of fact to support this conviction were fundamentally flawed; that these men did no less, and assuredly no more, than their ordained duty according to training; and that their convictions were a grave and manifest injustice.
The Crown contended in opening that the defence was "dishonest and concocted". The judge rejected the evidence of Fisher and Wright in favour of that of three residents in the New Lodge area, an area hostile to these patrols in which there was a high risk of terrorist activity, and where doors were kept open as an escape route: and in recent weeks such patrols had come under persistent attack from coffee-jar bombs—an improvised grenade, as some of your Lordships will know, which contains Semtex, shrapnel and a detonator and has a killing radius of 30 metres.
The defective structure for inevitable conviction (based on the evidence of the residents) was erected upon five flawed pillars of fact; a structure which could
218
never have been assembled if the lance sergeant and Williams had been called in evidence (and believed on their oath). For the lance sergeant would have said that he never searched McBride; that when McBride made a dash for it he did not shout, "Don't shoot"; and that he had every reason to believe that McBride was armed with a coffee-jar bomb; that he, Fisher, Wright and Williams thought that they were exposed to the danger of a "come on" ambush in which a coffee jar bomb would be used; and that as McBride had disregarded three yellow card warnings, there was every justification under the rules of engagement to open fire. Various aspects of his evidence would have been confirmed by Williams, and are confirmed by the affidavits in the Library.
The lance sergeant would have said that at the morning briefing on 4th September and orders of the day, the threat of attack from coffee-jar bombs was stressed as the patrol would be out for over two hours; that it was well known to the patrol that the coffee-jar bomb was often directed with a plastic bag from behind the engine of a parked car; that it was an extremely dangerous, easily concealed weapon, designed to be used against such foot patrols; that leading the patrol he had cause to stop McBride, who with an arm across his waist was holding something bulky under his jacket. Fisher covered him, Wright covered down the street, Williams covered the rear.
The lance sergeant started to question McBride and when he gave his name and address the lance sergeant knew that the RUC was searching at that address. The lance sergeant tried to make radio contact but failed. He said, "I'll search you. Empty your pockets onto the wall", and again tried to make radio contact. Before he was able to search, McBride grabbed the earpiece of the radio from the lance sergeant's ear and lunged at him. The lance sergeant recoiled and McBride made a dash for it, vaulting over the wall and railings. As McBride did so, he pulled from his jacket a thin white plastic bag containing a solid looking cylindrical object, which the lance sergeant thought would be a coffee-jar bomb to be used against the patrol in a "come on" ambush.
The lance sergeant made a dash to catch him but fell to the ground. Then McBride ran towards the wall. The lance sergeant shouted, "Grab him". Fisher tried to grab him but failed. The lance sergeant did not shout, "Don't shoot". They all went in pursuit. McBride was gaining on them, still with the bag in his hand, heading towards a parked car. Three yellow card warnings, "Army—halt or we'll fire", were given and disregarded. McBride was shot, still running with the bag in his hand towards the parked car. Wounded he fell behind the parked car and then struggled to a house. It was then that the lance sergeant shouted, "Don't shoot", as confirmed by Williams. The area was deserted. There was no one about until after the shooting.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, apart from expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising the issue, I want to make only two points. First, among all the encouraging gleams of hope emanating from Northern Ireland, on which—and on her

219
determination and perseverance—I warmly congratulate the right honourable Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the time has surely come to spare a thought, in practical and understanding terms, for those men and women of Her Majesty's Forces who have borne the heat and burden of the day in internal security for close on 30 years and have done their duty as they saw it under conditions of considerable tension and stress.
Secondly, I have always fervently believed—I may say I have had considerable encouragement and support for this view from very senior members of the legal profession—that if a soldier goes out on duty, when called in to aid the civil power, with absolutely no malice aforethought, and may possibly and tragically make a split second error of judgment under very great pressure, he should at the end of the day serve a sentence no greater than that commensurate with unlawful killing and manslaughter rather than with the appalling crime of murder.
I suggest that a split second error of judgment is all the more understandable because these men were operating in good faith in that grey area closely surrounding the yellow card rules of engagement. When these points are taken together, there should be no question but that the two guardsmen, Fisher and Wright, who have now served that sort of punishment and paid that sort of price, should be released forthwith. Under the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland, in which immense tolerance is being shown to terrorists serving multiple life sentences, that is the very least that the Secretary of State, who has the power, can do.
8 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I served in Belfast in 1973–74, as thousands of others have done. Before going to Northern Ireland, every regiment receives excellent, well-prepared and highly sophisticated training. I have patrolled in the remarkably unpleasant and dangerous New Lodge area of that city where Fisher and Wright were on the day that McBride was killed. I am aware of the guardsmen's feelings and the pressures and strains that they were under. There is no time to go through the incident that happened that morning. In any event, my noble friend Lord Campbell has dealt with it in some detail.
I wish to put some questions to the Minister. Why were the following personnel not called to give evidence? First, the company commander, who would have issued the instructions to Sergeant Swift and the patrol that day. Why were Sergeants Swift and Williams, the two other members of the patrol, not called to give evidence? Why was Company Sergeant Major Goodall, a trained search adviser and an expert witness, who would have provided vital evidence, not called? He would have, or could have, said that the search of the house through which McBride had passed did not take place for approximately one hour after the shooting incident; that the cordon surrounding the RUC search was insecure; that people were coming and going all the time, and any one of them could have taken a coffee jar grenade and disposed of it; that the house search took a mere 17 minutes, when in Goodall's expert opinion a proper search would have taken some
220
two-and-a-half hours. I agree with that; I, too, was trained in house searches. Why did the RUC not carry out their duties on that particular occasion in their normal diligent and painstaking way? Is the Minister aware that Sergeant Swift was subjected to hostile questioning by the RUC on behalf of the prosecution in a military barracks at Windsor shortly before the trial?
I now turn to some matters raised by Sir Ludovic Kennedy. Why did the judge accept the evidence of three local Irish residents who said that McBride had been searched in preference to the guardsmen's denial that any search had been carried out? It is worth noting that one of those witnesses had 12 convictions for shoplifting, as well as others for receiving and handling stolen goods, disorderly behaviour and failing to surrender to bail.
If a search of McBride did take place, and he was unarmed, certain questions arise which the judge made no attempt to answer. Why, if McBride was unarmed, did he run away? Why did Sergeant Swift order the guardsmen to grab him? If McBride had nothing to hide, why did he not stop when Fisher and Wright told him that they would open fire if he did not?
Fisher and Wright acted as they did because they were convinced from what they saw that McBride was carrying a coffee jar bomb and might use it, putting their lives in immediate danger. Army rules of engagement are extremely strict and are normally gone through carefully before every patrol goes out. Those two guardsmen opened fire in accordance with Army regulations, because they realised that their lives were in immediate danger, in the belief that McBride was in possession of a lethal weapon which he might have used.
In conclusion, the Secretary of State can, at any time, if she thinks fit, release a person serving a term of imprisonment for life. Why does she not do so? The cases of these two guardsmen are to be remitted to the Secretary of State for further consideration. It can only be hoped that she will release the guardsmen immediately. Are those two men, who were merely carrying out their duty for the nation, to languish in prison when others, many of whom have committed unspeakable crimes, are to be released? There has been a miscarriage of justice, and it must be put right immediately.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Like the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and others in this House, I have been in the same position as these two young soldiers were in on 2nd September 1992—on patrol in a hostile environment under the immediate threat of urban terrorism. As other noble Lords have said, in those circumstances one has to make constant life and death decisions. They are not just split second decisions; they are more deliberate decisions based on experience and the kind of attacks that the regiment has endured.
In much of the debate about this matter there has been the dreadful fallacy of moral equivalence: the tendency to apply the same standards to terrorists on the one hand

221
and to soldiers and policemen on the other. But they are not the same. When the terrorist goes out in the morning with his armalite, his grenade or coffee jar bomb, he sets out to kill or maim, not merely soldiers and policemen but often innocent civilians as well. In my experience, when a soldier puts on his equipment, he does not go out to kill. More often he goes out on dangerous duty with a determination if possible to avoid inflicting death upon other people. That is my experience of the British soldier in such circumstances. That is how they behave. They are required to carry out dangerous and complicated duties. These young men believed that they were doing that duty.
They might, as the noble and gallant Lord said, have made a mistake. I am not sure that I would go that far. When the man who was eventually killed pulled the earphone away from the patrol leader and ran, was that the action of an innocent man? Were the two soldiers of whom we are speaking supposed to regard that as an innocent and normal procedure? I think not.
But even if they made that mistake, they were on duty and under military discipline; and there are military disciplinary channels for dealing with that kind of mistake. What happened to these two young soldiers is that they were sentenced to prison for life. One of them has already spent a quarter of his life behind bars for doing what he believed to be his duty.
I am not one of those who will rush to blame or criticise the judge on this occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, there was not a possibility of a verdict of manslaughter being found in this case because it was not available; and the sentence was mandatory. I suppose it is possible to suggest that even judges can make mistakes, like soldiers sometimes do. But, whatever the reasoning, the facts and the legal arguments behind this case, I believe that there has been a very grave miscarriage of justice. It is important that this miscarriage of justice should be rectified at once.
It has been suggested—and I think there may be something in the suggestion—that the reasons why the Government are finding it difficult to bring about the release of these young men have a political content: that to release them might, to use the jargon of the day, send the wrong message; that it might in some way upset the peace process. If that is so, it is an outrage. To use the workaday jargon of the City of London, there should always be a Chinese wall between political calculation and the administration of justice. There is absolutely no excuse for keeping two young men behind bars because someone has judged that to release them may send the wrong political message. That is a total fallacy and an outrage.
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that we in this House should now call upon the Government to exercise ministerial discretion, which it is open to the Government to do. In my view, this is not just a question of the early release of these two young men. Someone said that they had already been in prison long enough. They have been in prison far too long. We should be calling not for their early release or a reconsideration of the circumstances but for their immediate release. As I said, it would be outrageous if
222
this were not done for political reasons. What would be even worse, and what no civilised or intelligent person would understand, would be if terrorists convicted of murder—multiple murder in many cases—were released from prison in pursuit of a political process while these two young men remained in prison. That would be not just inconceivable but utterly outrageous.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing this Unstarred Question. First, I should like to offer my sympathy to the family of the late Peter Paul McBride, the young man who died in this tragic incident on 4th September 1992. Secondly, I wish to offer my deepest sympathy to the families of Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright, who, I understand, have behaved with classic dignity during their misfortune. Thirdly, I wish to offer my sincere best wishes to the two guardsmen in prison at the moment. Like the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Vivian, I too had the privilege to serve in uniform in Northern Ireland and I say sincerely: "There, but for the grace of God, went I".
I understand that the law in Northern Ireland does not permit a court to impose a discretionary sentence on someone convicted of murder. Instead, it requires the court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. It therefore falls to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to decide whether, and, if so, when, it is appropriate to release a life sentence prisoner on licence. I understand that the Secretary of State will listen to the advice given to the Life Sentence Review Board. That advice was given in October last year. I understand that on that board there are senior officials of the Northern Ireland Office, psychiatrists, psychologists and prison staff. I hope that the Minister can assure this House that, when examining the case of these two guardsmen, the senior officials from the Northern Ireland Office on the Life Sentence Review Board were not in any way influenced by the political situation at that time in Northern Ireland.
I further understand that, when the board considers that a prisoner has served long enough to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence and is considered to be no longer a threat to the public, the board will recommend to the Secretary of State that the prisoner be released. Let us consider those three points.
Retribution, in Old Testament terms, means an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, does it not? Five years in prison for those who have worn with pride the uniform of their nation is surely sufficient retribution for what was a tragic error committed in the course of most dangerous duty.
Deterrence means, I understand, preventing someone from carrying out a similar course of action in future. Does anyone in this House or elsewhere believe that these two servicemen will ever be in a position, or be put in a position, in which they will carry out the same action again? The answer must be no.
I know and admire the Ministry of Defence. I understand that in similar circumstances, where a soldier has accidentally killed, murdered or committed

223
manslaughter against a civilian, that soldier does not carry arms in Northern Ireland again. I also understand that cases will be looked at on other occasions, especially when there is a significant material change in circumstances. Ministers in another place and noble Lords on the ministerial Benches have expressed the view that the situation has indeed changed dramatically for the better in Northern Ireland. I ask them to bear that in mind when they consider the cases of these two guardsmen languishing in gaol.
Having had the privilege to serve as a soldier in the Province in the 1970s, I sincerely believe that it is the wish—the demand—of people on the mainland and all people of good will in Northern Ireland, people I deeply admire, that these soldiers should be released from gaol, not forthwith, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, but with immediate effect.
We are shortly to hear the Constable of the Tower of London, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. He will know, as many of your Lordships know, that there are three important swords in the Tower of London. One is the Sword of State, which we see at the opening of Parliament every year. The second is the Sword of Justice. That has a sharp point, evidently demonstrated in the cases of Guardsman Wright and Guardsman Fisher. The third is Curtana, the Sword of Mercy. I hope that the Secretary of State will show mercy.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if any one of the following defects in our law had been removed before the shooting took place in this case, then these guardsmen would now be at liberty. The defects to which I refer are, first, that murder carries with it an automatic life sentence. Time and again in this House we have said that, because the circumstances giving rise to a murder vary infinitely, then the life sentence which should be available for the offence should be discretionary. Thus, the whole range of sentences would be the same for murder as for any other serious crime.
I had the privilege to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment when, in 1991, an amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—the chairman of the committee—to provide for the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. It was passed in this House with a majority of nearly 100. There were two former Lord Chancellors, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and five Law Lords among those who voted in its favour.
The second defect is that the settling of the tariff and the decision on release is taken by a politician, in private, with no right of appeal. The Home Affairs Committee recently recommended that,
"it is wrong in principle for the Executive—that is, a politician—to have a role in decisions which effectively determine how long a person subject to a mandatory life sentence spends in prison; a role it does not have in discretionary life sentences".
It is refreshing to observe that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when in Opposition in 1989, said when the Select Committee's report was being debated:
224
"The point is that the duration of imprisonment should be decided by judges in an open process and not by the Executive behind closed doors, without even the authority of Parliament".—[Official Report, 6/11/89; col. 522.]
That was his view as shadow Lord Chancellor. It was also substantially his view when he was asked a Starred Question on 24th June last. I had briefed him in advance of his previous statement, to which I made reference, and asked him in terms whether or not he still agreed with it. His answer was,
"The only difference between my position as expressed then and now is that today I have a keener awareness of the arguments on the other side".—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1463.]
Finally, under this heading, I refer to the observation made by the current Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again in the debate on the 1991 Act to which I have made reference where he said, "To be blunt"—if one can imagine that ever occurring with the noble Lord—
"I believe that the public have an infinitely greater confidence in judges than in Ministers—of any government—to make decisions on the length of sentences".—[Official Report, 18/4/91; col. 1570.]
The third deficiency is that it was not open to the judge to bring in a verdict of manslaughter. In that regard it is interesting to note that the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in its 14th report way back in 1980, made this recommendation:
"Where a person kills in a situation in which it is reasonable for some force to be used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime but the defendant uses excessive force, he should be liable to be convicted of manslaughter not murder if, at the time of the act, he honestly believed that the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances".
That recommendation featured in the Law Commission's draft criminal code in 1979. The Select Committee to which I have already made reference recommended that the law be so changed. Significantly, in the Clegg case, both the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and your Lordships Appellate Committee, when the case came before it, made the same recommendation; in fact, the Appellate Committee wondered at the extent to which it could itself lay down that a verdict of manslaughter was open in that situation but decided that it needed legislation and was beyond its powers acting in a judicial capacity.
I understand that the guardsmen are entering their sixth year of imprisonment. That is equivalent, if one was dealing with a determinate sentence, to eight or nine years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the greatest respect, the noble and learned Lord is trespassing on time allotted to others.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am trespassing by one minute and I intend to take one more minute.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am fully aware of that, but I am afraid it is taking the time allotted to others. It is now two minutes over time.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Baroness overlooks the fact that everybody has not used up their

225
ration. As I was saying, I understand that the guardsmen are entering their sixth year in prison and that is the equivalent of an eight or nine-year determinate sentence, one-third being allowed for parole. I therefore conclude as I began by saying that, if the defects were not as they are in our law, they would now have been at liberty.
8.27 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for raising this issue as an Unstarred Question. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for recognising the importance of this matter and being in his place tonight.
Time is short, but I am not known for speaking at length. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the effect that this matter has on morale in the armed services. Before doing so, I remind the House that, as a serving officer in the TA, I have an interest to declare.
Soldiers on operations are subject to a wide variety of stresses and strains, to which they will readily admit. The most obvious is the pain of separation from their loved ones. Another is the risk of injury, or worse. In that context I draw the attention of the House to the tragic death yesterday of Corporal Gary Fenton who was assisting the RUC. I am sure that the whole House offers condolences to his family. We do not yet know what the full circumstances were so it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions at this time.
Good performance on operations is important for career reasons—it is called "the right tick in the box". But there is also a secret, dread fear, not often talked about; that is, the fear of misconduct during operations. At the lower end of the scale we are talking about offences such as negligently discharging one's weapon, which could result in a fine of £1,000 and an adverse confidential report. At the higher end we are talking about misinterpreting the rules of engagement, with the tragic results of which we are all aware. Moreover, soldiers can also be in severe difficulties if they fail to open fire when they should. They cannot just play safe.
It is important to understand that, while soldiers will readily accept discipline even if it has to be severe, they are becoming increasingly demoralised, disillusioned and disheartened by this affair. They cannot understand how rehabilitated known terrorists become politicians and terrorist prisoners are released while at the same time these two soldiers, who did not get out of bed that fateful day intending to commit those offences, are still in prison. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was Chief of the General Staff in September 1992 when the incident involving Guardsmen Fisher and Wright took place and I feel very strongly that these two young guardsmen have suffered real injustice. Therefore, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising this Unstarred Question.
I sense from discussions that have taken place in this House and in the other place that there is not really an understanding of the demands we placed on our soldiers
226
who had to operate in a hostile urban environment in their own country against a ruthless enemy and under constant threat of attack. Instant decisions had to be made in very confused situations. In addition to coping with that, we asked them to cope with the yellow card—when can and when can they not use lethal force? I have certainly asked myself how well I would do in similar circumstances.
Certainly, the Scots Guards were in no doubt about the threat that they faced in September 1992. There had been more than 20 attacks with lethal coffee-jar bombs and 18 incidents of shooting and in one a guardsman had been killed. It is important to reflect again on the incident which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described so vividly. I think it is totally understandable that Fisher and Wright acted as they did. This was not just a routine patrol. The patrol had two specific tasks in support of the RUC, based on hard intelligence; one concerned an illegal drinking club and the other a search of Flat 5b in Templar House, the block where McBride, the man stopped but not searched, because he ran away, by Sergeant Swift.
I think it is totally understandable that Fisher and Wright reacted as they did. If one thinks about it, the patrol commander had stopped this person who they thought had something under his bomber jacket, They stopped him and then he violently pulled from the patrol commander's ear his earphone, leaped across a wall and ran off. That was very suspicious. Despite what the residents said at the trial, Sergeant Swift and Fisher and Wright are adamant that no proper search took place. They are equally adamant that McBride appeared to be carrying something.
That leads me to the trial itself. I find it incredible that key witnesses were not called: the company commander, Major Page; Company Sergeant Major Goodall—a trained search adviser and expert witness; and Guardsman Williams. But even more incredible is the decision not to call Lance Sergeant Swift, the patrol commander, who had a better opportunity than anyone else to say whether McBride was properly searched and whether he thought McBride was carrying something. I think it is even more incredible given that the judge said that the actual search of the suspect—in other words, saying that the search proved that he was not carrying something—was the crux of the prosecution's case. He seemed to rely more on the evidence of three local residents. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, described one of those witnesses to the House.
I recognise the difficulty faced by the judge but I sense that he did not really understand either the pressure or how Fisher and Wright thought in the middle of that incident. I am left with the uneasy feeling that, if this had not been a Diplock Court but had been a normal court with a neutral jury, a different verdict would have been returned. My unease is heightened when I know that such an eminent and respected fighter for justice as Sir Ludovic Kennedy supports what has been said.
Very surprisingly, as a number of noble Lords have said, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright are still in prison and have been in prison or under close arrest for very

227
nearly six years. Private Thain spent only three-and-a-half years and Private Clegg four years. I find it difficult to understand why.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to morale. I endorse what he said. This causes deep concern within the Army, but the Army is a non-political, disciplined service that rightly does not get involved in open critical debate, and its commanders cannot publicly, for reasons that I understand, express their opinion. But you should not, my Lords, underestimate the strength of their feelings. In such cases, those at the sharp end rely on the chain of command—their superior commanders—to fight their corner and look after their interests. This chain of command includes their political masters, because of course it is not military commanders or even the Ministry of Defence that can make decisions in such a case.
The Army's overall record in Northern Ireland has been outstanding. We, the nation, expect the loyalty and dedication of our Army when we, the nation, order it to Northern Ireland. But loyalty should flow two ways—upwards and downwards. In short, any government has a duty to stand by those it orders to discharge its policies. I wonder what Fisher and Wright feel about this. So I, too, hope that the Secretary of State will exercise her discretion without delay and release these two guardsmen; but I think they deserve a retrial as well.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, I have read the affidavits and statements that have been placed in the Library and I have listened with great care to all the speeches made so far, particularly the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It seems quite clear to me that there has been a miscarriage of justice here and that these two Scots Guardsmen, Fisher and Wright, who to date, as we have heard, have spent all but six years in prison, ought never to have been convicted.
How many of your Lordships sitting here this evening have ever tried to put yourselves in their position? Can you imagine what it would be like to be convicted of murder when you were simply carrying out your duty and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, simply as an aid to the civil power? That, let us remember, was the sole reason these two men were in Northern Ireland anyway. It does not really bear thinking about.
In this country we abolished the death penalty since it had become obvious that down the ages men and women had been convicted of murder and were sent to their execution, mainly by hanging, when they were innocent of the crime of which they had been found guilty. In other words, terrible mistakes have been made in the past and terrible mistakes can still be made today. Take, for example, the case of the man who only the week before last was released after completing more than 23 years in gaol for a murder he never committed. His conviction has been found to be unsafe.
In all places over which the Sovereign has dominion justice is done in the name of the Sovereign. She delegates that power to the judiciary and no longer
228
interferes with its administration save to be the granter of a royal pardon on the advice of the Secretary of State. Justice is to be administered in an even-handed way both to those who acknowledge allegiance and to those who do not, irrespective of political or any other extraneous considerations.
Although ignorant of the technicalities of defences to killing, it seems to me, as a former regular officer and as a layman, that justice, as ordinarily understood, has not been done as regards the conviction of these two Guardsmen. How could it be when vital witnesses for the defence were never even called? Now that the Government have access to all the relevant papers in this tragic case, I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Army legal services did everything they possibly could to help Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in their defence.
Whatever general arrangements have been made, or may be made, for the release of prisoners is not the point. In the wholly exceptional circumstances that have been outlined to your Lordships this evening what, in the name of common sense, can be the justification for continuing to detain these two men? Is it not reasonable to ask that they be released at once on licence?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for instigating this very important debate. I am speaking tonight because I am appalled at the treatment of Guardsman Wright and Guardsman Fisher. As a Scots Guardsman, I feel that the whole situation has been a slur on their reputation and also on the regiment which has served sovereign and country since 1642 with honour and distinction, in exactly the same way as these two guardsmen were doing in every sense of the word.
It is now known that the evidence procured at the time of the trial was shabby to say the least of it, and that the defence of these two men was inadequate. A great deal of the blame falls on the government of the time. Sadly, Dr. Mowlam has inherited what is called "a hot potato". The whole affair has now obviously become a political football, regrettably at the expense of these two soldiers who have been in prison for nigh on six years. This wicked injustice should now be brought to a sharp conclusion by their immediate release.
There has been a great deal of public opinion expressed and many letters to the Prime Minister and Dr. Mowlam. All the answers have been similarly evasive, calling their prison sentence the result of a heinous crime. This was no crime. The soldiers were doing their duty to the letter. Surely, whatever government have power, they must uphold their Armed Forces to the hilt; otherwise the whole system collapses. Who would join the Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force if they felt that they would be let down in this way? Why cannot the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland release these men immediately? It is within her power to do so.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, many of your Lordships tonight have spoken with great military experience and a military background. Perhaps I may also express my concern from a legal background at the result of the proceedings that were brought against Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked the question: why did the judge accept the evidence of the witnesses? Indeed, another of your Lordships posed the question: did the judge understand the position that these guardsmen were in? It has to be said that all the judge had before him was a one-sided account of what had occurred on this particular occasion. As a lawyer, I would focus on the decision by the prosecuting authority to prosecute the two guardsmen for murder.
If one looks at the framework, as excellently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, what does one have? Peter McBride was quite properly stopped by a guards' patrol in the course of its duty. He gave an address which those guardsmen, together with the RUC, were about to search on the basis that they were premises where it was suspected there were IRA sympathisers. He pulled the earpiece away from the sergeant; he ran away and did not stop when challenged. There is no dispute about those facts. That is the framework within which the decision to prosecute was taken. The overwhelming inference was that he had something serious to hide by the conduct which he exhibited on that occasion.
Yet the prosecution took a firm decision to present the case of murder against these two men based on the evidence of three bystanders. It may be that it can justify that decision on the basis that no bomb was found in the premises into which the young man ran, although there was plenty of time for him to dispose of the bomb if he had one. It may say that, in the heat of the moment, the two guardsmen did not immediately warn their colleagues that a bomb was in the vicinity.
The evidence which those three bystanders gave in court was, in the event, inconsistent with the earliest accounts that they had given to the police. As has been said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, the essential point was—did Lance Sergeant Swift search Peter McBride or did he not? That was the factual issue in the case. The very witness who could give evidence to that—the man who either did or did not carry out the search; namely, Lance Sergeant Swift—was not called to give evidence.
It is not enough for the prosecuting authority to say, "Oh well, we handed over his account to the police, given on that same day to the defence for it to use that evidence if it so wished and for it to call the witness if they thought fit". There are many reasons why a defence legal team does not call a witness in defence. As a matter of practice one would hesitate in any case to call witnesses for the defence. In our system the burden is firmly on the prosecution. Although the noble Lord, Lord Westbury, suggested that the guardsmen were inadequately defended, I would not go along with that simply on the basis that statements may have been handed over which did not result in those witnesses being called by the defence.
230
When the case reached the appeal stage the findings of fact could not be effectively challenged by the appeal lawyers. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hutton, said that the main objective facts relating to the killing were not in dispute. He said,
"No bomb or firearm of any type was found in the course of the search and it was not in dispute that at no time had the deceased been carrying a gun or coffee jar bomb or any type of bomb. Therefore, as the deceased was shot when he was unarmed the appellants, on the objective facts, had no lawful justification for firing at the deceased".
The trial judge was bound by the evidence that was put before him to make findings of fact. The appeal court was equally bound to follow those findings of fact in the absence of any application for further evidence at that stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out the distinction between terrorists who go out intending to kill and soldiers who are intent on keeping the peace when they go out. When a member of the IRA is caught he wishes to be treated as a prisoner of war even though he represents only a tiny unrepresentative terrorist faction. He will not answer an interrogation; he will plead not guilty at his trial and he will not give evidence. He will go to prison where special IRA arrangements are in hand for him to be treated as though he were a prisoner of war and not a common criminal. Then he sits and waits for the armistice.
It is totally unacceptable that a person should assume for himself those privileges when people like the guardsmen who are real soldiers representing their country and who have the support of the whole community behind them, are treated as common murderers and kept in prison for an overlong time. It is time they were released.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it is not only Members of your Lordships' House who must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for tabling this Unstarred Question; it is also necessary to state that I am very grateful for the manner in which my noble friend opened the debate because reporting of this case has been inadequate. The newspapers have consistently been inhibited by threats of libel and, indeed, by libel cases which have already cost the Daily Telegraph £130,000 plus costs in this and similar incidents, and there is another case which may well cost even more. Therefore, the chance and the hope that my noble friend's remarks will be widely reported must be extremely helpful, as must all the points made by your Lordships.
The case has been explained carefully by noble Lords. We must all be particularly grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Vivian and of the two noble and gallant Lords who have spoken. However, unless we have a retrial, this case is in the past and I believe that I should touch tonight on matters relating to the future.
I am most grateful to the Minister for a letter that he wrote to me a fortnight ago on this case in which he confirmed that Mr. Justice Coghlin was not persuaded

231
that a sufficient case had been made out to quash the Secretary of State's decision. I now quote from the Minister's letter, which reads:
"However, he [Mr. Justice Coghlin] granted a declaration that there has been a failure to provide proper and adequate reasons for the decision to distinguish the applicant's cases from that of Thain and has remitted their cases to the Secretary of State for further consideration in accordance with that Order".
Let us hope that something comes of that because the two guardsmen seem to have been treated in a different manner from Clegg and Thain.
Secondly, I ask the Minister yet again—I have asked this of several Ministers both in this Government and in the previous government—for an absolute and unequivocal declaration that there is nothing political in the failure to release the two men. I accept that the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary of State—I am glad to see him in his place—had a very difficult time. I quote from Republican News (or An Phoblacht) of 11th June 1998:
"We know they are going to get out, but what really grates is the fact that they are still serving members of the British army. They'll have maybe £60,000 in back money waiting for them when they get out, and we know that their families have been assured that they won't have to go back to Belfast, but that they'll probably be posted to Germany".
I again ask the Minister to repeat that there is nothing political in the decision as it stands at present. I am sure that the Minister has already given this assurance, but I should like to hear it tonight.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but I detected a certain lack of assurance in what he has just been saying that what he was seeking was in fact the case—an assurance from me, as the previous Secretary of State, that there was no political component or influence in the decision that I took in the first instance. I seek to take no refuge in the fact that, as my noble friend said, I had a difficult time. I had not spent nine years as a Law Officer in Northern Ireland seeking to uphold the rule of law to abandon that when I took office as Secretary of State. I give my noble friend now the assurance about which I hope that he was not really in any doubt.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, of course I accept what my noble and learned friend has said. He was Secretary of State in another place, but I had an assurance from my noble friend Lady Denton in almost exactly the same terms as he has just given. I accepted that as being the same as having the assurance from the Secretary of State himself.
My final point is to ask that when Fisher and Wright are let out they will be permitted to continue to serve in the Scots Guards, should they so wish. It would be no surprise if they are fed up with the treatment that they have received when trying to maintain law and order. However, I hope that, like Corporal Clegg, they will feel that they wish to continue to serve. I hope that they will remember Nemo me impune lacessit—touch me not with impunity.
8.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, perhaps I may first join with all those noble Lords who have complimented the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing this very important debate. At the outset, I should like also to pay a tribute to the Army and to the many young soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland with enormous courage in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.
I am aware of the considerable interest in this House in these particular Northern Ireland life sentence cases and I understand the concern that these cases should be dealt with fairly and consistently. I am therefore particularly grateful for this opportunity to advise the House on where these cases currently stand following the most recent judicial review judgment, delivered on 22nd May.
The background to these cases is well known and has been explained by a number of your Lordships. The two guardsmen were jointly convicted of the murder of an unarmed civilian, Peter Paul McBride, who was killed during an incident which occurred while they were on patrol in Belfast.
The courts, both at first instance and upon appeal, found that, on the object facts of the case, the guardsmen had no lawful justification for firing at the deceased and that the guardsmen were guilty of murder. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 8th March 1996.
Having been convicted and imprisoned in Northern Ireland, the guardsmen's cases fell to be considered under Northern Ireland life sentence review arrangements.
In April 1997, following a judicial review of the cases, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, decided that the cases should be considered by the Life Sentence Review Board at the five-year point of sentence—that is to say, in October 1997.
The cases were duly considered by the review board and its confidential advice was subsequently passed to and considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She decided that the cases of the guardsmen should be referred back to the Life Sentence Review Board in October 1998—that is to say, at the six-year point of sentence.
It was this decision which was the subject of the recent judicial review and the judgment delivered on 22nd May. In it, Mr. Justice Coghlin did not quash the Secretary of State's decision. However, he granted a declaration that there had been a failure to provide proper and adequate reasons for the decision to distinguish the applicants' cases from that of Private Thain and remitted their cases to the Secretary of State for further consideration.
The Secretary of State complied with the requirements of that judgment last week. On 17th June both guardsmen were provided in writing with the Secretary of State's detailed reasoning.

233
The reasons included the overall involvement of the respective soldiers in the two individual incidents; their knowledge of the whereabouts of the rest of their respective patrols during the pursuit; the fact that the guardsmen were acting in concert; and the passage of time since Thain's case had been considered and the knowledge of more recent, relevant cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and many other noble Lords raised concerns about the safety of the convictions. As the noble Lord has informed the House, he recently forwarded me a number of sworn affidavits which are purported to contain fresh evidence about the cases. He has also asked whether, given concerns about the convictions, the prisoners could be released by the Secretary of State. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the helpful way in which he has advised me of his general approach to this evening's debate and for sending me copies of the affidavits. I appreciate his helpfulness.
I should explain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State previously had a statutory power to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal when it appeared that there had been a miscarriage of justice. However, the Secretary of State's statutory power lapsed when the new independent Criminal Cases Review Commission began its work on 31st March 1997. As a consequence, questions about the safety of any conviction in Northern Ireland are no longer matters properly for the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wishes, I would be happy to forward his papers to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It has been put to me that, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State no longer has a role in referring cases back to the Court of Appeal, she retains responsibility for their release from imprisonment. She could therefore use this power to release the prisoners pending consideration of the cases by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I believe that that is the thrust of many arguments advanced by noble Lords this evening. In the alternative, it has been suggested that some other mechanism for release can be used such as the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, to use its full title. I understand that if the Criminal Cases Review Commission refers cases back to the Court of Appeal it would be open to the prisoner to apply to the court for bail.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is properly available to be used in truly exceptional circumstances where other mechanisms are not available or would be unduly delayed. As to the Secretary of State's general power to release life sentence prisoners, this is not unfettered. She is required to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. Moreover, in exercising her powers she is required to act on a rational basis; she must not be influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations and must have regard to material factors only.
In the consideration of any life sentence case the proper starting point must be that the prisoner has been properly convicted of murder or some other serious offence. It is not the role of the Secretary of State to attempt to second-guess the Northern Ireland courts, and it would be entirely improper for her to replace their judgments about guilt or
234
innocence with her own. Furthermore, in the consideration of life sentence cases she must pay full regard to the facts as found by the courts and available in their judgments.
Noble Lords have asked when the guardsmen can expect release from life imprisonment. Given the nature of a life sentence within the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, I cannot answer that question. In Northern Ireland, unlike England and Wales, there is no tariff system and therefore no specific penal element formulated at the outset of an indeterminate sentence. There is in consequence no minimum period that a life sentence prisoner is required to serve. Instead, all cases are considered in the round with the various elements of the sentence; that is to say, retribution and deterrence, risk and the public interest being relevant in varying degrees throughout sentence. In Northern Ireland the average period served in custody towards a life sentence is 15 years. This is in the context that life sentence prisoners generally serve a period within the range of 10 to 20 years.
Fisher and Wright have now served just over five-and-a-half years in custody and are due to be seen a second time by the Life Sentence Review Board in October when they will have served six years in custody. This contrasts with most other cases that are seen for the first time at the 10-year point of sentence. The exceptional treatment of these cases reflects the fact these are not normal life sentence cases. Mitigating factors include the difficult circumstances in which the guardsmen were operating in the course of their duty and the fact that there was no premeditation. The circumstances which resulted in this particular murder cannot in any way be compared with carefully pre-planned and executed murders carried out by terrorist-type offenders. However, the decision not to release these prisoners reflects the fact that a very serious crime was committed which resulted in the death of an unarmed civilian youth.
A number of noble Lords have compared these cases with those of terrorist prisoners who stand to be released early under mechanisms being proposed in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill to be debated in your Lordships' House shortly. Fisher and Wright, like other prisoners convicted of scheduled offences, will be eligible to apply to have their cases considered by the proposed sentence review body. This does not mean that they are being treated as if they were terrorists. If a declaration is made in their favour, they will be required to serve roughly two-thirds of the period that they would otherwise be required to serve under the existing review arrangements. I have already explained that the guardsmen have had their cases considered under existing arrangements much earlier than most other prisoners.
I should like to deal with a number of specific points raised in this debate. I fear that many of them are not matters for the Government. They concern the way in which the defence was conducted and matters falling within the discretion of the judge. Therefore, they are not matters over which the Government have any influence, nor should they. I deal with one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others. For the sake of absolute clarity, there is no political content whatsoever in the Government's handling of this case. The Government have not been influenced by

235
political considerations at all. The position of the Government is based solely on the merits of the two particular cases.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. That being the case, what has changed since the release of Private Thain? The noble Lord said that circumstances were different. What is different except the political situation?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, political considerations did not influence my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in her decision on the previous recommendation of the Life Sentence Review Board. Each case is treated on its merits. The details of the particular cases of Fisher and Wright distinguish them from that of Private Thain. That is the reality. That was what the Secretary of State looked into again following the judicial review proceedings.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the defence and the judge. He said that the Government had no control over how they conducted their respective responsibilities. The Government have overall control over the mounting of a prosecution. Has the Minister looked at the prosecution file? Can he inform the House why it was that only one side of the evidence was put forward by the prosecution as part of its case?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have not looked at the prosecution file. But the fact is that the decision was made by the court and was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is that decision which noble Lords believe that the Government can reverse. The Government cannot reverse that decision; they have no power to do so, and it would be improper were they to do so.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As I understand it, he will be in charge of the promotion of the Bill next Monday which gives the Secretary of State absolute authority to release terrorists at any time of her choosing. I do not want to bracket the guardsmen with terrorists, but would they have been in a more fortunate position after Monday if they had been terrorists?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, let me make it clear that there are two separate and parallel procedures open to the guardsmen. One is the existing procedure under which the Life Sentence Review Board will look at the position again in October and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The alternative procedure—subject to both Houses agreeing the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill—is that the review body established under the new legislation could also look at their cases because they had been convicted of scheduled offences.
236
I cannot predict how quickly that body will operate and what priorities it will have for its work. The prisoners now have two alternative ways forward. They will have lost nothing by having the second procedure—if Parliament agrees—indeed, they may well gain some time by it; in other words, the new body might deal with their cases more quickly.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I think that the Minister asked what I would advise them to do with regard to those two procedures. The Minister must understand that I am not instructed professionally in this matter. They will have to seek professional advice. I doubt whether they will seek my advice. Therefore I am not in a position to advise them. We shall read the Minister's most helpful speech. There are two avenues. If either of those avenues is taken on the advice of whoever they consult, why, in effect, cannot ministerial discretion—the delegation of the royal prerogative—be granted for immediate release? That is what I am after. I cannot advise these men unless I am instructed to do so. I am entitled to say, in the name of justice, under the royal prerogative, release these men.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is, of course, the third avenue to which I have referred, but it is not for the Government to give this type of advice. There is the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have offered to send the noble Lord's papers to the commission as being the most appropriate procedure for dealing with miscarriages of justice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful. I accept the offer. They will be handed over, but I cannot advise unless instructed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that I have answered all the specific questions. Most of them, I repeat, concern the way in which the court operated, the judge's decision, and the way in which the defence conducted the case. I do not know that I can say any more on that.
As regards the points made by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner, which related to the whole legal basis for this and many other cases, all I can say is that I will draw his remarks to the notice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that I can do more than that. Let me give the assurance that political considerations have in no way influenced the Government's approach to these two cases.
I have listened carefully to all the views that have been expressed. I can give noble Lords the assurance that these cases will continue to be considered, as they have been to date, solely on their merits, without reference to any other extraneous considerations.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  G8 Birmingham Summit: Cost
  G8 Birmingham Summit: Cost
  Commonwealth Institute: Funding
  Commonwealth Institute: Funding
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Cost Limits
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Cost Limits
  Oakwood Integrated Primary School: Free School Meals
  Oakwood Integrated Primary School: Free School Meals
  Oakwood Integrated School: SEN Provision
  Oakwood Integrated School: SEN Provision
  Northern Ireland Office: Leaks
  Northern Ireland Office: Leaks
  Loans to Young Persons
  Loans to Young Persons
  VAT: Refunds on Purchases in EU
  VAT: Refunds on Purchases in EU
  United Kingdom Population: Grandparents Born Abroad
  United Kingdom Population: Grandparents Born Abroad
  English Heritage Monuments at Risk Survey
  English Heritage Monuments at Risk Survey
  Berlin Airlift: Commemorative Stamps
  Berlin Airlift: Commemorative Stamps
  Home Office Presenting Officers
  Home Office Presenting Officers
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Schools: Definition
  Schools: Definition
  Agenda 2000: Tenant Farmers
  Agenda 2000: Tenant Farmers
  Quarantine: Advisory Group Report
  Quarantine: Advisory Group Report
  Advisory Board on Family Law: Annual Report
  Advisory Board on Family Law: Annual Report