Sitting of 17 March 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 24 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Council for Independent Schools
    Mr. Forth: When he next plans to meet the Scottish Council for Independent Schools. [33155]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have arranged to meet the Scottish Council for Independent Schools on 7 April.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House, and will he be telling the council, how many youngsters are being denied places at independent schools as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme? While he is at it, will he tell us how many classes of over 30 have been reduced or disappeared as a result of the transfer of moneys from the assisted places scheme into that objective?
    Mr. Wilson: I shall tell the Scottish Council for Independent Schools, as I am pleased to tell the House again, that Labour Governments are about serving the interests of the many and not the few. I shall tell the council with immense pride that, in my own constituency, hundreds of children are benefiting from an early intervention programme, in contrast to the remarkable total of 17 children who go to private schools under the assisted places scheme. In the Motherwell constituency, in which the hon. Gentleman has a family interest, precisely one child goes to a private school under the assisted places scheme.
    Ms Osborne: Is not investment in early years education a far better use of resources than an initiative for private schools that benefits 19 children in my constituency and some 3,000 children throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: Even the word "benefits" is a little pejorative. Certainly I am delighted that we have already been able to transfer £24 million into the early intervention scheme in Scotland. In every constituency, including mine and that of my hon. Friend, there are hundreds of children with literacy and numeracy problems. Money is now being spent on providing them with the best possible early education, with tremendous benefit to the education system and society in general.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mrs. Laing: How many tenders he has received to date for the design and construction of the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood. [33156]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): We called for expressions of interest in the provision of architectural and design services and, by the closing date of Monday 2 March, had received 70 applications.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that informative reply. Does he recognise that the information in the White Paper before the referendum about the cost of the new Scottish Parliament was—like so much of the information in that White Paper—not absolutely accurate? As it is now clear that the new building will cost much more than the promised £40 million, where will the Secretary of State get the extra money? Will he cut the budget for schools, that for roads or that for hospitals, or will he raise taxes?
    Mr. Dewar: None of the options that the hon. Lady was good enough to suggest seem appropriate or attractive, but I can assure her that finding the money will not be a major problem. The explanation for the change in the ceiling figure is that we have increased the floor area of the accommodation available in the building. That is essential, as the building will be there for a very long time and will occupy a central position in Scottish democracy and the democracy of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues take a penny-pinching attitude, they will find themselves even more out of sympathy with Scottish public opinion than they are at the moment, if that is possible.
    Mr. David Marshall: In view of the expenditure involved and the need to keep costs down, does my right hon. Friend agree that the bid by Glasgow city council for the Parliament's temporary home is the best in practical and economic terms? Will he therefore ignore the vested interests of civil servants and others, and confirm that Glasgow's bid will be considered seriously?
    Mr. Dewar: There is no question of vested interests, most certainly in the civil service, or, to be fair, in the wider public debate. We were looking for a suitable site. Above all, we want one where there can be a collegiate approach in the first years of the new Parliament, where all those in the Parliament can be together, working out its new solutions. We want to find the right setting for that, and we shall look for it either in Edinburgh or Glasgow on the merits of the bids that are made.
    Mr. Ancram: What instructions has the Secretary of State given on the configuration of the debating chamber?

    1079
    Does he agree that recent opinion polls have driven a coach and horses through his naive prediction of a new age of consensual politics in Scotland, and suggest instead a political struggle between separatists and those who support the Union? Would it not be wise now to abandon thoughts of the consensual horseshoe configuration and replicate this Chamber, within which the real political battle for Scotland's place within the United Kingdom can be fought and won?
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman is developing a most unexpected characteristic—it is called a sense of humour. The answer to his question is no. I am touched by the fact that he has recognised that the Conservative party apparently has no part to play in the Scottish political scene. It is a little bit of a defeatist attitude, but I understand why he has reached that position.
    Mr. Ancram: Learning from the sense of humour failure of the Secretary of State at his Scottish conference recently, and given the current evidence that he was totally wrong in claiming that the new Scottish Parliament would weaken Scottish nationalism, will he concede now that he made a massive political miscalculation in cavorting with the Scottish National party during the referendum campaign, and that his misalliance with it was, to paraphrase a term used at the Scottish Labour party conference, politically inept,
    "morally repugnant, and spiritually bereft",
    and is it not about time that he started fighting for the Union alongside us?
    Mr. Dewar: As a coherent intellectual argument, that is third-rate. I do not cavort with anyone. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will be glad to know that he is not on my cavorting list, if such a thing exists. We do what we do in this area of policy because we believe that the policy is right, that it will serve the democracy of the united kingdom of Scotland effectively, and that it is the settled will of the Scottish people. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quarrel with that, that is his business, but we shall hold to what we believe is a matter of principle.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Obviously, the design and construction of the Parliament must be of a high standard. Why has not the Secretary of State applied for millennium lottery funding? After all, the dome down at Greenwich will receive £400 million. Surely the Scottish Parliament, which is a symbol of the new democracy and the future of Scotland, should also be eligible for some lottery funding. This is the third time that I have asked this question, and I should be grateful for an answer today.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dewar: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was being cheered by her party leader in Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because of her engaging manners, or because she is speaking for the Liberal Democrats. The answer is simply that I do not think that such an application would fall within the remit of the lottery funding. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that, if there is any possibility of additional funding for the Parliament, I shall be happy to consider it. The hon.
    1080
    Lady is right to stress that we want a building that is worthy of its purpose and will be a genuine ornament to Scotland as well as a good home for Scottish politicians.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Given the national and international significance of Scotland's new Parliament, and given the importance of consensus in Scotland on the design of the new Parliament building, will my right hon. Friend arrange for short-listed designs to be put on public display and for public opinion on the issue to be gauged before a final decision is made? While I am at it, may I express my personal prejudice in favour of stone walls and pitched roofs?
    Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend used to live in a particularly splendid example of stone walls and pitched roofs—almost an aristocratic example of that genre.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: And with some good paintings.
    Mr. Dewar: And with some good paintings as well, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend seems to have caught a current fashion and borrowed some of them from the national gallery.
    My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We have already anticipated that people will wish to see the designs on the short list, and we shall ensure that they are available in due course and at the right time.

    Tree Planting
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What initiatives he intends to take to encourage tree planting in Scotland. [33157]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We are fully committed to increasing the area of woodland in Scotland, and we shall continue to provide grant aid and advice to landowners, crofters and rural communities to encourage them to plant trees. Special initiatives include challenge funds for the creation of more woodland in the Grampians and the Cairngorms.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Instead of all the bread and circus events to mark the millennium, would not a more practical and appropriate scheme with longer-lasting benefits be to encourage people to plant or donate trees to mark the millennium? As this is the 25th anniversary of national tree year, in which some of us played a modest part many years ago, will he use his good offices to encourage local authorities in Scotland to identify sites and organise schemes to encourage people to contribute to planting trees in towns, which would help to soften the impact of many urban developments?
    Mr. Macdonald: I undertake to consider that interesting suggestion. As part of the millennium forest scheme, some £12 million will be spent in Scotland.
    Mr. McAllion: Does my hon. Friend recall that St. Mark's gospel contains the sentence:
    "I see men as trees, walking"?
    With that in mind, will he consider planting trees outside the Scottish Parliament to commemorate the giants of the Labour movement who fought for a Scottish Parliament this century, such as Kier Hardie and John Wheatley, but above all the great Jimmy Maxton, who once said that we should achieve more in five years of a Scottish Parliament than in 25 to 30 heartbreaking years' work in the British House of Commons? Could we have a plaque to that effect outside the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Macdonald: That is an equally interesting suggestion, which I am sure the Scottish Parliament will wish to consider.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that there is absolutely no point in planting new trees if, at the end of the departmental spending review, he reverses the current moratorium on large-scale block transfers of forests? Will he assure us that, when the departmental spending review is complete, there will be a period of consultation before the disposal of any Forestry Enterprise land in Scotland is considered, on the ground that many people in Scotland are concerned that there will be a short-term gain of a long-term asset?
    Mr. Macdonald: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that matter is being looked at as part of the review of forestry strategy, which is also part of the comprehensive spending review. Obviously, any proposals that come out of that review will be put out for full consultation with interested parties—those in the industry and those interested in forestry.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the recent findings of the international court relating to the (a) venue and (b) jurisdiction of the trial of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. [33158]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The International Court of Justice made no findings in relation to the venue or jurisdiction for the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing, but has held that it cannot determine, as a preliminary issue, the effect of the Security Council's resolutions on Libya's claims under the Montreal convention.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it really more important that a trial should take place in Scotland than that any trial should take place at all?
    Mr. McLeish: Those accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in that case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused persons for trial in either of those two countries, as it is required to do under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that, once a Scottish Parliament is up and running, given
    1082
    the devolution of powers over the legal system, a future Scottish Administration could decide to allow the Lockerbie trial to be held outwith Scotland? Does he accept that, if that happens, Westminster must not attempt to interfere with the decision?
    Mr. McLeish: It is worth re-emphasising that both the United States and this country are sticking by an important principle: the solution to that problem lies in Libya, and it is vital that Libya abides by Security Council resolutions and delivers the two accused persons for a proper trial.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Minister. There is great pressure on him to consider holding a trial in a neutral country, but, even if the Government were to consider doing so, must not the Libyan Government first give a clear guarantee that they would hand over the two suspects?
    Mr. McLeish: Such a guarantee has not, to date, been forthcoming from the Libyans. It is important to repeat that the suspects should be given up. There must be a fair trial, and one has been offered within the jurisdiction of the United States or of Scotland. That is the best way forward. We expect the Libyans to abide by Security Council resolutions, and that is the simple matter on which the case rests at the moment.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What plans he has to meet representatives of women's groups in Scotland to discuss equal opportunities. [33159]
    Mr. McLeish: I shall be meeting members of women's organisations at a conference on Friday 24 April. I shall consult them on the setting up of a consultative forum for women in Scotland. I expect various aspects of equal opportunities to be discussed at the meeting.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that equal opportunities means people achieving posts through merit, and not because of positive discrimination? Will he resist the temptation to create a gender balance in the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: I agree that we live in a meritocracy, but significant obstacles are placed in front of women in many areas of public life. On gender balance, the Labour party accepts that equal representation is a worthy objective. We are putting in place a twinning system, which will further it, and I sincerely hope that, in addition to the Labour party, the other political parties in Scotland will take equal representation seriously and consider how best they can move that objective on.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's twinning proposals for the Scottish Parliament are intended not to give an unfair advantage to women, but to ensure a broadly equal outcome? Does he also agree that, although a man could take a case to court because he was not selected as a candidate, a woman could do so with more justice because women have been unrepresented and under-represented throughout the history of parliamentary democracy in this country?
    Mr. McLeish: Let me first acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend has played in promoting the equal

    1083
    representation issue in Scotland. This is clearly an important matter for us, and the establishment of the Parliament represents a unique opportunity to get it right. We anticipate that the twinning arrangements will proceed, and that there will be a positive outcome. The Scottish Parliament could give a lead not only to the United Kingdom but to Europe in promoting the interests of women in the political arena at this important time.
    Mr. Wallace: If I may borrow a phrase from the Conservative representative on the consultative steering group, does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of devolution, there being no incumbency in the Scottish Parliament, is that we can try to achieve better and fairer representation of men and of women? When did he last read the treaty of Amsterdam provision that states:
    "the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity"?
    What measures do the Government intend to propose to achieve that? If they fail to do so, would political parties that tried to achieve it be indemnified against being taken to court?
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that changes are being proposed to the equal treatment directive and the treaty of Amsterdam, but that they will not take place until June 1999. The Government have examined the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but the point is that it is up to the political parties to move ahead on the issue. We cannot avoid the possibility of legal challenge. That said, I invite the Liberals to join Labour in ensuring that women get a fair deal. We want a twinning system: the Liberals should decide now how they are to proceed.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: When my hon. Friend met women's organisations in Scotland, did they ask about the under-representation of women on public bodies, and, if so, did he give an assurance that, if such under-representation is proved, he would be able to act against it? Did they ask about domestic violence, and was he able to give an assurance that domestic violence was high on the Scottish Office agenda?
    Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend an assurance that we have made significant progress on both counts. Domestic violence is an important issue for us. We must stamp out this abuse of male power. In Scotland, we are putting a strategy in place and leading the United Kingdom.
    We want to make further progress on equality in public appointments. We believe that 50 per cent. of places on all public bodies should be held by women, and we want more women to hold chairs. We also want to ensure that women are represented not only on soft issues, but across the economic spectrum.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that equality of opportunity depends not only on social action, but on economic action, which is why the cuts in single parent benefit were so damaging to the economic position of hundreds of thousands of women in Scotland? That measure was described as
    "economically inept, morally repugnant, and spiritually bereft."
    1084
    Was not the Scottish Labour party conference perfectly entitled to make that criticism of the Government?
    Mr. McLeish: I do not want to inject a discordant note, but that was another pathetic contribution from the leader of the nationalists. The participation of women in significant parts of Scottish life is a serious issue, which can best be dealt with by practical policies and not by the narrow sloganising that we hear from those under the banner of the Scottish National party.
    Mrs. McKenna: Does the Minister agree that the principal barrier to women's participation has been the selection process? Will he congratulate the Scottish Labour party on its commitment to the twinning process? The Opposition parties should have the courage of their convictions, and should take part in the process that will, deliver a gender balance in Scotland.
    Mr. McLeish: I can reinforce my hon. Friend's sentiment. The Labour party is giving a lead, and the Liberal Democrats are also involved. We want to hear from the SNP and the Conservatives about what practical measures they intend to take to ensure that women are promoted. Next year, there will be a unique opportunity in the Scottish Parliament to enable more women to do a good job for themselves and for Scotland.
    Mr. Jenkin: If it emerges that the Lord Chancellor's advice is right and the Secretary of State's legal advice is wrong, and that candidate selection procedures that favour women are illegal, will the Government amend the Scotland Bill so that political parties will not be prosecuted and will be free to select women candidates according to their own rules and in a manner of their own choosing?
    Mr. McLeish: It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to make such a comment, given that the Conservative party is not interested in promoting equal opportunities. The Lord Chancellor's advice did not state that such procedures would be illegal. We cannot rule out a legal challenge under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the equal treatment directive, but that is different from a party taking a principled stand to make progress on equal representation. That is what Labour is doing, and we want to know what the Conservatives are doing.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on trends in NHS waiting lists in Scotland since May 1997; and what targets he has set over the next four years. [33160]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The number of people waiting for in-patient and day-case treatment increased from 84,649 to 87,438 between March and December 1997. Nevertheless, all patients needing emergency treatment are seen at once; over 80 per cent. of patients are treated within three months, and 99.6 per cent. within 12 months.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for answering only the first half of my question. He has not answered the second part of the question, even though the Labour

    1085
    party's manifesto said that it would reduce waiting lists over the next four years. Will the Minister consider the amount of money being spent per head of population in Manchester compared with Glasgow, and in Fife compared with Dorset, and ask himself why there are waiting lists, given the additional money that is being spent in Scotland?
    Mr. Galbraith: That was a somewhat confused question, and contained the usual nark against Scotland. Our performance in Scotland is good because we attach importance to reducing waiting lists. We concentrate not just on the total numbers, but on the waiting times. More than 80 per cent. of patients are treated within three months. Unlike the previous Government, when we get the waiting lists down, we shall keep them down.
    Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister agree that people are most concerned about speed of admission and quality of treatment for the most serious conditions? What action have the Government taken since the election on cancer treatment? What measures does he propose to take in response to the recent report by the Accounts Commission, which highlighted the failure of certain trusts to follow agreed guidelines on the treatment of ovarian cancer?
    Mr. Galbraith: Again, we in Scotland like to think that we are well down the road of development. We have a national cancer strategy, under which every patient, no matter where he or she is in the system, should receive the best care available. Like my hon. Friend, we are also concerned about speed and the removal of uncertainty. That is why we recently provided £3 million for the establishment of a one-stop clinic. A woman with a breast lump can go into the clinic and be examined, have a mammography, have a needle biopsy and be given a decision all on one day. I think that we would all agree that that is the way forward. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who asked the main question, must not leave the Chamber until the supplementaries have finished.
    Dr. Fox: Since the last Budget, we have seen the Labour party's commitment to both the people's prescription charges and the people's waiting lists. As the Chancellor has made it clear that the cost of setting up a Scottish Parliament must be met from within the Scottish block, will the Minister now assure us that any savings made elsewhere will not come from the health budget, and that the Government's plans will not involve simply swapping beds for bureaucrats?
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman should look at the record, and note what we have delivered. Since the time of the last Government, an initial £10 million in savings on bureaucracy have been put into the front line. We have found another £25 million to deal with winter pressures, and we are committed to saving a further £100 million when we get rid of the internal market, which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pumping more money into the health service than has ever been pumped into it before.

    Timber Processing Industry
    Mr. O'Neill: How many jobs there are in the timber processing industry in Scotland. [33161]
    Mr. Macdonald: The most recent employment survey shows that there are more than 7,500 jobs in the timber processing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will not the jobs of Scottish workers in the timber processing industry be even more secure as a result of investment by the Canadian company CSC Products in the Cowie plant in my constituency? Some £40 million is being invested to prepare new lines, which will both secure the jobs of many workers and make a sizeable contribution to the balance of payments through import substitution.
    Mr. Macdonald: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he has supported that investment and worked to secure it, and I congratulate him on doing so. I think that it will provide his constituents with benefits for many years to come.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that public investment in timber in the north highlands is now being put at risk by the failure to spend enough on strengthening roads, a number of which are subject to bans in regard to the carrying of heavy weights? If the Government do not allow and, indeed, promote investment in those roads, literally millions of pounds of public expenditure will be put at risk.
    Mr. Macdonald: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I think he is being unduly pessimistic. According to the latest estimates that we have, investment in the wood processing industries is likely to increase, and to amount to some £2 billion over the next 15 years. Against that background, the prospects for the right hon. Gentleman's constituents seem quite bright.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Gray: If he will make a statement on the future of the uniform business rate in Scotland. [33162]
    Mr. Macdonald: The future of local business taxation in Scotland will ultimately be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We shall be consulting on options for change later this year.
    Mr. Gray: Does the Minister recall the time when Jenners in Princes street had to pay more in rates than Harrods in Knightsbridge? Is he aware of the concern expressed recently in the Scottish business community that we may be about to return to those bad old days?
    Mr. Macdonald: I certainly acknowledge the benefits of the equalisation that has been introduced in the current rating system. We have committed ourselves to consulting on the possibility of some localisation, but no decisions have been made. When we have proposals, we shall ensure that there is full consultation with both local authorities and local businesses.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that any change in business rates, at a local or Scottish level, should be made in full consultation with local businesses? What plans does he have to ensure that that is done, so that the many hundreds of local businesses in my constituency, which work effectively and profitably, can be reassured by any review and future consideration?
    Mr. Macdonald: We have not decided whether there will be any changes as yet, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any proposals should be subjected to full consultation with all sectors. Both local businesses and local authorities want the same thing: stability in the financing system for local government.
    Mr. Swinney: Does the Minister plan to undertake any consultation on proposals that were recently advanced by the Federation of Small Businesses for low business rates for small companies, particularly those that are based in town centres?
    Mr. Macdonald: I have not seen those proposals but, if the federation gets in touch with me, I shall be interested to examine them.
    Mr. Davidson: I congratulate Scottish Office Ministers on attracting to Scottish Office Question Time the size of audience that their talents deserve. That is enough grovelling for one day.
    Will my hon. Friend ensure that business rates that are raised in Glasgow are kept within the city and not dispersed elsewhere in Scotland, resulting in rates in Glasgow being much higher than elsewhere in Scotland and far higher than they should be?
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend knows that the same system for deciding rates applies in Glasgow as elsewhere. The pooling system is designed to be fair throughout Scotland, as is the distribution system, which allocates the amount that Glasgow receives from non-domestic rate income.
    Mr. Gorrie: As the business rate—and local government finance generally—is key to any consideration of local government in general, will the Minister consider reversing the Scottish Office decision not to include local government finance in the remit of the committee, headed by Mr. McIntosh, which is studying the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman can make his own submissions to that committee. We thought it sensible to include local government finance within the general review that we are conducting anyway as part of the comprehensive spending review. It would have been absurd to exclude local government finance from that review, which would have destroyed any notion that it was comprehensive.
    Mr. Doran: Does the Minister accept that the equalisation of the business rating system can cause local problems? In my city of Aberdeen, for example, it is
    1088
    estimated that £30 million of business rates is lost to the city in that process. Of course, that has caused immense strain on this year's local budget.
    Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend suggests, there are different views on the principle of equalisation. That is why we are considering the possibility of some localisation of business rates, but we have come to no conclusions as yet.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Clappison: What representations he has received about the payment of tuition fees for four years by English students attending Scottish universities. [33163]
    Mr. Wilson: I have had representations from student organisations, university bodies, Members of Parliament and others.
    Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister aware that, although applications to United Kingdom universities are down overall, applications by English students to Scottish universities are down even more? How can this Government defend a policy that disadvantages students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as compared with, say, students from Greece, Spain and Portugal?
    Mr. Wilson: The Scottish higher education system welcomes and will continue to welcome many students from other parts of the UK. In fact, the number by which applications to Scottish universities have decreased is less than the number by which admissions increased last year, and the reduction in applications from Scottish students is slightly greater than the reduction in applications from English students to Scottish universities.
    Mr. Connarty: Does my hon. Friend agree that English local education authorities could, in fact, give the same confidence to four-year courses in Scotland by funding that extra year for their students? I wonder whether the Minister has looked at the problems that will be faced by part-time students and mature students, and what plans does he have to deal with their financial problems in the coming years?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes the important point that there is a great deal of mythology about free education. Many students in our universities and further education colleges already pay for courses. I am certainly interested in addressing the problems of part-time students in particular. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is a matter for the funding bodies to decide. I have decided that, where a four-year course is the norm for Scottish students attending Scottish universities, we will take up that extra year. I fully understand the position of the other United Kingdom Departments which might have made a different decision. Every student who decides to opt for a Scottish four-year course knows the length of the course and the extra cost involved.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that applications from England and Wales to Dundee university are down by 12 per cent. this year, and that the latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures show an even more dramatic 23 per cent. fall in applications from

    1089
    Northern Ireland? If the Government claim that their policies have no effect on student numbers, how does the Minister explain those figures?
    Mr. Wilson: Dundee is very much the exception to the rule; perhaps its reputation has suffered from the fact that I went there. The normal trend in Scottish universities is much better than that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why, for instance, the number of applications to Paisley university, whose students are, largely, less well off, has increased by 8 per cent. There is nip and tuck in this, but on the whole, there is no evidence of a reduction in the level of applications from eligible students to Scottish universities.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that all students who attend Scottish universities, irrespective of whether they are from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, should be there on the same terms? Will he undertake to discuss with his ministerial colleagues in England, Wales and Northern Ireland how they can give the same preferential treatment to students attending Scottish universities as he has offered and afforded to Scottish students?
    Mr. Wilson: We have had those discussions. The point is that the school qualification system in Scotland is geared to the higher education system in Scotland. As soon as one tries to match the school qualification system in other parts of the United Kingdom with the four-year degree course in Scotland, these difficulties and anomalies arise. I am conscious of the fact that a problem would arise as soon as my colleagues in the rest of the United Kingdom addressed this anomaly, which is a relatively small one in their terms, because even bigger anomalies would be created. The basic problem is the mismatch between school qualifications and higher education degree courses.

    Oil and Gas (Taxation)
    Sir Robert Smith: What recent representations he has made to the Treasury about taxation of the North sea oil and gas industry; and if he will make a statement. [33164]
    Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of the issues involved and we have made appropriate representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes. We shall find out later how effective those representations have been. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to my constituents and the many people in Scotland who depend on the oil industry—those within the industry and the many small and medium-sized businesses contracted to it—that, despite the views of some Back Benchers, the Scottish Office understands how crucial oil investment is to the economic well-being of the manufacturing base in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wilson: It may be that, even at this moment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is watching Scottish questions and has taken notice of the hon. Gentleman's
    1090
    remarks. The Scottish Office is extremely well informed on the importance of the oil industry to the Scottish and United Kingdom economy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the appropriate representations have been made.
    Mr. Godman: I may be a minority voice, but may I tell my hon. Friend that I think that it is perfectly reasonable to make representations concerning a comprehensive review of the current North sea fiscal regime? However, given the current price of Brent, it may be that this is not a propitious moment for such a review. I remind my hon. Friend that the companies involved under the regime of the job lot who formed the previous Government made massive profits from the North sea, year in and year out.
    Mr. Wilson: We are all concerned to balance the proper taxation structure for the North sea oil industry against the incentives required to ensure that there is further exploration and exploitation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have noted my hon. Friend's argument.

    Cairngorm Funicular Railway
    Mr. Randall: If he will make a statement on the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway. [33165]
    Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend and I believe that the proposed railway will make a welcome and significant contribution to tourism and to the highland economy.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the serious financial difficulties now faced by the Cairngorm Chairlift Company and serious doubts about European Union backing for the scheme, does the Minister think that the £12.5 million might be better given to other, more viable, projects in the highlands?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic. As he knows, the Commission is considering the scheme, but will have to await the outcome of legal actions. When those actions have been resolved, the Commission will proceed to reach its decision.
    Mr. David Stewart: I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and thank him for his interest in my constituency. On the funicular issue, I take more notice of the residents of Carrbridge than I do of Uxbridge. What are the Minister's views on the future of the funicular as an all-year-round tourist event, and on its great effect on jobs for the highlands?
    Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend makes a useful point. The scheme's importance is that it will help to sustain jobs and economic activity throughout the year and not concentrate them in the winter months—which is an important objective for the community of Aviemore and for all the highlands, of which Aviemore is a very important centre.

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

    Conditional Fees
    Mr. Heald: When he plans to meet the chairman of the Bar to discuss conditional fee arrangements and legal aid. [33185]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Both my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I, and our officials, have had meetings with representatives of the Bar Council to discuss conditional fees and legal aid. Last Wednesday, 11 March, I met the chairman of the Bar to discuss conditional fees and legal aid. We shall have further meetings as and when necessary.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that legal aid is an important part of the welfare state, enabling people who need legal assistance, but who cannot afford it, to receive such help? Exactly how many people will be denied legal aid because of his reforms?
    Mr. Hoon: The consultation paper that we have presented to Parliament, and have discussed with hon. Members on both sides of the House, is designed to ensure that we target scarce taxpayers' money where it can do most good: on social welfare law, which has previously not been properly protected by legal aid.
    Mr. Dismore: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the Bar, will he tell them how popular conditional fees have become, and that increasing numbers of clients have signed conditional fee agreements? Will he also tell the Bar whether he has received any complaints from clients who have signed conditional fee agreements, and compare the number of those complaints with the number of complaints received from those whose cases were funded by legal aid?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. Almost daily, I receive complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the operation of the legal aid scheme. Hon. Members have expressed considerable dissatisfaction with that scheme. Conditional fees have now been agreed in more than 30,000 cases and, to date, I am not aware of a single complaint from an hon. Member about the operation of that system.
    Mr. Burnett: Does the Minister agree that the Government's far-reaching proposals for legal aid reform further demonstrate the importance of having an independent Secretary of State for justice who is accountable directly to the House—as proposed in early-day motion 961, which has now been signed by more than 100 hon. Members?
    Mr. Hoon: All matters relating to the machinery of government are for the Prime Minister. The Government are committed to delivering results, not to interfering unnecessarily with the building blocks of government, especially when they have stood the test of time. That is particularly true of the office of Lord Chancellor—a
    1092
    position that is currently occupied by someone who is using his very considerable skills and intellect to promote the Government's policy and to implement their manifesto commitments.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Flynn: What new proposals he has to improve the accessibility of legal aid. [33186]
    Mr. Hoon: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government plan to modernise the legal aid scheme. Our proposals were debated in the House on 21 November last year. He also knows that, in my statement to the House on 4 March this year, I announced the first stage of the modernisation plans. We aim to promote access to justice for everyone through the wider availability of conditional fee agreements. We shall also begin to focus legal aid on priority areas of social welfare that are of particular concern to the most needy in our society.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not intolerable that the legal aid system, which costs the country a fortune, is completely worthless to the great mass of people? It provides aid to only two groups: rightly to the very poor, but very unjustly to millionaires. How will conditional fee arrangements provide access to justice for the great majority of the people who are excluded by the legal aid system that we inherited, which is unfair, unjust and thoroughly discredited?
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The existing legal aid scheme fails almost everyone. It certainly fails the great majority of people who pay for it through their taxes, because they are not financially eligible for it. They cannot go to law for fear of the considerable legal costs that they might face. By extending the availability of conditional fees, we create the opportunity for everyone, rich and poor alike, to go to court regardless of their financial position.
    Mr. Garnier: Is it not clear that the Lord Chancellor's announcement last October was an example of economic illiteracy and social division? Does the Minister accept that early-day motion 961, signed by 66 Labour Back Benchers, demonstrates that they have lost faith in his Department's ability to improve access to legal aid? They want his Department abolished. Why are they wrong?
    Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that questions on the organisation of the Government are solely for the Prime Minister.
    The October statement announced our determination to consult as widely as possible. We have consulted widely. We have published a further consultation document, which allows the hon. and learned Gentleman a total of six and a half months to give his views. That is a reasonable way in which to take forward new policy.
    Dr. Lynda Clark: Are we considering targeting some funds on the industrial tribunal system, which has long been excluded from all forms of legal aid? Given that some complex cases go before such tribunals, could some money be so targeted for important cases?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her practical and constructive suggestion. The traditional legal

    1093
    aid scheme has failed the great majority of our people. It has failed those who are not financially eligible, but it has also failed those with certain sorts of cases, especially those concerned with employment and social security. It is important that, as we bear down on the cost of legal aid, we use the savings that can be achieved to direct scarce taxpayers' resources into areas of law such as social welfare, employment and social security law. That is a constructive way in which to approach the proposals.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: If he will list those non-governmental agencies with which the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary have held discussions about the consequences for access to justice of his proposals for legal aid reform. [33187]
    Mr. Gray: If he will list those non-governmental agencies with which his Department has held discussions about the consequences for access to justice of his statement on proposals for legal aid. [33190]
    Mr. Hoon: There have been discussions at ministerial or official level with the Law Society, the Bar Council, representatives of the insurance industry, the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, the Legal Action Group, the Personal Injury Bar Association, the Society of Labour Lawyers, Law For All, the Law Centres Federation, the Advice Services Alliance, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Justice, Liberty, the Public Law Action Group, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, Shelter and various local law societies and law firms. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I met 13 of those groups last week in separate meetings to discuss the proposals in our recent consultation paper, many for the second or third time.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: One of the colleges of law is based in my constituency, and I have also consulted the many firms of solicitors in Guildford. Is the Minister aware of the deep disquiet at his Government's proposals to take away legal aid from people with personal injury cases? How can he possibly defend taking away that right to justice from people when they are at their weakest and need it most?
    Mr. Hoon: I had not hitherto been aware of the deep disquiet in Guildford, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for communicating it to me. To judge from my meetings last week, most of the groups were pleased that the Government had listened and that our proposals were a practical, constructive way in which to ensure access to justice for the great majority of people. I hope that solicitors in Guildford will eventually recognise that.
    Mr. Gray: Why has the Minister spent less on consultants to advise him on his reforms of the legal aid system than the Lord Chancellor has spent on wallpaper?
    Mr. Hoon: We have certainly used consultants, and those consultants have been invited to look at the financial implications of our proposals for individual firms of solicitors. In due course, we will publish the results of those consultations, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the emerging findings make it clear that there is absolutely
    1094
    no reason why solicitors should not take forward cases on a conditional fee basis, thereby securing access to justice for the great majority in our society.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the current perceived wisdom is that the overall result of the redirection of legal aid to housing and social security cases, and the growth of contingency fees will be that more people receive greater assistance and gain greater access to the law?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is certainly the case that the Government are determined to control the cost of legal aid so that we can transfer scarce taxpayers' resources to meeting the needs of the poorest in our society. The present legal aid system fails in that. Only by controlling the traditional legal aid system shall we be able to provide advice and assistance to those who have problems with employment, social security, housing and so on.
    Mr. Loughton: What plans he has to meet representatives of the National Consumer Council to discuss his Department's plans to reform legal aid. [33188]
    Mr. Randall: What plans he has to meet representatives of the National Consumer Council to discuss his Department's plans to reform legal aid. [33189]
    Mr. Hoon: I and my officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the National Consumer Council. I met them most recently on Wednesday 11 March to discuss our plans to promote greater access to justice. We shall have further meetings as and when necessary.
    Mr. Loughton: If the Minister has had those meetings, he will be aware that law firms are dropping the offer of legal aid in droves. Does that not represent a double whammy? The Government are denying access to justice to many thousands of ordinary people while undermining many law firms that are already reeling from the prospect of penal taxation on work in progress.
    Mr. Hoon: I have not had the slightest indication that any law firms are not providing legal aid. They are certainly not doing so in droves.
    Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree with many consumer groups that conditional fees will deny access to justice to many people?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not agree. In the meetings that I have just described—productive, useful meetings with both the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association last week—consumer groups recognised that we had listened to the various problems that they had identified. They were pleased that we had produced a measured programme of modernisation which would achieve a legal aid system of which we could all be proud, but which would guarantee access to justice for everyone in our society. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. Conversations are too noisy at the moment.

    Compensation
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What plans he has to ensure that people entitled to compensation are able to claim it. [33191]
    Mr. Hoon: We set out the first stage of our plans to improve access to justice in a consultation document published on 4 March. We plan to reform the civil justice system to make it quicker, cheaper and more certain. We will improve access to justice by extending the availability of conditional fees so that the vast majority of the population who, at present, cannot afford to go to court can do so. We shall also take control of the costs of legal aid and concentrate scarce taxpayers' money to bring the right help at the right time to those most in need in our society.
    Mrs. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that I have consulted most solicitors' firms in my constituency, which could perhaps be described as provincial firms, and that they are fearful about the abolition of legal aid for personal injury cases, because they believe, as most people do, that many deserving cases will not go to court? What does he say about that? It is the most appalling state of affairs. Surely he should not be in the least proud of what he is doing.
    Mr. Hoon: I have had a considerable number of letters from the hon. Lady complaining about the operation of the existing legal aid scheme and complaining that her constituents are not eligible. She has indicated her anxiety to make sure that more people have access to court. The Government's proposals achieve precisely that, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not welcoming them instead of criticising them.

    Legal Aid
    Dr. Starkey: What effect the Government's proposals on legal aid will have on improving public access to the legal system. [33192]
    Mr. Hoon: The legal aid system that we inherited failed everyone. The previous Government reduced eligibility to the point where only the very rich and the very poor have access to justice. We are going to build a modern system that will provide justice for all, by targeting legal aid where it can bring the right help to those most in need and by creating a community legal service. In partnership with the legal profession and with the assistance of the insurance and banking sectors, the Government will enable everyone to have access to the courts, regardless of their financial standing.
    Dr. Starkey: I welcome that answer. Can my hon. Friend confirm that, for most people in my constituency, the circumstances in which their legal rights are most important are when they suffer unfair dismissal from their job or when they are denied benefit, and that both occurences fall outside the scope of traditional legal aid? Does he agree that Labour's manifesto commitment to create a community legal service will mean that those needs can be addressed, so that Government-supported legal assistance can be given where it is most needed and to those who most need it?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her constructive suggestion. The Government will certainly carry through their manifesto promise to create a community legal service which will concentrate scarce taxpayers' money on the areas of greatest need—in particular, social welfare law, including social security, employment and housing cases.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Financial Statement
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report of Session 1997–98 from the Social Security Committee, on Tax and Benefits: Pre-Budget Report (HC 423), and the First Report of Session 1997–98 from the Environmental Audit Committee, on the Pre-Budget Report (HC 547).]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  Financial Statement

    INTRODUCTION
    3.31 pm
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Only once in a generation is the tax system fundamentally reformed. The Budget I bring before the House and the country today begins the task not just of modernising taxation but of modernising the entire tax and benefits system of our country. We do this to encourage enterprise; to reward work; to support families; to advance the ambitions not just of the few but of the many.
    For decades, under Governments of both parties, the great economic strengths of our country have been undermined by deep-seated structural weaknesses—instability, under-investment, unemployment. So behind the detailed measures of this Budget is the conviction that we must break for good from the conflicts and the dogmas that have held us back and have for too long failed our country. We must build a national economic purpose around new ambitions for Britain.
    First, stability. We must break from our history of stop-go and the false trade offs between unemployment and inflation. The new ambition for our country is long-term economic strength and stability based on an unshakeable commitment to prudent monetary and fiscal rules.
    Secondly, enterprise. Instead of punishing success by high taxation or offering the incentive of low taxation to only a few, the new ambition is a tax system that ensures that work always pays, that encourages skills and that rewards enterprise and entrepreneurship throughout the whole economy.
    Thirdly, welfare reform. The new ambition for Britain is a modern welfare state that, instead of trapping people in poverty, provides opportunity for all.
    And fourthly, strong public services. Instead of simply defending unreformed public services, or denigrating them simply for being public, the new ambition is to have modern schools and hospitals in an environment where investment and reform go hand in hand.
    So this will be a new Labour Budget that demonstrates that a modern Government with new ambition for Britain can advance both enterprise and fairness and can advance them together—that, by rewarding work and rewarding work at every level, everyone and not just one section of society succeeds. It is a Budget to advance the ambition of all.

    STABILITY AND PRUDENCE
    First, stability. By spring last year, with consumer demand already rising by 5 per cent. and the money supply by 11 per cent., but industrial production by only 1½ per cent., the economy was exhibiting the same symptoms of instability from policy error that produced the boom-bust economy of the late 1980s.
    To avoid a lurch backwards towards the conditions that led to interest rates as high as 15 per cent. in the late 1980s, the Government, and then the Bank of England, took action to ensure stability. And I followed this tightening of monetary policy by putting in place a tough five-year deficit reduction plan.
    Last November, I was able to report that I was more optimistic that the economy was on course to get back on track for sustainable growth. That remains my view. But I also warned that there were risks ahead—on the one hand, the effects on the world economy of turbulence in Asian financial markets, and on the other, the domestic risk that an unaffordable rise in wage inflation would lead to higher interest rates and slower growth. Those risks remain.
    A deteriorating situation in Asia has forced all Governments to revise downwards their forecasts for growth. And while this Government have contributed to swift international action, continuing uncertainties require continuing vigilance.
    Similar vigilance is also required at home in the face of inflationary pressures. In the past few months, wage settlements have risen, even in the manufacturing sector where I fully recognise that a strong pound makes life difficult for exporters. Our aim is a stable and competitive pound over the medium term and I know that exporters agree with me that we must avoid any return to stop-go. It would not be right to sacrifice long-term goals in the face of short-term pressures.
    No-one should be in any doubt about this Government's, and the Bank of England's, determination to meet our inflation target. I can now report that because of the action already taken, inflation, which when we came to power was heading well above our target and towards 4 per cent, is now forecast to peak at 3 per cent. this year and be at our target of 2½ per cent. next year.
    It is because we have established a sound long-term framework and the expectation of low inflation that long-term interest rates have come down substantially from over 7½ per cent. just before the election to below 6 per cent. now, the lowest rate for 33 years.
    Growth this year and next will depend crucially on what happens to wage inflation over the coming year. It would be the worst of short-termism to pay ourselves more today at the cost of higher interest rates, fewer jobs and slower growth tomorrow. All of us must therefore show greater responsibility.
    If our welfare reforms can be complemented by responsibility across the economy, we could achieve two and a half per cent. growth this year. But if wage bargaining proceeds in the same short-termist way as in the past, then growth this year could slow to 2 per cent.
    Similarly, growth could be between one and three quarter per cent. and two and one quarter per cent. next year and, as the economy returns to its sustainable path, growth could be between two and a quarter and two and three quarters per cent. in the year 2000.
    Stability also requires a commitment to prudence in fiscal policy. The Chancellor is above all the guardian of the people's money. Last year, spending exceeded revenues by £23 billion under the previous Government and when we came into power we inherited not only a cyclical deficit, but a substantial structural deficit in excess of 2 per cent. of national income. Immediate action was required to secure long-term deficit reduction.
    The five-year deficit reduction plan that I put in place last July is not only on track, but is being achieved more quickly than expected. A substantial fiscal tightening has been achieved this year, with borrowing coming down by more than £17 billion, over 2 per cent. of national income. Because at this stage of the cycle it is important to come down on the side of caution, my Budget will lock in this fiscal tightening for 1998–99.
    Therefore, even if we exclude the windfall tax revenues, borrowing—which the previous Government had planned at £19 billion for this year—is now expected to be £5 billion, a fall from 3 per cent. of national income last year, under the previous Government, to around a half per cent. this year, comfortably within the Maastricht criteria.
    On the same basis, borrowing is expected to fall to just under £4 billion in 1998–99. By 2000, the Budget is forecast to be in balance.
    But our fiscal objectives are more long term: to meet the golden rule—that over the cycle Government revenues will cover consumption—and to keep debt at a prudent and stable level. Previous Governments have made the mistake, most recently in the late 1980s, of claiming that they had solved our deficit problem when all they had was a short-term surplus. Surpluses in 1988 and 1989 collapsed into a deficit approaching £50 billion in just four years—the biggest deficit in our history. What was claimed to be the end of one crisis turned out to be only the beginning of the next.
    We are determined to avoid such mistakes. To balance the Budget for one or two years and then let it run out of control in the years that follow is simply to fail those who depend on public services being sustained year in, year out. So this, more than ever, is the wrong time to be complacent or in any way to compromise our commitment to long-term fiscal stability.
    Just as we locked in our commitment to sound money through the Bank of England, it is now time to lock in a framework which guarantees sound finances. Our code of fiscal stability will place a duty on this Government, and every future Government, to report to Parliament on a consistent basis and provide full explanatory information on how they are meeting the fiscal rules that they have set. Stability and prudence are merely the preconditions for success—the platform from which success can be built. It is time now to show similar ambition and determination in the pursuit of long-term increases in productivity.

    ENTERPRISE
    For years, as a nation our capacity to consume has not been matched by our capacity to produce. And it is because we have had insufficient capacity to sustain anything other than low long-term rates of growth that our upturns have been too short and too fragile, and our
    1100
    downturns too deep and too destructive. But with a platform of stability in place and with lower long-term interest rates, 1 believe we are now in a position to establish, for the first time for decades, a virtuous circle of low inflation, high investment and a higher level of sustainable growth.
    Over the next few years we must seize this opportunity by challenging ourselves to lift our productivity in each and every industry towards the levels of the world's best. I want us to be as determined to raise productivity as we have been tough-minded about the need for stability.
    Breaking free from old ideas of state control on the one hand and crude laissez faire on the other, our new ambition for Britain must be to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurship, to boost education and skills and, as our Competition Bill will ensure, to open markets to competition and new opportunities—in other words to implement for our country a medium-term strategy for growth.
    First then, our proposals to help businesses invest and grow. To encourage long-term investment, today we will put in place the company taxation reform that we started last year, by abolishing one tax in its entirety.
    From April next year, companies will no longer have to pay advance corporation tax. A new instalments system of payment for larger companies' corporation tax will be introduced. In the last Budget we reduced the main rate of corporation tax by 2p to 31p. In this Budget we reduce it further by another 1p to 30p from April 1999. This is the lowest main rate of corporation tax of any major industrialised country and the lowest rate in the history of corporation tax in Britain. When it is finally in place companies will pay over £1.5 billion less in corporation taxes each year.
    The lower and fairer tax regime to encourage investment that business has wanted for years is now in place under a Labour Government. It will contribute to making Britain the best place in the industrialised world in which to invest.
    Businesses need to plan for the long term, so today I make a commitment that for the rest of this Parliament corporation tax will be at 30p or less.
    Stability is important, not least in our North sea oil industry, where planning horizons are long. Next month we will publish a consultative document on the future of the North sea fiscal regime.
    In the new economy, however, jobs will come not simply from a small number of large businesses, but from a large number of small and growing businesses. Today we will make five changes that will help small business: we will cut the costs of investing; we will cut the burden of red tape; we will promote research and innovation; we will increase the rewards for doing well; and we will cut tax.
    First, following the consultation on our corporate tax proposals, 1 will exempt medium-sized as well as small companies from paying corporation tax by instalments. Taken together with the abolition of advance corporation tax, that will improve the cash flow for small and medium-sized companies paying dividends by about £1 billion.
    But I want to do more; 85 per cent. of taxpaying companies in our country—350,000 companies—are covered by the small companies' rate of tax. In the last

    1101
    Budget, I cut the small companies' tax rate from 23p to 21p. I have now decided to go further. From April next year small companies' tax will be cut again to 20p, and we will keep the rate at that level or below not just for a year, but for the Parliament.
    We are cutting not only the tax rate, but the costs of investing. For 12 months from July, first year capital allowances for small and medium-sized businesses will be set at 40 per cent., continuing our commitment to boosting long-term investment.
    I want to make it easier and cheaper for small businesses also to take on their first employees, but setting up payroll systems costs those businesses money and time, so from April next year the Inland Revenue will offer businesses help in setting up their payroll systems, and will do so on a nationwide basis.
    For too long the great scientific advances of British universities have gone on to become the manufacturing successes not of Britain, but of rival countries. To help turn British inventions into success for British businesses, 1 am announcing today plans for a new £50 million venture capital fund open to all universities—a new university challenge fund that will invest today in the innovative businesses that will create wealth and jobs in our country tomorrow.
    Encouraging greater research and development investment is also crucial to higher productivity, so the Government are today publishing a consultative document indicating a determination to help businesses to achieve greater research and development.
    Our venture capital industry is proportionately much smaller than that in America. By merging the enterprise investment scheme and capital gains tax reinvestment relief, 1 am now able to provide more generous, more efficient and better targeted help to encourage the venture capital industry in Britain. I propose a 50 per cent. rise in tax reliefs. From now on investors will be able to secure income tax reliefs for investment up to £150,000 a year.
    We must do more to increase the quantity and quality of long-term investment. The capital gains tax regime that we inherited rewards the short-term speculator as much as the committed long-term investor. It is time also for a fundamental reform of capital gains tax.
    In a low inflation environment a complex system of indexation is no longer necessary. Indexation will continue until April 1998 and will then be frozen. The annual exempt amount will rise in line with prices. Following extensive consultation, 1 have decided to phase out complex allowances, and instead I will introduce a new structure of capital gains tax which will explicitly reward long-term investment, and which is based on a downward taper and lower tax rates.
    The short-term rate of capital gains tax will remain at 40p. For investors holding non-business assets, who invest long-term for 10 years, the rate of capital gains tax will fall from 40p to 24p in the pound. For those who build businesses or stake their own hard-earned money in them, the long-term rate will be reduced even more from 40p to 10p in the pound—the lowest rate ever achieved.
    So with a 30p main rate of corporation tax, a 20p rate for small business tax, and a 10p long-term rate of capital gains tax, this Government today send a clear signal of support for enterprise to those who invest in the United Kingdom. My message to business is: "When you are ready to start out, start up, start investing or start hiring, this Government are on your side".
    When half the population have only £200 or less in savings, there is broad agreement that we must do more to encourage savings by everyone. There is broad agreement also that an easy-to-access individual savings account, available over the counter in supermarkets and post offices as well as from banks, building societies and financial services providers, can encourage the savings habit among many more people.
    I can now report the conclusions from our consultation on the individual savings account. First, the individual savings account will, as promised, offer complete freedom to move cash in and out, and so savers know their cash will always be accessible when they need it. Secondly, in response to suggestions from prospective providers, the cash holding for the first year of the new product will be raised to £3,000. Thirdly, the individual savings account will receive a 10-year guarantee that savings of up to £5,000 a year can be invested with all existing tax reliefs.
    Fourthly, even when new TESSAs and contributions to PEPs cease next year, the entirety of capital accumulated in them will be able to continue, with all the accumulated gains, to enjoy tax reliefs. There is no retrospective element. Whatever accumulated capital there is will remain entirely free of tax, so existing PEP holders will be able to keep their accumulated savings free of capital gains tax and, at the same time, they will be able to save an additional, tax-free £5,000 each year in the new individual savings account.

    WORK
    Just as the modern tax system should encourage investment, so too the tax and benefit system should reflect the value we place upon the responsibilities and rewards of work. For far too long in our country, too many men and women have found themselves working harder and longer, and have still been unable to lift themselves out of poverty into even modest prosperity. For too long, we have done too little to help those who work hard to advance up the ladder of opportunity from lower income into middle income jobs and upwards. The cap on aspirations in Britain must now be lifted.
    While Budgets in the 1980s acknowledged the need for incentives, the incentives given to the few ignored the even greater problem of disincentives for the many. So it is time to reward the efforts of those who want to work their way up. First, there is welfare reform through welfare to work. The new deal is the most ambitious programme of employment opportunities our country has seen. From 6 April, every young person unemployed for more than six months will have the offer of work or training. From now on, no young person in Britain will be without opportunity.
    It is now time to take two further steps that broaden the scope and ambition of the new deal—steps that will open up new opportunities to long-term unemployed adults in our country. From June, every one of the 225,000 men and women who have been unemployed for two years or more can benefit from a £75 a week employers' subsidy which, for them, will be a passport to work. But the Government are determined to do more, and we will offer—initially to 70,000 men and women—an individual service of expert help and advice to find work. In this way, we will take another step forward in tackling long-term unemployment in our country.
    Past employment programmes have helped men but often ignored employment opportunities for women. From this year, the new deal will be extended to thousands of women previously denied chances of work, and it will do so in three ways.
    First, for a quarter of a million women, who are partners of unemployed men, we will offer expert and personalised help to find work through pilot programmes to be launched in every region of Britain, paid for from the windfall tax.
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce next week the personal help that will now be available on a national basis for all lone parents who want to work and whose children are at school. And we will implement a 12-week linking rule so that they do not risk losing benefits as a result of a brief period in work.
    Thirdly, partners of the unemployed under 25 without children, who are not allowed to register as unemployed, will now be given exactly the same opportunities for training and work that others under 25 now enjoy.
    With these proposals, equality of employment opportunity for women in our country is now far closer to becoming a reality. Unemployment blights not just individuals' lives, but whole communities. So we need a new deal for communities which recognises that the answer to social exclusion is economic opportunity. Working with the new social exclusion unit, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers will announce a series of pathfinder projects that will put employment at the centre of initiatives to improve education, health and other services in our poorest communities.
    But there is one group of young people who are the most excluded and most discouraged: young people who find themselves homeless. These vulnerable young people do not just need homes: they need jobs. So I want help to be linked to training and preparing them for jobs. Today, to help finance the advice available to the most disadvantaged young people and to create a nationwide network of mentors ready and willing to help advise and motivate young people who could get back to work, £50 million from the windfall fund is being allocated.
    And we must do more. Today, while many are unemployed, extensive skill shortages are holding back our economy. I can also announce extra help in this Budget to promote investment in skills and lifelong learning.
    But our priority must be to provide training in areas such as computers and the high technology skills, not least to help prepare for the millennium. Over £100 million extra will be allocated in the coming year to tackle the skills gaps in Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will announce details of this new skills initiative for our country. Our review of post-16 benefits and maintenance will continue along the lines that we have already set down.
    Having provided new opportunities for work, it is now time to create a modern tax system that will help create jobs and reward work. So I want to announce today a tax reform to cut the costs of hiring at the wage levels where most new jobs are created. I want to make it easier for
    1104
    companies that are prepared to take on young people looking for a first step on the ladder of employment opportunity, and to take on men and women who want to return to work.
    The tax and benefit task force headed by Martin Taylor, chief executive of Barclays, will publish its full report this afternoon. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking him for the work that he has done. One of his central recommendations—on which he has already consulted employers—is for a simpler, fairer and more employment-friendly national insurance system; one that makes it easier for employers to hire new employees, and one that also cuts the costs and red tape associated with the two separate and unaligned systems of income tax and national insurance.
    Martin Taylor's proposal is radically to restructure employers' national insurance on a revenue neutral basis, which for business as a whole will involve no additional cost, and to set a rate of employer's national insurance of 12.2 per cent, but only after the first £81 of wages.
    I have accepted the proposals. From next year, the Government will abolish the distorting entry fee for employers' national insurance. We will also abolish the multiplicity of separate national insurance rates. We will therefore cut the cost of hiring lower-paid employees. Employers will pay no national insurance on any employee earning less than the starting point of the personal tax allowance—£81 a week. The right to benefit for all employees earning between £64 and £81 a week will be upheld in all the changes we make.
    With these changes, we are cutting the costs to business of employing 13 million of our lower and middle-income employees. We are taking up to 1 million of the lowest-paid employees out of employers' tax altogether and we are cutting the cost of hiring someone on half average earnings by more than £250 a year.
    The Taylor report also recommends similar changes to national insurance contributions for the self-employed. This and other matters will be discussed and examined after the Green Paper on welfare reform is published next week by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform.
    Employers and employees will also benefit from a further institutional reform: the establishment of a single organisation to deal with both income tax and national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I have agreed that the Contributions Agency will be transferred to the Inland Revenue with effect from April 1999. We are a Government who do not simply talk about cutting the costs of red tape and bureaucracy, but take the decisive action necessary to achieve it.
    Welfare to work is stage 1 of the reform of the welfare state. Today's Budget moves us into stage 2—ensuring that work pays more than benefits and raising the rewards from work.
    When it is right for the economy, I will introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax, but today I announce a tax cut for hundreds of thousands of working families on low income and we will do it through the introduction of a new working families tax credit.
    Under the present system of family credit there is, quite simply, a ceiling on aspirations for women and men wanting to work their way up. In Britain today

    1105
    there are nearly three quarters of a million working families who are held back by marginal tax rates in excess of 70 per cent. There are nearly half a million working families, with children, whose pay is so low that they receive in-work benefits and yet still are required to pay income tax.
    From October 1999, the working families tax credit will not only be a tax cut for hundreds of thousands of working men and women with children, but will abolish the grotesque distortion where some low-paid employees have had to pay back more than £1 for every extra £1 they earn.
    Instead of the state paying out benefit through the social security system to working families on lower incomes, in future they will receive cash directly through the tax system. Families will be able to choose to whom the credit is paid—either directly or through the pay packet.
    By tackling the unemployment trap and increasing the help available to families, the working families tax credit ensures that work will always pay more than benefits and by tackling the poverty trap—through cutting the rate at which help is withdrawn as incomes rise, the working families tax credit ensures that the more you earn, the more you take home.
    I say to those who can work: this is our new deal. Your responsibility is to seek work. My guarantee is that if you work, work will pay. Let me spell out in hard cash the difference that that guarantee will make.
    For families with children where someone works full-time there is now a guaranteed income of at least £180 a week, and to the same working families there is a second guarantee: that no income tax at all will be paid on earnings below £220 a week.
    The Government inherited a tax system whereby a family with two children paid tax even when they earned only 25 per cent. of average earnings. Under our proposals they will have no income tax bill until they earn over 50 per cent. of average earnings.
    It is a transformation in the rewards for work in our country, and, because, in future, work will pay, those with an offer of work can have no excuse for staying at home on benefits.
    I said in the last Budget that, in the new Britain, everyone had a contribution to make. Now, with these new guarantees for working families, we can also say that, in the new Britain, for millions more people, we will make work pay.
    I have one further tax and benefit integration to announce. For decades, thousands of disabled people have been denied a basic right—the right to work—and the tax and benefit system is one of the barriers that have denied them opportunity.
    As a Government, we will never compel to work disabled men and women who cannot work, and for those who want to work we will systematically remove the obstacles that, at present, prevent them from achieving their potential.
    So, alongside the working families tax credit, the Government will introduce a new tax credit for disabled people in work, paid through the wage packet, and a new 12-month linking rule to improve the incentives for those on long-term benefits to take a job. Together, these measures will ensure higher rewards for disabled men and women if they choose to enter work, making work pay.
    Today, I also want to make one further change that sends a signal to every employee in the country about the importance that the Government attach to work and fair rewards from work for men and women on lower incomes, middle incomes and upper incomes, right up the income scale.
    We said at the election that we would not raise the basic or top rate of income tax, and we will keep this promise, not just for one year, but for the Parliament. But I am abolishing the perverse entry fee that every employee pays to be part of the national insurance system and, in doing so, I am cutting national insurance for every employee in the country.
    Further reforms will also ensure that no one pays national insurance for the first £81 of their weekly earnings. All employees earning between £64 and £81 will have their right to benefits protected.
    So, from next April, 20 million employees in Britain will benefit by paying £1.28 a week, or £66 a year, less in national insurance. This is not just a tax cut for lower-income Britain, it is a tax cut for middle-income Britain; a tax cut for everyone in work.
    Our reforms—the merging of the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue, the radical restructuring of employers' national insurance contributions and the changes that I have announced in employees' national insurance—are the biggest change in the structure of national insurance for a generation.
    I have one further change that will make thousands of men and women better off, and in particular make a difference to family incomes.
    For too many parents, the cost of child care has meant that parents either cannot afford to work or find themselves paying out most of their wages on the cost of child care. So we will introduce a new child care tax credit as part of the working families tax credit, and put high quality child care within the reach of people who have never been able to afford it. For spending on child care of up to £100 a week for the first child and £150 for two or more children, the tax credit will cover up to as much as 70 per cent. of the cost.
    The rules that we draw up, which will be reviewed after two years of experience, will be designed to ensure that parents have access to high quality child care: child minders, day nurseries and out-of-school clubs. That is a change that today makes a reality of choice for hard-working families previously denied it. Child care will from now on be affordable for the many and not just the few.

    SUPPORTING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
    Families are the bedrock of a stable and healthy society, and, in a fast-changing economy—with its uncertainties and vulnerabilities—families, now more than ever, need the security of support when bringing up children.
    "Family values" means that we value families—all families. So our economic policy must not only encourage a stable and healthy society based on mutual rights and responsibilities, but directly support families as they bring up children. That is not just for the 4 million children growing up in poverty in Britain today, but for every child who should have the best opportunities.
    The system of child and, indeed, family, support which the Government have inherited is confused in its aims and contradictory in its impact, and it must now be reformed

    1107
    on the basis of clear objectives. The starting point in 1998 is exactly the same as stated by the Beveridge report in 1944:
    "that nothing should be done to remove from parents the responsibility of maintaining their children and that it is in the national interest to help parents to discharge that responsibility properly."
    We implement those objectives in a changed economy where parents try to strike the right balance between paid work and family responsibilities. In that new context, we must do more to encourage family-friendly employment that will help children and their parents. That is why, as part of the social chapter, we shall legislate to guarantee unpaid parental leave, and I am pleased to confirm that the Confederation of British Industry and others support that endeavour.
    Giving children the best start in life requires good schools, good health services, good child care, good public services as well as cash help. This country invests some £10 billion a year in a wide range of services for young children. For the first time, a broad-based review of how we can integrate the whole range of services involved in the support and care of young children and their families is being carried out, and proposals will be announced with our spending review in the summer.
    Giving a child the best start in life takes more than money, but it cannot be done without money. Child benefit remains the fairest and most efficient and cost-effective way of recognising the extra costs and responsibilities borne by all parents. Raising it allows us to do more for mothers who choose to be at home, working at home bringing up children. To underline the view that child benefit is society's support for, and investment in, the upbringing of children, child benefit should and will remain universal where it is already universal, and it should be paid, as now, directly to the mother. Thus, future support for children will be built around universal child benefit and I am convinced of the case for raising its level.
    After careful examination, I believe that we should make three complementary changes. First, we all know that circumstances dictate that some families will need more help than others. The case for additional support for children in poorer families is strong, but that support should be on the basis of the identifiable needs of children, not on whether there happens to be one parent rather than two. There is no case for a one-parent benefit and we shall not return to that. Additional support should be provided on the basis not of family structure but of family need.
    Secondly, our benefits system provides less help for children when families need it most—in the early years. Low-income families on benefit, in or out of work, receive £8 a week less for a child under 11 than for a child over 11. That distinction does not reflect some of the high costs of the early years and takes no account of the costs to mothers of staying at home when their children are young, or of the extra costs of child care if mothers work, so it is time to do more for children under the age of 11.
    To achieve our goals, we must look more broadly at the current approach to children and families in the tax system. The state pays a tax allowance to married couples,
    1108
    but pays exactly the same amount at exactly the same rate to unmarried couples with children, whether or not they have ever been married. The state pays exactly the same amount at the same rate as married couple's allowance to single parents. Indeed, the state pays the same amount for up to a year to couples who separate or divorce, and does so whether they have children or not. Such is the confusion of the current system that if a married couple with children splits up, both man and woman can each receive the equivalent of a full married couple's allowance for up to a year. Thus, separated, they can receive up to twice the allowance of a married couple.
    The only way to make sense of that chaotic system is to make our primary aim that of supporting families through supporting children. That is why, from next year, we propose to raise child benefit by reducing those allowances, now paid at 15 per cent., to 10 per cent. The change will not affect elderly taxpayers, whose extra allowances will be protected.
    I have therefore decided that, from next April, for the first child, child benefit will be raised by more than 20 per cent.—a £2.50 a week rise in child benefit, in addition to the normal uprating for inflation. The £130 a year rise is the biggest increase we have seen in child benefit. These changes will be fully reflected in the family premium for income support. It is the right thing to do to support and strengthen families in our country, and, from November this year, for those on family credit and income support, child support for under-11s will be raised by an additional £2.50 a week, so that the needs of Britain's youngest and poorest children are properly recognised.
    With these measures, we can give every child a better start, and I believe that, in future years, we can and should do even more. For those who want child benefit raised, the question undoubtedly arises whether it should be taxed for those at the top of the income scale. It must be right in principle that if child benefit is raised, there is a case for higher rate taxpayers paying tax on it. Modernisation of the welfare state makes possible more investment in the children of our country, and following the children's review, we shall bring forward detailed recommendations for reform.
    I have one further announcement: for hundreds of thousands of men and women, care within the family extends beyond caring for children to caring for disabled or elderly relatives, so valuing families means valuing carers—spouses, grandparents, and all the carers who contribute to the family. As a first step to recognising the importance of carers within the family, I can today announce that I am ending an injustice that the previous Government tolerated. The tax allowance that has been available only to men with children whose wives are incapacitated will be extended to mothers with dependent children and incapacitated husbands. Because of the importance that I attach to ending this unfairness, I will backdate this additional help to April 1997.
    I now turn to the environment. The Kyoto summit was a landmark for international agreements on the environment, and the work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in securing agreement has been widely applauded. Having signed up to an 8 per cent. reduction in European Union carbon emissions, we are determined to play our part—nationally and internationally—in meeting those targets. In those

    1109
    important policy decisions, which affect generations ahead, there will be proper information, proper consultation and full openness in government.
    I can confirm, first, that VAT on the installation of energy-saving materials funded under certain Government grant schemes will be cut from 17.5 to 5 per cent. That will help to insulate 40,000 more homes a year, and we are pursuing with our European partners a wider relief.
    There has been increasing pressure, not least from businesses, for measures that encourage greater energy efficiency in industry. I am grateful to Sir Cohn Marshall, the chairman of British Airways and, until July, president of the CBI, for agreeing to head a Government review into economic instruments to improve the industrial and commercial use of energy. It will include a study of whether new economic instruments, such as an industrial energy tax and/or other market mechanisms, should be introduced to help to curb industrial emissions, and, if so, how that will be done.
    Concern for the environment is, of course, not limited to the use of energy. Last year, we commissioned work on the environmental costs of the quarrying of aggregates, and on the options for dealing with water pollution. Detailed results will be published in the near future by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. We already know that we need to do more to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, so I shall raise the standard rate on active waste from £7 to £10 per tonne from 1 April 1999. Consistent with our environmental objectives, from October next year I am exempting from landfill tax the inert waste used in the restoration of sites.
    Road transport is the fastest growing source of carbon emission, so we need a more balanced transport policy. The Government therefore propose to make two major environment-led changes to long-term transport policy.
    The quality and quantity of public transport must be improved. I am pleased to announce that, over the coming three years, as a result of this Budget, a total of over £500 million additional money will be invested in public transport. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce details later this week.
    I can announce today a £50 million a year rural transport fund. Three quarters of rural parishes and communities have no bus service. Our aim must be to extend the range of transport services throughout the country. The fund will invite applications from rural communities that want to improve their local transport services. As an added incentive, I shall increase the rebate on fuel paid to bus operators to help to keep bus fares down.
    The Government recognise that, for many people, especially in isolated areas, car ownership is not a choice but a necessity, so I now want to rebalance car taxation so that it falls less on car ownership. I want to make the change in an environmentally sensitive way.
    From January next year, I am cutting the licence fee for lorries and buses with clean engines by up to £500. But I also want to make a major reform of the licence fee for cars. From next year, I plan to reduce the licence fee for cars with the lowest emissions. For the cleanest and the smallest cars, I plan to cut the licence fee by £50.
    As we make the preparations for this long-term environmental change, for this year I propose, at a cost of £145 million, to freeze the licence fee for all vehicles.
    1110
    To encourage lower emissions, the costs of converting company cars to road fuel gases will, from now on, be disregarded for income tax purposes. At the same time, I am increasing the scale charges for fuel provided by an employer, which will cost the typical company car user around £1 a week. The duty on road fuel gases will be frozen, increasing the incentive to use those cleaner fuels.
    The previous Government introduced a road fuel escalator, the principle of which we supported. They set it at 5 per cent., and since July it has been 6 per cent. There is agreement that only with the use of an escalator can emission levels be reduced by 2010 towards our environmental commitments.
    As a result of the escalator, road fuel tax will rise by 4.4p a litre for unleaded petrol and for ultra-low sulphur diesel. As is normal, that change will take effect on Budget day at 6 pm. To encourage all diesel users to switch to cleaner fuels, ordinary diesel will increase by 1p more than that. These increases will reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes of carbon.
    Of course, the price of petrol will also be affected by movements in oil prices. The oil price has fallen by 25 per cent. in the past six months: a benefit enjoyed by oil companies which has yet to be passed on to consumers, especially consumers in rural areas, who already pay higher fuel prices, which is something the Office of Fair Trading is already investigating.
    Whatever the short-term changes in oil prices, however, the Government have a duty to take a long-term and consistent view of the environmental impact of emissions, and that is what we have done. Today we are publishing in the Red Book an environmental assessment of our proposals.

    SECTION 7: OTHER TAX MEASURES
    I said that we would maintain the basic and top rates of tax for this Parliament. As is usual, we will increase all income tax allowances, income limits and tax thresholds in line with inflation.
    I turn now to this year's Budget decision on mortgage tax relief. I can tell the House that I have decided in this Budget not to make any further change in the rate, or to make any change to stamp duty on property below £250,000. For property sales above £250,000, stamp duty will be raised to 2 per cent. from next Tuesday, and to 3 per cent. on property sales above half a million pounds—a change which leaves 98 per cent. of house transactions unaffected.
    I also had a decision to make on inheritance tax. Many have put to me the case this year for freezing or even lowering the threshold. I have decided to do neither of those things. This year, I will raise the threshold for inheritance tax by £8,000. Under this Government, there will be no inheritance tax to pay on estates below £223,000: 97 per cent. of estates will not have to pay inheritance tax. Rules on inheritance tax concerning chattels will, however, be tightened to ensure proper access.
    I also want to improve access to our nation's museums and galleries. I have therefore decided that extra money will be made available to help museums and galleries that do not currently charge for admission, to maintain free admission in the coming year.
    As promised in the last Budget, 1 will raise revenue over the next three years by closing a number of loopholes left by the last Government, including those relating to

    1111
    offshore trusts. The measures that we shall take to deal with such loopholes will raise a total of £1.5 billion over three years. Next month, we will publish and consult on draft legislation for a general anti-avoidance rule for direct taxes.
    From 1 January next year, alcohol duties will be uprated in the normal way, by 1p on a pint of beer and 4p on a bottle of wine. For a bottle of spirits, the duty will be frozen at its current level. I shall be taking action to clamp down on smuggling and fraud.
    On tobacco, in line with the commitment that I announced last year, the excise duty will rise by 5 per cent. above inflation. From 1 December, the tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes will rise by just over 20p. Details of those duty changes, together with details of changes to certain gambling duties, are published this afternoon.
    I have had many Budget representations, including many widely publicised campaigns, pressing for new tax reliefs. I have decided that there is a case for one new tax relief, for giving. I want British citizens to be able to contribute more to poverty relief and education through charitable work in the developing countries. For every £100 that a British citizen donates, the Government—under the proposals that I have announced today—will contribute up to £40.
    I want the millennium to be remembered, not just nationally but internationally, for the redemption of debt and the reduction of world poverty. This new tax relief will allow individuals to make their contribution to the reduction of world poverty.

    PUBLIC SPENDING
    I said that this would be a Budget based on prudence for a purpose and that guides us also in our approach to public spending. When we came into government, we said that, while we undertook a strategic review of future spending priorities, we would work within a two-year ceiling on departmental spending.
    The comprehensive spending review—the results of which we will announce this summer—will shape our public spending priorities into the next millennium, but, as a result of the work of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and as a result also of departmental willingness to root out waste and, this year, to reallocate resources to our priorities, we have already achieved more than some people expected: £400 million to help pensioners with fuel bills; £1.5 billion already to patient care in the health service; £3 billion to employment opportunity; and more than £2 billion to education.
    Because of our disciplined approach this year, we are able to carry over extra money from this year to next. I have already said that public transport will receive an
    1112
    additional £500 million over the next three years. Ours is prudence for a purpose: to meet the people's priorities. We are determined to improve education all round, so I am allocating for the coming year to education an additional £250 million. That makes a total additional commitment to education since we came to power—above what the previous Government proposed—of £2.5 billion. I can also tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will make announcements this week.
    The extra money that I announced last July for the national health service comes on stream in the health service from next month and I have decided that additional allocation to health of £1.2 billion for the coming year should today be increased by a further 40 per cent.—another £500 million to £1.7 billion. That takes the total additional investment that this Government have provided for the NHS in our first 10 months to £2 billion. The NHS is safe in this Government's hands.
    Because we will always be prudent, I am allocating £500 million to add to the reserve in 1998–99. It is because of our prudence that we are able to meet our manifesto commitments, to reduce the deficit and to invest more in transport, education and the NHS.
    The ambitions of the British people are again the ambitions of the British Government, so this is a Budget which, by its measures, advances both enterprise and fairness. We have cut corporation tax, small business corporation tax and national insurance for every employee in the country, and we have raised child benefit for every family. This is a new Labour Budget which has set new ambitions for Britain, so that, for millions, ambitions can become achievements, and I commend it to the House.

    PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
    Motion made, and Question,
    That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

    (a) Sparkling wine, made-wine and cider (rates of duty) (motion No. 3);

    (b) Hydrocarbon oil (rates of duties and rebates) (motion No. 8);

    (c) Hydrocarbon oil (ultra low sulphur diesel) (motion No. 9);

    (d) Hydrocarbon oil (mixing of heavy oil) (motion No. 10);

    (e) Amusement machine licence duty (rates of duty) (motion No. 13).—[Mr. Gordon Brown.a]

    put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and they will then be decided without debate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  4.35 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I begin on a personal note, by congratulating the Chancellor on the stamina with which he delivered his speech. There are measures in the Budget that we will wish to support, including the measures that he has announced on corporation tax, small companies' tax rates, the challenge fund for universities, the reduction in national insurance contributions and his reform of capital gains tax, which is almost exactly on the lines proposed by the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), except that it is not quite as ambitious.
  In his talk of new ambition, the Chancellor may be getting a bit ahead of himself. We have always associated the Chancellor—as has the Prime Minister—with old ambition rather than new ambition, and I think that that has been on display again today.
  We will also look at the details of some of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals before deciding whether we support or oppose them. We will look at the details of what he has proposed on stamp duty. It will be a great relief to the Prime Minister that he sold his house before the Chancellor introduced a measure that will affect only rich people with houses over a certain value.
  Any analysis must start where the Government started when they inherited last year an economy in the finest shape of any economy inherited by any Government after any election since the second world war. They started with their now notorious pre-election promises, which must be seen against the background of this Budget and their previous Budget taken together. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all."
  He told Radio 4 listeners last January:
  "The programme of the Labour party does not imply any tax increases at all."
  He told BBC 1 viewers four days later:
  "There are no hidden tax rises."
  Two months after they took office, the Labour Government tore up those solemn promises and introduced 17 new taxes or tax rises in their first Budget. Now, under this Labour Government, after the taxes and
  1114
  mortgage increases that have taken place over the past 10 months, the typical family is £798 worse off in a year. Nothing that the Chancellor has done today remotely compensates for the price people have already paid over the past 10 months for a Labour Government. The overall tax burden in this country is set to rise by almost 3p in the pound, even before this Budget. We will look carefully at today's figures to see what the new rise in the tax burden will be.
  In the course of those two Budgets, there has been a betrayal of businesses by the Labour Government. They made great play of being a friend of business, but in the past year, they have slapped £22 billion of extra taxes on to businesses. Nothing that the Chancellor announced today remotely makes up for the tax increases that he announced before.
  For all the Chancellor's cosmetic gimmicks today, there has been a betrayal of rural areas. The Labour party, which posed as a friend of the countryside, has today added to the costs of people in rural areas with an additional tax hike on petrol.
  There is also a betrayal of many women and children, by a Labour Government who promised to protect universal benefits and are now becoming the first Government ever to tax child benefit. So there is a betrayal, and a great deal of disappointment for many people who will have heard today's Budget.
  The Government were lucky when they started in office. They inherited the fastest growth of any major European economy, unemployment that was falling fast, the lion's share of investment from outside the European Union, inflation that was under control and—as this morning's borrowing figures have shown—public finances that are even stronger than our final Budget forecast. The previous Government hit our inflation target right on the button; the current Government have now missed their inflation target in nine out of 10 months, including in the latest figures, which were published today.
  It was the Chancellor's duty to preserve a golden economic legacy, but, step by step, he is betraying that legacy. His record is already telling a tale of two economies: services booming, and manufacturing on the brink of recession. Manufacturing output has fallen for five successive months. If those figures turn into a manufacturing recession, it will be a recession that was made in Downing street. The Chancellor has created the worst of all worlds for industry: higher tax and higher interest rates. With higher interest rates leading to an ever higher pound, export orders and jobs are at risk.
  The Chancellor has so little confidence in his own policies that—in the fine print of today's Budget—he has even downgraded his own growth forecast for this year. Last November, he was predicting between 2.25 per cent. and 2.75 per cent. growth; now he is predicting 2 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. growth. That change has occurred in only a few months. The Red Book, which was published only a few minutes ago, says that manufacturing output will be flat this year. In a wonderful euphemism, it states that net trade will
  "make a negative contribution to growth"
  of the economy this year. In Treasury-speak, what is the meaning of the statement that net trade will
  "make a negative contribution to growth"
  of the economy this year? It means that businesses are being crucified by the exchange rate.

  1115
  The Government could have done plenty in the Budget to help industry out of those difficulties. The Government could have cut the cost of creating jobs in other ways. Although the Chancellor has made some changes, he could also have abandoned the idea of a national minimum wage. He could also have further freed capital markets. However, in the past year, he has hit on the worst solution: an all-out assault on pensions and savings—the £5 billion annual pensions tax in last year's Budget—introduced by stopping pension funds claiming tax credits on their dividends.
  The Government then had the plan of abolishing personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, and of replacing them with individual savings accounts. I am glad that we have forced the Government into a humiliating U-turn in their plans for ISAs. We may have lost the vote in the House, but we have clearly won the debate. Nevertheless, we should not let the Chancellor think that he has not done damage to savings in the United Kingdom. Savers now know what the Government really want to do. They know that the Labour party has an instinct for retrospective taxes on savings.
  The Government have done permanent damage to Britain's savings culture. In the forecast published with the Budget a few minutes ago, the Chancellor forecasts a sharp fall in personal savings—but that is what happens when one clobbers pensions and savings. He forecasts that the percentage will fall from 11 to 9 per cent. How will he build a high-investment and high-productivity economy while pursuing policies and issuing forecasts that show a sharp fall in the personal savings ratio?
  The Government have made only a small step in getting their policy right. Dropping the retrospective savings limit is the right thing to do, but there is no case for keeping a lifetime limit for any savers when there is also an annual limit. Any lifetime limit will increase the cost of a scheme, making it less attractive to savers. We shall await the details of the Chancellor's proposals.
  No Government can seriously claim to be building the economy for the long term when they slap a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds. As even the Government Actuary has told Ministers, if the Government take a tax hike out of pensions, people will have to pay more. Speaking at a dinner last week, the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries said that the ramifications of the Chancellor's proposals last year
  "were clearly not thought through at the time of the Mini-Budget. Frankly they should have been."
  He also said:
  "We all know how much damage has been done because our words went unheeded…They must stop loosening the foundations on which the hitherto robust system of Occupational"
  pension
  "Schemes is built."
  The Chancellor has done nothing today to repair the damage of those measures.
  The Chancellor has proposed the working families tax credit system to replace our current family credit system. The Prime Minister vowed at last year's Labour party conference to reduce spending on welfare. He made that a top priority of his Government, and the test by which he wanted to be judged. Opposition Members have always
  1116
  made it clear that we support reform of the welfare state. However, it is now clear that Labour came to power with a heap of promises, a bundle of aspirations, a lorry-load of cliches, but nothing resembling a plan.
  Today, the Chancellor has produced a plan: a reform that increases expenditure, increases the number of people tangled up in the benefit system, and increases complexity. The central reason for that mess is the scrapping of family credit and its replacement with the working families tax credit. To redeem a pledge to reform welfare, the Chancellor has devised an extremely complex system, which I think he hopes that none of the commentators will understand. When they study it, they will find that it has put women at a disadvantage—[Interruption.] The Chancellor says that people will be able to choose to whom the benefit is paid.
  Mr. Gordon Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Hague: What happens if they do not agree? Who will arbitrate? Will Ministers decide which member of the family receives the benefit? Will the Chancellor personally decide who will receive the benefit?
  When people have read the details, they will discover that the scheme is a burden on business and demands that businesses keep records of family circumstances. They will discover also that, if the Chancellor changes the tapers and more gently withdraws benefit from some people, the Government will be spreading means testing higher up the earnings scale. They will discover that that will produce higher marginal rates of taxation and benefit withdrawal for those on middle incomes. They will discover that his scheme will extend the problem of benefit withdrawal up the income scale, from one-earner families to two-earner couples, and that, consequently, it will hit women on modest earnings, who are particularly sensitive to such disincentives.
  We do not object to the Government
  "running its own neck into the noose, but we object when it is taking millions of poor working families with it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1986; c. 942.]
  [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister says no. Those are the words of the current President of the Board of Trade, when the scheme was floated by a previous Government, in 1986. She was objecting to the scheme in 1986. The difference is that, whereas we withdrew the scheme when the problems became clear, the Chancellor has pressed on with it, hoping that, the more problems and chaos he causes, the more radical his reform will seem to be.
  There has been a report on a very similar system that now prevails in Canada, by a Mr. Mendelson—I hope that no Ministers are moonlighting. On the Canadian scheme, Mr. Mendelson writes that if, in Canada,
  "the working income supplement"—
  which is the comparable scheme—has proven a false start,
  "there is reason to suspect that the British experience"—
  should it attempt to establish a UK earned income tax credit
  "may turn out to be more like Canada's"
  than that of the United States. So we suspect that the Chancellor is making a great mistake.
  Although changing from family credit to tax credit does not in itself alter family income by a penny, the Government's policy looks at first sight—from what

  1117
  the Chancellor has said today—as if it will cost the taxpayer a great deal more, will be a disincentive to work for thousands of people, and will mean that hundreds of thousands of women will see more than £50 a week taken from their purse and placed into their partner's wallet.
  Introducing that reform makes an incomplete job of welfare reform, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. It means that the Chancellor has done a botched DIY job on welfare reform, at a price that the Lord Chancellor's decorators would have been proud of.
  The Chancellor's spin doctors like to claim that they came into office with a carefully worked out programme for government; so how embarrassing it must be, once again, to postpone the 10p income tax rate. Never has a policy been more frequently announced than the 10p income tax rate to which the Chancellor says that he is committed. He announced it before the election, he announced it during the election, and he announced it after the election. He has announced again today, but still no one is going to enjoy a 10p tax rate.
  When will the Chancellor actually implement it? Let him be in no doubt; if he wants to cut taxes, we will support him. We will certainly join him in the Lobby to vote for lower taxes, but let him now produce the 10p tax rate to which he is committed.
  We are pleased that the Chancellor accepts the need to reform national insurance contributions, and we will support smoothing them out and reducing the burdens on employing lower-paid people. However, instead of reducing burdens, he has decided to redistribute them.
  Before the Budget, even those employing workers on more than £210 a week were paying only 10 per cent. Now even those paying £81 a week will carry a marginal employers' national insurance tax of 12.2 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. As a result, although the Chancellor did not refer to this in his speech, he has increased the burden of employing many quite low-paid people. If he was going to make such reforms, he should have done it by cutting tax, not shifting it on to someone else. If he admits that reducing the cost of low-paid staff is a vital job-creating measure, why does he support a minimum wage? Exactly the same arguments that he proudly deployed today in favour of his reforms devastate his case on that.
  The Chancellor has also introduced measures on child care. The Opposition welcome much of that. That is why we introduced child care disregard into family credit during the last Parliament. It is not clear that what he has announced today is anything more than switching our policy on family credit into his new tax credit system. By itself, today's measure helps only lone parents and two-earner couples who use registered child minders and clubs. What about people who stay at home to look after their own children? A proper child care package would be aimed at least equally at them.
  It is crazy that, on first analysis, it seems that, after the Budget, two neighbours may be better off looking after each other's children than looking after their own. We will not agree with that policy. We want a policy that supports people who look after their own children, as well as those who look after the children of other people. At least the right hon. Gentleman was self-sacrificing and did not introduce a special tax relief for looking after children for the duration of a photo call. We are pleased about that.
  1118
  The decision to tax child benefit for upper-rate taxpayers poses more questions than it answers. Why leave untaxed the wife of a millionaire who does not work, while taxing the head teacher who does? Why take away a cash benefit and spend it on unspecified Government programmes, when the real aim is to reduce the size of the welfare state? The Chancellor has some time, because of his review—yet another review—to find the answers to those questions. We will judge him and his reforms of child benefit by his answers over the next year.
  The Government have got themselves into a hole on welfare reform. After messing about with a bucket and spade for a few months, the Chancellor has came along today with a huge mechanical digger, but the reforms that are intended to make work pay will for many people make hard workers pay. Welfare bills that the Government vowed would go down will instead go up, and the dependency that they pledged to reduce will instead increase.
  The Chancellor announced some spending increases. We welcome the use of money not spent elsewhere for education and health. What is remarkable about the increases in the health budget is not that the Government are putting more resources into the health service but that it would have been a national scandal if they had not. They came to office with a pledge to reduce waiting lists, yet, step by step, month by month, they have betrayed that promise. Waiting lists have risen relentlessly, up by almost 100,000 in the 10 months that they have been in office. Far from being more generous to the health service as they promised, over the past year they have dramatically cut the rate of increase in spending on our health service.
  Under Conservative Governments over 18 years, the average increase in health spending was 3.1 per cent. in real terms. This year, under a Labour Government, it has risen by 1.2 per cent. in real terms. That is the background against which the Chancellor's announcement must be judged.
  For the majority of the 50 years of the health service, it has been managed, expanded and turned into a success by a partnership between Conservative Governments and the doctors, nurses and others who work in our national health service. Before the Chancellor takes a pat on the head from the old rebels and new robots on the Back Benches, perhaps he will spare a thought for the thousands more people who must this year wait for operations who did not have to wait before this Government came to power.
  The best way to tackle welfare dependency is for people to find it easier to get a job. The Chancellor talks a good game on welfare to work; it is a shame that he does not play one. The Government are pursuing employment policies that are likely to destroy jobs rather than create them. How does he think that many companies will pay for the £22 billion of new business taxes that the CBI has identified? By cutting back on their work forces, of course. How does he think that they will pay for the minimum wage? By employing fewer people, of course. The Institute of Fiscal Studies is only the latest in a long line of expert organisations to argue that a minimum wage risks
  "generating significant levels of unemployment amongst young people".

  1119
  How can the Chancellor introduce such policies and say that in his Budget he is breaking away from dogma? How does he think that companies will absorb the extra social costs of signing the social chapter? How does he think that companies will find people with the skills and training they need if they are going to compete in the next century, when his Government have introduced student fees and abolished the maintenance grant in such a way that applications to universities and colleges have fallen dramatically? The answer, of course, is that they will not.
  Last November, the green Budget accepted that the Government had a responsibility to promote a flexible and adaptable labour market and encourage investment in skills. Against that test, huge new business taxes, the minimum wage, the social chapter and the student fees scheme are the height of irresponsibility. The Chancellor might talk about welfare to work, but the policies of this Government could force many people out of work and into welfare. It is yet another step in the step-by-step betrayal of many people in this country by the Government.
  The Chancellor mentioned environmental policies. The increase in petrol duty that he announced today is another step in the Government's step-by-step betrayal of motorists. In the past, we increased petrol duties above the rate of inflation on environmental grounds, but in the past two Budgets he has taken that policy too far. An extra 4.4p on a litre of fuel means that the tax has gone up by 20 per cent. in the past two Budgets—twice the rate of increase under the previous Government. Introducing the rise from today, rather than the normal November rate, will cost motorists hundreds of millions of pounds extra. That sleight of hand is yet another of the underhand stealth taxes that the Chancellor likes to introduce.
  The Chancellor announced his gimmick of £50 million on rural transport, which will not remotely pay for the extra cost faced by rural motorists because of other policies. Let us hope that that policy is more successful than some other cosmetic announcements and some announcements in the previous Budget. When he announced extra winter fuel payments, it turned out that most people had to wait until the end of winter to receive them. Let us hope that this Budget is implemented more successfully.
  Every day, step by step, it is clear this is the Government of the nanny state. This is the Government who tell people how to live. We see it again in the Budget. They tell people, "Don't drink, don't smoke, don't hunt, don't have a pension, don't eat beef on the bone, don't save, don't drive a car; if you drive a car, don't park it." The Prime Minister preaches to people about what they should and should not do. This Budget and the last one represent the collection plate being passed around after the sermon.
  The Chancellor's next betrayal was in his so-called crusade against tax avoidance. We notice that the Paymaster General could not bear to be here to listen to the announcements. This is the Government who appointed as the Minister responsible for offshore tax trusts and tax avoidance a man with offshore tax trusts who influences them and is presumably in charge of implementing today's changes to them.
  1120
  That is breathtaking hypocrisy. We shall judge today's changes in tax law against this simple test—the Robinson test. Will the Paymaster General continue to escape tax after today's changes? Will the Minister for tax avoidance continue to avoid tax? We suspect that he may, and that, despite all the pre-election rhetoric and the Chancellor's reforms today, the Swiss bank family Robinson will stay in business and out of tax. That is another step in the step-by-step betrayal of Britain.
  There is a simple way for people to understand what the Government are doing. Listen to what they say, and they in fact do the opposite. They say that they will not raise taxes at all, and then, step by step, they impose stealth taxes that hit hard-working families. They say that they will encourage savings, and then, step by step, they slap new taxes on pensions and scrap popular savings schemes. They say that they will tackle welfare spending, and, step by step, they set about spending more money on welfare. They say that they will be pro-business, and then they load on to businesses £22 billion of taxes that they have not adequately alleviated today. They say that they are for middle Britain, and then they impose higher taxes on middle Britain.
  When the Labour party put up all those posters before the general election with a picture of the Prime Minister promising no tax increases, it did not add footnotes saying, "Except if you are a home owner," "Except if you are a pension plan holder," "Except if you are a PEP or TESSA holder," "Except if you are a motorist," "Except if you are a student," "Except if you are council tax payer." They call themselves the people's Government. Which people? Not the people who own their own home. Not the people who are saving for retirement. Not the people who drive their own car. This Budget, taken together with its predecessor, sends a clear message to the family that works hard, saves hard and tries to be independent of the state: "The Government are not on your side." It is the step-by-step betrayal of Britain.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Paddy Ashdown. Will right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly?
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Even allowing for the fact that the speech that a leader of the main Opposition party has to give straight after the Budget statement is probably the most difficult that has to be made in the House, in my time, I have not heard a more intemperate or more inaccurate speech than the one that has just been made by the leader of the Conservative party. We are used to being astonished by Conservative U-turns and even Conservative hypocrisy since the Conservatives lost the election, but I have not yet heard a U-turn so extraordinary as the Conservatives' criticism of the Government for their NHS spending plans when the Government are following the Conservatives' NHS spending plans. It seems pretty remarkable to me.
  All Budgets are interesting—fascinating, indeed—but the Budget that sets the direction for a new Government is more interesting than most. This Budget is therefore, important not just for what it is, but for what it tells us about the Government's long-term programme.

  1121
  The Chancellor may not, to his regret, be the captain of the ship, but he has today provided its compass and set its course. We can tell a great deal from the Budget about the direction in which the Government will go.
  We have our criticisms of the Budget, of course, but there are also things with which we agree. I think that the Chancellor has been too timid, but we welcome the broad directions that he has set. We think that he could have gone further, but we believe that those directions are right. Many of them seem to have come more from the Liberal Democrat manifesto than from the Labour manifesto. Let me see whether I can list some of them.
  The Chancellor has taken a longer-term view on economic management. He has made a commitment to welfare reform. He has shifted much further than I thought he would towards helping enterprise and small businesses, and that is welcome. He is apparently serious about tackling poverty, although the proof of that pudding will be in the eating, not in the words that describe it on the menu. The Chancellor has allocated some extra money for the education and NHS budgets, about which—he will not be surprised to hear—more later.
  We applaud the Chancellor for adopting what has been our policy for years on a fiscal responsibility code and the independent status of the Bank of England—something that was in our manifesto, but not his, yet he adopted it three days after the election. We think it right that the Government have adopted a Budget judgment that is broadly neutral and pretty cautious. We are glad that they have listened to some of the legitimate criticisms, not least from Liberal Democrats, but also from the Conservatives, about their proposals on saving and business taxation. I am a little concerned that what the Chancellor has announced today will launch a bonanza in the next 18 months in PEPs and TESSAs, but let us wait and see. I shall return to some of those points later.
  First, I shall take a broader look at the Budget, the Government's record and the origins of the present economic situation. On some of the big things, the Government have done well since they came to power. The chief exception is their failure to fund their promises to improve health and education. It is, oddly, on issues of presentation that the Government have come most unstuck—sometimes very seriously. I say "oddly" because they claim to be the great progenitors of the art and science of presentation.
  The Government have made two major mistakes—one before the election and one after it—which have now come home to roost in the Budget and must very soon be corrected. Before the election, the Labour party foolishly, even dogmatically, joined the Tories in telling people that they would not increase their taxes. That was a silly promise and an undeliverable one, as the previous Government found to their cost. It has cost us dear under the new Government. It meant that in last July's Budget, when the Government should have been raising income tax to take the heat out of private spending, they could not do so and were forced to add extra burdens on businesses instead of taking money out of consumer pockets to dampen the consumer boom.
  The Government seem, by their own actions, to have painted themselves into the corner of one-club economics, rather as the Conservatives did in the early 1980s. They have to rely almost exclusively on the single instrument of interest rates, backed up by a fierce public spending
  1122
  freeze. The problem is that Britain's economy is not a single economy. It is now, much more than in the early 1980s, not one economy but two. The service sector is booming and needs to be slowed down, but the industrial sector is flagging and needs to be stimulated. Interest rates alone are simply too blunt an instrument to cope with that. They have proved ineffective in dampening the consumer boom, but they are seriously damaging industry, not least by pushing up the level of an already uncompetitive pound.
  The Government are left in a cleft stick of their own making. They need to dampen down the consumer boom in the service sector, but they cannot use personal taxes to do so, so they have to use higher interest rates, which industry needs like a hole in the head. That dilemma was graphically and perhaps painfully illustrated by the recent 50:50 split in the monetary policy committee on the question of raising interest rates.
  I do not know, and I do not believe that we can yet tell, whether there will be the soft landing that the Government want and we all pray for. The odds seem broadly in favour, but it has now become much more touch and go than it was. In that sense, this is a fingers-crossed, hope-for-the-best Budget. It will be remembered, I fear, not for all its details—commendable though many of them are—but for what happens next in the economy. On that, I suspect, for all his confident performance today, the Chancellor is as uncertain, and has his fingers as tightly crossed, as the rest of us.
  Once again, the sensible management of the British economy has fallen prey to electoral promises and the electoral cycle. Once again, we are faced with the possibility—I place it no higher than that—of another spin around that old back-breaking British cycle of boom and bust, which has dogged us for so long. That is a depressing outcome for a Chancellor whom I believe to be sincere about wanting to manage for the long term, and whose first act was, commendably, to give independence to the Bank of England—something that we proposed, but he did.
  The second consequence of Labour's foolish pre-election promises on taxation and spending is that the Government cannot now fund an early start to delivering their self-declared early pledges on health and education. That looks even more bizarre in the light of today's figures showing a bigger than expected surplus on the current account. The consequence is clear and painful to many people who voted for the Government: waiting lists are at record levels in the NHS and rising, and they are set to rise far higher; school classes are at their largest for 20 years and growing; hospitals are being closed and teachers are being sacked. I hazard a bet that there is not a single Labour Member who has not received, as I have, bewildered letters about yet more cuts in school budgets and yet more sacked teachers from people who voted Labour on 1 May in the belief that a Labour Government would improve education in their schools.
  We welcome the allocation of some extra money for schools and the NHS—after all, we have been calling for that since the general election and have been roundly abused by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for our temerity in doing so. Apparently, when Liberal Democrats call for extra money for schools and the health service, that is short-term opportunism; but when it is announced by the Chancellor, it suddenly and miraculously becomes

  1123
  responsible long-term management. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to take an intervention if any Labour Member cares to make one, but I see that none does.
  The new money, welcome though it is, will do little to save the job of a teacher who is being sacked this year, or to shorten the waiting time of the 68-year-old widow who wrote to me the other day saying that she could not understand why, under the Labour Government she voted for, she now had to wait six months longer for her hip operation.
  The Government's actions will ultimately be judged not by inputs, but by outcomes. Does the money mean universal early-years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it? No. Does it come with a commitment to lower class sizes for all primary school pupils? No. Will it double the cash for books and new technology as the Liberal Democrats have urged? No.
  Crucially, will it mean that hospital waiting lists will come down this year? I fear that it does not mean even that. The pressures on the NHS are now too great—not least because the Government would not fund it properly earlier—and this settlement does not properly reflect that fact. I simply do not understand why a Government who are rightly committed to ending boom and bust in the private sector seem now to be actively promoting a bust-and-boom approach to public services. It is not possible, in two years' time, to unsack the sacked teacher or unsell the building that used to be a cottage hospital.
  The Government's second mistake came not before the election, but after 1 May, when they injudiciously allowed themselves to be bounced into foreclosing the option of an early decision on Britain's entry into the single currency by a single Financial Times headline and an incautious phone call from a Westminster pub by the Chancellor's press officer. That the Government appear to have decided in favour of the single currency is a good thing; that they have decided to sit on the fence about when to enter it is not. I make the prediction that I have made before, and I make no apology for that: as soon as the rates are fixed on economic and monetary union on 1 May, the Government will be forced down the road by events and will have to take a decision in principle backed by a referendum before—not after—the next election.
  It is sad to see the current Government, who are unquestionably more pro-European than any of their predecessors, still being led by events on Europe instead of leading them. It is sad indeed to see that, on the Government's timetable, even Greece will now be sitting at the top table deciding future economic policy in Europe while Britain is stuck in the waiting room outside. It not only a question of leadership: we are paying a real and painful price for that fatal mobile phone call from the Red Lion pub in Parliament square. Our industrial and export industries are bleeding because of the uncompetitive level of the pound; jobs are already being lost, and more—I fear, many more—will follow; interest rates are higher than they need to be, piling on the agony for our manufacturing sector; crucial investment is already beginning to go elsewhere; and much, far too much, of the genuine good will and enhanced influence that the new Government have won for themselves in Europe is being allowed to ebb away.
  1124
  As the Budget figures reveal, Britain has met all the main criteria for joining monetary union, so I urge the Government to adopt now a declaratory policy on EMU. They should set a clear target date for joining, follow policies consistent with that aim and announce that they are prepared to have a referendum on the principle of the single currency before the next election. The result would be immediately beneficial both to the Chancellor in his predicament and to the country in that it would bring a lower pound, lower interest rates, more inward investment and a real boost to the Government's influence and standing in Europe.
  There are two other areas of the Budget on which I shall comment. The first is what might be called its central thrust: welfare reform. We welcome both the Government's overall commitment to welfare reform and much of the detail announced in the package today. We especially welcome their proposals on child care, although, again, we think that they could have gone further. Whether the package as a whole is a success will depend to a great extent on that detail, particularly on the question of working families tax credits. We welcome the changes to the payment of attendance allowance, which has now become available to working wives. That welcome is not in any sense diminished by the fact that the Chancellor has now backdated it to April last year, which is when we were proposing the measure in the Finance Bill and he was opposing it.
  We shall look at the detail of the Chancellor's welfare package before we make a judgment. I have no intention of making the sort of knee-jerk response that the leader of the Conservative party has made today. There are many items to which we are prepared to give a warm welcome. However, there is still a suspicion that some of the detail is being shaped by political gimmickry rather than by practical good sense.
  For example, an increase in the personal income tax allowance—the zero per cent. tax rate—makes far more sense than the 10p tax rate. It is more progressive, better for incentives and simpler for the tax system, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently pointed out to the Government. I am also disappointed about the lack of any immediate help for our poorest pensioners for which the Liberal Democrats have called—for example, through a £5 premium for the over-80s, who tend to be among the poorest in our country.
  The second area I wish to touch on is the environment. The Government have gone further than we anticipated that they would and we welcome that. I particularly welcome the idea that we can have a variable rate of vehicle excise duty—again, that is something that was in our manifesto, not Labour's, at the last election, but that does not diminish our welcome for the measure. However, the Government seem to think that environmental taxation is simply about taxing motorists. What we really need is a broadly based energy tax—a carbon tax—to tax pollution, not people. We also need a national scheme to boost household energy efficiency, which the Government promised when they were in opposition, but which is not contained in the Budget. Without those policies, how are the Government going to keep their manifesto promise to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent.?
  This is not a bad Budget; in fact, if the details turn out to be appropriate, it might be a good Budget in the long term. It is not a bold Budget, but it does some things well: it is long term, it tackles welfare and it says the right

  1125
  things about poverty. However, it does other things inadequately: it does too little to correct the underfunding of public services, too little to make serious progress on the Government's self-declared environmental aims and too little to correct the Government's unhealthy reliance on one-club, interest-rates-only economics. It does nothing, I fear, to clarify the Government's unsustainable position on the single currency.
  It is good that the Government are getting people back on their feet with welfare reform, but it is bad that the Government are still sitting on their hands over health and education and still sitting on the fence over the single currency. However good the Budget may be in the long term, I fear that the price that we shall pay for those inadequacies will be paid in the months ahead and in the short term.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), although he was somewhat grudging in his support for the Budget—only towards the end of his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman always raises the issues of health and education, but he does not take into account the fact that we have already provided £2.3 billion for education, that we immediately released—300 million into health care last year and that we are releasing—1.3 billion into health care this year.
  Mr. David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would rather make a little progress with my speech.
  If the right hon. Member for Yeovil continues to advance the argument that there must be more money for health and education, he should at least give us the satisfaction of stating what we have already done in both those areas.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, as he did not allow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to correct him. The hon. Gentleman should have noticed that, when the Chancellor talked about extra money for health and education, he carefully pocketed inflation, but was not prepared to pay it out. The effects of the Chancellor's Budgets over the past two years mean that, after inflation is taken into account, the amount of money invested in the NHS by the Government this year is less than that invested by the Conservatives, and over the two years—this year and next—will be nearly £250 million more. Those are the figures that should be taken into account.
  The Chancellor should remember that when the Conservatives tried those tricks in 1988, he said:
  "When health costs are rising faster than even ordinary inflation, the sum that the Chancellor has provided today will barely cover the basic inflationary pressures that the health authorities face".—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 826.]
  What the Chancellor said of one of his predecessors, we now say of him.
  Mr. Bell: I say this with great deference, but the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he lacks any grasp of the
  1126
  economic arguments. He is saying that, if we put £2.3 billion into education, £1.3 billion into health, plus £300 million, we also have to write in inflation—how ridiculous. If we were to do that, we would have to write inflation into the whole system. We would actually be saying that we do not want an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent., which is the target, but that we want it to rise consistently with the amounts of money put into education and health. The actual inflation rate that we would then be talking about would be 5 or 6 per cent.
  I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman over not understanding the basic economic fact about how inflation builds into the system. If we had inflation rates of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we would be hearing cries of dismay from the Opposition. That would contradict the argument that the right hon. Gentleman advances: he consistently tells us to join the single currency with a convergence rate of 2.5 per cent. inflation, but his statements on education and health would build inflation into our system so that we could not meet that rate. He will have to work out in his own mind the various contradictions in his policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman described the Budget as interesting; the Budget is extraordinary. The Liberal Democrat party has now taken over as the official Opposition. It is a great sadness to the House that the Conservative party, which was in government for so long, has deserted the Opposition Benches, deserted the argument and deserted the battlefield. It is extraordinary that a Budget that places emphasis on the family, the low-paid, welfare to work, redistribution and child care should find absolutely no echo from the official Opposition. While the right hon. Member for Yeovil spent much time talking about the Maastricht treaty and joining the single currency, he referred to child care only in the last few words of his speech.
  Today's Budget is extraordinary. It is a Budget that redistributes but, at the same time, does not add to taxation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a fundamental reform of the tax system. He has shown clearly that it is a Budget for the many, not the few. He has talked about building stability into the system, not creating the sort of boom-and-bust conditions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has talked about having sustainable growth and rising employment levels while maintaining a low inflation rate. He has talked about fiscal policy and monetary restraint.
  Such policies may not bring an echo from the right hon. Gentleman, but it is surprising that the Liberal Democrat party, which aspires to be the official Opposition, cannot take into account the proper arguments in the Budget. In my constituency, there will be great satisfaction at my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's view that we can move from poverty to modest prosperity, and that what he has created today is a ladder of opportunity, building on the welfare-to-work schemes and the new deal, which comes into effect on 6 April.
  My right hon. Friend also spoke of lone parent benefits—a subject that has aggravated many in the country. It was argued that lone parents would lose benefit because, if they took a job, lost it within a short time and then took up benefit again, it would be at a lower rate. Today, that issue has been addressed by my right hon. Friend. He has made it clear that benefits for lone parents will not be lost if those parents take up work for a brief

  1127
  time—and that brief time is to be at least 12 weeks. He has clearly shown that there will be no loss of benefit to the lone parent in such circumstances.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to lone parents, a subject about which I am very concerned. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the 12-week link will deal with one of the objections that some of us had to the Government's proposals, whereby single parents who took up work that did not last would find themselves worse off. But the Chancellor said something chilling when he said that there was no case for one-parent benefit. The Chancellor refuses to recognise that being a single parent in itself involves extra costs. It is important to flag up that issue at an early stage of the debate.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting that the 12-week period to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred is welcome. It will certainly ease much of the anxiety in my constituency, as in others. What my hon. Friend did not mention, but the Chancellor made great play of, is the equality of work opportunity for women, which everyone in the House should welcome.
  While my right hon. Friend did not address the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), he said that child benefit would be raised by 20 per cent. from next April. He has also talked widely and in great detail of the modernisation of the welfare state. He has also suggested that carers will have a sense of place in our system because help for them will be backdated to April 1997. The Chancellor has also made it clear that he will introduce a new child care tax credit, which the House should welcome.
  Those who argue one way or another, whether old or new Labour, must accept that the Chancellor referred to the Beveridge report and did so in the context of a changed economy. We are in the year 1998 and looking towards the millennium. We have an entirely changed economy and an entirely different social mix; it is right and proper that, while we adhere to the values and traditions that have guided this Labour party of ours for so many years, we modify and adapt them for the age in which we live.
  I was pleased to hear the Chancellor say that child benefit would stay as a universal benefit, and that its levels would be raised.
  I am sure that the Liberal Democrats, who now make up the Opposition, join us in welcoming the new working families tax credit. That is an excellent suggestion, which will help 750,000 people who are held back by low wages. By tackling the unemployment trap and increasing help to families, the working families tax credit should ensure that work will always be more attractive than benefits. That will please those who have been raised on the work ethic in our industrial cities and towns. They understand the nature of work—the dignity and respect that it gives to those who have it and how those who do not have it are deprived of dignity and respect.
  The working families tax credit will tackle the poverty trap, meaning that the more one earns, the more one takes home. That is part of the new deal. As my right hon.
  1128
  Friend has said, there is an onus and a responsibility on people to seek work. My right hon. Friend has guaranteed that work will pay.
  My right hon. Friend also had a word to say about the disabled. The debate on welfare reform has become more excitable, with disabled people chained to railings because they think that somehow their benefits will be cut and they will be victimised. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government will never compel the disabled to work, but that he will remove the obstacles that prevent those who want to work from achieving their potential. That is an admirable principle.
  My right hon. Friend said that he would introduce a new tax credit for disabled people in work. The measures that my right hon. Friend has announced will ensure greater rewards for disabled men and women who enter work. The essence of the Budget and the welfare-to-work programme, which should have been welcomed by the Conservatives, is that those who wish to work can and should work, and that work will pay.
  I shall limit my remarks to the welfare-to-work proposals. I shall not follow the, as it were, Leader of the Opposition—the right hon. Member for Yeovil—by debating the single currency. He did not give my right hon. Friend credit for the drop in the long-term interest rate from 7.5 per cent. to 7 per cent. He also failed to explain how we could enter a single currency with a short-term interest rate of 7.25 per cent., while short-term interest rates in Europe are 3.5 per cent. How can we enter a single currency when there is no convergence in our economies?
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman was—uncharacteristically, perhaps—not listening to my speech as carefully as he might. I said that the Government should follow a declaratory policy; I did not say that we should enter the single currency now. We should set a target date of 2001 or 2002. We should follow policies consistent with that, by which time we can, no doubt, achieve convergence, and then hold a referendum on the principle before the next election. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees, but I believe that the Government will do that.
  Mr. Bell: I made a shorthand note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, so I am sure that my interpretation of his remarks was accurate. He predicted that, after the rates were set on 1 May, we would be obliged to join the single currency.
  Mr. Ashdown: No. I have said this twice in simple English. The Government will be forced to take a decision and hold a referendum on the principle of joining a single currency before the next election. They can then join on their target date of 2001 or 2002. That is pretty simple. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could understand that without too much further assistance.
  Mr. Bell: I understand that, but it comes to the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman wants the Government to make a commitment to joining the single currency after 1 May. He has disregarded the Government's clearly set out policy that there must be convergence of business cycles throughout the European Union, that there must be a referendum and that the referendum must be won.

  1129
  The right hon. Gentleman should be advocating fixing our rates against other currencies, or possibly entering the exchange rate mechanism, rather than putting forward hypotheses about what he thinks will happen.
  In the days of old Labour, we used to talk of a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families. In the days of new Labour, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to achieve an irreversible shift in opportunity towards those who are less well off and less privileged in order to create a modern Britain. That is the essence of the Budget, placing emphasis on those who need help in our society and those who want to climb the ladder of opportunity. The Budget should be commended by hon. Members on both sides.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I have listened to a good many Budget debates during my time in the House. This one has had a different flavour from usual. It was different in structure and, to some extent, in content. We usually hear a list of all the goodies that the Government intend to provide in the coming year. We are then told the global cost of those goodies and the revenue that has to be raised to meet that cost.
  We have not heard that today. We have been left in limbo, having to go away to get the bundle of papers, sit down with a cold towel over our head and start to work it all out. No doubt the financial editors of the newspapers will do that ere tomorrow.
  Very few of the changes announced will have effect from today or tomorrow. The first main change seems to be planned for December, with all the others flowing from about April next year. The measures are being introduced over a long period.
  Not having heard any great detail about how the Government intend to pay for the measures that they have announced, I am driven to the conclusion that they are depending on the economy continuing to expand strongly. That is all very well if the economy follows the course that they are predicting, but if it does not, the situation could be catastrophic. As a fairly cautious man, the Chancellor will know that. No doubt measures to deal with that eventuality are buried somewhere in his speech. I shall read it carefully.
  It is difficult to make a speech about the detail of the Budget within half an hour or so of the Chancellor sitting down. It is necessary to try to absorb the broad framework and then try to work ones remarks around the salient points. During the long debate to come on the Finance Bill, we shall be able to examine in detail what the Chancellor is setting before us.
  I have always been an advocate of balanced Budgets. I was happy when we were ejected from the exchange rate mechanism, which, sadly, because of the perception in the country, was one of the greatest financial disasters that the Conservative party suffered. The ejection was a happy event. Going in to the ERM in the first place was the cause of much of the misery that the Conservatives suffered and, ultimately, of their coming to join us on this side of the House after 1 May last year. The ordinary citizen may not have been clear about what happened, but he figured that something bad had happened and did not like it. That, along with the poll tax, sealed the Conservatives' fate.
  1130
  I hope that the present Government will not take the advice of those who are urging them into the single currency. In the longer term, they would suffer the same fate as their predecessors, and ordinary citizens would pay the same unhappy price.
  Following our ejection from the ERM, the policies pursued by the previous Conservative Administration with regard to the country's finances have practically brought us back to the position where we can start to repay public sector debt. I welcome that, because I believe that we should try to redeem the indebted state in which we live. We should look forward to a long period in which as a nation we are rarely in budget deficit. In the long run, that huge burden of debt, and the huge financial commitment that must be made in interest payments every year, should shrink away.
  I am well aware—and I am sure that it is well known on the Treasury and the Opposition Benches—that that happy situation will not be achieved without pain. I hope that, as the next election approaches, the Government will not lose their nerve, and that the next Government, whoever they may be, will continue on the same path, so that we can earn our keep in the world honestly.
  I shall touch on some of the details of the Budget. The first concerns tobacco. The issues are well documented. Only a small proportion of the population, or of those engaged in the tobacco industry, would deny that tobacco is dangerous. It is dangerous, and it is better not to smoke. I am in the happy position of not smoking, although I confess that I do not think it is so dangerous that we should demand that smoking be stopped in every public place. I am not so politically correct that I am willing to go along with that manifestation of correctness.
  I have noticed from the documentation that has been sent to us recently that there has been a rise in the number of smokers, especially among the young, over the past year or so. Why should that be? It cannot simply be a matter of price. It must have something to do with peer pressure among the young. I wish that the Government would spend some of the enormous sums that they receive from the tax on tobacco to investigate the reasons why people start smoking, and that they would put the large number of spin doctors whom they employ to a more useful purpose—to come up with a good anti-smoking advertising campaign aimed at the young, to prevent young people from starting to smoke.
  That will not make me very popular with many of my friends who work at Gallaher in Ballymena. I understand that, but everyone in the industry knows that, in the long term, the tobacco industry as a major employer is doomed.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government signalled in their statement today that they would put more emphasis on controlling smuggling and on the Customs operation? The revenue from tobacco sales should go to the Exchequer for the purposes that the hon. Gentleman identified and also for the national health service. Much of that money is not being paid to the Revenue, and is also being lost to our small shops.
  Mr. Ross: I was coming to that, as it is an important issue that is well understood by those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and especially by those of us who have a connection with the Gallaher factory,

  1131
  which approaches us each year, worried about the increase in costs and the effect of that on smuggling and on its sales. This is not a black and white issue: it is complex and difficult.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as our Government increase the taxation on tobacco products, that creates an even greater incentive to smugglers, and that our Government should use their presidency of the European Union to close the gap in taxation on tobacco products?
  Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend pre-empts me—I shall deal with that, but first I shall conclude my remarks about the young.
  Despite the vast sums that they collect from tobacco, the Government have neglected the necessary education process. They want the money, but they also want the good health of the population that would flow from denying themselves that money. I urge them to use some of the money to educate the young and so reduce smoking.
  It has long been my view that, although the damage that an individual suffers from smoking is more personal than the damage caused by the excessive use of alcohol, it is still a dreadful thing to see friends, relatives and neighbours dying from cancer. For that reason I object to smoking in general, but I am not so naive as to believe that it will be easy to get rid of it.
  There are enormous costs in health provision as a consequence not only of smoking but of excessive alcohol intake, and the latter shows up more vividly in car smashes, broken bodies, broken limbs, smashed lives and young people dead. I sometimes think that too much concern is directed at smoking as a health hazard, and not nearly enough at the excessive use of alcohol.
  Tobacco creates large, important and pretty well-paid employment in Northern Ireland, but as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, the high taxes encourage smuggling. There is an enormous loss to the public purse, which has been quantified time after time by the tobacco companies for the Chancellor. The Treasury is well aware of the problem. It knows that the hand-rolling tobacco that leaves Ballymena today will be back in the stalls all over the British isles within a fortnight, no tax paid. It is extremely difficult to crack down on the trade. The number of lorries passing backwards and forwards to the continent is enormous.
  Although there have been considerable successes as a result of increased surveillance and a crackdown, smuggling is still a huge operation. A great deal of it is organised crime. It is not, so to speak, a simple home-based industry, but organised criminal activity on a very large scale. The only way that we will ever get rid of it is by getting rid of the money-making element, which means the harmonisation of tobacco taxes across Europe.
  It is about time that, on health grounds, the rest of Europe started getting its tobacco taxes up to our level. Then we would see whether the smuggling would last. The revenues properly payable in this country would flow into the coffers of our Treasury, rather than into the bank accounts of the criminals running that massive industry.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend mentioned hand-rolled tobacco. My understanding is that
  1132
  the bulk of it that is coming in is illegal—it is not British tobacco coming back. However, what has happened, especially since the last tax increase in December, is that more cigarettes are coming in. That has not affected UK manufacturers, who export the cigarettes to the continent which then come back into the country, but it is hitting the small businesses—the tobacconists and newsagents. That should cause the Government concern. It is estimated that £1 billion a year is being lost to the Exchequer. How do the Government expect to make that up by putting another 20p on a packet of cigarettes?
  Mr. Ross: The 20p increase on a packet of cigarettes will probably increase that loss to above £1 billion as more cigarettes are smuggled into this country. The weekend press was full of stories about how Andorra, of all places, is one of Europe's principal conduits for tobacco. The Government must examine that complex problem—I shall not go into it in great detail, because I know that the Government have far more information on the subject. They know the evil effects of tobacco.
  The Government are also aware of the problems caused by different pricing and taxation rates, not only for tobacco but for all sorts of goods. For instance, the high cost of cars in Northern Ireland compared with the Irish Republic is absolutely devastating the garage car trader industry in the Province. That price difference results purely from reduced taxation levels in the Republic and the pricing structures of the companies that manufacture the vehicles. The United Kingdom is one of the highest-priced car sales points in the world—it is certainly the most expensive market in Europe. The Minister may care to apply his mind to that issue.
  I now wish to discuss fuel tax. I am well aware of the strong lobby seeking to increase fuel tax for environmental purposes. I am aware also of the pressure to use gas for propulsion—there was an interesting exhibition on that in the House not long ago. However, a gas car, like a diesel car, is much more costly than a petrol car, and it will be some time before gas is able to compete effectively with other fuels. I suspect that a fuel-efficient car with low emissions is also rather more costly than an ordinary vehicle. I fear that it will be some years before those cars penetrate into the rural areas where people depend on private transport.
  Personal vehicle transport is extremely convenient, and no other form of transport will ever be as popular. Cars are vital for many people in their work. People in very different occupations—such as commercial travellers; Members of Parliament, who must visit their constituencies; and district nurses—depend on cars to a greater or lesser extent. Some occupations are totally dependent on cars.
  Although it may be possible to introduce mass public transport systems for urban, suburban and regular there-and-back journeys, that will never be possible in rural areas. Even urban and suburban public transport will always have to be subsidised to some extent if prices are to be kept down and people are to be persuaded to use it. There is a limit to how much the Government can increase the costs of cars and of running them.
  We face even greater difficulties with rural public transport, including buses and so on. It is always difficult to service sparse populations. There is no easy answer to that problem, and it cannot be right to put up the price of fuel year after year. It is easy to travel by personal transport to many regions where public transport simply cannot meet existing need.

  1133
  We know that people—especially those in rural areas—will do without other things in order to hang on to their cars. Steadily increasing fuel costs are creating great hardship for many people who live and work in the more remote areas of this country. There is no point in demanding Rolls-Royce standards for the environment if that creates penury for the individual in other respects—in the form not only of fuel tax but of taxes on rural activities such as quarrying and gravel extraction, which provide vital employment. I shall come to that issue in a moment.
  I had an interesting experience just before Christmas when a constituent informed me of a nice legal way to avoid paying excise duty on heavy commercial vehicles in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the Chancellor about the matter on 15 January, and I received a reply from the Financial Secretary saying that the Treasury was grateful to me for drawing its attention to the problem of evasion of vehicle excise duty in Northern Ireland. Although it is evasion, it is not illegal—in fact, it is very clever. People open an office for a quarrying or sand-washing business in the Irish Republic and, if they live within 20 miles or so of the frontier, they can take their vehicles into the Irish Republic where they pay their vehicle excise duty—which can amount to a saving of—500, or—1,000 for the heaviest vehicles, per year. It is even better if the operators can use those vehicles occasionally in the Republic.
  Such operators not only deprive the United Kingdom Exchequer of revenue but put themselves in a powerful position in relation to their competitors who pay their vehicle excise duty in the Province. The Treasury must address that loophole. I hope that Ministers will refer to the letter that I received from the Financial Secretary on 18 February because, although the Treasury seemed delighted to hear about that little swiz, it does not seem to have done much about it.
  I am a gentle sort of chap, but I was not satisfied with the Treasury's response. I recently asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he had made of the impact on vehicle registrations in the United Kingdom of the different rates of vehicle excise duty that apply to commercial vehicles in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. The answer I received was that no assessment had been made. Perhaps the Treasury could tie in its examinations with those of the right hon. Gentleman.
  It was also pointed out that the sums accruing in respect of vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles in Northern Ireland have fallen by about £2 million in the past three years. I do not think that there are fewer heavy vehicles of that class on Northern Ireland roads; I am sure that there are as many as ever—I always seem to get stuck behind a sand lorry when I am out driving. if the excise duty is short by £2 million, that money must be going somewhere else. We should remember, too, that the rate of vehicle excise duty has increased in the intervening three years, so the take should be up by £2 million or £3 million.
  I have also discovered that the total number of goods vehicles has increased by some 3,000. Therefore, one can safely assume—I have made further inquiries into the matter—that the lighter vehicles are still taxed in Northern Ireland while another class of vehicle is taxed on the other side of the frontier. Will the Government take that information on board and do something about it?
  1134
  Most businesses in Great Britain do not have to accept the consequences arising from an open land frontier and the different tax regimes and standards of pollution control on either side of it—which brings me to my next point. Northern Ireland cannot escape those consequences. The two jurisdictions are side by side, so it is easy to adjust and work in the jurisdiction where one will derive the greatest financial benefit. The consequences are that one firm may save money and accrue excess profits while another is driven into bankruptcy. That results in considerable damage to the Northern Ireland economy—to employment, to the tax take and to spending power. The Government must address that problem and create a level playing field so that businesses may compete fairly.
  Another issue—it will become worse as a result of today's announcements—arises from the difference in fuel costs between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The overall duty in Northern Ireland on unleaded petrol and diesel is 40.28p per litre. In the Republic, unleaded petrol carries a duty of 29.45p a litre. That is a difference of about 10.5p. The duty on diesel is 25.62p, giving a difference of slightly more than 15p per litre.
  It is no wonder that all the petrol stations in the Republic adjacent to the border are making a fortune. Those which are unfortunate enough to be in Northern Ireland are being crucified. In Northern Ireland, the price per litre of unleaded petrol is about 61.9p sterling. In the Republic of Ireland, it is 61.9p in punts, which is a heck of a difference.
  Mr. Beggs: It is about 15 per cent.
  Mr. Ross: That is right.
  In Donegal, the price of diesel is 62.9p. The equivalent price is 0.529 punts. That is a huge difference. As for Down and Louth, the price of petrol is 64.9p in Northern Ireland and 0.569 punts in the Republic. Diesel is priced at 63.9p sterling as against 0.499 punts.
  With such differences in pricing, the honest trader or business man in Northern Ireland is being hung out to dry.
  Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an even greater disparity in the price of red diesel, which is being used illegally by hauliers? That disparity is creating great difficulties for legitimate business men who seek to compete with fly-by-night operators. It would be well justified for Customs and Excise staffing in Northern Ireland to be increased to deal with that illegal trade.
  Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the order that had to be rushed through the House some years ago when diesel tankers were parked on one side of the border from which pipes were run across to the other side. In that instance, the IRA was involved, and the sums were horrendous. Very few of these activities on the Northern Ireland border are merely matters of commercial advantage or disadvantage. Many of them have a terrorist element.
  I expect that the Minister will be more interested in revenue. However, she and her right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury should turn their minds to the implications for criminal or terrorist activity, with violence being funded from such activities. I ask the Minister to take those elements on board and for heaven's sake to do something about them before we are very much older.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I shall be as brief as possible, confining myself to one or two subjects in the Budget proposals, most of which I welcome. There are, of course, still some worries about the benefit changes that are already taking place, such as those affecting lone parents. However, I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative in considering new benefits to cater for family need.
  I genuinely and sincerely hope that the shake-up of the tax and benefits systems will have the desired effect of helping those in greatest need. I hope, too, that we shall be able to provide proper training for proper jobs for those who are seeking work. I look forward to the schemes that have been outlined being a great success.
  I understand the concern about inflation. Economists—and especially former Chancellors—have apparently always been obsessed with inflation. It seems that newspaper inflation reports are almost as popular as weather forecasts for the day—will there be rain or sunshine, or has the rate of inflation increased or decreased? However, many people understand inflation and many of my constituents feel that they are not affected greatly by a slight shift in the rate of inflation weekly, monthly or even yearly.
  I understand that we cannot allow rampant inflation of the kind that has occurred in other parts of the world. We are aware of the consequences for economies generally. However, it is slightly narrow and dangerous to concentrate solely on price stability, which in its turn brings serious consequences. One example is the value of the pound and the effect that that is having on industry and the export market. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say this afternoon that he fully recognises the problems that manufacturing industry is facing, especially with the export market, as a result of the strength of the pound.
  Imports are similarly affected. The fact that we have a strong pound means that it is easier to suck in goods from abroad, and that has an effect on our United Kingdom base. I am sure that the TUC has written to every Member of this place, and certainly to my right hon. Friend, expressing the fears about the strong pound, or the overvaluing of the pound.
  Another problem lies with interest rates. I am sure that we have all received letters from employers expressing concern about them. I am no longer sponsored by the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, but I am still a member of it. I meet members in their factories and firms throughout the country, including my constituency. In that regard I still have an interest, because the industry employs much skilled labour, both male and female.
  Manufacturing industry is different from many other forms of employment. Consistently high interest rates along with a consistent over-valuation of the pound have a dramatic impact on our manufacturing base. Manufacturing industry is not like the corner shop, where it is possible to order a gross of cornflake packets one week on the basis that, if business is good, it will be possible to order two gross the following week.
  Industry operates on a longer-term basis than that. It is extremely expensive to modernise or expand. Industry has to borrow millions of pounds to improve and modernise
  1136
  so as to become more competitive in the world market. Massive changes in interest rates, especially rising rates, have a serious effect on manufacturing companies. Such fluctuations have brought many companies to their knees.
  Investment in manufacturing is long-term, and there are long-term cycles for order books: when are the products made; how long will it take before they are sold; and how long will it be before payment is made? Against that background, a stable economy is important. Stable interest rates and a pound that is not overvalued are also crucial to our industry.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we want an end to boom and bust and look to stability in the economy—the Government's overriding long-term objectives—we shall not achieve those objectives with the present level of the pound? We must have lower interest rates and a lower pound.
  Mr. Michie: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, which is absolutely crucial if in the long term we are to achieve high growth, production and wealth for all our people.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of a reduction in the rate of corporation tax from April. That will certainly be helpful. Nevertheless, the value of the pound and current rates of interest are causing concern in manufacturing industry.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that about 20 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing investment results from expenditure in the North sea oil industry? There will be concern among contractors who will have to wait another month to find out whether the Government plan any reforms of the tax regime. The hon. Gentleman referred to. long-term investment in manufacturing. Does he accept that stability in any tax regime helps to encourage long-term investment, and uncertainty as to whether the Government plan to change the tax regime may drive investment away to other countries?
  Mr. Michie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of the oil industry, the steel industry—on which we have all received letters—and engineering. Long-term investment means holding one's breath for a long time and hoping that nothing drastic happens to the economy and interest rates during a five, 10 or 15-year investment programme.
  It is a tough world out there. I may be bragging, but I have every confidence in the ability of British manufacturing, engineering, science and technology to compete with the best in the world.
  We would like a level playing field, however. To use a sporting analogy, given that the world cup is nearly upon us, we should like a fair kick at the ball on a level playing field. We are not seeking special favours or subsidies, just the chance to prove our worth—and I am sure that we will do it.
  A strong pound means cheap holidays, and this year thousands of people may be enjoying extra holidays abroad. That is the up side. The down side is that a strong pound is detrimental to industry, particularly manufacturing, and could lead to job losses. If people lose

  1137
  their jobs, they will have no holidays, so what may be good for some people may badly affect thousands of others. It is essential that we protect our manufacturing base. I admit that am biased in favour of engineering and science, but it is clear that our manufacturing base has been, and will continue to be, the strength of the nation.
  My right hon. Friend's welfare-to-work measures are also welcome.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Michie: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 27 minutes on fag ends.
  Welfare to work requires proper training and jobs, which depend on a stable economy and a strong industrial base. I welcome the encouragement that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have given British Aerospace in respect of launch aid for the Airbus 340, 500 and 600. It is a classic example of British industry as a world beater.
  For 18 years under the Tories, particularly before I entered the House, industry—and the workers within it—was left to the wolves. It took years for the previous Government suddenly to realise that industry no longer had a skills base or a production base for when the economy recovered. Their policies were so short-sighted that they were criminal. Now that we have a totally different Government who are much more sympathetic to industry, and certainly understand it better, confidence is growing. We need to improve our skills base through welfare to work and training programmes.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Michie: No. I am about to finish my speech.
  In respect of research and technology, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that £50 million is to go into university research. It may not be as large a sum as some people would like, but it is a step in the right direction.
  Since the general election, confidence has improved and there are great expectations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account my points about the manufacturing base, the strength of the pound and the level of interest rates, and that the measures he has introduced will help to realise the nation's aspirations. I know that the present Government can do it.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: Before I comment on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), I should like to welcome the Paymaster General to our humble debate. His presence now makes his absence from the Front Bench during the Chancellor's statement even more mysterious. Perhaps he was hiding, in which case I apologise. The Paymaster General normally occupies a more prominent position during Budget debates.
  I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Heeley when he referred to industrial production. It is a nice mythology that industrial production collapsed under the previous Administration. In truth, the reverse happened. In the latter period under the previous Government,
  1138
  industrial production peaked. It was a different composite of industrial production, but it was highly successful. The structural reforms that were implemented by the previous Government are benefiting the present Government and this year's Budget.
  The Government have the benefit of the strongest economy inherited by any incoming Administration in recorded history, so it will take them some time to mess things up. I sympathise with an earlier, sedentary, comment that it was irresponsible of the Conservative Administration not to have left behind a worse economy, as that would have averted prolonging the agony of a Labour Government. They will undoubtedly mess it up, but the good news is that it will take them some time to do so.
  It is also good news that the Government have inherited sensible policies that they have decided to stick with, at least for the time being. For example, they have retained a £266 billion control total for expenditure.
  As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, we were not given the global totals. That is quite extraordinary. Usually we are in a position to compare expenditure and income. One advantage introduced by the Conservatives was that we had access to both figures. That was a tremendous innovation. This time, however, we are not able to compare the figures, although we know that the Government have decided to retain the control total. Outside commentators tell us that the control totals have been undershot; in that case, what I suggest is even more sensible.
  The Government have also sensibly decided to retain the same rates of income tax, although that terrified the left wing of the party. Perhaps that is why so many of them escaped so quickly after the Chancellor sat down—presumably to report him to the newspapers—although the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who always takes a great interest in these matters—and bravely so—is still in her place. On some issues, particularly in respect of economic and monetary union, I find myself in enormous agreement with the hon. Lady, although she see things from a rather different perspective. However, I would not wish to embarrass her or spoil her career by associating myself too closely with her.
  The good news is that the Government have accepted, albeit ungraciously—they have had to accept it—that we left behind an extremely favourable legacy. We left behind some good policies which it will take the Government some time to mess up.
  The bad news is that, in the end, Labour always mishandles the economy. In the end, it always loses investors' confidence. However good the motives of those in the Labour party, or in its higher reaches, in the end it is the victim of the fundamental tensions in its ranks between the true socialists—the true inheritors of Keir Hardie and those who built up the socialist movement—and the lotus-eating types who from time to time take over the party.
  One of the ways in which the Government have responded to that tension is to hand over a large chunk of the management of the British economy to the Bank of England, which, to a large extent, now effectively runs the economy on a narrow statutory objective.
  The hon. Member for Heeley said that we must not treat inflation too seriously. I do not want to caricature or exaggerate what he said, but the problem he faces is that

  1139
  the Administration he supports has handed over the British economy to an unelected body—the Bank of England with which, from time to time, I have the honour of debating in the Treasury Committee—with the specific narrow statutory objective of a 2.5 per cent. inflation rate.
  Members of the Treasury Committee may say to the Governor, "You don't really believe in this, do you? You are really on our side. You will match this up with other objectives, won't you? We are worried because the present high interest rates are forcing up the pound. That might be good for the cost of imports, but it is bad for exports, so we want you to modify that." The Governor can say what he likes in response, but the only legal response that he can make is, "I'm terribly sorry, but my overriding objective is a 2.5 per cent. inflation target."
  The Government cannot have it both ways. One of the features of this Budget, and of the previous Budget, is that under this Administration so much of economic policy now has to be conducted within the boundaries of the fact that economic management is no longer the responsibility of the House of Commons and is constrained by limited economic objectives.
  Sir Robert Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman argue for a higher inflation target, or is he happy with a more relaxed target?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I do not disagree with keeping inflation down. What I am concerned about is that it is no longer the responsibility of politicians in the House. So much of the debate that we have now is artificial—it is nonsense because we can no longer affect policy.
  No doubt that nonsense is the result of the best of motives. The speech of the hon. Member for Heeley was an echo of the past when we had some say in the running of Britain from this Chamber. The Treasury Committee can summon the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time and ask him some polite, or rude, questions, which he must answer in fairly constrained terms; then he goes away, and the Select Committee produces a report and everyone is happy, but the House no longer has any real involvement or accountability.
  Therefore, to an extent, debates such as this are a pure waste of time. Monetary management is crucial to economic management, particularly if the Government are committed, as they say they are, to relating fiscal policy to monetary policy. In effect, that was said today about the new fiscal code. If that is to mean anything, it must mean that fiscal policy is running in tandem with monetary policy. It would be nonsense if the Government's stated policy was to run fiscal policy in opposition to monetary policy, if only because interest rates would have to go up and up because of the inflation target. It is arguable that they have gone up to the extent they have because fiscal management has not been in tune with monetary management.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—as I am sure he will—gets the Budget absolutely or near enough right so that he has money in his pocket, he will be able to have a dialogue with the Bank of England about the exchange rate, and therefore its effect on the pound? It is not that
  1140
  the two things are in different worlds. The two interested groups know exactly what is happening and if my right hon. Friend has the money in his pocket, it will have the effect that we all want.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I am sure that Ministers and the Governor of the Bank of England will collude on matters of policy from time to time. The other day on the "Today" programme, a Minister said exactly that—that the Government have ways of getting their message through—but the problem is that a statute has been passed by Parliament not only giving the Bank of England responsibility for monetary policy, to which fiscal policy must be attached, but stating that that monetary policy must be carried out in a precise way to meet a, 2.5 per cent. inflation target.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bank of England's narrow remit is leading to severe problems. Does he agree that one power that might have been given to the Bank of England is the ability to control the money supply? Does he agree that the present increase in the money supply will lead to problems?
  Sir Michael Spicer: There are inconsistencies in policy—my hon. Friend is right. M4 is running at about 10 per cent. on an annualised basis, which is serious in terms of monetary policy as defined by the Government, and it is one reason the Monetary Policy Committee was split 50:50 on interest rates. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that such things should be in sync. That adds to my point that, once policies have been set in such narrow terms, everything flows from that decision.
  The debates that we used to have about monetary and fiscal policy and economic management are fairly worthless now. We are left struggling with a little taxation here and there, some tinkering around and a little prioritising, but in terms of Britain's grand economic management, the House of Commons can no longer join in properly. It may try to or pretend to, as it would if we had a European Parliament with the ultimate say in our affairs, but in reality we have no such power.
  I was distracted from what I was saying about the tensions in the governing party being one reason why there will be an ebb of confidence from Britain. which is one reason my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked what had happened to the lop tax rate and the welfare reforms. I assume that they have not been introduced precisely because of those tensions in the Labour party, to which there is an attempt to pander by not lowering direct taxes too fast. Neither have the Government got to grips with welfare reform.
  The tension in the Labour party also explains why taxes have soared in the past two Budgets. The first Budget took out £4 billion of tax, excluding windfall tax, and £5 billion will now be raided from pension funds. Hon. Members need not take the Opposition's word on that; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, based on the Chancellor's first Budget alone, that by 2001 or 2002 taxes will rise from their current level of 38 per cent. of gross domestic product to 40 per cent.
  That figure assumes an average growth in GDP of some 2.5 per cent. If the high interest rates, the high pound and the natural economic cycle result in GDP stabilising or

  1141
  even falling during that period, the percentage tax take will soar because the taxes are now inbuilt; what is not inbuilt is the guarantee that GDP will rise.
  It now seems that, should the Government decide to enter economic and monetary union, under the Maastricht conditions the United Kingdom will have to enter the exchange rate mechanism. It was thought that we could simply shadow the euro or the deutschmark. In the new circumstances, interest rates, far from coming down—as people assume they will—in the next two or three years, will come down only a little and then the Germany economy will dominate. The German economy is the size of the French and British economies put together, it is beginning to come out of recession and interest rates in Germany and the EMU area are beginning to rise.
  As we approach the next general election, instead of British interest rates coming down, they may start to rise as we try to match the EMU currency. That may worry Labour Members. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is right to worry about those matters. If I were a Labour Member, I would be dead scared. The Government have already given up control over monetary policy—to fate, as it were. If they start seriously to prepare for entry into EMU, which will mean joining the ERM again, they will make trouble for themselves.
  The best that can be said about this Budget is that it is not as bad as some people feared. That is why all the left-wing Labour Members rushed out of the Chamber to report the Chancellor to the press.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Not all of them.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I have already exonerated the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I exonerate the hon. Member for Heeley. If other Labour Members want to raise their hands, they should do so now.
  A Government whose pronouncements are not as bad as everyone had feared are not good for long-term confidence. When people go through a mental sauna bath and worry themselves stiff that the Budget will be awful but then find that it is not quite so bad, markets and confidence are unsettled. It is particularly unsettling when the Chancellor gives no proper figures to show how he has balanced the books.
  We know that a combination of excise duties, taxes raised at the last Budget and, above all, fiscal drag, which is the result of the strong economy that the Government inherited, has meant that the Government have had some money to play around with, to use the illusion of the hon. Member for Heeley. At the moment, a Government can do wonderful things without much pain, but it will be interesting to see how they perform once the pain sets in and the constraints start to emerge, as they will even according to the Government's own forecasts. It will be interesting to see the tensions build up within the Labour party, but disturbing to see the confidence that will be lost as a result.
  When studying the confidence surrounding the Budget we must consider the wider political context in which it is set. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that he was worried about the Government sitting on the fence about monetary union. I worry about that from
  1142
  the opposite perspective. Whatever one's perspective, the fact remains that it does not help the confidence of this country not to know whether we will join EMU.
  The Government say that they want to join, but that first we must fulfil certain tests; when the Chancellor comes before the Treasury Committee and is asked how he will judge whether the tests on convergence and on British interests in EMU have been fulfilled and whether he will occasionally report back on how he is getting on with fulfilling those test, there is a complete fudge. Those tests were produced as a fudge to paper over the Government's problems when they were trying to decide about EMU. Uncertainty about EMU is part of the problem that the Government face in terms of the lack of confidence that is beginning to emerge.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: That is the third time the hon. Gentleman has mentioned lack of confidence in the Government's economic policies. The FTSE index shows that shares have soared, especially since we were elected, and the pound is also high. Our problem is not lack of confidence, but far too much confidence and a flow of money into London.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My argument is based on the fact that this has been a roaringly successful economy because of the previous Government's legacy. When Mr. Wilson took over the economy from Mr. Barber, it was argued that the Conservatives left behind a phoney boom that then burst. This time, manifestly, the Conservatives left an economy that was so structurally sound that it will take some time to mess it up. There is an inevitability about the fact that it will be messed up. I mentioned EMU as one of the longer-term features and said that lack of certainty about our joining would be increasingly unsettling, particularly as more and more evidence about the effectiveness of the Maastricht treaty emerges—the two-year requirement now appears to be quite specific. All those issues will create uncertainty.
  The Budget must be viewed in the context of two other serious factors. The Government and the Liberal Democrats appear to be dabbling with proportional representation, which has economic consequences. New Zealand is an example of a strong economy that adopted PR and became weak as a result. Governments of the left and right in New Zealand pursued liberal policies and surged forward strongly in the 1980s. New Zealand's currency became extraordinarily strong and its agriculture was freed from all controls and roared ahead. Along came PR and, with it, certain government collapsed. Its Government are now controlled by parties of the extreme left and right, which is a nonsense.
  Anyone who has visited New Zealand knows that the Government now face crises daily. People are beginning to withdraw their money; investment is no longer being made because of the uncertainty surrounding the Government. The prospect of this country moving to a similar system tremendously handicaps its economic management.
  The Government's policies of breaking up the United Kingdom fit into that context. The Treasury Committee is beginning to delve into the Barnett formula and the enormous disparities in expenditure per head between Scotland and England.
  Sir Robert Smith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises that these issues were emerging before

  1143
  the general election, when the party in power, which was committed to no change at all, began to delve into the figures. The then Secretary of State for Scotland initiated many comparative studies and brought the issues to life.
  Sir Michael Spicer: No Treasury Committee was beginning seriously to question patterns of expenditure around the United Kingdom as the current Treasury Committee is beginning to do. A Pandora's box is opening up: the backlash is emerging in every English constituency, and instability in budgeting compounds a worrying situation.
  The Government pat themselves on the back, but they should pat us on the back. We left them an immensely strong economy, but it is only a matter of time before it unravels and investors start to withdraw their money. Luckily, Governments with huge majorities have short shelf lives. The majority of the 1906 Government disappeared by 1910 and that of the 1945 Government, who are more familiar to Labour Members, disappeared by 1950.
  Governments break up from within and the omens are not good for this Government—one can already feel the tensions in the Tea Room. The true socialists are about to burst blood vessels; when they do—metaphysically, of course—the country will be the beneficiary, because that will be the end of the Labour Government.
  6.44 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: It is always difficult to assess a Budget so soon after a Chancellor has finished speaking, and before one has read the Red Book properly. It is even more difficult for those trying to assemble a few ideas of their own, as I am, in my usual imprudent fashion, rather than using the Millbank brief. None the less, I shall try.
  The Chancellor said that the Budget was a signal of support for enterprise, and that the Government are "on your side". But, as Member of Parliament for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, which has the highest unemployment in the south-east, I am constitutionally obliged to ask myself whether the Government are on the side of my constituents and of people in inner-city communities up and down the country.
  The point of departure is the broad macro-economic themes of the Budget, the first of which is stability. The Chancellor still boasts about handing control of interest rates to the Bank of England, but he will not boast for much longer. For the past seven or eight years, my position on the Bank's independence has been consistent. Handing control of interest rates to the Bank of England did not require us to look into a crystal ball—we could read the book. Far from implementing a great modernising measure, we moved back to the position that obtained before the war. Interest rates have risen inexorably, as we said they would.
  The problem with the separation of monetary policy from fiscal policy and public expenditure is that it is created in the rarefied atmosphere of Threadneedle street, away from the needs of the real economy. We made a precipitate move, which was never debated by the Labour party conference. The Chancellor gave control of
  1144
  monetary policy to the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee: interest rates have risen inexorably, and the pound has become overvalued, which has had a crippling effect on manufacturing industry.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: Doesmy hon. Friend not she accept that since the Government granted independence to the Bank of England, long-term interest rates have consistently fallen and are at their lowest for more than 30 years, and that that is the pointer for the future movement of interest rates, rather than what has happened over the past few months?
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend must accept that a socialist Government should run the economy not for the benefit of the bond market and bond speculators, but with a view to the prospects for growth and jobs in the real economy.
  The argument that an independent Bank of England by itself produces stability and low inflation is an argument of reverse causality. Germany has an independent central bank, and low interest rates and stability, and people say that we would have the same happy conditions if we had such a bank. I argued at length in the Treasury Select Committee that the Germans are prepared to have an independent central bank and such a monetary policy for specific historical reasons. There is no statistical evidence of a causal relationship between an independent central bank and low inflation.
  The Chancellor still boasts about handing over control of interest rates to the Bank of England, but he will not boast for much longer. He also boasted, rather more quietly, about how he was comfortably meeting the Maastricht criteria. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Britain would enter economic and monetary union on time in 1999 if it were left to the Chancellor.
  The Government's cautious approach has my 101 per cent. support. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that even Greece is round the table on economic and monetary union, but if he thinks that it will be round the table for much longer, he has not looked at the figures. I am not putting a partisan spin on it when I say that an economic and monetary union that involves economies as disparate as those of Greece, Spain and Italy is not sustainable. If my hon. Friends do not believe me, they should talk to the Governor of the Bank of England, because that is what he has said and is still saying.
  It is all very well to boast about stability, but if people in inner-city areas such as Hackney are to have any hope of jobs, they need growth. I have taken the trouble to read the Red Book, and it contains some positive and some worrying indicators. The Government's economic forecast is that GDP growth is slowing, that there is a deterioration in the net trade performance and that manufacturing output is stalling.
  My concern about the direction of monetary policy is that pursuing low interest rates at the expense of the real economy will give us a form of stability, but we will not have the growth and the manufacturing output to provide jobs for my constituents and others in the inner city. The holy grail of low inflation to the exclusion of all else should not be the aim of a Labour Government.
  My constituents need healthy, balanced growth. There is a danger that, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, fashionable opinion in the City or fashionable economic

  1145
  commentators, we are pursuing the stability of the graveyard. Anyone can produce a stable economy with no growth, but the trick is to have growth and stable inflation. We do not yet know whether the Government have pulled it off, but there are some worrying indicators on growth, trade and manufacturing output. I am glad to put those worries on the record, because I believe that we shall come back to these issues in the coming months.
  The second broad macro-economic theme of the Budget had to do with enterprise. In this context, enterprise seems to mean low taxation for individuals and for business. It is regrettable how low taxation as an end in itself has become the mantra of modern politics. Nobody likes to pay tax, and on a superficial level low taxation is attractive politically. Nobody likes to go to the dentist either, but we do not make rotten teeth the be-all and end-all of our national health policies, and we should not make a natural human reluctance to pay tax the be-all and end-all of our economic policies. Pursuing the goal of low tax for its own sake will cripple the Government's ability to invest in the public sector, which is one of the few measures that will provide jobs for the people whom I represent in the inner city.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Lady agree that small firms need help to make a profit in the first place? If they do not make a profit, they do not pay tax. The way to help them to make a profit is to reduce bureaucracy. Although the Chancellor mentioned that in his speech, he did not say specifically how he intends to achieve it. All the portents are that the Government's policies will lead to an increase in bureaucracy.
  Ms Abbott: I have faith in my Chancellor. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that reducing bureaucracy is very important for small businesses. The enterprise in Hackney is mostly small businesses. Ethnic minority business men have opened small family businesses in Hackney and are hoping for growth. I am sure that the Treasury is committed to cutting bureaucracy.
  The Chancellor referred to the importance of an open market for competition. Again, I give him my 101 per cent. support. An open market for competition should apply to everyone, including Rupert Murdoch. I hope that, when we consider the Competition Bill, Treasury Ministers will see fit to reinforce and support the changes that were designed to smash Murdoch's detrimental monopoly hold on large swathes of the print and electronic media. It is no good the Chancellor talking about an open market for competition on Budget day, if the Government continue to give tacit support to the arch-monopolist of the media, Rupert Murdoch.
  Another of the Government's macro-economic themes is welfare reform. We all wait to read the fine print in the Green Paper. Hon. Members are united in wanting welfare reform, but the Government cannot delude the public into believing that it comes cheap and that it is an easy, short-term way of cutting the social security budget. All the evidence, whether from America or from Sweden, shows that to achieve genuine welfare reform we have to be prepared to spend money and to see welfare costs rise in the short term. The public will have to be disabused of the notion that welfare reform is an easy way to cut benefits.
  The Red Book is not explicit about welfare reform. It is interesting to examine the control totals and the budgets for each Department. The social security budget
  1146
  remains constant. It is telling that the Chancellor is not saying that it will rise very much, or that it will fall very much.
  One of the biggest issues surrounding welfare reform in recent months has been the benefit integrity project. I was in the House for the last Budget presented by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and I remember the launch of the benefit integrity project. It was not called that: it was a project to bring down social security spending. Everything that Ministers have said since is misleading. The benefit integrity project was first and last a project designed to bring down and contain social security spending. That is why disabled people are having such problems with it, and why people are being harassed. The real intention is not to provide a better service for the disabled or for welfare recipients, but to bring down social security spending.
  Work was one of the themes of the Budget, and it will be taken up by the Government. It is important that everyone who can work should go to work to keep their families. In his speech, the Chancellor told the nation that their responsibility is to seek work, and that he will guarantee to make work pay. That is all well and good, but people want to know what responsibility the Government have for ensuring that jobs are provided. It is a cruel deceit to urge people to work and to tell them that he will make work pay, if the Government are not pursuing the broad economic policies designed to achieve growth, especially job growth in the inner city.
  Another of the Government's broad macro-economic themes is strong public services. We cannot have strong public services unless the Government are prepared to invest in them, and the money can come only from general taxation. I take a particular interest in the public sector, because the largest employer in my constituency is the local authority, and the second largest is the health service. Without investment in the public sector, jobs will not be provided in my constituency.
  On Friday, we are launching the new deal in Hackney. I was concerned to learn that, although much hard work is going into the new deal, the local authority is in no position to take on new people. Hackney council is in the process of restructuring, so it is losing staff, not taking them on. I do not see how the new deal can work in the inner city if there is no investment in the public sector, which is most used to, and most skilled in, recruiting and training in the inner city. I do not see how the new deal can work without investment in the public sector to make jobs available for young people in my constituency.
  There are many measures to welcome in the Budget. I welcome the steps to ensure that museums and galleries need not charge. I welcome the tax relief for donations to the third world, although I remind the House that the most important thing that the Government can do for the third world is provide a package of debt relief for the millennium. We need much more substantial debt relief than we have seen before. I also welcome what was said about child care, although I wait to see the fine print.
  I particularly welcome the Chancellor's announcement that he will crack down on offshore trusts. I am an old-fashioned Labour person: I believe in equality. We cannot talk to the British people about work and productivity, or about fairness, if we as a Government are

  1147
  not prepared to crack down on the way in which the rich members of society evade taxation by the use of offshore trusts.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, this Budget was announced with a deal of bravura. It will be impossible to judge it until we have read the background documentation thoroughly and have seen the fine print, which is not yet available to us. As I have also said, however, those who read the documentation that was provided with the Budget statement will note some worrying economic indicators.
  Let me give a final quote from the Red Book:
  "Higher interest rates"—
  which we have experienced—
  "take time to bite on spending…As the economy slows in response to the tighter policy stance, a downturn in the growth of real incomes is also expected. In particular, employment growth is likely to abate".
  I welcome the new deal. I welcome my Government's commitment to work. I welcome the commitment of my new Government to jobs. But I worry that handing responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank of England, and deflationary tendencies in relation to manufacturing and trade, will create a climate in which—despite the best efforts of the many people working in Hackney and, indeed, up and down the country to make the new deal successful—jobs will simply not be there for my people.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. What I want to say follows from what was said by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I think that we will see an increase in unemployment during the current year.
  I cannot claim to have read every page of the Red Book, but I do not see the forecast for unemployment that I usually begin to see around the time of a Budget statement. If the Government are working on the planning assumption that unemployment will be at the January level throughout the year, and if it has been falling for the last two or three months, presumably they must expect it to start increasing. It has started increasing in Scotland.
  My fear is that, because of the effect of some of the Government's policies on manufacturing industry, unemployment will be increasing throughout the United Kingdom by the end of the year. As far as I can see, the costs of that are not taken into account in the Government's projections on tax and spending. There will, however, be other opportunities to debate those issues during the coming year.
  Like the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I welcome some parts of the Budget. For instance, I welcome the initiative on third-world donations by individuals. Let us remember, however, that, even if 10,000 individuals take advantage of that initiative and the 40 per cent. extra is received from the Chancellor, that will be no substitute for the progress that I wish had been made under the previous Government—the achievement of at least half the target of 70p out of every £100 of our recurrent wealth that we had agreed to give to those who needed it.
  1148
  Those who argue that some of the aid projects are not worth it ought to join in the effort to find projects that are. The fact that some have gone wrong in the past is no argument for not finding some that will go right in the future.
  Of course, we need to do more on aid provision. It is often difficult for a constituency Member of Parliament to argue for more freedom of imports, but if we do not give the developing world the opportunity to trade, our aid will not work to full advantage. I look forward to progress both on what the Government have done and on what I hope they will do, with some bipartisan support.
  If the Chancellor starts to say that there is no great support in the constituencies for increasing trade and aid provisions and debt relief, I invite him to send his people down to my constituency. West Worthing is one of the areas that contain a fair number of mature people—the highest proportion of retired people in the country. Those people rightly put pressure on me to put pressure on the Government with regard to this issue, among others, and I do so with enthusiasm.
  Ms Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the remarkable aspects of the debate on aid and debt relief has been the positive and energetic role played by the Churches? Given that we have a churchgoing Prime Minister, I use this opportunity to ask the Churches to take that message to the very top of Government.
  Mr. Bottomley: I agree, but I would go a stage further. I think that what the Chancellor has already done would be rewarded if the Churches persuaded their members to write to him saying how much they welcomed the opportunity of adding to private gifts, and also saying, "By the way, can we have some more public commitment as well?"
  I support the Chancellor's proposal for increased benefit for the first child in a family. That certainly helps all families.
  There is an eternal truth that Governments occasionally forget. Forty years ago, when people retired they were at their poorest. Most had no significant pension; many did not even receive the full state pension because of contribution deficits. Those people, however, had to pay the same rent as they did when they were working, and life was very grim. We should pay tribute to the way in which our parents and grandparents managed to survive. Nowadays, that is changing for most people.
  The time when people are poorest now is the time of family formation, when many go from two incomes with two mouths to feed to one income and three mouths to feed. In 1967, what subsequently became the Department of Social Security produced a report called "Circumstances of Families". It was not known then how many families contained one child, because there was no family allowance, and many people did not receive child tax allowance. That has changed. If we want to help people when they need help most, we should do so when they have at least a first child.
  I have grave doubts about the sense of taxing child benefit. That applies even to those like me, who are paying the higher rate of tax. The money gained by taxing child benefit might be £150 or £200 per year; in comparison with the amount of tax that I pay throughout the year, even at the higher rate, that is insignificant.

  1149
  We should remember that child benefit is the only reliable source of income for parents, whether they are in or out of work, or in higher-paid or lower-paid work. Regardless of whether one parent is in gaol or has gone abroad or has disappeared, child benefit matters most. It is the only reliable income for the carer, who is normally the mother. The answers given about taxation in the early 1980s by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, still apply. I warn the Treasury that I hope that, in a cross-party coalition, the Chancellor will consider the arguments against taxing child benefit. Frankly, it is not worth it.
  Table B9, on page 117 of the Red Book, concerns general Government receipts. It refers to
  "Income tax (gross of tax credits)",
  and gives the cost of income tax credits. I believe that, without any subterfuge, we should do something about payments such as the payment of child cash allowance. That is a better expression than "child benefit", which suggests that the benefit is an income support measure for those with the lowest household incomes. In fact, the only households on whom child benefit confers no advantage are those on income support, because it is rightly taken into account. It is a child cash allowance.
  When people are caring for children, their needs are increased and their taxable capacity is reduced; therefore, an allowance is worth while.
  The next question is whether the allowance should be a tax or a cash allowance. For all the reasons we know, a cash allowance has many advantages over a tax allowance. Let us suppose, however, that, in public accounting, we could "net off' the cost of the child cash allowance—now known as child benefit—and could ensure that the Chancellor alone decided the level of that allowance, as he does in the case of other personal allowances. It could then be accounted for as a tax credit. Without any change in the public sector borrowing requirement, there would be a change in the level of public spending.
  Table B9 tells us that, for income tax gross of tax credits, outturn for 1996–97 was £71.5 billion, the estimate for 1997–98 is £79.4 billion and the forecast for 1998–99 is £86.1 billion. Below that are the figures for tax credits. I think that we should add figures for the child cash allowance, so that it features as a declared sum that does not count as public spending. I repeat my point about the PSBR.
  According to the next page of the Red Book the amount of extra Government receipts expected since the calculation for the July budget is £7 billion. The Chancellor has £7,000 million more than he expected. Leaving aside any particular price pressures, medical development pressures or the aging population, if we seriously have to wait another year before trend spending for the NHS is back to 3 per cent. of real growth—or at least of growth of the economy as a whole—which it should be and needs to be, the Chancellor has made a mistake.
  Again, if the Chancellor comes to Worthing, he will discover that most of the procedures that are being delayed affect elderly people. The young are the people who have the emergencies. The elderly are the ones who have the important MOT needs: the hip, heart or cataract operation.
  In Worthing, West, the eye surgeon who used to do three afternoon cataract operations a week has been ordered to do one a week. Instead of having 300 people
  1150
  waiting, as he did in May, he had 600 waiting in September and he probably has 1,000 waiting now. For a person aged 70 or 80 to wait a year and a half to get his or her eyesight back is a disgrace. I ask the Chancellor to bring at least one seventh of that extra £7,000 million into the health service now, to ensure that pensioners in my constituency and those throughout the country do not wait for mobility or for their sight.
  Incidentally, we see in the Red Book that the waiting list initiative is there for this year and next year, but not for the two years after that, so any extra money that the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Health announces for a year or two more has to be netted off against the minus £500 million—the money that will not be there in a year and a half s time.
  My final point is one for the Government as a whole. If they want to reach bipartisan agreement on some of the radical changes, which should be possible as we move towards the millennium, they should stop being so triumphalist about the result of the last election. In that election, they won power. Well done to them, but let us also recognise that, if they spend all their time trashing the achievements of the past 18 years, and the people who put their backs into that, they are going to disappoint many of the people who would want any Government, whether Tory or Labour, to succeed. Those people include not just those in pensionable employment, such as Members of Parliament, but those who take risks running pubs and shops and building businesses.
  Those people seldom get the chance to put money by until they are in their 40s, 50s or sometimes even 60s or 70s. If we can pay attention to their needs and their circumstances, we will do a better job in the House. This Budget and these provisions matter to everyone, but they matter most of all to the wealth creators and those who help the rest of us to be more self-reliant.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), but I shall resist his provocations. However, I appreciated his remarks on overseas development.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his finely presented Budget. He got the balance right. He has made the right judgments, and I am confident that the Budget that follows will develop on sound foundations.
  For Wales, the Budget means £25 million extra to tackle patient waiting lists, from which my constituency will gain, and an extra £12 million for our schools service. Again, Deeside will share in that large-scale money. I am especially glad that £2.5 million will go into rural transport services, because Cefn Gwlad, the large hinterland of Wales, needs such a boost. I understand that the new deal will receive £3 million to £4 million extra from the Budget, which means that youngsters and the long-term unemployed in Alyn and Deeside will receive even more investment than was previously announced and planned. The Budget is therefore a big boost to Wales, and I welcome the increases.
  My right hon. Friend has been a prudent Chancellor. He has kept a tight, indeed ruthless, hold on public finances, and, as The Economist said, has revolutionised financial supervision in the City. He threw away his

  1151
  dinner jacket at Mansion house, and even sanded the floor of his residence to avoid buying any more carpets. In four days, he freed the Bank of England to set interest rates. Anyone who renders the Governor of the Bank speechless with both rage and surprise has it in him to be a Chancellor of Gladstonian proportions.
  Therefore, this Budget will assist my constituency, my country—Wales—and Britain as well. I want a reinvigorated industrial scene, an attack on poverty, smaller waiting lists, modernised and repaired social housing, and an attack on unemployment. The Budget does all those things. It is also sensitive to the needs of women and those who head single-parent families.
  I have no regrets that the better off in Britain are being asked in this Budget to assist the poor. It does Britain no good that there is a sizeable underclass, millions strong. It shames our nation. Millions are still without hope, dignity, homes and work. That situation divides Britain, and I hope and expect that the Budget will help hugely. It is inspired by social justice and, dare I say it, by economic efficiency. The Budget and the Chancellor point to a Britain that is more united, fairer, and with hope.
  The good thing is that the Budget does not fall guilty of the charge of causing boom and bust. It aims to remove barriers to growth. We have started to modernise the welfare state. We now embark on developing a fairer tax system. Moreover, the Government have placed employment at the heart of their objectives. I welcome that whole-heartedly, and I know it to be a principle and a standard of the Chancellor himself.
  The Government are guilty. They are guilty of keeping their election promises. Many were met at that Dispatch Box as the Chancellor revealed his policy. There is to be a minimum wage. Our schools and hospitals are to be priorities. High-quality public services are now in sight. Pensioners are being helped with winter fuel bills. The assisted places scheme has gone, and five, six and seven-year-olds will now have smaller classes. There is a new deal for lone parents, and a national child care strategy. There is a new deal for the long-term unemployed and for the many young unemployed, and I think that we can say that we are modernising our aging council house stock.
  A recent speech by the Chancellor explains and puts into context today's Budget. He said:
  "The challenge is to reclaim flexibility in the progressive cause, not as a codeword for employer exploitation but as the basis for employee choice and opportunity."
  It surely is that. This Chancellor and this Budget encourage creative talents. I like his agenda of the attempted settlement, which is certainly overdue, between the individual, the community and the state. We are looking for a fair middle way, with a broad moral commitment to civic improvement.
  In Wales, we have a saying, "It is chwarae teg," which translated means "fair play". This is a fair-play Budget. The rich are going to be asked to help the poor, and the hopeless are being given hope by the Chancellor.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The last two speeches were brief. If hon. Members follow
  1152
  that example, I can certainly try to ensure that everyone is called. Nothing is more soul-destroying than sitting in the Chamber all night and being disappointed.
  7.19 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: As one of those who entered the House last May, I can still describe myself as a new Member. I have to confess that there is excitement and anticipation on Budget day, because a Budget is a very big thing. I had that feeling today as I came along to only my second Budget, albeit a Budget from a Labour Chancellor.
  In the Chancellor's opening remarks, that sense of anticipation and expectation was increased. However, the first two paragraphs of his speech could have come from a primer for new Labour speakers by the Minister Without Portfolio, along the lines of, "If you have nothing of substance to say, tell them you are going to modernise for a new Britain, with a new agenda for a modern Britain." Within the first two sentences, we had been modernised twice. We had a new Britain, new Labour and a new ambition. I am not sure whether that was a reference to the Chancellor's personal interest in the Prime Minister's job, but that was what we heard.
  We were told that it was to be a radical and reforming Budget, with the most radical reform of the tax system that had ever been seen. Having sat through the entire Budget, if there was a radical reform of the tax system, I must have missed it. In that respect, the Budget was exceedingly disappointing. Our response to the Chancellor's claim about a radical reforming Budget must be to ask where it is. Where was the beef? Sadly, there was no beef on the bone of this Budget.
  Far from introducing new ambitions, in many areas the Chancellor revealed old Labour and old ambitions. Yet again we saw a Labour Government hitting middle Britain and business in so many of the measures introduced. At the end of the Budget speech, Labour Members, as is their wont—I understand that this happens after every Budget speech—waved their Order Papers and shouted their approbation. However, their silence during the speech was noticeable. There were no shouts of approbation when the Chancellor was introducing his various measures. I am not sure whether that was because they did not understand what the Chancellor was doing or because they understood but did not like it.
  We should look at the background against which the Chancellor presented his Budget. Last May, the Government inherited a golden economic legacy from the previous Conservative Government. It was the best set of economic circumstances for generations. We now see that they have been throwing that away.
  I receive complaints from business about increased taxation and the strength of the pound, which means that many exporters are finding life incredibly difficult. I also hear from retailers about their real concern at the downturn they are seeing in consumer spending, which is hitting the retail sector marketplace.
  We have seen £22 billion of extra taxes on business, which have already been introduced by the Chancellor. We have seen that the strength of the pound is hitting exporters, and we know that the Government are introducing further costs on business. Also, we had a well informed, interesting and lengthy debate in the Chamber on the national minimum wage not long ago, to which I was able to contribute.

  1153
  I am grateful for certain aspects of the Budget. I am grateful that the Chancellor has listened to the Conservative opposition on long-term savings, PEPs and TESSAs. Our campaign has forced the Government into a climbdown on their proposals for PEPs and TESSAs. I am glad that I will now be able to write to the large number of my constituents who have written to me expressing their concern about the impact of the measures that the Chancellor had proposed previously on the money that they had put into PEPS and TESSAs as a form of long-term saving. I am grateful that he has listened to us, and changed his policy.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the change of direction on individual savings accounts shows that the consultation undertaken by the Government was genuine? From a position of strength, we are able to say, "Tell us what you think, and respond to our policies." We will listen to what people have to say on these issues and many others. It is not a sign of weakness to have changed our mind on a mere detail.
  Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what his Government were proposing to do to PEPs and TESSAs was a mere detail, he should talk to some of those who would have been hit by what the Government were proposing to do, and who will now be pleased at the Government's climbdown.
  What trust can people have in the future with a Government who had an inclination towards retrospective taxes on long-term saving? I suspect that, for all the Chancellor's protestations about stability, many people will still be concerned that, on long-term saving, there is no trust in the stability of the Government's policies.
  What concerns me most of all about the Budget is that, with many measures, we see a sleight of hand from the Chancellor. We see smoke and mirrors. For the Chancellor's sake, I hope that the mirrors are not as expensive as the Lord Chancellor's. In many areas, the Chancellor appears to give while taking away with the other hand.
  I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce that he intends to introduce a working tax credit for people with disabilities. I am sure that we all agree that the artificial barriers for those with disabilities who are able to work should come down. However, from the Red Book, I see that, far from being a new idea, that is a replacement for the current disability working allowance. We will need to see the impact that it will have when taken alongside the fear that is felt by people with disabilities that, as part of the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor intends to cut disability benefits. Far from taking people from welfare into work, such cuts would result in people with disabilities going from work to welfare.
  Another sleight of hand involves the working families tax credit. The Red Book shows that that will not begin to be paid until April 2000. That is a sleight of hand that we see in all too many of the Chancellor's measures. He has a good line in announcing something well in advance, so that he can continue to announce it year after year.
  I am concerned about the impact that the working families tax credit will have on women. The Chancellor said that each family will decide how that tax credit will be paid, but I wonder what the default position will be. I suspect that we all know what it will be. I suspect that
  1154
  most women will lose as a result of changing to the working families tax credit. It will have a negative impact on women. Also, it will impose a bureaucratic burden on business, something that the Chancellor failed to mention in his speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) commented on the advantage of increasing the amount of child benefit paid for the first child. However, the giveaway on child benefit is balanced by a takeaway in the reduction of the married couple's allowance. The increase in money for children is to the detriment of those who are bringing up children in a married partnership.
  Corporation tax reductions are to be welcomed, but the reduction announced in the Budget will not come into effect until April 1999. Doubtless next year it will be announced as if it is another new measure, when it is just a reiteration of a measure already announced.
  We see exactly the same in terms of the spending on the national health service. Last year hon. Members were waving their Order Papers about extra money going to the health service. In fact, most of that extra money was not be spent until the financial year after this one. On the overall figure, compared with the 18 years of Conservative government when the average increase for the NHS was 3.1 per cent., under this Government we see an increase of only 1.2 per cent. So much for what the Government claim to be doing for the health service.
  Nothing in the Budget will reduce the waiting lists mentioned so passionately and graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West. Nothing in the Budget will reduce the education cuts that are being made across the country, particularly in the shire counties, because of the Government's appalling local government settlement.
  The Chancellor spoke of help for the unemployed across the country, which will be focused on mentors, counselling and individual advice. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it would be beneficial for someone who is unemployed to be able to receive much more one-to-one advice covering job opportunities and, for example, how to present oneself for job interviews. However, it was made clear to me—when I recently visited my local jobcentre in Maidenhead—that jobcentre employees are keen to give extra help and advice to people, but that they are currently able to do so only because of low unemployment, which entails fewer people requiring their assistance. Should the unemployment level increase, Ministers will find themselves in some difficulty in fulfilling their promises on mentoring and counselling.
  The Chancellor also mentioned reducing red tape. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that such action is beneficial, particularly for small businesses. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, despite several references in the Budget to reducing red tape, the Chancellor mentioned no specific action. Again we fear that the statements were mere rhetoric—soundbites—played out for the benefit of those listening. Perhaps Ministers are thinking, "If we say the soundbites often enough, people will believe that something is happening"; whereas the reality will be that nothing at all is happening. We await specific proposals.
  As I said, some aspects of the Budget already entail an increase in bureaucracy. Working families tax credit, for example, will increase bureaucracy for business. One of

  1155
  the threads coming through in the Budget—as in the Government's previous policies—is an intention to shift the burden from Government to business. Ministers make much-vaunted claims for the national minimum wage, saying that, as fewer people will have to claim family credit, it will be extremely beneficial.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend mentioned the effects of increased bureaucracy on business. Does she agree that—contrary to what the Chancellor said about reducing the burden on businesses by reducing bureaucracy—everything that the Government have done has increased the burden on businesses? Does she specifically agree that the measure introduced this week by the Social Council of Ministers to extend work councils to small businesses of fewer than 50 employees, will massively increase the burden on small businesses?
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. In so many areas of the Government's policy, Ministers are doing precisely that—increasing the burden on businesses. The Prime Minister claimed that, in signing the social chapter, he would be able to defend businesses from the type of burdens that my hon. Friend mentioned. The reality is that he cannot defend business, because of the voting structure in the European Union. He has been unable to defend businesses in the United Kingdom from such impositions, and, consequently, British businesses will suffer.
  In the national minimum wage, the burden is being shifted from state welfare spending to businesses. British businesses will be hit not only with the national minimum wage but with £22 billion extra tax and further bureaucratic impositions. The ultimate consequence of those burdens will be fewer jobs. The Government, sadly, seem to fail to understand that. Perhaps they will understand it only when dole queues start lengthening.
  One very specific matter that I should like to mention has been raised in my constituency surgeries: extra increases in petrol duty. Although my constituency is called Maidenhead, it has a number of villages in it—indeed, I claim that my constituency contains some of the most beautiful villages in east Berkshire—and people in those villages have to rely on their cars.
  I recall the case of an elderly gentleman whose wife was disabled. They were dependent on a car to get her to hospital appointments, and generally to be able to get her out of the house. A few weeks ago, before the Budget, he specifically mentioned his concern about what the Chancellor would do about petrol duty. That man will not be happy with the Budget; nor will others living in rural or in other areas who are elderly or who have a disability and have to make car journeys. The petrol duty increase will hit them particularly hard.
  I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague): the Budget is another step in the Government's step-by-step betrayal of the United Kingdom. The Budget hits middle Britain particularly hard, betrays middle Britain with extra taxes, and throws away the golden economic legacy that the Conservative Government left for the Labour Government. Although it is sad to see that happening, it is even sadder that the Government will probably not
  1156
  learn their lesson. There will be further hits on middle Britain in increased taxes, and further burdens on business. The Budget is not good for business or for middle Britain. It is bad for business, for middle Britain and for the United Kingdom.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
  Somewhere in the middle of her speech, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) talked about the lack of growth in the past 12 months in expenditure on health and education. It is very hard to take any criticism of our public expenditure plans from Conservative Members, as our plans are precisely those that were made by the previous Government. We have merely accepted the previous Government's plans—although, in health and in education, we have found very large extra sums to try to improve the situation. Their criticisms are therefore quite ill founded.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, in government, one makes projections, and that one adjusts to the facts as they unfold? Over 18 years, the Conservative Government consistently raised spending on the national health service by more than the current Government have raised spending on it. That is the fact.
  Mr. Williams: We have been in power for only 10 or 11 months—although we intend to be there for quite a long time. Judge us, and our record on health and education, after five or 10 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, all we plead guilty to is keeping our election promises. Our promise on health and education was not to exceed—for reasons of sound economic management—the public expenditure totals established by the previous Administration.
  I very much welcome the Budget's welfare-to-work emphasis, and the new emphasis on measures to "make work pay". All hon. Members have thousands of constituents who, over the years, have told us that there is no point in their looking for a job, because they are better off on benefits. They say, "I will lose this or that benefit if I work." The previous Government knew that there was a large poverty trap, but they did very little about it. Indeed, in their 18 years in power, they exacerbated or multiplied the problem. However, the poverty trap is now being comprehensively tackled by our Chancellor, and I very much welcome the many parts of his programme. The working families tax credit will be quite revolutionary in helping low-paid employees.
  Today's national insurance changes, which allow £81 a week of income before the employer has to make any contribution, will greatly help low-paid workers. For spending on child care of up to £100 for the first child and £150 for two or more children, the new tax credit will cover up to 70 per cent. of the cost, which is a massive help for parents with young families who need child care to go to work. The £2.50 a week extra child benefit for the first child and for children under 11 will greatly help families who are among the poorest in our society.

  1157
  As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, the elderly are usually the poorest, but now it is parents—whether lone parents or simply low-paid—in their 20s with young families. Many measures in the Budget are directed at that problem.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish to add one point, not for argument but for illumination. If I had a teenage child, above supplementary benefit level, I would get child benefit, which is about £10, going up to £14. An elderly person would bring in about £100 a week, yet teenagers cost three or four times as much to run, with their active social lives, clothes and other activities. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I want to put that on record.
  Mr. Williams: That is a magnificent point to put on the record. Our demography is changing. Factors such as the size of the family unit must be considered. Much of what the Government inherited in respect of the way that the benefit and taxation system works needs to be changed to take account of such social conditions.
  I enthusiastically endorse the main drift of the Budget—welfare to work and making work pay—for two reasons. First, there is the anti-poverty emphasis. Secondly, it is anti-inflationary. The best weapon against inflation is expanding the work force to create opportunities for people, especially poor people, to come into the labour market.
  The venture capital fund of £50 million for small projects coming out of higher education, science, and research and development is excellent seedcorn money for the businesses of tomorrow. That is one of the deficits we need to make up. The raft of measures on small businesses are welcome.
  We realise that education and health are badly underfunded, and I am pleased that £250 million extra has been found for education and £500 million extra for health. Added to last year's announcement of £1.2 billion, that means that £1.7 billion more will be spent on health than was planned by our predecessors. The £1.7 billion works out at about 5 per cent. of the total NHS budget of £35 billion.
  Two matters concern me in our management of the economy. First, on the long-term financial strategy, the Chancellor said again that the public sector borrowing requirement was rapidly disappearing. It is down to £6 billion this year, and may be in balance next year. It appears that the Chancellor's long-term policy is to aim for surplus in 2000–01 and the early years of the next century, and to use it for debt repayment. I think that that is unnecessary.
  We are well within the Maastricht criterion of a borrowing requirement of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product—with a massive safety margin. Debt is not a big problem. We spend about £25 billion a year on debt repayment, which is 2.8 per cent. of GDP, but the figures are similar across Europe. Our total debt is about 60 per cent. of GDP, again well within the Maastricht criteria. There is no problem there. As long-term interest rates are falling, the burden of debt repayment falls each year. I hope that, in years three, four and five of this Parliament, the Chancellor will reconsider and respond to pressures from within the party on those figures. There is no reason to be in surplus.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: We all accept the golden rule about not borrowing for
  1158
  consumption, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not act as guardian of the people's money by neglecting investment in our infrastructure or by moving from public borrowing into private finance, which is borrowing on the never-never.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I agree whole-heartedly. It is prudent economic management to invest properly in education. Not to invest in the health service is to cause unnecessary suffering. Health and other parts of the public sector, particularly education, are starved of investment. It is unwise to stack away money rather than investing it in our young people, in schools and in colleges.
  My other reservation is the strong pound and high interest rates. Now that the Bank of England is in control of interest rates, I accept its economic judgments, but it is our challenge to create an economic climate in which it can bring down interest rates step by step over the next few years to the 3 per cent. or so of our European partners.
  We must not be as sanguine as the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet generally have been about the effects of having for a prolonged period an exchange rate of more than DM3 to the pound. That is higher than when we were in the exchange rate mechanism. In 1991–92, the overvalued pound caused recession, but once it was devalued and we came out of the ERM, we had a recovery. That recovery could be stymied by a long period of unrealistic exchange rates. It is important that we work to deal with that.
  In that context, my one regret about the Budget is that there is an imbalance between the private and public parts of the economy. We need to take more money out of private pockets. I would have liked mortgage tax relief to be phased out over the next two years, because there is too much money in the economy. The money raised could have been used in education or the public sector.
  Those are criticisms for the longer term. Generally, having sat through the first proper Labour Budget for 20 years, I was enthused by its drift, especially in tackling poverty, in helping people into work and in making work pay.
  7.48 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: I shall try to be brief, and stick to key issues that affect my constituents.
  This is the second Budget that I have watched in person. Having also watched many on television, I am wary of initial impressions, glosses or feelings that come from the selective presentation of an hour's speech with only a small amount of documentation. I hope—this may have started with the concept of consultation—that we shall develop a more flexible approach to the Budget process and a more informed build-up, so that there is a much clearer idea than the headlines provide of exactly what has happened to people on the day after the Budget.
  For many of the electors in my constituency, the general election was about the state of the public finances. My constituents did not vote Labour; Labour came fourth in my constituency. However, my constituents took on board a message that a change of Government could bring about a change in the public services that they enjoyed, especially education and the health service.

  1159
  A mistake that the Government have made is to believe that people vote on the basis of the small print in the contract in the manifesto, rather than on an overall impression of what they want to get out of the election. I hope that as the Chancellor examines the finances of the country, he will start to recognise that the priorities of the electorate are the early promises on waiting lists, class sizes and quality of education. If schools are being closed, there is clearly a problem in the education budget which needs to be tackled. That is something to which the Chancellor will have to return in the future.
  The three issues that specifically affect my constituency have been raised already. The value of the pound has affected the farmers in my constituency in a high-profile way. The forestry industry has also made the point to me that it exists in a global market and is severely pressurised by the high pound at the moment. Hon. Members have spoken about the fact that the Bank of England is now independent, but the Chancellor is not ignorant of the policy that the Bank has to operate or of the climate in which it operates. He can still affect the climate that affects interest rates and he has to be aware of how his actions will affect it. One way of creating some stability is to bite the bullet and hold a referendum on joining the single currency.
  We should tell the markets which way the country is going. We are to have five years of sitting on the fence by the Government and we would have 10 years if the Opposition were in power. Giving the markets information would assist them to understand where the economy was going. A referendum would be a message in principle to the markets on which way the country was going.
  In a rural constituency such as mine, there has been considerable concern in the build-up to the Budget about petrol taxation. The previous Government introduced the concept of increasing tax on petrol on environmental grounds, but I detect that the Treasury has seen petrol in the same way as it sees tobacco. There is a nice argument for the tax, but the Treasury is far more interested in the yield from it than the environmental or health benefits.
  We argued that the previous Government should consider ways in which to compensate rural communities before they increased petrol prices. The Labour Government have hinted that they want to do something for rural communities. They have put some money towards rural transport and have talked about a review of vehicle excise duty, but they have gone ahead with petrol tax increases rather than waiting until they have the whole package in place. I am concerned about that. If environmental taxation is to have any long-term beneficial effects, people need to be able to plan for it. The point of the previous Government's policy was that the tax would be increased annually so that the market could plan for the consequences. If Governments abuse the system and start increasing the tax twice a year or in three consecutive Budgets, they will make it far more difficult for people to have confidence in the stability of environmental taxation.
  If environmental taxation is to benefit the environment, it should be neutral in its effect; the Government should introduce compensating measures elsewhere in the economy. Once Chancellors are let loose with environmental taxation from which they can keep the
  1160
  proceeds, there is no way of holding them back. If the Government put money back into the economy to compensate for the tax, they can genuinely condition behaviour rather than merely impose back-door taxation. As we saw with the previous Government and in the previous Budget, if there is back-door taxation, the public do not know where they stand and the Government cannot engage them in a genuine debate about how much public services cost. If, by sleight of hand, the Government pretend to spend more money here and less there, they cannot address the long-term structural problems in public services. The public must be fully involved in the debate. That is why I hope that the idea of opening up the Budget process will come to fruition.
  The last issue affects my constituents more visibly because there is a high concentration of people involved in the oil industry in my constituency, but it affects the whole of the United Kingdom economy. The issue is the future stability of the North sea oil industry and the potential for growth in it. In the previous Budget, the Chancellor announced a review of North sea oil taxation. That in itself has caused considerable concern among many of my constituents whose livelihoods depend on a thriving North sea industry. They hoped that their concern would come to an end with this Budget, but we now have to wait another month for the Government to decide what they are going to do. I hope that we are waiting because the Government are planning to do nothing to upset the market in the North sea oil industry.
  The North sea oil industry is at a fragile point. It is a mature province; the oil industry has been there for some time. The larger fields are coming to an end. There are smaller fields and there are ways in which to get more money out of existing fields, but it is basically a mature field overall. There is not enough residual capacity to attract investment into the industry if we frighten it away. The Government can play around with oil taxation at the start of a new province. They can afford to experiment, frighten off investors and try to tempt them back again, but we need stability in the North sea oil industry to maintain investment for the future.
  We must recognise that the oil industry is not a simple utility. The Government cannot simply leap in with an extra tax and get the money. Oil production companies are global investment companies that invest in a world market. The bulk of the work is done by contractors in small and medium-sized businesses, and some large ones. The investor-contractor relationship is important. If the Government start to tax the investor, companies are free to invest elsewhere.
  Companies are much freer than they were even a few years ago. The former Soviet Union, the far east and south America are opening up to oil investment. Azerbaijan is now a much more welcoming place. Oil companies have to balance out the costs of production, the risks involved in their investment and the return on their investment. The United Kingdom has done well by being an extremely stable political regime and, therefore, one in which companies can afford to invest, knowing that there is a fairly good likelihood of return. In other parts of the world, it is much cheaper to produce the oil, but countries lose out because they are politically unstable.
  If there is a sense that, whenever there is a little movement and he thinks that he needs a little more money, the Chancellor will start tackling the North sea oil industry, the United Kingdom will become an unstable,

  1161
  risky political environment in which to invest. Investment will be driven away. The consequences of that for my constituents and the constituents of most hon. Members is a reduction in investment in United Kingdom manufacturing. It is estimated that roughly 20 per cent. of UK manufacturing investment comes out of the North sea oil industry.
  The oil industry is very much out of sight and out of mind, because much of the activity is over the horizon out at sea, and much of the work is done by small businesses throughout the United Kingdom. It is extremely important that the Treasury recognises that. The Department of Trade and Industry seems to recognise that, and the Inland Revenue recognises that any downturn in the oil industry produces a reduction in revenues from other sources connected with the industry. I hope that when the Treasury review is concluded, the Government will vote for stability and the long-term future of the North sea oil industry.
  Those of us who saw the oil recession in the 1980s in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland would not like to see it return unnecessarily early. It was extremely depressing to see row upon row of houses for sale when the rest of the country was booming. We have seen what a depression can do to our local economy. Another factor is that, finally, the contracting community has woken up to the world market and is beginning to break into the investment market. If we have a stable home base, the country can reap the benefits of having had the oil industry here by breaking into the export markets. The technologies that are being developed now in the North sea could be of great benefit in other deep-sea applications off south America and in other parts of the world. The efficiencies that have been driven into the industry by the oil price shocks of the past have produced some effective and forward-looking mechanisms for transport abroad.
  I urge the Government to look for stability for the oil industry. I hope that when they conclude their review, stability will be the watchword as an encouragement for future investment.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: First, I should like to comment on the remark made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to the effect that, if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it. It is interesting to note that all the Conservative Members who have spoken tonight referred to the golden economic legacy, which we have somehow started to turn down the path of economic decline. That legacy was one of structural unemployment, poor investment and little capacity, and it was riddled with short-termism, so we can really only go up.
  Several themes are set out in the Budget. It is a Budget that will make work pay and make work more worth while. It is a radical Budget, containing comprehensive tax and benefit reform, encouraging enterprise and supporting families. The themes are fairness, work and opportunity. It is a strong Budget, a popular Budget and a much-needed Budget. I am especially glad to see the combination of tax breaks for the lower-paid and working families, and the way in which the Budget is helping to eliminate the poverty trap. That, together with the national minimum wage, will help the less well-off to become better off. It is a well-judged approach, and good for the economy as a whole.
  1162
  In addition to the Budget, the economic framework set out by the Chancellor is helping to create general prosperity throughout the whole economy. My right hon. Friend is steering the economy into equilibrium, and the economic context and the trends we see in the economy focus on the stability in economic policy he emphasised. We are beginning to see stability come through into the economic cycle, which has been a chief aim of the new Government. It is already beginning to provide rewards, by promoting dynamic and competitive business and industry, at home and abroad. The depoliticisation of monetary policy has given interest rate stability in the longer term and we have the lowest long-term interest rates for 33 years, which is helping to make capital investment, particularly in product process technology, more attractive.
  The Chancellor has chosen policies to ensure that the economy does not overheat, and that economic expansion is steady and, more important, sustainable and stable over the longer term. He has instituted a monetary policy framework that has reined in the inflation problem by bearing down on price expansion and taking no risks that might mean that the economy returned to the destructive boom-bust cycle experienced under the Conservatives. Stable low-inflation conditions are the foundation for lasting economic growth and prosperity, and the evidence is that the Government have been successful in keeping inflation in line with their targets.
  One of the best aspects of the Budget is the strength of the deficit reduction plan instituted by the Chancellor. There has been a sharp and impressive reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement since Labour entered office, which has been achieved without significant privatisation proceeds. The national debt is a burden around the country's neck and a drain on the public purse because of the cost of financing the interest on that debt. National debt interest eats up more than £24 billion each year, which is money that could be spent on vital public services. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend is signalling a further fall in the PSBR and that the golden rule of borrowing only to invest and not to consume is now achieved.
  The Chancellor, who likes to be known as the iron Chancellor, has now obtained a reputation for prudence, which is enhanced by his policies in continually bearing down on areas of public expenditure that do not meet the long-term investment and public service objectives we all share. A low PSBR is good, in that it is the sign of tight fiscal policy which, in turn, helps to bring down interest rates in the longer term and to bring sterling into a more trade-favourable position. That is the best policy to pursue in the long term.
  The other innovative aspect of the Budget statement is the new fiscal stability code, which is to be welcomed in that it enshrines those new measures in law. I understand that, from now on, the Comptroller and Auditor General of Her Majesty's Government will have to corroborate Budget statements. Those measures are extremely welcome in terms of transparency, responsibility in fiscal policy, fairness, efficiency and, again, stability by making sure that long-term planning and the capacity to plan over the long term are an integral part of economic policy from now on.
  All the tax measures announced in the Budget statement are to be welcomed. Looking at the Taylor report and the changes to the national insurance system,

  1163
  we can see that the Chancellor is beginning to align employee and employer national insurance contributions within that restructuring measure, so that they come into line with income tax. That is a simplification of the national insurance contributions system and it gives positive help to the lowest-paid employees, so helping to end the poverty trap.
  The Chancellor has taken steps to encourage investment by industry and business, not only by reducing corporation tax to the 30p rate—lower than any level charged by our major competitors—but by enshrining the principle of stability throughout the lifetime of this Parliament by stating that that rate will apply for the next four years. In addition, my right hon. Friend has instituted the 20p rate for small companies tax. Those measures combined help to give large, medium and small enterprises the encouragement they need to make technological investment and so broaden the United Kingdom competitive base.
  I pay tribute to the Chancellor for his measures relating to the individual savings account, especially the extreme generosity in his tax treatment of investment income. That will certainly be welcomed by many of my constituents, who have made representations to me on that matter. Bringing in a wider range of savings products, making them accessible to a larger number of people and encouraging investment rather than short-term consumer spending, will help to set the economy on a stable footing that is sustainable in the long term.
  One of the most interesting aspects of the Chancellor's statement is the measures to close tax loopholes. My right hon. Friend has already closed loopholes to the value of £1.7 billion and is now taking steps to close loopholes to the value of £1.5 billion, including offshore trusts. That is an extremely important measure and a good way in which to set fiscal policy in the longer term. It is an enormous achievement to close tax loopholes, which are sometimes highly technical. A tax system riddled with such loopholes was perpetuated by the Conservatives, and my right hon. Friend is now beginning to rein it in. That is a clever and intelligent Budget strategy, and a popular way in which to raise revenues. Tackling tax loopholes and making sure that those who exploit them do not get away with it will be a popular move.
  The Budget is eco-friendly, and it is successful in making sure that the tax system reflects our longer-term environmental objectives. As well as keeping the less well-off warm with changes to the VAT charged on fuel and loft insulation materials, the Budget is usefully putting £500 million into public transport and £50 million a year into a rural transport fund, which will help to get people out of their cars and into more environmentally friendly forms of transport.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the reduction in the VAT on insulation materials does not apply to the normal insulation materials that can be bought at, for example, B and Q? It is restricted to specialist schemes, which are themselves restricted because of cuts in the budget of the Energy Saving Trust.
  Mr. Leslie: The home energy efficiency scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman is broadly referring, now has
  1164
  the capacity to extend to many thousands more homes as a result of the Budget measures. However it is looked at, the measure will extend environmental benefits to many more people.
  The Budget successfully gives support to families and children. There were many faults in the old family credit system, particularly inasmuch as it perpetuated the process whereby employers could dish out low wages instead of providing enhancements and incentives for people to go out to work and keep the money that they earn. The working families tax credit achieves that aim. I am glad to say that it also gives a guaranteed minimum working income of £180 a week.
  The Chancellor was generous in terms of investment in child care. The 70 per cent. tax credit that he has given to cover the costs of child care helps to make it more affordable and accessible. The Budget also introduced other child-friendly measures, such as targeting help at children, with a 20 per cent. rise in child benefit. That will benefit more than 13,000 families in my constituency, and I know that they will be very pleased.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is my hon. Friend not a little disappointed that those measures will not be implemented until next year, in April 1999?
  Mr. Leslie: No. I think that, if we look at the total cost involved, we see that the Chancellor has taken a major step. A 20 per cent. increase in child benefit is extremely significant. If we are to be prudent, we must ensure that the money is in place. The right way to go about it is to ensure that, as we get the money, the resources are released—that we spend as we can afford to do so.
  The Budget fulfils many pledges made in Labour's manifesto. We have already heard how the Chancellor has not increased the basic or top rate of income tax. That pledge has been kept, which shows that the Labour Government can be trusted to keep their promises.
  The Chancellor has not introduced value added tax on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers or public transport. He has kept the promise to keep VAT on fuel at the lowest level. That is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government's approach to VAT—given half a chance, they would have splashed it on whatever they could.
  The Budget has moved in line with the public spending priorities set out in the Labour party's manifesto at the general election, particularly the extra £2.5 billion on education and the extra £2 billion that has been spent on the NHS since the general election. Those moves will be welcomed by people the length and breadth of the country.
  As a new Member of Parliament and a new member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been working upstairs on the Committee Corridor for many months, scrutinising how a lot of taxpayers' money is spent. It is an important job. The Budget also sets the scene for ensuring that waste and inefficiency in public expenditure are rooted out wherever possible. I note that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has published the "National Asset Register", which is progressing in tandem with the comprehensive spending review. I hope that, in future, the Public Accounts Committee, in conjunction with Government Departments, may think of looking at the

  1165
  "National Asset Register" to help us to achieve our objective of ensuring that we root out unnecessary elements of public expenditure.
  The Budget sets stable foundations for the economy. It is an excellent Budget which sets the course for the modernisation of Britain. It is a great achievement for the Labour Government, and I am extremely proud to play my humble part in today's proceedings.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The previous speech sounded like a pretty thorough synopsis of the Labour party line from Walworth road. We must all be grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) for his speech, as it will at least save us the trouble of reading the original version, which was doubtless very turgid.
  It would be wrong not to recognise that the Budget contains many positive features—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), with characteristic generosity and fairness, acknowledged. It would be rather difficult for any Government, however incompetent, faced with the rapid growth in revenues and the substantial cash flow that the present Government inherited, not to do a few positive things, in terms of tax cutting and of new allocations of expenditure.
  It would also be churlish of the Opposition not to acknowledge that the Government have listened, thank goodness, to the strong representations that they have received from the private sector and from the House. Three weeks ago, we had an interesting debate on the Labour Government's original plans for long-term savings schemes, which would have done enormous damage if they had not listened. It would be wrong of us not to acknowledge the fact that, fortunately, they have listened.
  We must not be too readily fooled, however. One would have to be extraordinarily naive—even more naive than I think Labour Members actually are—seriously to believe that one could generate from a standing start, on the basis of nine months' effort and nine months' policy, the buoyant revenues that this country is now enjoying. One would have to be even more naive to suppose that one could generate from nothing the buoyant economy that has given rise to the buoyant revenues that the Government are now enjoying and for which they are shamelessly taking the credit.
  Of course, this country's strong fiscal position is a result of the policies and good husbandry carried out over many years, largely by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). This Government inherited the most extraordinarily strong position last May.
  Unfortunately, it is also true that, while reaping that very rich harvest, they have done quite a lot of damage to the soil that has produced it. I am afraid that they have made it less likely that in future—in another two, three, five or seven years' time—this country will have the same opportunities to spend new, unexpectedly buoyant revenues that the Government have today. That is largely because their major budgetary policy decision in the past nine or 10 months has been a colossal fiscal mistake.
  In May, the Government inherited a buoyant economy that had been growing for five years or more without interruption. There was no doubt that growth at that time
  1166
  was above trend. There was no doubt that consumption was growing at an unsustainable rate that could not have been continued indefinitely. In the face of that, in their first Budget, the Government should have generated a greater budgetary surplus to reduce public borrowing, or should have restrained private consumption through appropriate fiscal measures, or should have encouraged greater saving in the private sector. Any of those policies would have restrained demand and allowed fiscal policy to take some of the necessary strain for stabilising the economy.
  What the Chancellor actually decided to do last summer was a classic mistake. Instead of restraining consumption through the Budget, he cut consumption taxes. That was an inconceivably damaging and incompetent response to the conjuncture of events at the time. As if that were not enough, instead of encouraging private saving, he taxed it to a degree that has never before occurred in this country's fiscal history. When the new measure—the abolition of the dividend tax credit—comes into effect, it will take £5 billion in a full year, each year and every year, out of pensions. We have said that before and we shall have to say it again, because we are going to reap a very negative harvest from that colossal mistake.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the words that he has just spoken called for increases in taxes in last July's Budget?
  Mr. Davies: I was saying how colossally inappropriate and incompetent it was to cut consumption taxes—something that the Chancellor, whom the hon. Lady occasionally supports, did. At the same time, he compounded that error by taxing the return from savings, thereby reducing the incentive to save—in this case, through the important medium of pensions. Irrespective of the human consequences of that measure for people's expectations of standard of living in retirement—which is a major human and social issue—it was the wrong economic response to the prevailing circumstances, and it has had a damaging effect.
  The burden of stabilising the economy—ensuring that demand does not increase at an unsustainable rate, bringing about inflationary pressures and destroying a lot of the good work of the Conservative Government over many years—has fallen entirely on monetary policy. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has had to increase interest rates to a higher level than it would otherwise have done. That was explicitly acknowledged by the Governor of the Bank of England, no less, before the Treasury Committee last November. Interest rates have gone higher than would otherwise have been necessary simply because the Chancellor did the wrong thing last summer. The country is paying, and will continue to pay, a major price for that.
  What has been the consequence of that increase in interest rates? Sterling has appreciated excessively. The reduction in demand has come about, but not across the board through a reduction in consumer spending—the area that was clearly expanding too fast last summer. The whole burden has been taken by the so-called internationally traded sector of the economy—that part of the economy that either exports or competes in this country with imports. That sector is largely, although not exclusively, manufacturing. We have a crisis in manufacturing.

  1167
  During my more than 10 years in the House, Labour Members, with their traditional industrial base, have often made eloquent speeches about the importance of a manufacturing base and how mistaken certain Conservatives—not me, I hasten to add—were to say that we did not need manufacturing and could have a completely service-based economy. The Labour party is now making a colossal mistake, resulting in the whole burden of stabilisation falling on that single sector of the economy. Enormous damage is being done as a result to investment in that important sector, where most technological innovation—and therefore most increases in value added—take place.
  Enormous, gratuitous and unnecessary damage to this country's infrastructure—our economic foundations—has resulted from a mistake by the Chancellor in last summer's Budget. We shall go on paying the price for that mistake for several years. The nature of economic management is such that we could recover in future years from an earlier major mistake in macro-economic management only at disproportionate cost. The Government think that they can get away with that serious misjudgment and that no one will notice, because the price of their mistake will not become fully evident for some years. However, the cost will become evident eventually.
  We shall continue to remind the House of what we said last summer. We told the Chancellor the right response to the situation, but he ignored our advice. The criticism has come not just from the Conservative party. The Governor of the Bank of England is on record as setting out clearly what a mistake the Chancellor made and what consequences flowed from it. We shall go on reminding the Labour party of its unnecessary mistake and we shall ensure that the country knows where to put the blame when there is a greater economic downturn than we would otherwise have suffered. That downturn will impact disproportionately and regrettably on the manufacturing sector.
  I have not finished with the Government. This year's Budget is not what it appears to be. No doubt the handouts from Walworth road—we have had a flavour of them from certain Labour Members, who have no doubt been reading them diligently all evening—will be picked up by some people in the press, who will fill up their copy with quotations from them as they have done over the past nine or 10 months. Let us look at the reality behind the brave and apparently alluring statements made by the Chancellor this afternoon.
  The Government are committed to cutting costs for small and medium-sized businesses. That is a laudable objective with which no Conservative Member would quarrel for a second. We would all support such a thrust of policy in good faith if it were genuine and sustained, but what is the point of trying to reduce the costs for small and medium-sized businesses in one area while increasing them in another? As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, what is the point of combining the measures laid before the House in the Budget with the minimum wage, which will result in an enormous increase in costs for small and medium-sized businesses if it is introduced at a level likely to satisfy Labour Members? As well as increasing costs for businesses, the minimum wage will also price many people out of a job.
  1168
  The Government's lack of honesty and frankness on the minimum wage is particularly sad. If the minimum wage comes in at a relatively low level, less damage will be done to the competitiveness of British business and fewer people will be put out of jobs, but any minimum wage will have some deleterious effect on competitiveness, employment and investment.
  Mr. Chris Pond: (Gravesham) indicated dissent.
  Mr Davies: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) shakes his head. Does he argue with the proposition that increasing the price of a commodity reduces demand for it? Increasing the price of labour will reduce the demand for it. That law is as ineluctable as the law of gravity.
  Mr. Pond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, after his Government abolished the wages councils—the minimum wage system for some of the poorest—employment in those sectors declined? We are the only country in the industrialised world without a minimum wage. When the minimum wage in the United States was increased substantially, employment increased. How does he explain that?
  Mr. Davies: I said earlier that Labour Members were not necessarily as naive as they sometimes appear at first sight. Perhaps I was being a little too generous. Perhaps that was an excess of parliamentary gallantry and I should have been less kind.
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks for just two or three minutes about what he has said, he will realise that he would have to be genuinely naive to believe it. The wages councils existed in sectors of the economy in which employment was declining. They were contributing to that decline. It was clearly necessary to remove them. Had they not been removed, employment would have declined still faster. The United States has a buoyant economy. The minimum wage there is very low. It has been possible to increase it without destroying aggregate employment because employment levels were increasing quickly anyway. Had the minimum wage not been increased, employment would, by definition, be higher.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the principle of all things being equal—a phrase that is used before almost every proposition that is stated in economics. In the instances that he has cited, all things were not equal. That explains the paradox, which he may find it difficult to grasp, that if a move that reduces the demand for labour is made at the same time as other events or policies that more than compensate for that reduction, there can be a net increase in employment.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not naive enough to think that the economy is a closed system. Does he agree that, if people have more disposable income because they earn more, they bring demand to the economy?
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Lady thinks through what she has just said, she will be able to answer her own question. The economy is indeed not a closed system. We have international trade relations with about 160 other countries. If demand is increased in this country while

  1169
  supply is reduced by making the supply side less competitive, that demand will be satisfied by an increase in imports, or will result in an increase in inflation.
  It was not my intention to give Labour Members a lecture in elementary economics, but I hope that the interesting exchanges that we have had across the Chamber will encourage hon. Members to do a little homework on these subjects. I warn them that, if they do, they will find it much less easy to be taken in by some of the things which the Chancellor said this afternoon and which he will no doubt repeat on other occasions.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If it is suggested by Labour Members that wages inflate demand, why has the Whitehall Department that their party now supports agreed to pay a 16-year-old in London more than £9,000 a year? The total contribution to the economy from all the 16-year-olds employed in Whitehall is less than £30,000, because the total number of 16-year-olds employed is three. That is an average of one tenth to every Government Department. Does not that demonstrate my hon. Friend's point? If the level of pay is set too high, people are not employed.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has produced an interesting corroboration of my argument. I am grateful to him, as is the entire Chamber, I am sure.
  I have explained that, because the Chancellor says that he is reducing costs to small business on the one side, it would be extraordinarily naive and foolish not to notice that he was increasing costs to a much greater extent on the other side. The same proposition holds good in other areas.
  What is the point of the Government saying that they are reducing the costs of business, and a moment later explaining that as a result of their abolishing the dividend tax credit, a number of occupational pension schemes will become actuarially underfunded, and employers will have to make up the difference? The Financial Secretary acknowledged that to me in a debate on pensions the other day. She said that, where the abolition of the dividend tax credit results in occupational schemes becoming actuarially underfunded, employers would simply make up the difference.
  The Government, who this afternoon proclaimed themselves the defender of business interests and said that they were committed to reducing business costs, thus acknowledged in another context only a few days ago that they had introduced a serious and selective new business tax—the worst kind of tax.
  What is the point of saying that, with the new capital gains tax regime, everything will be wonderful and everybody will pay lower rates of CGT, when that is not true? From the Chancellor's announcement this afternoon, it was clear to me that the position of business assets under capital gains tax has been made substantially less advantageous by the measures that the Government have just announced.
  At present, if a small or medium or family business sells business assets, those assets are eligible for roll-over relief—or retirement relief, if the business man concerned is retiring—at 100 per cent. That will no longer be the case. Those business assets will instead be taxed for CGT purposes at 10 per cent. That was presented to us this afternoon quite disingenuously, as though it were good
  1170
  news for small business. It was unambiguously bad news for small business. The news was of a new impost on business through the change in the CGT regime.
  I am delighted that the Financial Secretary has just appeared to hear my strictures on the matter. I shall be delighted to take an intervention from her if I have it wrong.
  Suppose that a business man sells business assets for £1 million. Suppose that he has built the business up from nothing, so the whole consideration is a capital gain. It will, as we have heard, no longer be indexed. Last week, he would have been able to roll over that capital gain into other business assets or into shares if he wanted to start another business or expand into another area of business; or if he was retiring, he would have had 100 per cent. relief from capital gains tax in respect of that sale. Under the regime that the Government presented this afternoon, that will no longer be the case.
  I see that the Financial Secretary is not trying to catch my eye. She does not seem to want to contradict me. I am disappointed, because I was hoping against hope that I might have misunderstood the position, and that we might have some good news for small business.
  On that £1 million of capital gains, the small business man will pay £100,000 capital gains tax. That is indeed a substantial change in the tax regime for small business, but it is a negative change. The Budget is bad news for people in that position. People will invest, take risks and work hard through a lifetime only if they believe that they will be able to keep the rewards. To the extent that the rewards are taxed, people will invest less, take fewer risks and work less hard, which will be bad for the economy as a whole. What the Government announced this afternoon is bad news for those individuals who will have to pay the tax but also for business creation, for risk taking and for the future of the British economy.
  I do not want to take up too much of the House's time. I have spoken about business. It is extremely important that not just business people but ordinary citizens are under no illusion about the impact on them and their families of what was announced this afternoon. What is the point and where is the honesty in the Government saying that direct taxes will not be increased, when local direct taxes are being substantially increased?
  Almost everyone in the country faces an increase in council tax in double figures—and for many people it will be higher than that. That is a reflection of a decision by the Chancellor—which he no doubt thinks is extremely clever—to withhold funding of local services through the revenue support grant, thereby taking credit for a growing surplus in central Government finances. However, that is done at the expense of local authorities, which must deliver the same level of services with a lower contribution from the revenue support grant, and must therefore increase the council tax.
  The Government may think that they are clever to do that. They must also think that the British people are stupid and will not find out about it, just as they think the British people are stupid and will not work out the consequences for the value of their pensions of the abolition of the dividend tax credit, and that small businesses will not see that the effect of the minimum wage legislation and the additional pension contributions that they will have to make will more than discount the tax concessions that were trumpeted by the Government this afternoon.

  1171
  If, after nine or 10 months in office, the Government proceed on the basis that the British people are stupid, they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. When that self-destruction occurs, no one on the Opposition Benches will be in the least bit surprised.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: Having listened to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I can conclude only that he has misread his Ladybird book of economics. It is time to return to both reality and brevity.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's Budget statement this afternoon. As I have had time to study the Red Book, the tests that I apply—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Plaskitt: No, not at this stage.
  The first tests that I have applied to my right hon. Friend's Budget statement involve assessing its contents against the needs of my constituents and my constituency. The Budget statement responds very well and effectively to those needs and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement.
  I began by assessing the Budget in terms of its impact on the 3,200 businesses in my constituency. Many of them are in traditional manufacturing sectors, but there are also many innovative companies with high-technology interests. As I talk to the companies in my constituency, they constantly highlight two themes on what business expects from Government. The first is a call for long-term economic stability; the second is for a climate that encourages investment. My right hon. Friend reiterated exactly those themes time and again in his Budget statement and they are central to the Budget strategy. Therefore, I am confident that the Budget measures, particularly those for business, will be welcomed warmly by the companies in my constituency.
  The Red Book contains no fewer than six line-item business tax reductions. Companies in my constituency will welcome them very much—particularly the plan to end advanced corporation tax. They will also undoubtedly welcome the move towards the lowest level of corporation tax in Europe. As for to their desire for long-term stability, companies will appreciate the statement that the Government guarantee the structure of corporation tax for the lifetime of the Parliament.
  Small businesses in particular—of which there are many in my constituency—will cheer the news that payments of quarterly corporation tax instalments will no longer be required. That will be a considerable advantage to their cash flow. They will welcome the 20 per cent. tax rate for small businesses and many companies will respond enthusiastically to my right hon. Friend's announcement of £50 million venture capital funding. Many small businesses in my constituency are near Warwick university and other universities that conduct much innovative research work.
  Precisely that sort of seedcorn funding and financial support will help local businesses to pick up the good ideas coming out of our universities and develop them into products and create employment. That is an extremely welcome Budget measure.
  1172
  I also warmly welcome the code for fiscal stability in the context of companies' desire for long-term stability. It is inevitable that right hon. and hon. Members tend, in the hours immediately following the Budget statement, to focus on specific tax figures and individual tax changes, but we should not lose sight of the importance of the code for fiscal stability and the fact that it will be enshrined in law. It will play a crucial role in creating a stable and predictable macro-economic climate—the very thing that businesses need to embark confidently upon programmes of investment.
  For the first time, the Government will provide a 10-year projection for many of the key variables in the economy and they must, year by year, indicate the relationship between our domestic spending plans and the wider European Union stability and growth pact. That is a key device for linking the performance of the United Kingdom economy with that of our European partners, and I know that it will be appreciated by hundreds of companies in my constituency that are heavily dependent on trade with the rest of the European Union.
  If we relate the code for fiscal stability to the new Bank of England independence, the Government's deficit reduction plan, the strategy for debt management and the clear map that has been laid out for progress towards European monetary union, we can see that the Government have created a substantially more stable climate for the economy. It stands in sharp and quite dramatic contrast to the record of the previous Administration. During 18 years of Conservative government, interest rates rose to 14 per cent. or higher four times, and this country had the highest long-term interest rates in the European Union. Both those factors were serious impediments to business undertaking long-term investment.
  We now have instead a strategy for achieving fiscal balance, lower long-term interest rates are already coming into effect and the Government are adopting a strategy of fiscal prudence. All that will enhance competitiveness and stability in industry, and I hope that, before long, it will begin to create circumstances that allow for a more competitive exchange rate. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend acknowledge in his Budget statement the difficulties that many companies are presently having with the exchange rate. I share his hopeful expectation that we shall soon enjoy a more competitive rate.
  The measures that my right hon. Friend has introduced will do much to create a satisfactory climate for business and employment growth. Companies in my constituency will greatly appreciate the changes in national insurance—particularly the impact that they will have on making it easier to create lower-paid jobs or the marginal extra job in a company. That relates well to the impact of the new deal and the specific programmes that it will introduce. Many hundreds of people in my constituency will benefit directly from the new deal programmes as they come into effect. Those programmes fit in neatly with the measures announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend.
  On behalf of my disabled constituents, I welcome the changes announced by the Chancellor that will strengthen the opportunities for disabled people to find work. I welcome the lower taper, the higher earnings threshold and the new linking rule that will alleviate many of the risks associated with taking a job that disabled people have experienced hitherto. They are very welcome measures.

  1173
  The second group of tests that I have applied to the Budget statement on behalf of my constituents involve gauging the extent to which it promotes and furthers social justice. In the measures under the "making work pay" heading, the Budget makes significant progress through a combination of specific tax cuts and benefit reforms. I welcome the tax cut for the lowest paid and the fact that no income tax will be payable by individuals who earn £220 a week or less. That will provide a significant boost to the disposable income of many low-income families in my constituency.
  I welcome also the expansion of child care and the generous tax credits attached to that. I welcome the introduction of higher child benefit. I calculate that 13,000 families in my constituency will be about £130 a year better off as a result of that change, and that 2,000 will be £500 a year better off thanks to the very careful targeting of that extra assistance on those in greatest need.
  I also welcome the planned introduction of the working families tax credit. At long last it will take us a long way towards meeting the principle of minimum income and provide a boost in disposable income to low-wage families of up to about £30 a week. It will therefore significantly erode the poverty traps that we know create many of the difficulties that lead to impediments to work. I welcome especially the measures that my right hon. Friend is introducing to close poverty traps and to match these steps towards social justice with the closing of yet more tax loopholes that have been exploited by the highest earners.
  I tested the proposals in the Budget statement against the interests of my rural constituents. It is clear that they will welcome many of the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced, especially the specific funding set aside for rural public transport. It has been much denuded over recent years and it is badly needed.
  The fuel rebates for bus operators will be warmly welcomed. I welcome also the introduction of lower excise duty for cars—it will be £50 lower for the cleanest cars—which is an important move towards assisting those who depend on a car. At the same time, it is a move consistent with environmental objectives. Against the background of these measures and many others that the Government have taken, it will be easier to create and sustain new jobs in small rural businesses in my constituency.
  I test the Chancellor's statement also in terms of its impact on the public services in my constituency. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements on education. There are about 50 schools in my constituency, 23 of which I have managed to visit since the general election to discuss the impact of the changes that the Government have already made to education in the classroom. There has been a warm welcome for many of the initiatives that we have taken.
  As a result of my right hon. Friend's Budget statement last year, Warwickshire has £10 million more to allocate to education and schools this year than it would have had. Today we have learnt of an additional top-up to boost that allocation. That is welcome news throughout the county and my constituency. Local health services will also appreciate the allocation of an extra £500 million to the national health service for the forthcoming year.
  There are two civilising measures, as I would describe them, tucked away in the Budget. I know that they will be welcomed by many of my constituents. The initiative
  1174
  on international debt will encourage donations from private sources. There is also the programme of money for museum and gallery funding.
  The Budget passes a broad range of tests that can be applied to it. I know that the measures in it will be much appreciated. There is extremely good news for the country and certainly for my constituency. It is a Budget that helps us to make further progress towards making work pay. The Budget will encourage enterprise while supporting families in need. It is also a Budget that invests further in health and education, and I commend it to the House.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Earlier this afternoon, I would not have presumed to make a speech on the Budget without having first benefited from tomorrow's financial pages. I was prompted to speak, however, by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Having not planned to speak this evening, I have pressing engagements later. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the occupants of the Treasury Bench if I am unable to remain in my place until the conclusion of the debate this evening.
  The principal argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Yeovil in his closing remarks was that the main weakness of the Budget statement resided, first, in its failure to make a declaration in principle in favour of joining the European currency union and, secondly, in its failure to state a target date so that the measures required to achieve the necessary conversion could be put in place by that date.
  Perhaps the right hon. Member for Yeovil was unfair to the Government in some respects. My understanding of the Government's position is that they have made a declaration in principle of joining the European currency union. It is now merely a question of timing, and that timing will be judged by the five criteria that have been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  As for the selection of a target date and the achievement of the necessary convergence within the period attached to it, I cannot imagine what the right hon. Member for Yeovil had in his mind. The simple fact is that convergence is not achieved by statements of intent. We have interest rates in excess of 7 per cent. while on the continent of Europe they are about 3 per cent. How is convergence to be achieved? By what measures will it be achieved?
  I taught the dismal science of economics for about seven years. As for the convergence of economic cycles, there is some doubt about even what causes the economic cycle or the trade cycle. I remember that one of the more plausible theories was that the issue had something to do with the disposition of sunspots on the central orb.
  The fact is that the United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community or its forebears for about 25 years, and has failed to converge its economic cycle. Indeed, if statistics are to be believed, the divergence is increasing at a disproportionate rate as we increase the time distance from the point of our membership.
  Our trade pattern, with our quickly increasing proportion of trade with non-EU members, is undoubtedly a significant factor in the growing divergence. What means can be put in place to cause convergence? The housing market in the United Kingdom is significantly

  1175
  different from elsewhere, with a huge reliance on floating interest rates. What means can be put in place to cause that market to converge with the European norm?
  Our financial services sector is disproportionately large compared with that for the rest of Europe. Indeed, industry raises its finances here differently from the rest of Europe. What measures could the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in place to cause that system to converge to the European norm? Furthermore, this nation's demography is significantly different from that of the rest of the EU. I am not aware of any means by which that might converge. The right hon. Member for Yeovil is acting rather in the manner of King Canute by stating that convergence can be achieved simply by selecting a target date.
  I shall now move on' to some of the substantive measures in the Budget. The principal benefit that it holds out to the British people is the trend in the public sector borrowing requirement, which is moving towards balance and indeed surplus. That is a huge achievement. There is no doubt that the deterioration in public finances and the move to a significant deficit occurred under the previous Administration during a fierce recession. Had we attempted to restrain that deficit by making real cuts in public services, I have no doubt that Labour Members would have raised their voices the loudest. They would have given a new meaning to the concept of bleeding hearts.
  Although the measures that gave rise to the increase in the PSBR were introduced by the previous Administration, so were the measures that now bring it back towards balance. It is nonsense for Labour to claim that any policy change has produced the move towards balance. Indeed, some time ago the Government announced that they intended to pursue the policies of the previous Administration, therefore admitting that those policies were correct. No policy change can possibly explain the movement towards balance; it is entirely to the credit of the previous Administration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) eloquently described the damage caused by last year's changes in advance corporation tax. Frankly, the Chancellor was allowed to get away with it because advance corporation tax is so complicated. Most of those who comment it fail to understand it, and therefore were unable to understand the changes. That was certainly the case initially.
  My fear is that precisely the same complexity attends one of the main features of this year's Budget statement. I refer, of course, to the working families tax credit, which operates in a hugely complicated area. The Government's proposals will have to be examined in some detail, but they have chosen a course where the current studies and the experience of other Governments are not particularly encouraging. I suspect that the measure may become subject to the law of unforeseen consequences and give rise to many more anomalies than it seeks to solve. I suspect that the hope that it will lead to a reduction in overall welfare expenditure is a pious hope.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: My hon. Friend may not have had the opportunity to read all the information,
  1176
  but paragraph 3.36 predicts that working families tax credit will bring 400,000 more families into the benefit system. That is a massive increase. Another document—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is a sufficiently long intervention.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for that enlightening fact. I was not aware of it. I was reserving the document for my bedtime reading this evening.
  I shall now move on to the announcements on education and health expenditure. The important factor is the experience of our constituents, which is undoubtedly different from that envisaged by Labour Members when they waved their Order Papers this afternoon. Life is increasing difficult for children, particularly those with learning difficulties, and for people on hospital waiting lists, particularly the elderly.
  Labour Members claim that the Government are spending much more than the Conservative Administration would ever have done, but that involves a measure of clairvoyance that is quite unjustified. We judge Administrations by their record. The simple fact is that the present Administration have more than halved the rate of increase in health expenditure under the previous Administration.
  No matter what sums are touted by the Chancellor, the reality is what people experience on waiting lists. I draw the Government's attention to the fact that the perception of the patient is more important than the sums that Ministers might tout. At the moment, the perception of patients is that waiting lists are increasing, and I do not believe for a moment that the rate of increase in Government spending is sufficient to address that problem.
  I welcome the announcements on capital gains tax and the improvement in the tax environment for small businesses, but they have to be set against the background of £22 billion in extra taxes identified by the Confederation of British Industry that have been introduced in less than one year. The same applies to personal taxation.
  Of course the changes in national insurance are welcome, as is the prospect of a 10p rate of income tax, whenever that is achieved, but they have to be set against the experience of many of my constituents who are already paying an extra £1,000 per year as a consequence of the Government's economic management over the past 10 months. That is an extraordinary record from which to produce a Budget statement. There have been increases in interest rates, council taxes, pension costs—as a consequence of the changes in ACT—and education costs.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to line 8 on page 18, the abolition of ACT and the introduction of quarterly payments of corporation tax will raise an extra £100 million this year and an extra £2 billion by 2000?
  Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely enlightening remark.
  As a consequence of this year's Budget, 250,000 taxpayers will pay higher marginal rates of taxation. That has to be set against the background of a Government who, before they took office, said that they had no plans

  1177
  to increase taxation. Within one year, they have achieved the highest revenue-raising Budget in our history. The expertise, skill and audacity of the Chancellor consists of the fact that he has been able to do so without most people noticing, because the changes that he has introduced have been so complicated. I do not believe that that state of affairs will persist for very long.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) suggested that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—who, sadly, has just left the Chamber—had misread his Ladybird book on economics. The contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sounded a little like "Tinky Winky and Po Discover Economic Convergence".
  What we have heard from some Conservative Members this evening is economics through the looking glass. We have had the suggestion that, somehow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has inherited what some have called a golden legacy. If we look at the contributions to that golden legacy, we find a doubling of the national debt in a period of just five years, a decline in our position in the league table for competitiveness—
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pond: I should like to get a little momentum going first, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  Under the previous Administration, we had the lowest levels of investment of any of the advanced industrialised countries, we have slipped to llth place out of 15 EU member states in terms of national income per head, and we have the highest proportion of workless households in the EU.
  Therefore, many of the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members have the smack of Blue Peter—"this is one I prepared earlier"—bearing little relationship to the Chancellor's contribution.
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman's first point related to the doubling of the national debt. He should be aware that the national debt was reduced dramatically from the levels inherited from the previous Labour Government. I see denial on the faces of some Labour Members, but, however much they screw up their faces, facts speak louder. Furthermore, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that Britain is the only major country which, in the past 20 years, has succeeded in reducing the ratio of debt to GDP. Every other country has seen an increase.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that lengthy intervention. What I said was that the national debt had doubled in a period of five years under the previous Prime Minister's period in office. What happened in the longer term, especially given the previous Government's substantial legacy in oil revenues and privatisation proceeds, is something on which we should not dwell.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor described the Budget as ambitious. It has to be ambitious, given the challenge of the real legacy that was inherited from the previous Government. It is ambitious to provide the means to allow people in my constituency and elsewhere to make the most of the opportunities now available to
  1178
  build the best future for themselves and their families, and it is ambitious on behalf of the poorest who themselves have an ambition—let no hon. Member deny it—to build a better future for themselves and their families. The Budget has assisted them in that process.
  The biggest challenge that my right hon. Friend faced in the Budget was the almost 5 million people who are living in poverty despite the fact that there is someone in that household in work. The second major challenge he faced was that one fifth of households have no one in work at all. The Budget made a major contribution towards challenging that.
  One of the major elements mentioned in the Budget, but not included in it, was the national minimum wage to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also referred. He suggested that some Labour Members should do a little homework on such issues before making statements. I can tell him, although he will have to read it in the Official Report, as he has left the Chamber, that I spent 17 years' homework on the economic impact of the minimum wage, and that his grasp of economics on that issue would not be sufficient him a GCSE.
  Last week, we spent 17 hours in the Chamber debating the minimum wage while Conservative Members tried to destroy that initiative. Not once in that debate could any Conservative Member refer to a firm or a major employers' organisation that opposed the minimum wage. I thought that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford would try to break that record. I am delighted that he did not.
  Mr. Syms: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is one of the most experienced on the issue of low pay. What advice would he give the Government on the rate of the minimum wage?
  Mr. Pond: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Low Pay Commission will report on that very issue in May; it is not the subject of tonight's debate.
  The Budget has put in place some other important elements of the attempt to reduce the problems of workless households and of the working poor in the UK. I welcome the working families tax credit. The Select Committee on Social Security, of which I am a member, considered in detail the operation of the working families tax credit and its potential advantages in replacing family credit, not least in trying to deal with the problem that 30 per cent. of low-income households entitled to families credit do not claim it. The working families tax credit may overcome some of the stigma associated with that problem.
  The Select Committee was concerned to ensure that transferability would be built into the working families tax credit, and I am delighted that the Chancellor gave a commitment that that would be done, to avoid the possible problems of transfer from purse to wallet, as it used to be quaintly described.
  The reform of income tax and national insurance contributions is another major change in the tax system which breaks new ground. National insurance contributions are a form of hidden income tax, and previous Administrations used them to increase substantially the direct taxation of mainly low-income groups in a highly regressive way, to the extent that national insurance contributions now account for 70p in the pound—as much as income tax. It is important that

  1179
  we reform that system and merge income tax and national insurance contributions as far as possible. Today's statement was an important move in that direction.
  Over the years, the direct and certainly the indirect tax burdens have shifted towards the poorest. A decline in the value of tax thresholds has increased tax rates at the lowest levels.
  Mr. William Ross: Is there a good reason why income tax and national insurance contributions should not be merged completely and treated as one tax as ultimately it would make no difference anyway?
  Mr. Pond: The difficulty about national insurance contributions is that they are used to finance social security. We must wait until 26 March to hear the proposals of the Minister for Welfare Reform, which may take us further down that road. The changes announced by the Chancellor today were a helpful step in that direction.
  After the war, a family with two children would not have started to pay income tax until it had earned above the average wage and, even then, the starting rate was only 7p in the pound. Today, as a result of changes made under previous Administrations, such a family would start to pay income tax at a quarter of the average wage and at a rate of 20p in the pound—three times the earlier rate. That is a major reason why the tax burden has shifted in such a regressive way.
  The changes announced today—working family tax credit and national insurance contributions—will help to deal with that. If we could move towards the l0p tax rate to which the Chancellor referred, I would welcome that, too.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter. Does he feel that enough is being done to deal with the poverty trap, to which he has alluded in the past two minutes? Is he aware that the National Housing Federation has issued a brief this evening which says that the Budget is inadequate in terms of dealing with the poverty trap, which will remain a considerable problem for people on low wages?
  Mr. Pond: The Budget has made great strides in dealing with the poverty trap, especially the national insurance contributions poverty trap and the poverty trap related to family credit and its interaction with income tax and national insurance contributions. However, all hon. Members recognise that a major element in the poverty trap is the way in which the housing benefit system operates. That will require fundamental consideration and is currently subject to a governmental review. We still have a long way to go on that.
  I was delighted to hear the Chancellor assert that universal child benefit is the most efficient and cost-effective means of providing help for families. The extra £2.50 a week for those families from April 1999 will be a major benefit, as will the additional £2.50 for those on income support and jobseeker's allowance, whose premiums will be adjusted. In my constituency, it will benefit some 13,000 families by up to £130 a year.
  We need to debate how we can further improve child benefit, and it would be sensible to discuss whether, with further increases in the base level of child benefit, that should be subject to tax at the higher rate. I was pleased that the Chancellor opened that debate today.
  1180
  We heard today another major element of the welfare-to-work strategy—the next building block in the national child care strategy. The Government will meet 70 per cent. of the cost of child care, up to £100 for the first child and £150 for subsequent children.
  The extension of the new deal to women whose partners are unemployed will assist transfers into employment, and will also overcome a major discrimination within the social security system. The extension of the new deal generally—extra resources are being committed to it from the windfall tax—will help to deal with the issue of workless households.
  On Friday, we shall launch the new deal in Gravesham by taking people from some of the 1,600 businesses in my constituency that have benefited from today's Budget for a boat trip on the Thames. We shall ask them to sign up to the new deal enthusiastically; they can disembark at any stage, although the method may depend on whether they have signed up.
  Most important, the Budget provides help for carers. It deals with the anomaly that has existed for many years of tax relief being provided to assist with the costs of caring only to a man whose wife is incapacitated. I am pleased that that major discrimination has been removed in the Budget.
  Those changes represent the biggest reform of the tax and benefits system since Beveridge, and many other reforms will no doubt be proposed by the Minister for Welfare Reform. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is dealing with pensions proposals. The Budget will ensure that there is a major redistribution of resources to people at the bottom of society without breaching the manifesto commitment to keep the basic and higher rates of tax as they are.
  I am inevitably pleased, as all hon. Members should be, that resources will be substantially increased to provide the high-quality, reliable and affordable public services on which people depend. Public transport is important to my constituents, many of whom commute daily by bus, and the Budget will help with that. Rail services are much in need of improvement. We hope that there will be a dramatic improvement in the years to come if the channel tunnel rail link goes ahead on its original timetable, and Ebbsfleet international station, which will be in my constituency, gets back on track. I am also pleased that Whitehorse Ferries, which is based in my constituency, has succeeded in obtaining licences to run services in central London and to the millennium experience.
  The measures in the Budget will improve the resources available to the health service and education, which will mean that the Government have taken a major step forward in challenging problems of poverty and social exclusion, and in helping to get Britain back to work. The Budget is ambitious, but realistic. It matches the ambitions of my constituents and of people throughout the country. and I commend it to the House.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I, too, welcome many of the measures proposed by the Chancellor in respect of the poorer members of our society and to deal with the issues that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) eloquently enunciated, but I was surprised by the omission of housing and housing benefit, which has just been mentioned.

  1181
  In my constituency and in others, many housing units are rapidly falling into a poor state of repair, and the number of new starts for affordable social housing is still lamentably low. The opportunity to address that issue has been missed. Certain sectors will always miss out, because Budgets necessarily have to take account of available resources, but housing is the one issue with which all hon. Members have to deal. Constituents attend advice surgeries because they are unable to secure housing, because their housing is poor or inappropriate for their family conditions, or because their rent is too high. The housing problem and the cost of housing benefit, which absorbs an enormous part of the overall budget, need to be addressed.
  The housing costs of local authorities are high, and, in the past few years, they have had less and less money to spend on council housing. Even the moneys that are to be made available from previous council house sales will not go far in providing new social housing, although relatively modest sums of money can make a big difference. We learned this evening that £50 million for housing associations would allow a 25 per cent. reduction in affordable rents. That would help many of the families in housing association properties, who are often in low-paid employment and on benefit. It would make a direct contribution to their budgets.
  Good housing has a positive effect on people's health. Although the additional money for the national health service is extremely welcome, money to provide people with good housing would reduce costs because people would be in better health and would have less need to avail themselves of the health service.
  Regrettably, some families in my constituency are in hostel accommodation. A single parent and three children, two of whom are of school age, may live in one room. Education is important, but it is impossible for those children to do their homework at home because of their poor housing.
  Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the impact of the capital receipts changes that the Government put in place last year. Does he agree that that money should be spent wisely and carefully, and that we should not necessarily pump more money into social housing? The Government's proposals may remove some of his doubts about the apparent neglect of housing in the Budget.
  Mr. Breed: I agree that the capital receipts programme will help. My district authority has about £400,000, which is a large sum. Even when that is added to the money available from housing associations, it will not be enough to address some of the housing problems. The cost of land is rising and will continue to rise, especially as the current view is that building should be on brown-field rather than on green-field sites. The cost of land is a large proportion of the cost of providing housing.
  The Chancellor could have dealt with second homes. Some of us represent constituencies where people have holiday homes or second homes. Those people receive discounts on their council tax. We should ensure that a greater contribution is made to the local authority through the council tax. We should also address some of the problems of low-paid local people who find it difficult to get homes in rural areas.
  1182
  I do not want to detain the House much longer, but I think that an opportunity has been missed to address a fundamental part of the social scene. I welcome the many measures that have been introduced to help low-paid workers and families, but I feel that, given the enormous amount of money that housing benefit involves, the housing provisions need to be redirected. Housing is an important component of the incomes of many low-paid workers. I hope that, in the next few weeks and months, the Government will think again about housing problems, and, even if they cannot do it in the Budget, will consider redistributing housing benefit to provide the relief to which I have referred.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Even before today's Budget statement, High Peak had done well out of the Government's economic priorities. We have benefited from extra money to reduce class sizes, for instance. As we are in Derbyshire, we had one of the biggest problems, and the money we were given was proportionate to our problem.
  High Peak has two new schools in the pipeline. In Buxton, which is England's highest town and possibly the coldest, the cut in VAT on fuel and help with pensioners' bills is particularly welcome. There has also been investment in transport infrastructure in our area. Although all the stone that makes up Manchester airport's second runway will come from High Peak, none of it will travel by road. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) will benefit from the same scheme and the same investment.
  Even after that, there is more to be gained. Following today's Budget statement, more than 2,000 businesses in High Peak will be better off. More than 14,000 families will also feel the benefit, as will users of the health service, people in work, people on benefit, and, I believe, people generally. The Chancellor used the phrase "a people's Budget", and that it certainly is.
  Other speakers have gone through a long list of what the Budget contains, but I want to identify just two issues, neither of which has been dealt with in great detail so far. I want to celebrate one feature of the Budget, and to express some concern about the other—but I shall return to that later.
  I represent a rural constituency, which contains a good deal of the Peak national park. Years ago, High Peak's transport infrastructure was decimated by the bus deregulation for which the last Budget provided. "Decimated" is not too strong a word to use for the impact of deregulation on rural communities, including small villages long distances apart. Many villages in High Peak have no bus services at all, and that is not uncommon in rural areas throughout the country.
  During the past few weeks, I have heard people in rural areas saying, "Yes, we have a transport problem: save our cars. Do not put extra tax on petrol." But there is another problem involving cars in rural areas. Once the breadwinner has left the home in the morning—usually travelling by car into the city—four out of five of the families who remain at home during the day have no access to a car. The price of petrol therefore becomes immaterial. We must consider the access of women, children and old people to public transport in rural areas during the day.

  1183
  Transport is not just an item in itself. Public transport gives people access to work, shops, goods and services—including health services. The chemist is often a bus ride away, even when the simplest medication is required. Access to leisure services is important for those trying to keep a sane mind. Even when buses are running during the day, they often do not run during the evening. People need bus services in the evening if they are to take advantage of leisure services in towns and cities. It could be said—I mean no disrespect to people in rural areas when I say this—that, for some rural areas, transport is necessary to keep in touch with civilisation in many ways.
  That is not to say that we have no rural bus services at all in High Peak; we do. Some operate commercially—very few, it has to be said. Many are subsidised by the county council, but that has pressures, and it is not easy for the council to do. Between them, the council and commercial operators do not provide an adequate service for villages and those rural communities.
  We have rural trains in High Peak. One line goes across the centre of the constituency. It is under-used, and does not sufficiently provide the attractive services that local people, commuters or the holidaymakers who come my constituency would wish to use. We need to make the services that do exist more accessible and attractive, and provide simply more of them.
  We have another transport problem in High Peak. If people go to Glossop and climb the hills above it on to the Pennines and the rich peaked moorlands, they will find that considerable damage is being done to those moorlands by ground-level ozone. Ozone is the substance in the higher parts of the atmosphere that protects this planet from ultraviolet rays, but, at ground level, it can be damaging and a serious pollutant.
  Ground-level ozone is caused by reactions in the air between the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen and sunlight. It tends to happen in cities and large conurbations. It happens exactly because the sulphur and nitrogen oxides are the by-products of the burning of oil and of petrol. The prevailing wind from the cities of Liverpool and Manchester to the west, which we can just see from the hilltops of High Peak, brings the atmospheric pollutants that react in the air to produce ground-level ozone. Because High Peak, as its name implies, is that much higher, the pollution rests on the top of our hills, and starts literally to dissolve our peak moors.
  That pollution is caused by cars and the internal combustion engine. We must tackle air pollution, partly for environmental and quality-of-life reasons, but also because many children—more than ever before, I guess—suffer from asthma. Therefore, we have to cut the amount of vehicles that operate both in rural areas and cities. This Budget starts to take that problem seriously and to grapple with it.
  Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is making a useful contribution. This point came up in the debate on a private Member's Bill—the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill. I do not know whether he heard the Leader of the Opposition launch, as part of his attack on the Government's Budget, an attack on the so-called failure to understand how rural areas need cars. There was once an initiative called the Tory green initiative. I
  1184
  wonder where that stands now in relation to the apparent complete disregard for the environment that has been shown by the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is trying to talk that Bill to death.
  Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. The Tory green initiative brings back memories. It is many years since I have heard it mentioned.
  This Budget does several things to put tackling the problems of the car and internal combustion engine into the fast lane, if I may use that expression. It starts to transfer tax from car ownership to car use, and has a rebate for bus operators, which will be welcomed in rural areas. Particularly welcome is the £50 million subsidy for additional transport in rural areas. I hope that it will be used on integrated schemes involving buses and trains, on community transport schemes and to promote car-sharing. If page 76 of the Red Book is anything to go by, I am sure it will.
  An average of over £1 million per shire county can do an awful lot.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that £50 million is very small in relation to the needs of rural transport? It hardly goes any way towards replacing the cuts that county councils and other authorities have made in their support for public transport as a result of the previous Government's cuts. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it will not be a sufficient response for the Government's integrated transport review? Perhaps he will join me in pressing the Chancellor to make a larger sum available to deal with the real underlying problems.
  Mr. Levitt: The integrated transport policy will be published in due course, and will come into effect. This is not intended to be a be-all and end-all solution. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting another use of the Liberal Democrat penny, which has been spent so many times already. At least it is £50 million more than we had before.
  From what I have said, you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I favour green taxation. However, I want to deal with the one issue that causes me some concern.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that minds were open, and the door was open, on an aggregate tax and a tax on extraction. Paragraph 5.59 of the Red Book seems to talk about how the aggregate tax should work, rather than whether it would work. I am certain that we are—we should be—still in the period of asking whether an aggregate tax is right.
  I am opposed to an aggregate tax, and I wrote to the Environmental Audit Select Committee expressing my opposition. There are three main reasons why I oppose an aggregate tax or quarry tax. The first reason is a parochial one—that High Peak has at least nine major quarries. It is the largest sector of manufacturing industry within my constituency, and it is important to the local economy. An aggregate tax could damage that industry in my area.
  Secondly, I believe that an aggregate or quarry tax will not necessarily be effective. By and large, the smaller quarries are the greatest offenders against environmental

  1185
  rules and the high environmental expectations that we rightly have of the industry. Despite that, they would presumably be paying less than the larger operators. There has been improved regulation of the quarrying industry in recent years, which European legislation complements, providing an opportunity for better regulation still. Also, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be looking closely at the quarrying industry when it comes to tightening planning controls.
  The industry is aware of the environmental expectations we have of it, and is looking for ways to promote good practice, the recycling of building materials and the re-use of quarries. All those things have not yet been exhausted when it comes to reducing the environmental impact of the quarrying industry. Therefore, an aggregate tax is not necessary.
  The third reason for opposing such a tax is the usual one of cost. A quarry tax would put up the price of what is pulled out of the quarries. In High Peak, we quarry limestone, which is involved in the manufacture of cement, concrete, stone, do-it-yourself materials, inorganic fertiliser and crockery. In fact, 80 per cent. of the country's fluorspar comes from my constituency or from that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) next door.
  High Peak produces the highest-quality limestone, which is suitable for the pharmaceutical industry. Limestone is also used in the manufacture of steel, and is used in high-tech industries and the production of plastic, paper and toothpaste. It is used for homes, roads and their repairs, and for hospitals, schools and their repairs. Even the pillars that will grace the front of the new parliamentary building above Westminster tube station will be made of Derbyshire limestone. Extra costs will be added to all those items if an aggregate tax is imposed.
  Who will pay those extra costs? In revenue terms, 40 per cent. of our quarries' products is purchased by the public sector, including central and local government. A quarry tax would therefore simply reduce the Government's own purchasing power. We should think very carefully about taking such action.
  The Budget is excellent. I have only the one concern—which I am pleased to have been able to express, making my contribution to the consultative process—on the aggregates or quarry tax. However, I believe that the Budget will promote social justice, social fairness and economic stability. It is also environmentally sound. I commend it to the House.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on aggregates tax. Although I shall not develop the point now, I was interested to hear it articulated.
  The most important message in the Budget is that the Chancellor has entrenched most of the changes that he had already announced—in the form of tax increases on middle Britain. His plans to increase taxes have been very clear. He has increased taxes on pension funds by about £5 billion annually, while retaining many of the disincentives to saving that he launched with his assault on personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts.
  1186
  The Budget will be judged by the British public against some of the remarks before the general election by the then Opposition. Although the following statements have already been quoted in the House, I think that they will be quoted again and again. The then Leader of the Opposition said:
  "We will not increase taxes at all."
  More strongly, he said:
  "I vow that promises we make on tax, we will keep. This is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it."
  I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government will eventually be judged on those pledges.
  The Chancellor is not exempt. He said:
  "We will not make promises we will later break, we will not say one thing before the election and another after. Above all, we will be straight with the British people about tax."
  I do not think that any reasonable person could possibly say that what has happened in the past 12 months accords with those quotations. The gap between the quotations and the Government's actions is enormous.
  Mr. Syms: Undoubtedly my hon. Friend is aware of the table on page 116 of the Red Book, which shows that, by the end of this Parliament, the percentage of GDP collected in tax will rise from 38.1 per cent. to 40.1 per cent. That represents a real increase in tax on families.
  Mr. Tyrie: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out to me. I have not yet had a chance to peruse the documents as thoroughly as I should, although I shall probably have a chance to do so later this evening.
  Today, a series of new tax rises have been announced—in addition to those already announced—which primarily affect businesses. So far, I have detected at least five sizeable such tax changes in the Budget.
  The first change is a sharp increase in stamp duty, which will hit hard many businesses, affecting where they wish to locate by diminishing incentives to choose the most efficient location. The change will therefore reduce British efficiency and British competitiveness.
  There will also be a massive increase in business transport costs because of increases in the road fuel escalator, company car fuel scales and diesel prices. Even super unleaded petrol will be hit slightly. Every motorist—not only every business motorist—will soon rue the effect of those new Labour tax measures on those who use our roads.
  Another large increase appears to be a further erosion of the contributory principle of national insurance contributions. That may be very bad news for business in the long run. Business will be hit directly by the increase in employers' contributions from 10 to 12.2 per cent. High-tech sectors will be badly hit, as will areas suffering from skill shortages. They will have to pay even more to plug the gaps.
  There is not only the abolition of advance corporation tax but the move to quarterly payments for corporation tax, which will impose a huge cash-flow cost of £1.6 billion in 1999–2000, according to the Red Book.
  The fifth large tax increase on business that I have noticed is the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction. Britain is successful at going abroad to seek international

  1187
  business. As far as I can tell, the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction will make it much more difficult for companies to take advantage of such opportunities.
  British nationals stationed abroad are subject only to UK tax. The chances are that, by abolishing the deduction, the Chancellor will make employees pay UK tax when they are stationed abroad, even if they already pay foreign taxes. That means that British employers seeking to expand abroad will have to pay employees more, so the cost of expansion abroad will rise further.
  Even the capital gains tax change, which looks fairly innocuous at first blush, is in fact rather a nasty and pernicious means of increasing tax. The Chancellor claims to have made the CGT system fairer, especially for the business community, by lowering the rate of tax for long-term gains. However, he has increased CGT for most situations, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. That is because of the abolition of indexation allowance after April 1998 and the phasing out of retirement relief for gains on the sales of businesses over the next five years.
  Let us take indexation first. From April 1998, taxpayers will not be able to take into account the effect of inflation on gains they make. If the Government achieve their 2.5 per cent. per annum inflation target—let us suppose they do—the true cost of an asset will increase by 28 per cent. over 10 years, but taxpayers will obtain no relief for that. The reduction in rates of CGT on long-term gains will fail to compensate for the change. That will be the case even on modest rates of growth in the value of assets.
  I have calculated that, for an asset worth £100,000 in year one whose value rises at a nominal rate of 5 per cent. with inflation of 2.5 per cent. over 10 years, in year 10 there will be an increase in the tax bill of more than £1,000. That is a substantial increase.
  Retirement relief currently provides complete exemption and protection from CGT for gains on long-term business assets up to £250,000. Over the next five years, it will be phased out. The best that owners of small businesses can hope for is to qualify for the minimum CGT rate of 10 per cent., which will mean paying more tax than the zero they would otherwise have paid.
  Taxes are coming in on all sides for businesses. It is clear that the first year of Labour is a big tax assault on businesses through ACT, stamp duty and increases in taxes on transport. No doubt more tax rises lurk in the undergrowth of the Treasury's press releases.
  More important still for the future of the economy was the sleight of hand on fiscal policy. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) compared the Chancellor to Gladstone and his approach to fiscal policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gladstone could not have abided "The Code for Fiscal Stability". It may come to be seen as little more than a charter for fiscal irresponsibility.
  Of course, it was trumpeted as the counterpart to bolstering the credibility of monetary policy with Bank of England independence. I am not even sure whether we have an independent Bank yet. The Bank of England Act is a botched job. It has left the target for inflation in the hands of the Chancellor, along with an override power so that he can do what he wants. Two thirds of the committee
  1188
  that has to take the decisions are appointed for only three years, and are therefore firmly under the Chancellor's control.
  The Government's document "The Code for Fiscal Stability" is one of the more pernicious forms of Government document. It gives the illusion of doing something worthy, while changing hardly anything. The two key principles are on page 16. The first is the golden rule. The document reads:
  "the golden rule: over the economic cycle the Government will only borrow to invest and not to fund current expenditure".
  I challenge anyone to give me a watertight definition of public sector investment. Is it meaningful to compare the return from an extra teacher with a new school roof? Where investment does not create an income stream, the distinction between current and capital spending means very little. I think that the majority of economic commentators agree with that view. The scope for varying the definition of current and capital in public sector investment means that the golden rule is not really a rule, but a highly elastic principle.
  The second principle in the document is:
  "public debt as a proportion of national income will be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level."
  But why should that be done? I cannot understand why the inherited level of debt-to-GDP ratio should be the right one. What about some other level? The policy target is ill thought through.
  What is even more extraordinary is that when one turns over the page, the document says:
  "An alternative approach would be to embed the Government's two fiscal rules in the Code. However, this would be unduly restrictive."
  Here we have two highly flexible, almost meaningless notions that the Government are still not prepared, even though they are nice and flabby, to put into legislation.
  Mr. Syms: It is evident that Governments do not always know at what point they are in the cycle. If one cannot measure where one is in the cycle, how can one measure whether the debt ratio is correct?
  Mr. Tyrie: I shall come on to the cycle question in a moment. We need a regular publication from the Government that strips out the economic cycle and makes clear to everyone the Government's view of the economic cycle and where we are in it. We need a commitment to a balanced budget over the cycle, not a commitment to a golden rule.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Conservative Government did not do it.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Financial Secretary is making points from a sedentary position.
  Mrs. Liddell: Economic Secretary.
  Mr. Tyrie: Perhaps the Economic Secretary would like to come to the Dispatch Box to respond to my points. If not, perhaps she would like to make fewer points from a sedentary position.

  1189
  As time goes by, we will realise that the golden rule is virtually meaningless. Even the Economic Secretary is not prepared to come to the Dispatch Box this evening to say a word in its defence. We need a commitment over the long term not to entrench the current level of debt but to reduce the burden of debt and eventually to remove all Government debt, and thereby eliminate debt interest. [Interruption.] Another point is being made from the Front Bench, which I did not catch. If the Minister for the Armed Forces would like to make it from the Dispatch Box, I will gladly answer it. He seems a little reluctant to do so. I wonder whether his points are of any value whatever.
  Above all, what we need is an independent fiscal policy committee—a truly independent body which would be a counterpart to the Monetary Policy Committee. It could take forecasting out of the hands of politicians—all aspects of forecasting, including working out what the assumptions should be, explaining how those assumptions were derived and developing them into a forecast. In the United States, the US Treasury does not even try to make forecasts; it relies on forecasts from the Federal Reserve. It may be that the UK Government should consider doing something similar, given that the document they have written is of extremely little value in that regard.
  The Chancellor will say, "I have put the forecasts out to independent arbitration; I have sent them to the National Audit Office; I have put them out for vetting," but the NAO is not equipped to do the job. Its staff are first-rate accountants, not first-rate forecasters. It is small wonder that the documents make anodyne statements such as—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Mr. Gordon Bell
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: My constituent Mr. Gordon Bell is one of a number of people who, as young national service men, were induced to take part in what they were told at the time was research into the common cold at Porton Down chemical research establishment. Some, Mr. Bell included, say that they have since suffered debilitating illnesses, which they attribute to the experiments in which they took part.
  It has since become obvious that, whatever the purpose of the research, it had nothing to do with the common cold. Subsequently, it has been suggested by Ministers that the experiments were part of research into the effects of London smog. While one cannot rule out the possibility that that was a spin-off, it clearly was not the prime purpose of the research. Not for the first time in matters of this nature, there is a feeling that the Ministry of Defence is being economical with the truth. Although there has been some progress during the past nine months, I hope that tonight's debate will shed a little more light on the matter.
  I should say that this is not the first Adjournment debate on the subject; in October 1996, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) obtained a debate on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Michael Paynter. The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately unable to be here tonight, but he has kindly made available to me his papers on the subject, including letters from or written on behalf of eight other people who were induced to take part in similar experiments at Porton Down. Although those letters refer to experiments that took place over a period spanning nearly 20 years, they corroborate each other to a remarkable extent. I mention that to show that Mr. Bell is by no means alone in his recollection of what took place; nor is he alone in his scepticism of the various explanations so far offered as to the purpose of the experiments.
  Gordon Bell served as a conscript between April 1959 and January 1961. From August 1959, he was based at RAF Aird Uig on the Isle of Lewis. During that time, he responded to a request for volunteers to participate in what was said to be a research project on the common cold taking place at Porton Down. Mr. Bell is clear in his recollection that the stated purpose of the project was research into the common cold; Mr. Paynter, whose case was raised 18 months ago by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, also recalls that research into the common cold was the stated purpose of the experiment.
  That is of interest because Mr. Paynter was experimented on in 1954 and 1955—five years before my constituent. Sir David Ford, one of those who wrote to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and who took part in an experiment in 1954, has the same recollection. There is evidence that the common cold was still being used as a cover for the experiments as late as the early 1970s; a former service man based at RAF Wattisham from 1971 to 1976 recalls that the station's routine orders, which were required reading, contained several requests a year for volunteers to assist in common cold research at Porton Down.

  1191
  It would appear that, over more than 20 years, those who were conducting the experiments at Porton Down were doing so on that bogus pretext. It is said that Porton Down cannot be held responsible for the pretext on which the volunteers were recruited; the truth must be that everyone responsible for organising and conducting the experiments over so many years must have known. Nor is it good enough for Ministers to tell us that no research into the common cold took place at Porton Down—we know that. What we are looking for tonight is a frank admission that volunteers were recruited on a fraudulent basis and an explanation why.
  Once it becomes clear that volunteers were recruited in that way, any notion that they consented to whatever was done to them goes out of the window, as does any notion that the experiments were conducted in accordance with the terms of the Nuremberg code, which is based on the principle of informed consent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight whether Mr. Bell and his colleagues were asked to sign consent forms. If so, where are they? If not, when was the practice introduced?
  Mr. Bell says that, he visited Porton Down three times. In one experiment, he was put inside a sort of gas chamber and ordered to stand in front of a stream of gas so acrid that he could bear it for less than a minute. Other gas tests, he says, left him nauseous, dizzy and weak at the knees. After each test, he would be required to pedal a static bicycle with gauges attached.
  Mr. Bell says that, on another occasion, in the summer of 1960, he was given a series of injections, after which he was confined to a hospital bed and readings were taken of his pulse, temperature and blood pressure. He says that the long-term effects have left him with a skin condition which doctors and skin specialists have failed positively to diagnose.
  Other people report long-term side effects. Sir David Ford wrote:
  "For the last 20 years my doctors have been trying to find the cause of a recurring virus illness from which I have suffered, but have been quite unable to do so… My present doctor believes that it is entirely possible that my ability to resist infection could have been damaged by something which occurred at Porton Down."
  Michael Paynter developed serious skin infections within six months of his second visit to Porton Down. He also developed small growths on his body that have never been diagnosed. Other Porton Down volunteers complain of damage to their health.
  In a letter to me dated 30 November 1997, the Minister wrote that there was no evidence that any former volunteers suffered any adverse effects on their health subsequent to their attendance at Porton Down. With the greatest of respect, those are weasel words. No one has ever checked to find out. Mr. Bell says that, from the moment he left Porton Down, there were absolutely no follow-up health checks on him, so how would anyone know whether his health had suffered? The House should note the use of the word "subsequent" in the Minister's letter. That makes it possible to avoid mention of the fact that at least one of the volunteers, Ronald Maddison, died while being experimented on in the Porton Down gas chamber. Presumably no one would argue that his health was not affected.
  On 28 November 1996, as a result of the new policy of glasnost that followed the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, Mr. Bell received a letter
  1192
  from John Chisholm, chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, now responsible for Porton Down, stating that records had been located for one of his three visits—that of August 1960. They gave details of his participation in three studies.
  The first study was to assess the effect on the skin of various rubber mixtures proposed for use in protective equipment, such as respirators and gloves. Small patches of rubber would have been placed on his skin for short periods to assess its reaction to the material. Mr. Chisholm added:
  "The summary book shows you did not experience any adverse reactions to this study".
  Secondly, Mr. Chisholm revealed that Mr. Bell had participated in a study to determine the effect on breathing resistance of CS gas, the symptoms of which clear up within a few minutes of exposure, it is said.
  Finally, records showed that Mr. Bell had participated in an assessment of a proposed incapacitating agent called pyrexal—a type of sugar derived from the salmonella bacterium, widely used as a therapeutic substance. It has been shown to produce shivering, headaches and general malaise. However, it was found to be ineffective as an incapacitating agent, and research into that area was abandoned. Mr. Chisholm went on to say that it had proved impossible to locate records of the other two visits that Mr. Bell says he made to Porton Down.
  As I am sure you have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, none of this has much to do with the common cold, and it is only the tip of a huge iceberg. About 20,000 so-called volunteers passed through Porton Down. I very much doubt whether, before the procedures were tightened in the 1980s, many of them were given much idea of the experiments that were being conducted on them.
  When the issue came before the House in October 1996, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—then the hon. Member for Crawley—was at pains to assure the House that the exact nature of the studies in which service men had taken part was explained to all Porton Down volunteers and that such experiments were carefully regulated. That may be the case now, but it clearly was not so in the past. The then Minister said that it was possible that
  "some activities carried out in the past will raise concern when viewed through the eyes of scientists at the end of the 20th century."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 789.]
  Many of those experiments and the manner in which they were conducted would have raised concern even by the standards of the 1950s—more so, in fact, as the experiments carried out by the Nazis that prompted the Nuremberg code were fresh in the public mind in the 1950s. I put it to the Minister that those who were the subject of the experiments at Porton Down were not told the truth precisely because it would have been unacceptable even by the standards of the time.
  I am aware that, in the short time that he has been in office, my hon. Friend the Minister has done his best to deal honestly with the problem. He has met representatives of the Porton Down volunteers; he has set up a dedicated helpline to deal with inquiries; and he has arranged for former volunteers—including Mr. Bell—to visit Porton Down and put their concerns directly to those in charge. I am grateful for that, but for several reasons, those actions do not address the whole problem.

  1193
  First, detailed records no longer exist—at least not at Porton Down—of some of the experiments conducted there. Secondly, there has yet to be a frank admission—perhaps tonight will be the occasion—that for many years, volunteers were recruited on the basis of deception. What other explanation can there be for all those references to common cold research? An admission on that is long overdue.
  Thirdly, many of those who were the subject of the experiments were unaware of the purpose and the substances to which they were exposed, which was a breach of the Nuremberg code. An admission on that is also overdue.
  Fourthly—this is the cause of particular anger on the part of Mr. Bell and others—even if it were possible to demonstrate a link between their ill health and what happened to them at Porton Down, they would be barred from civil legal action by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which does not apply retrospectively.
  Mr. Bell and others are seeking a public inquiry into the Porton Down volunteer programme. The inquiry should interview those who were induced to take part and those who recruited and experimented on them. It would then be in a position to arrive at some robust conclusions.
  The inquiry might also seek to establish any connection between the unexplained health problems suffered by a number of former volunteers and the experiments to which they were subjected. If a link can be established, some mechanism will need to be devised for compensating the victims.
  In his letter of 30 November, my hon. Friend the Minister said that a public inquiry would be neither feasible nor practical so long after the event. I suspect that that is code for saying that the possible conclusions of any such inquiry might be embarrassing, not so much for the Government as for the mighty vested interests at the heart of the defence establishment. I therefore beg to differ.
  Recruits were still being solicited for common cold research at Porton Down as recently as the early 1970s. Many of those who drafted and circulated the misleading advertisements, as well as those who were recruited and those who conducted the experiments, are still around. By no means all are in their dotage—Mr. Bell is not. Who knows—one or two of those responsible may still be in the employ of the Ministry of Defence.
  I know that my hon. Friend has to wrestle with a Department in which the culture of secrecy is deeply ingrained. One has only to recall the Ministry's handling—happily, under previous management—of the Colin Wallace affair or Gulf war syndrome to realise that this will be an uphill battle, even for a Minister with the most honourable intentions, as I know my hon. Friend has. I trust that he will rise to the occasion.
  10.13 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland South (Mr. Mullin) on raising this issue tonight. The concerns of his constituent, Mr. Gordon Bell, and others like him who are worried about their experiences at Porton Down and the extent of the information available about them, are not new to me. Those concerns are relevant to us all in the pursuit of a solution to a persistent claim by Mr. Bell and a number—a fairly limited number—of others.
  1194
  I am aware of my hon. Friend's tenacity over a number of years in pursuing what he considers to be injustices. Although I do not entirely share his view on this matter at this stage, he has an enviable record of being right on the issues that he has raised, so my approach to the subject that he raises is not dismissive.
  I have taken a close interest in the matter. As my hon. Friend knows from correspondence that I have had with him, I have set in hand a number of practical measures to assist those who have concerns about it. He was good enough to mention some of those measures tonight. I have listened very carefully to what he has said, not only on this occasion, and I understand clearly the background to the concerns that Mr. Bell has raised with him.
  Before I deal with the specifics of the case, perhaps it would be useful if I spent a few minutes describing briefly the background to the Porton Down volunteers programme in which Mr. Bell and many other service men have taken part.
  For more than 80 years, the Ministry of Defence research laboratories at Porton Down in Wiltshire, now a part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, have been involved in the research and development that have underpinned the UK's chemical and biological defence capability, in terms of both detection and protective measures. That research, as recent events in the middle east have shown, is as relevant today as it was when the service volunteer programme began in 1916.
  Throughout Porton Down's history, some 20,000 volunteers have participated in the trials, with many participating more than once. There have been tens of thousands of individual cases. I mention that for the historical record, and also because it sets in context some of the numbers cited by my hon. Friend. That is not prima facie to deny the possibility that he is right, but it puts into context the eight people whom he mentions, out of tens of thousands.
  The past 30 years have seen more than 5,000 volunteers helping in the research, and currently between 50 and 100 volunteers a year are participating in the programme. They have been involved in tests aimed at ensuring that protective measures issued to our troops to counter the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons are safe and operationally acceptable before they are introduced into service.
  Historically, some took part in experiments—
  Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Reid: I will, but I have had experience of giving way continually and not being able to answer the initial question.
  Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not suggesting that only eight people complained. I was referring to eight people who had written in as a result of the previous Adjournment debate.
  Dr. Reid: Indeed, and to be fair to my hon. Friend, he was referring to eight people who had specifically raised the question of the common cold as well. As I said, I do not use that ab initio as grounds for dismissal, but I have tried to put the figure in context.
  Some of the volunteers took part in experiments to evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of chemical weapons agents such as nerve

  1195
  gases and mustard on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally. That was not hidden—a point to which I shall return. Other volunteers were involved in studies to develop effective medical countermeasures to protect service personnel, or trials to assess the ability of personnel to function with new equipment.
  Not only is that vital work: I know that the House will agree that it is crucial that such measures are evaluated in the safety of a controlled environment, with full medical and scientific back-up. I am in no doubt that our knowledge and our technology in the very complex field of chemical and biological defence could not have advanced without the contribution of volunteers participating in trials as part of the programme. I place on record my gratitude and, I am sure, the gratitude of the House to them.
  I am pleased to say that the vast majority of the service volunteers who have visited Porton Down have come and gone, apparently quite unconcerned about their attendance. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that former volunteers have suffered any harm to their health, and the studies have always been—and continue to be—carried out with the utmost regard for the safety, health and well-being of volunteers.
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's point that there has been no systematic follow-up of the tens of thousands of volunteers over the years. However, I think that he will appreciate the difficulty and non-viability of doing that—indeed, it would be almost impossible. Given the level of publicity and media coverage regarding those tens of thousands of cases—including the hotline and the publicity that followed my introduction of it some weeks ago—we might have expected to be inundated with people with similar claims. As I shall point out later, the reality is that that has not occurred.
  However, in the past few years, some people—like Mr. Bell—who attended Porton Down have inquired about their involvement in trials. Sometimes that has just been out of curiosity and as a result of publicity, but sometimes it is because they have health concerns. It was clear to me, on becoming Minister in May last year, that the existing mechanism for responding to those requests for information was not as effective as it should have been. I was convinced that the secrecy and mystery apparently surrounding Porton Down served only to encourage views that a conspiracy had been afoot. That was frustrating and disturbing for those with questions, and did not reflect well on the MOD, which was perceived as over-secretive and paranoid, and consequently as having something to hide.
  Therefore, last September, I took the step of meeting volunteers to hear their concerns at first hand, and I hope that I was able to go some way towards reassuring them of our support. I also undertook to take positive action, where practical, to address the points that they brought to my attention. This—as my hon. Friend was kind enough to acknowledge—I have done. As recently as January, I wrote to my hon. Friend with details of the dedicated helpline that we have established to take their inquiries. That is a first step. We also published details of Porton Down and the helpline as widely as possible, and distributed leaflets.
  1196
  In addition, if people were not satisfied after their initial inquiry, we arranged for them to visit Porton Down to see what records existed. We also allowed them to bring their political representative, legal representative, or family and friends to talk the matter through. I believe that those initiatives have been very successful—not least because we have been able to give details to those who have inquired about war pensions, which are open as a no-fault compensation to anyone who claims that he suffers from an illness arising from his service life.
  I am pleased to tell the House that some 170 people have made use of that facility already. Of that number, two former volunteers have taken up the offer to visit Porton Down to see the surviving records and to talk to the medical and scientific staff about their experiences. Another two visits are being arranged at present. I also note with some small satisfaction that one recent visitor who attended Porton Down in the 1940s—half a century ago—wrote to thank the staff for being open and helpful and for the interest they showed in his case. I do not say that that is a first, but it is a tiny step in the right direction.
  In that context, it is fitting to turn to the case that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. I understand that my hon. Friend is to visit Porton Down with Mr. Gordon Bell on 23 April. Mr. Bell's case has been the subject of correspondence with the Ministry of Defence for some two and a half years. Mr. Bell recalls that, while serving in the RAF, he attended Porton Down on three separate occasions to take part in what he believed was research into the common cold. However, once at Porton Down, he says that he was subjected to a series of tests with a different purpose. Mr. Bell believes not only that those tests have given rise to his present health complaints, but that ethical practices were breached by the manner in which he was recruited to take part. He also believes that information is being withheld from him.
  I must tell my hon. Friend again that staff at Porton Down can find records of only one attendance by Mr. Bell, about 38 years ago, for one week in August 1960. If the conspiracy theory were right, it would seem to me, prima facie, silly to admit that Mr. Bell had been at Porton Down, but to deny that he had been there more than once.
  Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Reid: I shall deal with the other points that my hon. Friend has made.
  Mr. Mullin: I am not talking about any conspiracy.
  Dr. Reid: All right. I was not accusing my hon. Friend of doing that. However, there are those who believe that there is a conspiracy and a cover-up. I think that the objective observer could have taken that as being implied in my hon. Friend's speech—that there had been some form of cover-up at some stage over the common cold. That is a point that I would like to reach.
  Mr. Mullin: I believe in the cock-up theory.
  Dr. Reid: Nevertheless, those concerned have been able to describe in some detail the series of tests in which Mr. Bell participated. During this visit, he took part in several studies, including physiological and psychological

  1197
  tests, for example, to help measure lung volume, calibration of equipment to measure breathing, routine blood tests and rubber mix patch tests to assess skin sensitivity.
  Mr. Bell also participated in two trials which involved him being exposed to chemicals. He was exposed to the riot control agent CS gas, which is now used by United Kingdom police forces for self-defence purposes. Mr. Bell was also exposed to pyrexal, a prospective incapacitant agent, which the literature suggested may have been useful for similar purposes to CS. However, Mr. Bell suffered no symptoms following exposure to this agent. He will be able to see that when he visits Porton Down, with a copy of any records relating to that. The staff at Porton Down have been asked to try to piece together from any other evidence that is available anything that might be useful to Mr. Bell. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assist him in his inquiries, and in other inquiries.
  When I wrote to my hon. Friend in November I said that in addition I would ask Porton Down to identify and declassify any relevant technical reports. I subsequently did that, and staff at Porton Down have identified one such report on pyrexal. My hon. Friend will remember that this is one of the agents that were involved in Mr. Bell's experiments. This report will be made available for my hon. Friend and his constituent when they visit Porton Down.
  I turn to the way in which the trials were conducted, and especially the manner in which Mr. Bell says that he was recruited. Volunteers to Porton Down are drawn principally from the three services, and are recruited through notices posted widely at military establishments. In the 1950s and 1960s, it appears from surviving records that volunteer intakes were requested from individual arms of the services at specific times of the year. The precise mechanisms for recruiting volunteers were arranged by the services themselves, not by Porton Down.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of informed consent. The policy at Porton Down has always been to obtain the informed consent of volunteers to take part in the research and to make it clear to them that they are free to withdraw at any time. That does not necessarily mean that informed consent was given at all times in writing. Indeed, it was only in the 1980s that it became common practice, and now obligatory practice, to introduce consent in writing. That is the informed consent.
  1198
  I believe on the evidence that is available to me that the Porton Down staff have always adhered to the highest standards of ethical practice. I believe also that they have always sought to follow the best practices existing at the time with respect to trials involving human subjects. If either scientists, or advisers, believed that there was a risk to health, or that they were in any way in breach of the Nuremberg code, the experiments would not have taken place.
  Mr. Bell will find no mention of common cold research, and the chemical and biological and defence organisation has never carried out work on the common cold. My hon. Friend has been saying that although such work was never carried out, work may have been classified as such for a cover story. It is impossible for me to deny the negative. There is no evidence, however, that Porton Down did what has been suggested. Tonight, my hon. Friend has used words such as, "There is a feeling that", "It is entirely possible that", and "This could have happened."
  Given that Porton Down has already admitted, quite openly, that it was involved in a range of experiments, including CS gas, mustard gas, and pyrexal, which I mentioned earlier, it does not fit the pattern of evidence to suggest that it should have gone out of its way to classify some other research as work on the common cold.
  Porton Down never engaged in research into the common cold. I repeat that the precise mechanisms for recruiting volunteers in the 1950s and 1960s were arranged by the services themselves. Tonight, for the first time, I think, my hon. Friend mentioned a particular station. I shall ask my officials to check the records of that station to ascertain whether there is any evidence whether any branches of the services were advertising volunteer places as places on experiments involving the common cold. I have to say that on the evidence so far I must come to the conclusion that Porton Down has acted to the highest ethical standards and has acted under the Nuremberg code. It has acted honestly and at all times with the volunteers.
  If we can find any evidence to substantiate the claims, any Minister would examine them again, and I am sure—
  The motion having been made at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant at the forthcoming summits of(a) the G8, (b) the EU and (c) the EU and USA; and if he will make a statement. [33865]

  The Prime Minister
  The century date change will be raised within the G8 either at the Summit or at the meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers. In addition to raising the issue at the Telecommunications Council we are also exploring with the European Commission at what other events it should be discussed.

  World Cup 2006
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on representations he made on the siting of matches in Scotland in the event of England hosting the 2006 World Cup finals, to the President of FIFA, when he met him on 11 March. [34799]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for the Football Association and FIFA. Details about siting of matches in Scotland were not discussed at the meeting.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to reduce the number of holding answers issued by his Department in response to written questions. [35028]

  The Prime Minister
  I seek to meet the deadlines set by Members in every case but it is not always possible to do so.

  I am receiving approximately 40% more written Parliamentary Questions, a proportion of which are for named day answer, than was the case under the previous administration.

  News International
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Mr. Rupert Murdoch; where the meeting took place; and what was discussed. [35063]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 702.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Appeals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the average waiting time for a social security appeal to be heard, from the date the appeal is lodged with the ITS. [34598]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Independent Tribunal Service reports that the current average waiting time for an appeal to be heard by a Social Security Appeal Tribunal is approximately 28 weeks.

  However, we are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. The Social Security Bill, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of Social Security, including the handling of appeals, had its second reading in the House of Lords on 15 January. The Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system. She will set and publish demanding targets for the administration of appeals and report on the results.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) she has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) she has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34826]

  Mr. Field
  No non-departmental public bodies have been abolished or established since 1 May 1997.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the main disabling conditions of people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project and have had their disability living allowance(a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. [34100]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated
  16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about listing the main disabling conditions of people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) and have had their Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (a) maintained, (b) reduced,
  (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.

  531
  The information is not available in the format requested. Of the 54,839 people whose cases have been assessed by the BIP, 20,027 are recorded as having two main disabling conditions. The figures provided relate only to those cases where one main disabling condition applies.
  At the time an award of DLA is made, the Adjudication Officer records the main disabling condition on the DLA computer system. However the system allows for different conditions to be recorded

  Disability

  Maintained

  Reduced

  Increased

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Arthritis

  7,336

  1,445

  261

  814

  9,856

  Cerebrovascular disease

  2,486

  632

  88

  187

  3,393

  Disease of muscles/bones/joints

  1,860

  471

  57

  332

  2,720

  Heart disease

  1,921

  400

  67

  291

  2,679

  Spondylosis

  1,560

  437

  55

  314

  2,366

  Chest disease

  1,579

  185

  34

  99

  1,897

  Multiple sclerosis

  1,345

  106

  51

  28

  1,530

  Back pain

  890

  300

  31

  302

  1,523

  Neurological diseases

  1,122

  175

  33

  106

  1,436

  Malignant disease

  450

  126

  22

  190

  788

  Mental subnormality

  625

  92

  21

  8

  746

  Asthma

  439

  96

  20

  107

  662

  Trauma to limbs

  353

  155

  10

  110

  628

  Diabetes mellitus

  450

  91

  15

  46

  602

  Parkinson's disease

  384

  19

  24

  6

  433

  Major trauma

  235

  104

  5

  75

  419

  Epilepsy

  235

  61

  10

  38

  344

  Chronic fatigue syndromes

  178

  60

  10

  95

  343

  Peripheral vascular disease

  217

  46

  9

  22

  294

  Renal disorders

  167

  50

  4

  48

  269

  Bowel and stomach disease

  96

  31

  5

  55

  187

  Blindness

  151

  24

  4

  3

  182

  Psychoneurosis

  100

  42

  7

  30

  179

  Psychosis

  79

  33

  2

  18

  132

  Multi system disorders

  96

  19

  0

  14

  129

  Paraplegia/tetraplegia

  83

  25

  2

  7

  117

  Inflammatory bowel disease

  60

  15

  3

  3I

  109

  AIDS

  68

  5

  2

  28

  103

  Blood disorders

  60

  14

  1

  25

  100

  Cystic fibrosis

  70

  13

  3

  7

  93

  Alcohol abuse

  58

  11

  1

  8

  78

  Skin disease

  44

  17

  1

  10

  72

  Dementia

  60

  4

  3

  3

  70

  Motor neurone disease

  49

  3

  0

  1

  53

  Frailty—senility

  39

  7

  1

  6

  53

  Severely mentally impaired

  41

  5

  2

  0

  48

  Metabolic disease

  30

  4

  2

  8

  44

  Deafness

  23

  5

  0

  3

  31

  Behavioural disorder

  18

  7

  1

  1

  27

  Haemophilia

  16

  2

  0

  4

  22

  Personality disorder

  8

  2

  1

  3

  14

  Terminally ill

  10

  0

  2

  0

  12

  Total parental nutrition

  5

  2

  0

  3

  10

  Double amputee

  5

  2

  1

  0

  8

  Deaf/blind

  3

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Multiple allergy syndrome

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Haemodialysis

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Hyperkinetic syndrome

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Sub-total

  25,110

  5,344

  872

  3,486

  34,812

  Cases with two disabling conditions

  17,620

  1,540

  427

  440

  20,027

  Total

  42,730

  6,884

  1,299

  3,926

  54,839

  Notes:

  1. Terminally ill cases are not necessarily paid under the Special Rules.

  2. All figures are as at 31 January and are subject to change.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project had their initial claim decided(a) on the basis of the claim pack alone, (b) with a general practitioner's factual report and (c) by medical
  532 in respect of the care and the mobility components. This usually arises when they are awarded at different times. The number of cases for which there are two conditions recorded is identified separately. The BIP database does not allow such cases to be analysed further.The information available is set out in the table I hope you find this reply helpful.
  examination; and how many of those people in each case have had their disability living allowance (i) maintained, (ii) reduced, (iii) increased and (iv) withdrawn; [34102]

  (2) how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project have had their disability living

  533
  allowance reduced or withdrawn (a) as a result of a lessening of the need or b) where the need was unchanged but equipment was or could be used to meet that need. [34103]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible and also that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The information requested is not available. The BIP is looking again at some existing awards of DLA. Recipients of the higher rate mobility component combined with the highest or middle rate of the care component are being contacted by post or at a visit to obtain an up to date picture of their circumstances. Cases are selected by a random monthly scan of the DLA computer system.
  The DLA computer system does not record the evidence on which the initial award was made. Neither has the BIP extracted this information from clerical records.
  Any changes made to a person's benefit reflect the decision of an Adjudication Officer (AO) that the needs arising from that person's disability have changed.
  The reasons underlying the change in a person's needs may include an improvement in their condition or their adaptation to the effects of their disability, for example through the use of aids and equipment or through changes to their living accommodation. In some other cases, the award may be changed because the AO has decided that the initial award was incorrect, that is there was a mistake concerning some material fact when the AO made the decision. The BIP database does not maintain a level of detail that enables me to identify cases where the award was changed because of the availability of equipment which was or could be used to meet that need.
  Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project had made their first claim before 1992; and how many of those people have had their disability living allowance(a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. [34101]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible and also that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.
  534
  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) has made their first claim before 1992; and how many of those people have had their Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The number of cases looked at by the BIP who made their first claim before 6 April 1992, the date of commencement of the DLA, is 24,415. Of these, 21,140 have had their award maintained, 2,079 have had their awards reduced, 575 have had their award increased and 621 have had their award withdrawn.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's current estimate of funds needed to run the Benefit Integrity Project over the next financial year; what has been the cost of the project since 1 May 1997; how many staff are allocated to the project; and if she will make a statement on the current running costs of the project. [34593]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible and also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

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

  Letter from David Riggs to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the estimate of funding and staffing for the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  It is estimated that the BIP will cost £11.954m for the financial year 1998/9. However this is currently under review following the changes announced on 9 February 1998. On that date the Secretary of State announced that no case likely to result in the reduction or removal of benefit will be passed to an Adjudication Officer for review without further evidence being obtained in addition to that supplied by the customer on the BIP questionnaire.
  The forecast cost of BIP for the year 1997/8 is £8.189m.
  The total number of staff involved in the BIP is 441. This is made up of 280 staff based in Blackpool and 161 Visiting Officers around the country, based in 11 Disability Benefit Centres.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, columns 609–10, concerning the adequacy of publicity for the right of disability living allowance claimants to request copies of previous DLA forms, if she will require (a) BIP questionnaires and (b) letters notifying DLA claimants of a BIP interview to include a clear statement about the right to see previous claim forms. [33355]
  535
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible and also that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, pursuant to her Answer of 3rd March, concerning the adequacy of publicity for the rights of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants to request copies of previous DLA forms, if she will require (a) Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) questionnaires and (b) letters notifying DLA claimants of a BIP interview to include a clear statement about the rights to see previous claim forms. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  It is normal practice to give customers, on request, copies of previously completed DLA claim packs. This has always been the case and is not specific to the BIP.
  A review of all forms including questionnaires and notifications relating, not only to BIP but DLA/Attendance Allowance as a whole, is currently being undertaken and this will form part of that review.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 610, relating to disability living allowance claimants, if she will supply the equivalent information for claimants who have had their DLA reduced as set out in the letter from Peter Mathison dated 18 February (Ref.31888). [33348]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible and also that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, pursuant to her Answer of 3rd March, relating to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants, if she will supply the equivalent information for claimants who have had their DLA reduced as set out in the letter from Peter Mathison dated 18th February (Ref: 31888). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  536
  The information requested is contained in the attached tables.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  The total number of postal and interview enquiries carried out by the Benefit Integrity Project to date

  Postal cases as at 31 December 1997

  Number

  No. of cases reduced

  2,346

  No. of cases reviewed

  502

  Review decision maintained

  1378

  Restored to a higher rate on review

  11

  Restored to a lower rate on review

  238

  Restored to original award on review

  75

  Total number of cases restored on review

  124

  Total number of Postal Cases looked at =

  25,638

  1This figure includes 10 decisions where the level of award has been maintained but the period has been extended on review.

  2Including 14 completely disallowed.

  Note:

  These figures include all combinations of awards resulting from a reduction.

  Visit cases as at 31 December 1997

  Number

  No. of cases reduced

  692

  No. of cases reviewed

  53

  Review decision maintained

  40

  Restored to a higher rate on review

  0

  Restored to a lower rate on review

  4

  Restored to original award on review

  9

  Total number of cases restored on review

  13

  Total number of BIP interviews

  7,515

  Note:

  These figures include all combinations of awards resulting from a reduction.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims for disability living allowance were(a) made and (b) awarded in each quarter since April 1992; [34104]

  (2) how many life awards of disability living allowance in each quarter since April 1992 were made in respect of (a) the care component and (b) the mobility component; [34105]

  (3) how many new awards of disability living allowance, in each year since 1992, (a) were made on the basis of the claim pack alone, (b) also required a factual report from a GP or consultant, (c) required a medical examination and (d) required other evidence, broken down by (i) care component and (ii) mobility component; [34106]

  (4) how many people receiving disability living allowance were living in non-local authority residential care or nursing homes for more than 28 days, in each year since 1992. [34107]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.
  537
  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the attached tables.
  The number of people receiving DLA living in non local authority residential care or nursing homes for more than 28 days is not available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful

  Disability Living Allowance claims made and awarded since April 19921

  Quarter ending

  Claims received2

  Claims decided2

  Claims awarded2

  June 19923

  173,834

  105,844

  71,014

  September 19923

  128,031

  179,331

  141,897

  December 19923

  122,402

  161,539

  105,475

  March 1993

  133,135

  154,812

  89,535

  June 1993

  120,367

  129,403

  71,743

  September 1993

  104,777

  107,641

  51,946

  December 1993

  99,012

  97,528

  47,304

  March 1994

  110,955

  102,467

  52,354

  June 1994

  121,572

  112,315

  55,253

  September 1994

  129,729

  126,240

  59,484

  December 1994

  119,473

  120,006

  54,653

  March 1995

  132,816

  130,640

  63,403

  June 1995

  117,102

  119,087

  58,979

  September 1995

  126,233

  122,565

  61,499

  December 1995

  126,273

  128,955

  64,136

  March 1996

  141,103

  132,563

  63,275

  June 1996

  134,831

  129,078

  60,229

  September 1996

  133,922

  131,059

  61,304

  December 1996

  124,554

  131,112

  61,365

  March 1997

  124,281

  124,546

  56,771

  June 1997

  132,092

  121,318

  54,352

  September 1997

  121,067

  125,333

  56,478

  December 1997

  110,813

  115,369

  52,627

  New Awards of Disability Living Allowance by components and evidence type1

  Claim pack alone

  Factual Report

  Medical Examination

  Other Evidence

  All types of evidence

  1992–93

  Care component

  90,398

  45,057

  40,075

  6,831

  182,362

  Mobility component

  97,133

  58,911

  48,060

  8,672

  212,776

  1993–94

  Care component

  63,406

  47,966

  32,764

  6,246

  150,382

  Mobility component

  68,050

  54,794

  38,335

  6,677

  167,855

  1994–95

  Care component

  67,085

  60,841

  31,522

  9,325

  168,773

  Mobility component

  70,481

  68,919

  35,793

  9,633

  184,826

  1995–96

  Care component

  62,770

  70,083

  41,425

  11,430

  185,708

  Mobility component

  62,176

  78,331

  45,997

  11,075

  197,579

  1996–97

  Care component

  32,694

  81,946

  63,210

  7,641

  185,491

  Mobility component

  22,030

  86,922

  69,763

  5,659

  184,375

  1997–982

  Care component

  25,560

  75,288

  48,632

  7,377

  156,857

  Mobility component

  14,076

  74,944

  51,538

  4,152

  144,709

  1Source: Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  2Figures relate to the 11 months ending 28 February 1998.

  Note:

  The data includes DLA Normal Rules and DLA Special Rules Claims.
  538

  Disability Living Allowance claims made and awarded since April 19921

  Quarter ending

  Claims received2

  Claims decided2

  Claims awarded2

  Additional information4

  February to June 1992

  370,200

  250,455

  82,589

  1Source: Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  2 Includes top up.

  3Excludes a small number processed in 1992 for which the exact date of processing was unknown.

  4Relates to all claims registered and decided up to end of June 1992. Although DLA was payable from the start of April 1992 some claims were before the start of April 1992.

  Awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  Care component

  Mobility component

  Quarter ending

  All awards

  Life awards

  All awards

  Life awards

  May 1993

  44,400

  23,200

  49,100

  27,900

  August 1993

  38,400

  20,200

  42,400

  23,900

  November 1993

  33,200

  18,500

  36,300

  21,900

  February 1994

  33,500

  20,100

  37,300

  25,800

  May 1994

  39,300

  23,400

  43,200

  29,600

  August 1994

  42,700

  24,100

  48,700

  30,700

  November 1994

  41,700

  23,700

  46,300

  29,100

  February 1995

  41,800

  25,200

  45,300

  31,600

  May 1995

  45,500

  28,100

  48,700

  33,300

  August 1995

  44,200

  27,800

  47,800

  33,900

  November 1995

  51,100

  34,700

  54,900

  40,800

  February 1996

  43,900

  29,300

  44,500

  32,700

  May 1996

  48,100

  30,100

  48,500

  33,500

  August 1996

  46,200

  27,600

  47,200

  31,500

  November 1996

  49,900

  30,500

  51,100

  33,200

  February 1997

  42,600

  24,000

  40,900

  24,500

  May 1997

  40,600

  22,300

  40,200

  24,000

  August 1997

  44,500

  22,700

  43,200

  24,300

  November 1997

  41,500

  21,200

  39,400

  22,500

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest hundred relate to awards made on initial claim.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Smoking Room
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what is the estimated cost of proposed changes to the Members' Smoking Room. [34410]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  At present there are no firm proposals for any changes in, or to, the Smoking Room. However, the Committee will be seeking the views of all hon. Members shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many responses he has received in respect of his consultation over the future status of unpasteurised milk; how many were(a) in favour and (b) against a possible ban on (i) unpasteurised milk and (ii) milk products; and if he will make a statement. [31713]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 4 March 1998]: We have received about 5,000 representations about the consultation, which was solely about a proposal to ban sales of raw cows' drinking milk in England and Wales. This number includes letters from Members of Parliament, representative organisations, individuals and signatories to petitions. Views range between certain producers and consumers who want sales to continue, to most public health professionals who favour a ban.

  A ban on sales of raw cows' drinking milk was introduced in Scotland in 1983.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which was the ruling by the European Court of Justice that overruled the Court's earlier judgment in the Jaderow Case C-246/89 recognising that the fishing quota system, as a system of national quota, was a derogation from the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 40(3) of the Treaty. [34569]

  Mr. Morley
  The Jaderow judgment did not say that the system of national quotas was a derogation from the principle of non-discrimination.

  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 728, whether, if Portugal, Spain, Finland and Sweden do not obtain new derogations for the period after 2002, the principle of equal access will then apply to their fishing grounds. [34570]

  Mr. Morley
  Unless the Council decides otherwise, access to fishing grounds after 2002 will continue to be limited by the principle of relative stability and the national quota system. There will also continue to be restrictions on access within 6 and 12 mile limits if the Council decides to renew the present derogation, as I expect it will.
  540
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet(a) the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and (b) the Scottish Fishermen's Federation before the next Council of Ministers meetings. [34862]

  Mr. Morley
  Yes.

  Mackerel Handline Fishery
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what extra provision he has made for the Cornish handline mackerel fishery; and if he will make a statement on its future. [34944]

  Mr. Morley
  It is proposed to amend the underpinning arrangements for the mackerel handline fishery so that it receives a minimum allocation of 1,750 tonnes or 0.83 per cent. of the UK quota, whichever is the greater. As a result, the handline fishery may expect to receive an initial allocation of some 1,750 tonnes for 1998 compared to 1,450 tonnes with the previous arrangements. Additionally, we have, through quota swaps, secured an extra 300 tonnes of mackerel which will be used to offset the overfishing of the 1997 allocation and the repayment of quota swaps to other groups.

  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the latest volume of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" to be published. [35201]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" 1997 was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34831]

  Mr. Morley
  In a News Release on 28 May 1997, my right hon. Friend announced the disbanding of the Department's nine advisory Regional Panels.

  The Potato Industry Development Council (known as the British Potato Council) was established on 1 July 1997. The body, which is funded by a levy on the industry, has planned annual running costs of £1.334 million for the year ending 30 June 1998.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statutory changes would be required to effect a ban on mink farming. [35025]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's position on fur farming is that they remain committed to implementing their pre-election pledge to end fur farming as soon as practicable. Last year, we reviewed the various options available to prohibit the keeping of mink and other species for fur and a public consultation letter seeking comments on the way we proposed to proceed was issued on 5 August 1997. The public consultation period has now ended and we are currently considering how the intention
  541
  to prohibit fur farming can best be implemented. An announcement will be made once we have decided how to proceed. There would be public consultation on any proposals for legislation to ban fur farming.

DEFENCE

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those biological and chemical warfare agents evaluated by DERA to which there is no known antidote. [30554]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down carries out research which is directed towards providing the UK Armed Forces with safe and effective protection against the threat posed by biological and chemical warfare agents.

  It would not be in the interests of national security to reveal any known biological or chemical warfare agents to which there is no available medical countermeasure, as to do this would provide information to a potential aggressor against the UK.

  Under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information I will not, therefore, disclose whether or not such agents exist.

  Army Training
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the quality of training available to army personnel equips them both for their duties in the armed forces and for civilian employment on the completion of service. [34150]

  Dr. Reid
  The Army training system is primarily designed to ensure that each individual serviceman and woman is equipped effectively to carry out their military duties. It is, however, certainly the case that the specialist, leadership, initiative, communication and team skills which are developed throughout a military career are all transferable to a civilian environment, so that our Army is one of the best work forces in Britain.

  In line with the Department's commitment to Investors in People, a great many opportunities exist, and are being developed, for Army personnel to acquire vocational and other civilian qualifications through their military training and experience. This training is quality assured through a combination of partnerships with lead and awarding bodies, and through individual access to accredited schemes. The attainment of recognisable civilian qualifications is a particular benefit to the Service leaver when he or she enters the civilian job market. The Army will be looking to see what more can be done in this area both to reflect our commitment to our Service personnel, in the context of the Strategic Defence Review, and in line with this Government's Life Long Learning initiative.

  In their final year of service, eligible Service leavers are encouraged to take advantage of a broad range of sponsored resettlement training. This training, which is predominantly job-focused, is monitored and quality
  542
  assured by the Tri-Service Resettlement Organisation, and adheres to Industry approved standards where appropriate. Service leavers are also encouraged to attend civilian courses which lead to a nationally recognised qualification.

  Departmental Art Collection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to recover missing items of his Department's art collection; and if he will make a statement. [34763]

  Mr. Spellar
  We continue to make every effort to recover missing works of art. On two occasions, in December 1994 and September 1996, memorandums have been issued to all staff, listing the missing works of art and asking staff to assist in their recovery. In addition, photographs of missing works of art have been published in my Department's staff newspaper. My Department's works of art staff are continuing to seek missing works of art by examination of records, searches of our buildings and inquiries made throughout my Department. The Ministry of Defence Police assist in this task when required and are at present investigating a case which could lead to the recovery of a painting. Since the issue of the first memorandum, seventeen missing works of art have been found and twenty-one works of art have been otherwise accounted for.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34829]

  Mr. Spellar
  No non-departmental public bodies have been abolished or established since 1 May 1997.

  Aer Lingus Viscount Crash, 1968
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the defence budget of operations undertaken by the UK in searching for remains of the Aer Lingus Viscount which crashed on 24 March 1968 in the Irish Sea; and how much of this cost was passed on to the Irish Government. [34811]

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

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Countryside Management Schemes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total cost to public funds of countryside management schemes(a) nationally and (b) in Shropshire for each year since 1979. [34257]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on grants provided by
  543
  Countryside Commission for its countryside management schemes from 1982–83 to date is provided below:

  £

  Year

  National

  Shropshire

  1982–83

  460,061

  n/a

  1983–84

  741,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  681,000

  n/a

  1985–86

  876,000

  n/a

  1986–87

  887,000

  n/a

  1987–88

  1,337,000

  n/a

  1988–89

  1,786,000

  n/a

  1989–90

  2,374,539

  106,000

  1990–91

  3,363,018

  185,000

  1991–92

  3,565,241

  343,000

  1992–93

  4,374,668

  187,000

  1993–94

  4,687,221

  93,937

  1994–95

  5,065,842

  258,649

  1995–96

  3,657,191

  200,979

  1996–97

  2,955,515

  130,390

  Total

  36,811,296

  1,504,955

  New Housing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1998,Official Report, columns 95–96, what (a) research he has commissioned and (b) evidence he has evaluated concerning trends in the size of rooms in newly-built houses and flats. [34520]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department does not collect information on the size of rooms in newly built houses and flats, and no research has been commissioned on this. Information is collected on the total useable floor area of houses and flats, and trends in the size of common types are set out below.

  Average useable floor area of common dwelling types (sq m), by date of construction

  Date of construction

  1 bed flat

  2 bed flat

  2 bed house

  3 bed house

  4 bed house

  All dwellings

  1991–1996

  45.5

  55.5

  55.9

  81.2

  112.5

  71.6

  1986–1991

  42.3

  59.0

  54.4

  71.6

  125.6

  73.1

  1981–1986

  44.7

  52.2

  55.0

  78.9

  110.7

  71.7

  1976–1981

  44.7

  60.7

  60.2

  76.7

  118.3

  74.9

  All Dwellings1

  46.9

  63.3

  64.2

  80.9

  125.7

  78.2

  1This is for the whole stock and includes older dwellings which tend to be larger than those built today. All dwellings that have subsequently been extended from their original form have been excluded.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that large-scale developments of new housing have enough space set aside to provide for the leisure and recreational needs of prospective residents. [34338]

  Mr. Caborn
  Our Planning Policy Guidance note 17: "Sports and Recreation", advises local planning authorities to assess their needs for public open space and recreation provision, in order to identify deficiencies and draw up their own standards of provision. It also advises that local planning authorities may seek to enter into a planning obligation, under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure provision of 544
  open space, playing fields and other facilities. We will be considering whether to revise this guidance in the light of recent research which we will be publishing in the near future.

  Our Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing", advises that new housing developments should include adequate provision of suitable areas for children's play, including formal play space. We have recently announced our intention to revise this guidance. All aspects of this guidance will be reviewed.

  Waste
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what statistics his Department collates on the trans-national movement of waste; what form the information takes; and what public access there is to this information; [34457]

  (2) if he will list the types and quantities of toxic waste imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1992 for (a) recycling and (b) other processing. [34456]

  Angela Eagle
  Information relating to transnational shipments of waste into and out of England and Wales is collected on behalf of my Department and the Welsh Office by the Environment Agency. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Environment and Heritage Agency of Northern Ireland collect similar information for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Information on each shipment of waste is derived from the consignment notes that must accompany all international movements of waste and includes: date of entry/departure, type of waste, hazardous characteristics of shipment, amount imported/exported, country of origin or destination, the type of disposal or recovery operation to be used.

  My Department publishes information on the types and quantities of waste imported into England and Wales for recycling and other processing in the "Digest of Environmental Statistics", which is available from the Stationery Office. The Digest also contain less detailed information on the quantities of waste imported into Scotland and Northern Ireland. A facsimile of the Digest is also placed on the Internet at http: \\www.detr.gov.uk\doe\envir\epsim. The tables show the information requested. Figures for 1994 cover only the period 6 May 1994 to 31 December 1994. Figures for 1995 are provisional. Figures for 1994 onwards are not strictly comparable with those for the earlier years, as replacement of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1988, with Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on 6 May 1994 led to changes in the operation of the system from which data are derived and to the definitions used.

  Imports of waste into England and Wales and other processing in 1992–93 and 1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Type of waste

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Inorganic and organic acids

  0

  1,047

  0

  210

  Alkalis

  0

  120

  0

  1,362

  Toxic metal compounds

  0

  120

  128

  64

  Non-toxic metal compounds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Metals (elemental) and metal oxides

  0

  122

  0

  201

  545

  Imports of waste into England and Wales and other processing in 1992–93 and 1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Type of waste

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Inorganic compounds

  0

  459

  18

  1,918

  Other organic materials

  323

  10,457

  0

  9,660

  Organic compounds (excluding PCBs)

  159

  4,893

  261

  1,983

  PCBs/PCB contaminated waste

  0

  4,781

  0

  3,744

  Polymeric materials and precursors

  0

  843

  0

  2,450

  Fuels, oils and greases

  0

  4,495

  0

  18,700

  Fine chemicals and biocides

  0

  3,534

  16

  3,632

  Miscellaneous chemical waste

  0

  777

  32

  3,064

  Filter materials, sludge and rubbish

  0

  8,778

  0

  5,934

  Interceptor wastes, paints

  0

  1,213

  0

  2,173

  Miscellaneous wastes

  0

  3,230

  35

  10,881

  Hospital and similar wastes

  0

  439

  0

  0

  Total

  482

  45,308

  490

  85,976

  Imports of waste into England and Wales for recycling and other processing, 1994 and 1995

  1994

  1995

  Wastes consisting of or contaminated with

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Health care wastes

  0

  227

  0

  196

  Fine chemicals and biocides

  1,012

  8,688

  3,151

  6,710

  Organic solvents, including halogenated organic solvents

  4,689

  586

  999

  1,145

  Inorganic and organic cyanides

  0

  320

  0

  0

  Mineral oils, oil/water and hydrocarbon/water mixtures

  755

  508

  1,957

  30

  PCBs and PCB contaminated items

  90

  1,767

  0

  1,487

  Tarry residues from refining, distillation and pyrolitic treatments

  0

  150

  80

  21

  Inks, paints, dyes and pigments

  226

  338

  46

  559

  Polymeric materials and precursors

  476

  255

  258

  70

  Photographic chemicals and materials

  615

  0

  5,503

  0

  Wastes from the treatment of metals and plastics

  160

  27

  14

  81

  Residues from industrial waste disposal

  13,023

  585

  4,411

  928

  Heavy metals and their compounds

  5,390

  40

  1,580

  153

  Arsenic and antimony and their compounds

  40

  0

  0

  0

  Inorganic fluorine compounds

  0

  737

  0

  0

  Acids and bases in solid form or solution

  22

  793

  2,000

  66

  Phenols, ethers and organohalons not elsewhere specified

  23

  164

  0

  41

  Wastes collected from households

  0

  245

  0

  0

  546

  Imports of waste into England and Wales for recycling and other processing, 1994 and 1995

  1994

  1995

  Wastes consisting of or contaminated with

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Recycling

  Other processes

  Residues from incineration of household waste

  0

  1,579

  0

  3,013

  Unclassified

  1,109

  9,693

  8,571

  7,379

  England and Wales

  27,630

  26,698

  28,570

  21,879

  Scotland

  2,441

  0

  4,308

  6

  Northern Ireland

  0

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  30,070

  26,758

  32,876

  21,885

  Bedford Borough Council
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the interim District Auditors report into financial irregularities in respect of Bedford Borough Council is released immediately. [34341]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend has no power to instruct an auditor to make a public interest report or to issue any instructions with regard to the publication of such a report. It is a matter for the auditor to consider whether he should use his powers under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to make a report to the body concerned. Where an auditor decides to make an immediate report the body concerned must make the report available for inspection and provide copies on request.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) of 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 542, if he will list the occasions since 30 July when Green Ministers have met, indicating what decisions were taken on each occasion. [34991]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since 30 July 1997 Green Ministers have met once, on 18 December. They endorsed policy guidance on environmental appraisal which has since been formally cleared by the Cabinet Environment Committee and will be issued shortly. They also shared information and best practice on various topics including: the outcome of the Kyoto Conference on climate change; the developing integrated transport policy; systems for policy appraisal; and the greening Departments' operations.

  Since October 1997, I have also met individual Green Ministers in a series of 17 bilaterals designed to address matters of particular relevance to their Departments. Only one of these Departmental bilaterals remains to be held.

  Allotments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the area of allotment land for each London borough(a) for each of the past three years and (b) for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [34307]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 March 1998): This information is not held by the Department.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) she has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) she has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34823]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has neither abolished nor established any non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the projected end of year financial position of each NHS trust in Wales; [33294]

  (2) what is the current financial position of each NHS trust in Wales. [33295]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The table sets out the projected end of year and current position as reported by trusts for the financial quarter December 1997:

  £000

  NHS trusts Wales

  Projected year-end surplus/(deficit)1

  Current surplus/(deficit)1

  Bridgend

  0

  (121)

  Cardiff Community

  259

  287

  Carmarthen

  (1,659)

  (887)

  Ceredigion

  (1,100)

  (523)

  Clwydian

  187

  157

  East Glamorgan

  92

  435

  Glan Clwyd

  127

  13

  Glan Hafren

  330

  1,036

  Glan Y Mor

  0

  314

  Gwent Community

  66

  59

  Gwynedd Community

  97

  1,361

  Gwynedd Hospital

  (92)

  209

  Llandough

  (1,822)

  (1,445)

  Llanelli

  (800)

  (592)

  Mid Glam Ambulance

  49

  276

  Morriston

  (2,691)

  (1,764)

  Nevin Hall

  (82)

  16

  North Glamorgan

  (308)

  678

  North Wales Ambulance

  56

  183

  Pembs/Derwen

  (2,097)

  (1,563)

  Powys

  (1,278)

  (871)

  Rhondda

  116

  149

  Sewat

  0

  508

  Swansea

  60

  52

  UHW Dental Hospital

  (92)

  156

  UHW

  (4,574)

  (1,658)

  Velindre

  87

  325

  West Wales Ambulance

  0

  151

  Wrexham

  (737)

  (777)

  Total

  (15,806)

  (3,836)

  1as at December 1997.

  Greenfield Sites
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of green field land not classified as Green Belt and available for building there were in Wales on 1 May. [33481]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the amount of Greenfield land available for building on is not available. However, it is up to local planning authorities to ensure that an adequate and continuous supply of suitable land is available for development in a way which is consistent with the principle of sustainable development.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to expand(a) after school homework clubs and (b) literacy and numeracy clubs in Wales. [33539]

  Mr. Hain
  Funding for out of school activities will be provided by the New Opportunities Fund, which will be established by the National Lottery Bill (Royal Assent is expected July 1998). A great many schools in Wales already offer high-quality out of school learning provision across the country. Lottery funding will therefore be very important not only in allowing schools to initiate projects to support children's learning but to expand and/or enhance existing work.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what draft concordats he is currently preparing to regulate the participation of Members of the National Assembly for Wales in meetings of the European Council of Ministers; and if he will make copies of such draft concordats available in the Library. [33891]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 March 1998,Official Report, column 156. All relevant concordats will where appropriate cover European matters.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the percentage of(a) domestic holiday makers and (b) overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who spend their holiday in Wales. [33816]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, 11.1 per cent. of domestic and 3.8 per cent. of overseas holidaymakers visited Wales.

  Music Tuition
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by each unitary authority on(a) music tuition, (b) youth choirs, (c) orchestras and (d) brass bands in each of the last five years. [34349]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to increase expenditure on music tuition in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [34354]
  549
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The provision of music services is a matter for local authorities and it is the responsibility of individual authorities to determine how the resources made available to them are allocated between services, taking into account their statutory responsibilities and perceptions of local needs and priorities.

  Historic Properties
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are available to help historic properties retain their traditional features; and if he will make a statement. [34353]

  Mr. Hain
  Grants to assist in the repair or restoration of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest and towards works to buildings which will significantly enhance or preserve a conservation area are available from the Welsh Office. I have sent the hon. Member a copy of Cadw's booklet "Historic Buildings Grants and Conservation Area Grants".

  In addition, many local authorities work with Cadw in jointly funding Town Schemes which provide assistance for external repairs to properties.

  Sports Grants
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total grant-in-aid made available by the Sports Council of Wales to governing bodies of sport for each of the financial years 1992 to 1998; and what it is projected to be for the next three financial years; [34250]

  (2) if he will list, by individual governing body, the grant-in-aid projected to be made available by the Sports Council for Wales to governing bodies of sport for the next three financial years; [34252]

  (3) if he will list, by individual governing body, the grant-in-aid made available by the Sports Council for Wales to governing bodies of sport for each of the financial years 1992 to 1998. [34249]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  These are operational matters for the Sports Council for Wales and I will ask the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34824]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Since 1 May 1997 the following non-departmental public bodies have been abolished: Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales; Staff Commission for Wales; and the Welsh Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education. In addition the following non-departmental public bodies have also been identified for abolition: Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; the Development Board for Rural Wales; the Land Authority for Wales; the Residuary Body for Wales; and Tai Cymru. I have not established any new non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997.

  Tram Scheme, Llandudno
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when Conwy County Borough Council submitted a bid for Government funding for its proposed tram scheme in Llandudno; [34808]

  (2) what is the completion date of Conwy County Borough Council's proposed tram scheme for Llandudno; [34885]

  (3) if Conwy County Borough Council had planning consent for its proposed tram scheme in Llandudno before it submitted a bid for Government funding; [34888]

  (4) what steps he has taken to secure the refund of the Government grant to Conwy County Borough Council for the purpose of a tram scheme in Llandudno, if the tram scheme does not proceed. [34884]

  Mr. Hain
  Conwy County Borough Council's application for Welsh Capital Challenge funding for the proposed tramway at Llandudno was submitted under cover of a letter from the Chief Executive on 10 October 1996. This application was made in advance of planning consent being sought.

  The then Secretary of State approved funding of £1.1 million over 3 years in the 1997£98 Challenge round towards a £2.6 million project cost with the difference being met by a number of private companies. Completion of the project was planned for 1999–2000.

  The proposed tramway project is part of a wider planning application currently before the Council. In the event of significant slippage against the project's original timetable and expenditure profile, as with all Welsh Capital Challenge approvals where such slippage occurs, the Secretary of State will want to consider in due course whether it is appropriate to withdraw the offer of funding, or to make funds available for completion of the project in future years.

  Walton Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an assessment of the impact on the health of patients needing to see a neurosurgeon of long journeys to Walton Hospital, Liverpool. [34820]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No. It is for clinicians to make such an assessment, based on the likely benefit to each patient of investigation and treatment from the specialist neuro-surgical service at Walton Hospital.

  Companies' Costs
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the change in costs for companies in Wales as a result of changes in taxation since 1 May 1997. [33625]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  All taxpaying companies will benefit from the 2 per cent. cut in corporation tax rates announced in the last Budget. Details of other tax measures are shown in table 2.2 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report. No separate figures are available for companies in Wales.

  Company Pension Schemes
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the impact of the additional taxation on pension schemes on companies in Wales. [33621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  An estimate of the effect of the July 1997 tax credit changes on the pension schemes of companies in Wales is not available.

  Export Credits Guarantees
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the working of the export credits guarantee system as it affects the industries of Wales. [33537]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Export credit cover for United Kingdom companies is made available by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (primarily for capital goods and project exports) and a number of private sector insurers such as NCM, Trade Indemnity and Coface LBF (for other goods). All of these organisations will be able to offer the full range of their facilities to the industries of Wales.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Summit
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated total cost to his Department of holding the European Summit meeting in Cardiff in June 1998. [34495]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The current estimated forecast total cost to this Department of the European Council in Cardiff is £6.5 million (excl. VAT).

  Iraq
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many inspections have been carried out by UNSCOM in Iraq since 1 March; and at what locations. [34613]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since 1 March 1998, the Special Commission's resident Monitoring Groups have conducted regular monitoring inspections throughout Iraq. In addition they have provided support to visiting short-term teams. UNSCOM have not released the precise numbers of inspections and names of sites into the public domain.

  Harare Declaration
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend the Harare Declaration. [34621]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. The commitments contained in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration are as valid today as they were in 1991 when they were agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government. At the most recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which took place in Edinburgh in October 1997, Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the 552
  fundamental values of the Commonwealth, as set out in the Harare Declaration. They agreed that compliance with those values would be one of the conditions for countries applying to join the Commonwealth. And they agreed a wider remit for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is tasked to address serious and persistent violations of the Harare principles.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC World Service. [34611]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The BBC World Service is an important national asset and makes a vital contribution to the promotion of Britain abroad. We are committed to the maintenance of its outstanding reputation for objective news and comment and continued pre-eminence among international broadcasters.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list his meetings with the Chinese Government where the jamming of BBC World Service short wave transmissions to China was on the formal agenda; [34610]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning the jamming of the BBC World Services short wave transmissions to China. [34612]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The BBC have not asked us to take up this matter with the Chinese authorities. We raised the issue of media freedom in our dialogues with the Chinese on human rights. We are also pressing for Chinese signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes the right to receive and impart information and ideas, of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.

  South Africa
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects supported by his Department to promote multi-party democracy in South Africa. [34578]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Many of the activities of our High Commission in South Africa are intended to help create the context in which multi-party democracy can flourish. This has included specific projects such as assistance to the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) and the Helen Suzman Foundation, as well as support for independent journalism. The Department for International Development also promotes multi-party democracy, for example through its programme of Parliamentary visits, and its contribution to workshops for legislators in the region organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to which this department contributes financially, has approved the following projects in South Africa in Financial Year 1997–98:

  Conference on the Role of Political Parties

  ANC Follow-up Fundraising Workshop

  Support for Parliamentary Monitoring Office

  Workshop to Build Policy Skills in National, Provincial and Local Government

  553

  Training for Local Government Councillors

  Conservative Party visit to South Africa, Namibia and Botswana

  Support for KwaZulu Natal Monitoring Publication

  Support for IDASA Political Analysis and Monitoring Publication.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those EU directives of which it is his Department's policy to seek a repeal, and about which he has approached other EU member states. [34624]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to simpler and better EU legislation which conforms with the principle of subsidiarity.

  This can often be achieved by simplifying existing legislation and ensuring that new legislation does not impose disproportionate burdens rather than by repeal.

  We are pursuing during the UK Presidency a number of means to achieve this, for example, through the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative, which aims to reduce the burden of certain internal market regulations.

  Turkey
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are being pursued to improve relations between Turkey and the
  EU. [34575]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Luxembourg European Council in December 1997 agreed to draw up a European Strategy for Turkey, designed to prepare Turkey for accession by bringing it closer to the European Union in every field. This should consist of development of the possibilities afforded by the Ankara Agreement; intensification of the Customs Union; implementation of financial cooperation; approximation of laws and adoption of the Union acquis; and participation, on a case by case basis, in certain EU programmes and agencies.

  The Commission tabled its initial proposals for this strategy on 4 March. We will be taking these forward as Presidency of the EU.

  Belarus
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the strength of democratic institutions and (b) the human rights record of the Government in Belarus. [34622]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Democratic institutions in Belarus are weak. We fully support the work of the recently established OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) in Minsk, which aims to assist the Belarussian authorities in promoting democratic institutions and in complying with other OSCE commitments.

  Belarus's human rights record is poor. We have particular concerns about freedom of speech and association and media freedom, which we have frequently raised with the Belarussian authorities. In February 1998,
  554
  the UK Presidency on behalf of the EU protested against heavy sentences imposed on two youths for painting anti-government slogans on public buildings and statues.

  Latvia
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Latvia between native Latvians and the ethnic Russian population. [34577]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 3 March a crowd, mainly from the Russian-speaking community, and mostly pensioners, gathered outside Riga town hall to protest about increased heating charges. As numbers grew, police moved in to force the crowd back on to the pavement. An initial investigation by the Latvian authorities into claims that the police used unnecessary force has concluded that no police officers were guilty of misconduct. There have been no reports of serious injuries. We are encouraging both the Russian and the Latvian governments to ensure that their reactions to the incident are proportionate to the events themselves.

  Esperanto
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the advantages of promoting(a) Esperanto and (b) another language as the common official language of the European Union following the accession of the candidate member states; and if he will make a statement. [34745]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We do not consider it realistic to expect Member States of an enlarged European Union to agree on a common official language.

  Yemen and Oman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) Yemen and (b) Oman. [34556]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to visit either Yemen or Oman.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have taken place since 1 May involving representatives from his Department at which(a) Oman and (b) Yemen were discussed; and how many meetings he and his ministers have had with representatives of the (i) Oman and (ii) Yemeni Governments. [34557]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been numerous meetings between officials and members of the Yemeni and Omani Embassies since May 1997.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Yemeni Foreign Minister in London in June last year and called on the President of Yemen during his visit to the UK last November. The Yemeni Foreign Minister also called on me in January.

  My right hon. Friend met the Omani Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs last July. I have visited Oman twice since May 1997. During my visits I met representatives of the Omani Government, including His Majesty Sultan Qaboos. Two Omani ministers have called on me during the same period.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups established by the EU; and if he will make a statement. [33948]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups established by the EU are:

  Administrative Affairs

  Africa

  Armaments Policy

  Asia

  Central Europe

  Communications

  Consular Affairs

  Conventional Arms Exports

  Drugs

  Eastern Europe and Central Asia

  Euro-Mediterranean

  Global Disarmament

  Human Rights

  Latin America

  Law of the Sea

  Mashreq/Maghreb

  Middle East/Gulf

  Middle East Peace Process

  Nuclear

  Non-proliferation

  OSCE

  Planners

  Protocol

  Public International Law

  Security

  South-East Europe

  Terrorism

  United Nations

  Western Balkans Region.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups established by the EU the United Kingdom is represented; and by whom. [33947]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The United Kingdom is represented on all 28 Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the terms of reference of the Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups established by the EU; when they were established; and how often they meet. [33949]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in November 1993, 28 Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups have been created. The groups
  556
  meet regularly to discuss topical issues and areas of cooperation within their respective remits as follows: Administrative Affairs, Africa, Armaments Policy, Asia, Central Europe, Communications, Consular Affairs, Conventional Arms Exports, Drugs, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Euro-Mediterranean, Global Disarmament, Human Rights, Latin America, Law of the Sea, Mashreq/Maghreb, Middle East/Gulf, Middle East Peace Process, Nuclear Non-proliferation, OSCE, Planners, Protocol, Public International Law, Security, South-East Europe, Terrorism, United Nations, Western Balkans Region.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34836]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has neither abolished nor established any non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what subjects were discussed when the UK High Commissioner to Sierra Leone met representatives of Sandline in 1997; and who was present; [34315]

  (2) if the UK High Commissioner to Sierra Leone was authorised by Ministers to meet representatives of Sandline in 1997. [34316]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made covering this point in the Adjournment Debate of 12 March 1998,Official Report, columns 844–45.

  Peter Penfold, the British High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, has confirmed that on no occasion did he attend any meetings at which Sandline and President Kabbah were present together. In the course of his duties Mr. Penfold met a wide range of people including representatives of Sandline Services and affiliates. These contacts did not require prior ministerial approval. Mr. Penfold, who moved to Conakry following the May 1997 military coup in Freetown, used them to help obtain information about Sierra Leone, particularly the security situation in relation to British nationals and interests.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been authorised to can-y firearms; for how many operations firearms have been issued; and how many operations involving armed response vehicles there have been in each of the last three years for which information is available. [35188]
  557
  Mr. Michal
  The information is as follows:

  Annex B: Issue of police firearms Number of operations in which firearms were issued

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  156

  326

  312

  Bedfordshire

  36

  264

  345

  Cambridgeshire

  73

  47

  54

  Cheshire

  93

  219

  288

  Cleveland

  107

  487

  1,026

  City of London

  8

  25

  308

  Cumbria

  44

  54

  72

  Derbyshire

  68

  72

  109

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  90

  160

  Dorset

  46

  36

  36

  Durham

  100

  111

  131

  Essex

  267

  267

  331

  Gloucestershire

  27

  33

  41

  Greater Manchester

  110

  142

  214

  Hampshire

  195

  190

  245

  Hertfordshire

  69

  47

  96

  Humberside

  49

  92

  291

  Kent

  95

  82

  236

  Lancashire

  57

  227

  333

  Leicestershire

  78

  138

  155

  Lincolnshire

  50

  25

  58

  Merseyside

  116

  280

  671

  Metropolitan

  1,804

  2,178

  2,439

  Norfolk

  56

  96

  166

  Northamptonshire

  40

  54

  64

  Northumbria

  593

  452

  1,360

  North Yorkshire

  25

  52

  65

  Nottinghamshire

  47

  57

  84

  South Yorkshire

  172

  225

  155

  Staffordshire

  21

  80

  257

  Suffolk

  119

  150

  180

  Surrey

  60

  70

  133

  Sussex

  375

  445

  235

  Thames Valley

  65

  96

  215

  Warwickshire

  25

  55

  97

  West Mercia

  50

  59

  106

  West Midlands

  141

  226

  270

  West Yorkshire

  181

  657

  617

  Wiltshire

  26

  26

  26

  Dyfed Powys

  16

  11

  17

  Gwent

  20

  47

  89

  North Wales

  60

  117

  233

  South Wales

  55

  69

  59

  Total

  5,824

  8,476

  12,379

  Annex D: Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  156

  157

  165

  Bedfordshire

  67

  48

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  87

  92

  90

  Cheshire

  122

  84

  70

  Cleveland

  55

  65

  86

  City of London

  146

  120

  88

  Cumbria

  105

  100

  108

  Derbyshire

  140

  130

  110

  Devon and Cornwall

  116

  140

  151

  Dorset

  76

  75

  74

  Durham

  108

  103

  138

  Essex

  209

  203

  228

  Gloucestershire

  71

  85

  82

  Greater Manchester

  181

  186

  209

  Hampshire

  110

  104

  106

  Hertfordshire

  48

  43

  42

  Humberside

  110

  104

  90

  558

  Annex D: Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Kent

  147

  144

  150

  Lancashire

  135

  138

  132

  Leicestershire

  103

  105

  104

  Lincolnshire

  73

  81

  82

  Merseyside

  160

  119

  147

  Metropolitan

  2,013

  1,915

  2,035

  Norfolk

  117

  99

  98

  Northamptonshire

  83

  95

  92

  Northumbria

  166

  160

  173

  North Yorkshire

  142

  134

  108

  Nottinghamshire

  125

  126

  128

  South Yorkshire

  162

  125

  110

  Staffordshire

  84

  80

  78

  Suffolk

  65

  70

  82

  Surrey

  76

  79

  76

  Sussex

  142

  149

  180

  Thames Valley

  180

  175

  185

  Warwickshire

  56

  50

  41

  West Mercia

  160

  153

  155

  West Midlands

  87

  87

  88

  West Yorkshire

  156

  150

  131

  Wiltshire

  165

  145

  134

  Dyfed Powys

  58

  57

  70

  Gwent

  54

  55

  70

  North Wales

  71

  70

  72

  South Wales

  150

  154

  134

  Total

  6,837

  6,554

  6,738

  Annex E: Number of operations involving armed response vehicles (ARVs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  90

  200

  247

  Bedfordshire

  0

  239

  309

  Cambridgeshire

  27

  15

  23

  Cheshire

  76

  180

  240

  Cleveland

  89

  465

  1,014

  City of London

  0

  23

  25

  Cumbria

  19

  44

  64

  Derbyshire

  58

  53

  97

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  21

  0

  Dorset

  25

  22

  28

  Durham

  27

  38

  62

  Essex

  165

  155

  218

  Gloucestershire

  0

  10

  13

  Greater Manchester

  69

  6

  0

  Hampshire

  156

  159

  0

  Hertfordshire

  37

  20

  35

  Humberside

  6

  35

  284

  Kent

  47

  42

  208

  Lancashire

  48

  187

  320

  Leicestershire

  50

  101

  126

  Lincolnshire

  45

  21

  0

  Merseyside

  73

  239

  0

  Metropolitan

  n/k

  1,025

  790

  Norfolk

  36

  80

  152

  Northamptonshire

  21

  3

  20

  Northumbria

  310

  325

  715

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  44

  66

  South Yorkshire

  140

  171

  129

  Staffordshire

  3

  70

  235

  Suffolk

  113

  117

  120

  Surrey

  25

  47

  52

  Sussex

  304

  413

  173

  Thames Valley

  6

  73

  164

  Warwickshire

  22

  54

  91

  West Mercia

  26

  39

  77

  West Midlands

  58

  98

  103

  West Yorkshire

  173

  587

  584

  559

  Annex E: Number of operations involving armed response vehicles (ARVs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Wiltshire

  13

  1

  23

  Dyfed Powys

  9

  6

  12

  Gwent

  9

  39

  58

  North Wales

  0

  14

  173

  South Wales

  8

  42

  55

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many operations firearms were issued to police officers in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; in how many operations shots were fired by police officers in each year; how many police officers were qualified to carry firearms; and if he will make a statement. [35189]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of authorised firearms officers

  Number of operations

  Number of operations in which shots fired by the police

  1987

  7,349

  2,185

  7

  1988

  7,194

  2,227

  2

  1989

  7,311

  2,583

  4

  1990

  7,411

  2,874

  3

  1991

  7,717

  3,722

  5

  1992

  6,850

  4,479

  12

  1993

  6,769

  5,625

  6

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  6,837

  5,824

  5

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  6,554

  8,476

  5

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  6,738

  12,379

  5

  Reasons for the increases in number of policy firearms operations will vary between forces, and they are best placed to answer specific inquiries. Although the number of authorised firearms officers has dropped over the years, police forces are now much better equipped to deal with armed crime, thanks to armed response vehicles and updated practices. Police firearms have only been fired in five operations in each of the last three years. This very low number confirms that police firearms officers generally carry out their duties with professionalism and restraint.

  Curfews
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend to all courts the power to make curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring. [35238]

  Ms Quin
  Curfew orders under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, enforced by electronic monitoring, are at present available to the courts as a penalty only in restricted pilot areas. It is our intention that these orders should in due course be made available to all courts in England and Wales.

  There is a competitive tender for the provision of electronic monitoring services underway throughout England and Wales. The primary purpose of this service, which will be provided, as at present, by the private
  560
  sector, is to provide electronic monitoring for prisoners under the home detention curfew scheme, under which selected short term prisoners may spend up to the last two months of their sentence under an electronically monitored curfew. I anticipate that the home detention curfew scheme will be operational in early 1999. However, contractors will also be required to provide electronic monitoring for other purposes, including curfew orders, should they be required. Roll out of curfew orders will follow the establishment of the home detention curfew scheme, according to a timetable to be discussed with those concerned and as resources allow.

  European Elections
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many other members of the European Union require voters to vote for a closed list at the regional level in European elections. [34139]

  Mr. George Howarth
  France, Germany, Greece, Spain and Portugal use closed list systems to elect their Members to the European Parliament. France, Greece, Spain and Portugal use national lists while Germany employs a combination of federal and Land lists.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34834]

  Mr. Straw
  (a) No Home Office Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) have been abolished since 1 May 1997. However, the future of six NDPBs will be affected by current developments and I hope to be able to announce in due course that several will be abolished, merged or 'sunsetted'.

  (b) No new Home Office NDPBs have been created since 1 May 1997. However, under the provisions of Part IV of the Police Act 1997, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is currently part of the Department, will be established as an executive NDPB with effect from 1 April 1998. The Organisation's forward plan for 1997–98, published in April 1997, gave a figure of £50,960k for its total gross expenditure for this year. I am unable to provide a figure for 1998–99. This is because I cannot anticipate the presentation of the Home Office Departmental Report and the main Supply Estimates to Parliament. This will happen shortly after the Budget. I will then write to the hon. Member with the information for the coming financial year.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] contains proposals to establish a National Board for Youth Justice as an NDPB.

  Mrs. Poole
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the delay in establishing a date for a hearing appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Poole against the decision to grant an entry visa for Mrs. Poole's children to the United Kingdom; [34950]
  561
  (2) when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford can expect answers to his correspondence with his Department from 6 January onwards, relating to when Mr. and Mrs. Poole's appeal, reference UK16593, on behalf of Mrs. Poole's children to be granted an entry visa to the United Kingdom, will be heard. [34949]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The case is currently with the Immigration Appellate Authority, which is responsible for hearing immigration appeals. My officials are looking into the matters raised and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 3 February from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning the extradition of a constituent. [34963]

  Mr. Michael
  The hon. Member's letter was given full consideration on receipt as a representation by a Member of Parliament on behalf of a constituent. I replied to the hon. Member on Monday 16 March following a decision on the case on Friday 13 March.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects claim ref. HER 12176 to be settled under the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [34325]

  Mr. Michael
  Claim No. HER 12176 was received in the Firearms Compensation Section on 29 September 1997, and the Option A and B elements of that claim are likely to be processed in around four weeks' time. The Option C elements, which will require individual consideration of the evidence of value provided, will be dealt with at a later date.

  Drugs and Criminal Justice Conference
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the outcome of the Drugs and Criminal Justice Conference held on 28 to 30 January; and if he will place in the Library a summary record of the proceedings; [34687]

  (2) if he will list the participants, and their organisational affiliations, who attended the Drugs and Criminal Justice Conference on 28 to 30 January. [34685]

  Mr. Michael
  The conference was a consultation exercise to inform the development of the Government's new anti-drugs strategy. A copy of the conference report, which includes details of participants, has been placed in the Library.

  Convicted Police Officers (Pensions)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to reduce the pension entitlement of convicted police officers. [34340]

  Mr. Michael
  Police Pensions Regulations provide for police authorities to forfeit the pensions of police officers convicted of treason or of offences under the Official Secrets Act. There is also provision for forfeiture of a pension where an officer has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his service as a member of a police force which has been certified by the Secretary 562
  of State to have been either gravely injurious to the interests of the State or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service. It is the responsibility of police authorities to identify cases which might merit forfeiture and to apply to the Secretary of State for the issue of a certificate. In the Metropolitan Police Service, the Commissioner identifies such cases to the Secretary of State. While such cases are few, it is wrong to provide public money for the pensions of those officers who have abused their position of trust and forfeiture should be a serious consideration in all such cases.

  Millennium Compliance
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost to his Department of(a) consultants and (b) contractors engaged by his Department to address millennium computer compliance problems; and if he will list the consultants and contractors. [32299]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 622. Non pay running costs noted in that answer is the estimated cost to my Department of consultants and contractors. The consultants and contractors engaged to address millennium compliance problems are Bull Information Systems Ltd; CCTA; Grosvenor Consulting Ltd; Mentis; Oracle; Praxis; Sema Group; and Software AG.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when all testing on Year 2000 compliance will be completed in his Department. [32312]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 19981: Year 2000 compliance testing will be completed on all business critical systems within my Department by January 1999. Testing of some non-critical systems will continue after this date, to be completed by mid 1999.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans have been made for(a) the Fire Service College, (b) the Forensic Science Service, (c) the UK Passport Agency and (d) HM Prison Service in the event of a failure due to Year 2000 computer problems. [32302]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998](a) The Fire Service College have recently installed a redeveloped Year 2000 compliant system. Contingency plans are included within their Year 2000 strategy. (b) The Forensic Science Service contingency plans will be completed by the end of March 1998. (c) The United Kingdom Passport Agency will have a redeveloped Year 2000 compliant computer system in place before the Year 2000. Their current system is being tested for Year 2000 compliance as a contingency measure. (d) Her Majesty's Prison Service have plans in place to cover failure of strategic computer systems. These will be reviewed to ensure they cater for failure due to Year 2000 computer problems.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which budgetary sub-head the costs of millennium compliance will be met by his Department. [32298]
  563
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Millennium compliance costs will be met from existing Capital and Non Pay Running Costs budgetary sub-heads.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the latest available date the total number of Czech and Slovak Roma asylum seekers who(a) are in detention awaiting determination of their cases, (b) have been released on bail, (c) are awaiting deportation following refusal of their application and (d) have been granted asylum or leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [34310]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Czech and Slovak Roma are not separately identifiable in the statistics; the available information relates to all asylum applications lodged in the United Kingdom by nationals of Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

  For information regarding initial decisions made during 1996 and 1997 on asylum applications lodged in the United Kingdom by nationals of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 29 January 1998, Official Report, columns 336–37. Equivalent information for years prior to 1996 is not available. For additional information, may I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 11 February 1998, Official Report, columns 207–08, which provided statistical data regarding those asylum applications lodged at the port of Dover by Czech and Slovak nationals.

  One Slovakian and one Czech family (husband, wife and son—each asylum seekers in their own right), have had their appeals allowed and have been granted asylum.

  As at 27 February 1998, a total of four nationals of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, who had sought asylum at some stage, were recorded as detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Of these, one person was awaiting an initial decision on their application while the remainder were awaiting the outcome of appeals.

  I regret that comprehensive information on the number of Czech and Slovak asylum seekers who have been released on bail, or on the number of those who have currently reached a stage where they could be removed from the United Kingdom (either through the deportation process, removal as an illegal entrant or removal under port procedures), is not available.

  Immigration Advisers
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his oral answers of 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 703–04, on immigration advisers, how many complaints his Department has made to (a) the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and (b) the Legal Aid Board in respect of the firms of solicitors whose conduct in immigration cases is of concern to his Department; [34580]

  (2) how many complaints his Department has made to (a) the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and (b)the Legal Aid Board about the conduct of solicitors acting in immigration cases in the past (i) month, (ii) six months and (iii) year; [34534]
  564
  (3) how many occasions in the past 12 months his Department has asked the Legal Services Ombudsman to examine the way in which the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors dealt with a complaint by his Department about the conduct of a solicitor acting in an immigration case; [34533]

  (4) pursuant to his oral answer of 2 February 1998, Official Report, columns 703–04, on immigration advisers, what information his Department has passed to the Law Society about the identity and practices of those particular firms of solicitors whose conduct in immigration cases is of concern to his Department; and on what dates. [34579]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The Department contacts the Law Society or the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors from time to time when there is evidence that an immigration adviser who is a solicitor has acted in an unprofessional manner, or to check on credentials. Most recently, on 11 March, the Immigration Service wrote to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors with a list of approximately 50 advisers who are of interest to them, who either are solicitors or have improperly represented themselves as solicitors. The information provided will vary from case to case and no central record has been kept of all such references. It would be inappropriate to publish any details of companies and individuals who may be the subject of current or future investigation.

  We contact the Legal Aid Board for clarification or to provide information where there appears to have been an abuse of the Legal Aid scheme.

  There is no central record of formal complaints which have been made by or on behalf of the Department to either the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors or the Legal Aid Board, although it appears the number of such referrals is small. I regret that the specific information requested would only be available at disproportionate cost.

  I understand there have been no references to the Legal Services Ombudsman in the past 12 months.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by his Department since 1 May 1997 on the employment of consultants to advise on the proposed reforms of the legal aid system. [33193]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by his Department since 1 May 1997 on the employment of consultants to advise on the proposed reforms of the legal aid system. [33198]

  Mr. Hoon
  To answer the hon. Member's question strictly nothing has been paid to consultants since 1 May 1997. We have asked KPMG, who are both accountants and management consultants, to establish whether lawyers can take cases using conditional fees for clients who cannot meet up-front costs and make a profit. The results of their work will be published shortly and the merging
  565
  conclusions are that lawyers will be able profitably to take cases without needing funding from the client. No payment has been made to KPMG yet.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to meet representatives of the Bar to discuss his statement to the House regarding conditional fee arrangements and legal aid. [33194]

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to meet the chairman of the Bar to discuss conditional fee arrangements and legal aid. [33199]

  Mr. Hoon
  Both my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I, and our officials, have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Bar Council to discuss conditional fees. I last met the Chairman of the Bar last Tuesday to discuss the Government's consultation paper on conditional fees and legal aid.

  Courts (West Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for the future of courts in West Cumbria. [33195]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no current plans for any changes affecting the courts in west Cumbria.

  Civil Justice Review
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the civil justice review. [33196]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government plan to introduce fundamental reform to the civil justice system, making it quicker, cheaper and more certain. The reforms will benefit everyone. Procedures and rules will be simplified, and judicial case management will provide tailored procedures and minimise delay. Pre-action provisions will enable many claims to be settled faster.

  We have already announced that implementation will take place in April 1999, and work is progressing as planned.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish the research on legal aid and civil justice reforms carried out by KPMG and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. [33963]

  Mr. Hoon
  The KPMG analysis of the business case for a solicitors firm undertaking litigation using conditional fees will be published in the next few weeks. It will indicate that conditional fees offer profitable business to lawyers even where they, rather than their clients, meet the up-front costs of insurance and running the case. I anticipate publishing the research, carried out by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in due course once we have completed consideration of costs regimes in the fast track.
  566
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish his proposals on civil justice reform, with particular reference to the costs regime in the fast track. [33964]

  Mr. Hoon
  I would expect to make an announcement about a costs regime in the fast track after Easter.

  Immigration Adjudicators
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the(a) training and (b) numbers of immigration adjudicators. [33197]

  Mr. Hoon
  In respect of training, in addition to the usual training, all adjudicators will be trained on the impact of the Human Rights Bill in the next 18 months. In respect of numbers, I can report that 43 new part time adjudicators were recruited in 1997 and we expect to recruit about 30 more this year.

  Public Trust Office
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether a review of the Public Trust Office's Framework Document has been carried out. [35139]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Public Trust Office's Framework Document has now been reviewed. As the interval between agency reviews has been extended from three to five years since the Public Trust Office attained agency status, the new Document is designed to cover the interim period until the Public Trust Office's first Quinquennial Review, to be completed by the end of 1999. Copies of the revised Framework Document have been placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34835]

  Mr. Hoon
  No non-departmental public bodies have yet been abolished but two have been established since 1 May. These are the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, which is preparing the new code of civil procedure rules, and the Civil Justice Council, which will monitor the civil justice system to ensure that progress to modernise it continues. Both were created by the Civil Procedure Act 1997. We have budgeted for annual expenditure of £10,000 on the Rule Committee and £80,000 for the Council.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament (European Union)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on relations between the proposed Scottish Parliament and EU institutions. [33166]
  567
  Mr. Dewar
  The Government's intentions on links between the Scottish Parliament and the institutions of the European Communities are as set out in Chapter 5 of the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament".

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what draft concordats he is currently preparing to regulate the participation of Ministers of the Scottish Executive in meetings of the European Council of Ministers; and if he will make a copy of the draft concordats available in the Library. [33890]

  Mr. Dewar
  Discussions are in train, at Ministerial and official level, about the non-statutory arrangements which will be needed for policy co-ordination of EU issues after devolution. Work on the draft of an agreement, which cannot be finalised until the Scottish Executive is established, is at an early stage. I shall make copies of the draft agreement available when this work is sufficiently advanced.

  "Designed to Care"
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with representatives of health boards and NHS trusts to discuss the White Paper, "Designed to Care". [33167]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Implementation of the White Paper "Designed to Care" is a constant theme in my discussions with Health Boards and NHS Trusts.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Private Finance Initiative projects are under consideration by the Scottish Office. [33168]

  Mr. Dewar
  Tenders have been invited or advertised for 29 Private Finance Initiative projects and a further 24 projects are being investigated.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Police forces regarding funding levels in 1998–99. [33169]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received representations on funding levels from, and held meetings with, chief constables and police authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities before the local government finance settlement was announced in December.

  Education Provision (Highlands)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on education provision in the Scottish Highlands. [33170]

  Mr. Wilson
  School education provision in the Scottish Highlands is primarily a matter for the local authorities concerned.

  Examination League Tables
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions he has made on the use of league tables for examination results in Scottish schools. [33171]
  568
  Mr. Wilson
  I wish to improve and extend the information published on school performance and will seek the advice of the Ministerial Action Group on Standards on how that is achieved.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss farm incomes. [33172]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Government Ministers meet the National Farmers Union of Scotland on a regular basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met Union leaders on 9 February when farm incomes were amongst the topics discussed. My noble Friend Lord Sewel last met the Union on 19 February and addressed their AGM on 6 March.

  New Deal Pathfinder Areas
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the New Deal Pathfinder Areas. [33173]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am very pleased with the excellent start made by the New Deal programme in Tayside.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from voluntary organisations on the impact of reductions in (i) Government and (ii) council budgets. [33174]

  Mr. McLeish
  The few representations which have been received from voluntary organisations have mainly been about individual grant decisions, rather than about government and council budgets.

  Social Exclusion Network
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had regarding the establishment of the social exclusion network. [33175]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Social Exclusion Network consists of senior representatives of the Scottish Office, the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, to take forward the social exclusion agenda in Scotland. A consultation paper inviting views on the way forward was issued in early February. Responses have been requested by the end of March.

  Scottish Parliament (Concordats)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the legal status of concordats to be agreed between the Scottish Parliament and Government Departments. [33176]

  Mr. McLeish
  Concordats are to be agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, rather than with the Scottish Parliament. The guidance note which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 27 February made clear that the purpose of the proposed concordats would not be to create legal obligations on either party, or to constrain the discretion of the Scottish Executive or that of the UK Government.

  Children's Hospital, Aberdeen
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the new children's hospital in Aberdeen. [33177]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. Friend announced on 6 January that as a result of co-operation between the Health Board and Trusts in Grampian a new Children's Hospital would be built and operational in Aberdeen by 2003. This will be part of a £22 million development of hospital services in Grampian made possible by the disposal of redundant estate.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on Residential Care Home Registration Procedures which(a) have been implemented and (b) have yet to be adopted by his Department. [33178]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Guidance to local authorities on 16 of the Report's recommendations is due to be issued in final form later this month. Copies will be placed in the House Library. The recommendations to create a national consultative group and to compile a list of persons refused registration are under active consideration. The remaining recommendations require legislative action when a suitable opportunity presents.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish beef producers on imports from overseas. [33179]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Importing beef from overseas has been discussed at the various meetings which my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries have had recently with representatives of the Scottish beef industry to discuss the difficulties affecting this important sector of Scottish agriculture.

  Council Tax Arrears
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Commissioner for Public Accounts in Scotland to discuss arrears of council tax. [33180]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I last met Mr. Robert Black, the Controller of Audit at the Accounts Commission for Scotland, on Thursday 29 January when a wide range of issues, including Value for Money studies, were discussed.

  Land Reform
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received to the Land Reform Policy Group's consultative paper on land. [33181]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Since this consultation paper was published only on 20 February no written responses have so far been received. However, the considerable interest the paper is generating and the welcome it has had from 570
  a range of commentators encourage us to anticipate a significant number of responses by the end of the consultation period on 30 April.

  Young People
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist to evaluate the short and long-term success of the New Deal for young people. [33182]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government accept that monitoring and evaluation of the New Deal will be crucial to its success, and a number of systems are in place to collect and analyse the relevant data on an ongoing basis. In addition, bids have been invited to undertake independent evaluation of the extent to which the aims and objectives of the programme are met.

  Infrastructure Priority Programme (Lothian)
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish the infrastructure priority programme for Lothian. [33183]

  Mr. McLeish
  I do not publish such a programme. I understand that my hon. Friend is interested in two particular projects, the A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass and the Esk Valley Sewer.

  The A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass in common with other major roads projects is subject to the ongoing review of the Scottish trunk road programme. Until the review is concluded in mid Summer and its implications considered in the light of the available resources, it will not be possible to specify what priority the scheme will have in any future programme.

  The construction of the upgraded Esk Valley Sewer is the responsibility of the East of Scotland Water Authority. The Authority is procuring the contract through the Private Finance Initiative and the current intention is that the contract will be let in October 1998. Construction on site will commence in early 1999. The aim is to have the work completed by the end of the year 2000 in order to comply with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the subject of equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament. [33184]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office has received six letters making representations about equal representation in the Scottish Parliament. The subject has also been raised with me orally on many occasions by different bodies and individuals.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading(a) Calton Hill, Edinburgh, (b) the Mound, Edinburgh, and (c) the proposed Glasgow sites to the required standard for the Scottish parliament. [33881]

  Mr. Dewar
  In preparing assessments of options for interim accommodation for the Scottish Parliament, my officials have made outline estimates of the comparative capital and running costs of solutions based on the Church
  571
  of Scotland Assembly Hall on the Mound, Edinburgh; the Old Royal High School Building, Edinburgh; and the former Strathclyde Region chambers at Charing Cross, Glasgow. These estimates include capital costs of upgrading the buildings, and rent and rates over a 2-year period. The costs cover office accommodation required by the Parliament.

  The overall estimates are:

  The Assembly Hall, Edinburgh: £4m

  Old Royal High School, Edinburgh: £5m

  Charing Cross, Glasgow: £3m.

  The Edinburgh options do not take account of space currently occupied by the City of Edinburgh Council.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the buildings and their total available floor space under consideration as short-term accommodation for the Scottish Parliament at(a) Calton Hill, Edinburgh, (b) the Mound, Edinburgh, and (c) Glasgow. [33883]

  Mr. Dewar
  The buildings and their total available floor space currently under consideration as interim accommodation for the Scottish Parliament are as follows:

  sq. ft.

  Old Royal High School

  22,000

  Office accommodation

  76,000

  Assembly Hall

  13,800

  Office accommodation

  79,500

  Glasgow complex

  134,000

  The figures for office accommodation in Edinburgh are based on known availability of commercial premises. Office accommodation currently occupied by the City of Edinburgh Council has not yet been included in the assessment.

  Public Buildings
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the buildings in public ownership between Old St. Andrew's House and the junction of Princes Street and the North Bridge. [33899]

  Mr.Dewar
  The Scottish Office owns the Governor's House and the property at 16/22 Waterloo Place. The Scottish Record Office owns HM General Register House at 2 Princes Street.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the maintenance costs for each Scottish Office building in Edinburgh. [34447]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: The maintenance costs for each Scottish Office building in Edinburgh for the most recent financial year are given in the table.

  £

  Building

  1996–97

  16 Waterloo Place

  26,220

  Greenside Lane

  29,090

  Pentland House

  88,630

  Saughton House

  189,790

  St. Andrew's House

  153,860

  572

  £

  Building

  1996–97

  Bute House

  38,260

  Unit 4A, Bonnington

  7,020

  Unit 4B, Bonnington

  6,850

  Victoria Quay

  414,500

  Governor's House

  25,850

  17 Waterloo Place

  2,950

  James Craig Walk

  40,140

  Bankhead Avenue

  23,620

  16–22 Picardy Place

  4,140

  Leith Walk

  12,030

  Tower Street

  2,680

  Maintenance costs include all programmed, routine, emergency and one-off internal and external property works. Major refurbishment is not included as a maintenance item.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the publicly owned buildings in central Edinburgh which are(a) currently empty and (b) subject to a temporary lease, indicating the floor space available at each site. [34446]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: My Department does not own any buildings in this category. My Department does not hold information about buildings owned by other public bodies.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of refurbishment costs for each public building in Edinburgh for each year since 1993. [34448]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: My Department does not hold such information about buildings other than those which it owns or occupies. I shall reply as soon as possible about buildings owned or occupied by my Department.

  St. Andrew's House
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the total amount of office floor space currently unused in and (b) the forecast running costs for 1997–98 for (i) Old St. Andrew's House and (ii) New St. Andrew's House. [33898]

  Mr. Dewar
  In St. Andrew's House, 38,396 sq ft of office floor space is currently unused as staff have been decanted elsewhere to allow the building to be refurbished. The total forecast running costs for 1997–98 are £2,952,000. My Department is not responsible for New St. Andrew's House. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to write to the hon. Member with the information sought.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow the Forestry Commission to roll over its trading surplus from one financial year to the next. [33885]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are considering this as part of the Forestry Commission's Comprehensive Spending Review.
  573
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes to staff numbers there have been within the Forestry Commission since 1 May 1997. [33886]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Forestry Commission employed 3,532 staff on 1 May 1997. It currently employs 3,471 staff. These figures include part-time employees.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce new measures to improve safety standards in houses in multiple occupation. [34018]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are considering possible ways of introducing mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation, to provide greater protection for tenants.

  Grants offered to Governing Bodies of Sport from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  £

  Governing body name

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Scottish Anglers National Association

  13,980

  8,740

  8,865

  9,000

  9,000

  9,000

  Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers

  18,525

  20,818

  14,525

  —

  26,500

  13,000

  Scottish Federation Coarse Anglers

  3,150

  3,220

  —

  3,000

  5,800

  2,800

  Scottish Archery Association

  4.500

  7,270

  9,600

  4,850

  4,800

  4,800

  Scottish Athletics Federation

  153,000

  149,425

  167,000

  164,850

  157,000

  46,943

  Scottish Badminton Union

  132,720

  115,228

  107,720

  116,370

  116,250

  125,750

  Scottish Basketball Association

  77,400

  78,137

  73,100

  60,000

  62,000

  63,000

  Scottish Women's Bowling Association

  14,100

  14,300

  12,250

  4,500

  4,500

  4,500

  Scottish Bowls Association

  —

  2,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Bowls Coaching Committee

  8,750

  5,506

  6,500

  6,500

  6,500

  12,073

  Scottish Amateur Boxing Association

  25,000

  27,000

  25,000

  19,000

  —

  —

  Scottish Canoe Association

  39,000

  40,150

  40,950

  41,700

  40,243

  42,700

  Scottish Cricket Union

  51,900

  65,835

  59,000

  60,800

  58,700

  70,485

  Scottish Croquet Association

  2,000

  1,020

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  Royal Caledonian Curling Club

  —

  —

  —

  12,000

  17,350

  42,500

  Scottish Cyclists Union

  47,500

  48,314

  —

  95,560

  57,825

  56,000

  Scottish Amateur Dancesport Association

  11,500

  —

  7,500

  17,500

  10,000

  10,000

  Fitness Scotland

  24,000

  29,471

  50,000

  45,000

  35,000

  38,500

  Health and Beauty

  2,500

  4,797

  2,625

  2,670

  2,600

  2,600

  Scottish Sports Association for People with Disabilities

  15,600

  4,800

  15,000

  —

  20,000

  20,500

  Scottish Fencing

  30,000

  5,038

  38,360

  19,000

  20,000

  21,600

  Scottish Field Archery Association

  1,920

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  800

  800

  Scottish Football Association

  —

  44,463

  —

  —

  —

  1,405

  Scottish Women's Football Association

  15,000

  25,560

  15,800

  26,000

  27,500

  29,500

  Scottish Gliding Association

  —

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  2,000

  Scottish Ladies Golf Association

  —

  2,713

  2,000

  3,000

  3,000

  —

  Scottish Amateur Gymnastics Association

  94,400

  108,842

  76,000

  87,000

  79,450

  95,750

  Scottish Hang/Paragliding Association

  990

  3,600

  —

  2,000

  -

  —

  Scottish Hockey Union

  150,250

  180,232

  167,000

  8,771

  398,500

  226,800

  Scottish Judo Federation

  —

  72,604

  151,870

  —

  145,650

  98,000

  Scottish Karate Board

  11,000

  14,368

  22,650

  —

  11,400

  11,400

  Scottish Lacrosse Association

  7,100

  8,879

  8,500

  10,100

  10,000

  8,500

  Scottish Lawn Tennis Association

  61,300

  70,996

  64,265

  69,000

  64,000

  66,000

  Mountaineering Council of Scotland

  7,000

  7,000

  9,000

  9,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Scottish Netball Association

  23,040

  24,666

  24,600

  30,000

  24,600

  29,100

  Scottish Orienteering Association

  19,100

  2,836

  19,500

  50,400

  28,000

  30,700

  Scottish Sports Parachute Association

  11,400

  9,500

  9,500

  5,500

  —

  5,500

  British Horse Society (Scotland)

  20,700

  —

  33,300

  18,500

  16,500

  16,500

  British Women's Rugby Union

  —

  —

  —

  2,000

  -

  —

  Scottish School Sports

  —

  1,200

  —

  1,200

  -

  —

  Scottish Amateur Rowing Association

  33,067

  14,300

  19,600

  —

  29,200

  16,500

  Scottish Rugby Union

  —

  3,150

  —

  42,000

  700,000

  700,000

  Scottish Women's Rugby Union

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  2,000

  2,000

  Royal Yachting Association Scotland

  63,250

  85,895

  65,550

  62,350

  70,661

  113,028

  The Camanachd Association

  9,800

  —

  25,500

  15,000

  15,000

  15,000

  Scottish Target Shooting Federation

  46,000

  51,151

  49,500

  —

  41,500

  88,250

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total grant in aid made available by the Scottish Sports Council to governing bodies of sport for each of the financial years 1992 to 1998; and what it is projected to be for the next three financial years; [34261]

  (2) if he will list, by individual governing body, the grant in aid projected to be made available by the Scottish Sports Council to governing bodies of sport for the next three financial years; [34262]

  (3) if he will list, by individual governing body, the grant in aid made available by the Scottish Sports Council to governing bodies of sport for each of the financial years 1992 to 1998. [34263]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the table. The projected total grant in aid, and the grant in aid to be made available to individual governing bodies of sport, for the next three financial years has not yet been agreed by the Scottish Sports Council.
  575

  Grants offered to Governing Bodies of Sport from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  £

  Governing body name

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Scottish Ice Skating Association

  3,000

  3,100

  4,500

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  Scottish National Ski Council

  56,500

  61,944

  57,650

  60,400

  60,400

  65,400

  Scottish Sports Association

  —

  43,000

  41,000

  41,000

  38,000

  38,000

  Scottish Squash

  79,100

  87,508

  85,400

  85,400

  83,000

  83,000

  Scottish Sub Aqua Club

  20,000

  20,400

  20,800

  20,800

  20,800

  20,800

  Scottish Surfing Federation

  7,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  700

  —

  Scottish Amateur Swimming Association

  131,300

  133,730

  178,000

  176,550.

  175,000

  190,063

  Scottish Table Tennis Association

  64,500

  60,142

  55,900

  2,000

  42,000

  36,775

  Scottish Trampoline Association

  22,100

  —

  45,350

  —

  40,000

  22,500

  Scottish Triathlon Association

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  2,000

  4,400

  Scottish Tug of War Association

  1,700

  1,700

  1,750

  1,900

  —

  3,600

  Scottish Volleyball Association

  151,420

  10,963

  158,250

  —

  80,000

  90,500

  Scottish Water-ski Association

  23,130

  23,600

  24,100

  —

  40,000

  20,765

  Scottish Amateur Weightlifters Association

  18,500

  20,203

  —

  13,500

  —

  11,450

  Scottish Amateur Wrestling Association

  18,000

  23,000

  —

  7,000

  12,000

  7,000

  Total

  1,848,192

  1,840,814

  2,081,330

  1,543,071

  2,934,229

  2,753,237

  Note:

  Because of timing of applications some governing bodies have had two offers, covering two financial years, within one financial year of the Scottish Sports Council.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Union in relation to fishing. [34279]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries expects to attend the next meeting of the Fisheries Council on 24 March.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34830]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Seed Potato Development Council was formally wound up on 22 August 1997. I have established no new NDPBs since 1 May 1997.

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present and proposed future numbers of obstetric beds at the Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. [34365]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Currently 68 obstetric beds are provided at Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy. Fife Health Board's draft Integrated Health Care Strategy, which has been issued for public consultation, includes a proposal to integrate obstetric, gynaecology and paediatrics on the Victoria Hospital site to improve the quality of clinical care. No final decision has been taken on the future acute service configuration and detailed bed numbers for obstetrics are not yet available.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) refurbishing and (b) adapting areas of the Victoria
  576
  Hospital, Kirkcaldy, to accommodate the transfer of (i) paediatric services from the Queen Margaret Hospital and (ii) gynaecological services from Dunfermline; [34367]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 February 1998, Official Report, column 709, when the figures for the cost of transferring the maternity facilities to Victoria Hospital and adapting Victoria Hospital will be available. [34368]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Fife Health Board is currently publicly consulting on acute service configuration proposals in its draft Integrated Health Care Strategy. The Board has indicated that estimates of the costs of transferring services into Victoria Hospital can be undertaken only once acute service configuration and future bed numbers have been considered in more detail. It is likely that such detailed financial information will not be available until the end of 1998/99. The Board has no plans currently to transfer gynaecology services from the Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline.

  Nursing Homes
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require health boards to publish their inspection reports on nursing homes. [34366]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There is no statutory or other restriction regarding the publication of nursing home inspection reports in Scotland. Health Boards or home owners themselves can make copies of reports or extracts available at their discretion.

  Cairngorms Partnership
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) under what powers the Cairngorms Partnership is able to stipulate to local authorities which member of the authority is to be appointed to the Advisory Board of the Partnership; [34814]

  (2) what discussions he has undertaken regarding the appointment of members to the Advisory Board of the Cairngorms Partnership. [34816]
  577
  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend invited Mr. Gus Macdonald to chair the Cairngorms Partnership from 1 November 1997. Following consultation with my noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries in Scotland Mr. Macdonald appointed an Advisory Board to assist him in taking forward implementation of the Partnership's Management Strategy. I understand that he has invited the Convenors of the relevant local authorities to serve on the Board, and I hope that the local authorities will respond positively to the invitation.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the remit and responsibilities of the Chairman of the Cairngorm Partnership. [34815]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend revised the remit of the Cairngorms Partnership following the appointment of Mr. Gus Macdonald as Chairman. I am arranging for a copy of the revised remit to be placed in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what awards have been made(a) by the Sportsmatch Panel and (b) by the Sportsmatch Panel to schools-related projects since 1 May 1997. [34214]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The Sportsmatch Panel has made 329 awards worth a total of £2,096,445 since 1 May 1997, of which 206 awards worth a total of £1,379,676 have been to schools related projects. I have placed copies of the detailed list of the awards made by the Sportsmatch Awards Panel in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to encourage business sponsorship in the field of youth and school sports. [34213]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Sportsmatch, the Government funded business incentive scheme for sport, offers pound for pound matching funding for sponsorships of grass roots sport. £1 million out of the annual Sportsmatch budget of £3.2 million is reserved for schools and schools related activities. I announced last year that the minimum award for schools has been reduced to £500 to increase the opportunities for securing private sector sponsorship. In addition, the English Sports Council's Lottery Sports Fund School Community Sports Initiative (SCSI) is designed to help schools and colleges find matching funding, including private sector investment, by providing up to 80% of the total project costs. To date, 181 education establishments have been awarded £84.2 million under the SCSI.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to ensure that sport governing bodies have plans to develop school sports projects as a condition for receiving Sports Council grants. [34215]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The development of sports opportunities for young people is one of the English Sports Council's key objectives.
  578
  The English Sports Council's National Junior Sport Programme provides the framework which currently guides national governing bodies of sport (among others) on their role of providing sporting opportunities for young people. When assessing the development plans of sports governing bodies, the ESC will give detailed consideration to whether a sport can attract young people and offer a sustainable junior development programme. Support offered by governing bodies to the education sector, through good quality links with schools, particularly between clubs, is critical to evaluating the quality and success of governing body youth development programmes.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to encourage the Sports Council to promote links between schools and sports clubs. [34216]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: I met the Council on 2 March. Among many other matters we discussed the National Junior Sport Programme. I met the team who develop the programme and gave them my personal backing. Under the Sportsmark scheme, schools must demonstrate effective links with clubs. The ESC's Challenge Funding scheme invites schools to apply for up to £1,000 to strengthen existing links and to encourage the development of new links. With the Department for Education and Employment we are working up proposals for community sports co-ordinators whose role would include building and supporting school/club links.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received on plans to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games; and if he will make a statement. [34735]

  Mr. Banks
  The Department has received 14 representations regarding the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester since May 1997.

  The Government strongly support the organisation of the 2002 Games, and this Department is working closely with Manchester City Council to ensure the delivery of a successful event. Other Government Departments will become involved when necessary.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contracts have(a) been signed and (b) put out to tender in relation to the establishment of the United Kingdom Sports Institute. [34218]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: None.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the United Kingdom Sports Institute will be opened; and which sports will be catered for. [34230]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Everyone is keen to see progress made and the UKSI in place in the shortest time possible. A date will be fixed in due course.

  Athletics, road cycling, judo, swimming and triathlon have indicated that they may wish to have their national training facility at the HQ site. In addition, netball, squash

  579
  and table tennis have indicated that they may wish to have their English training centres at the HQ site. Discussions are underway with all eight sports on this matter. However, all sports, including major spectator sports, will be able to tap into the support services throughout the UKSI network.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the sites that will form the regional network of the UK Sports Institute. [34223]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Information on the establishment of the regional network will be issued shortly. There will be facilities in at least eight locations in England, and others in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the proportion of the funding for the United Kingdom Sports Institute to be provided by the National Lottery. [34219]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: A detailed lottery application will have to be approved before such an estimate can be made. However the Home Country Sports Councils have indicated that some £160 million is to be made available of which £40 to £60 million is for the HQ site.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the total grant-in-aid made available by the United Kingdom Sports Council to governing bodies of sport for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98; and what it is projected to be for the next three financial years. [34266]

  Mr. Banks
  The information requested is set out in the table. Projections have not yet been made for 1999–2000 and 2000–2001.

  Year

  £000

  1996–97

  11,616

  1997–98

  25,481

  1998–99

  35,203

  1The United Kingdom Sports Council became fully operational in 1 January 1997. The figure, therefore, covers the period 1 January 1997–31 March 1997.

  2Forecast outturn.

  3Budget figure.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the 25th anniversary of the British Amateur Rugby League Association. [33916]

  Mr. Banks
  I congratulate the British Amateur Rugby League Association on the occasion of its Silver Jubilee, and commend its good work over the last 25 years in developing the game.

  Listed Buildings
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many requests for listing public houses were(a) received and (b) approved in each of the past five years. [34362]
  580
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of applications

  Number listed

  1993

  72

  6

  1994

  72

  25

  1995

  32

  11

  1996

  64

  7

  1997

  18

  2

  Total

  258

  51

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with local authorities concerning possible changes to the criteria used for listing buildings. [34596]

  Mr. Banks
  I have had no such discussions. However, Warrington Borough Council has corresponded with my officials about the criteria for listing public houses.

  Football
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to develop the Football in the Community Initiative. [34217]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Football in the Community is an excellent initiative. The Sportsmatch scheme, which is funded by my Department, has made 87 awards worth £801,448 to Football in the Community projects across the country, since its inception in November 1992.

  Community Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment the Sports Council has made of community sports facilities provision; and if he will make a statement. [34211]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The English Sports Council (ESC) is creating a Facilities Planning Model (FPM) which will enable it to undertake assessments of shortfalls in specific types of community sports facilities across England. A total of ten regional assessments—based upon the FPM and individual National Governing Body Strategies should be available in the autumn.

  Drug Control (Sport)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to promote drug control programmes in sport. [34228]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: I am committed to eliminating drug abuse in sport and we have been among the world leaders in pushing for strong and effective anti-doping measures. The UK Sports Council (UKSC) is responsible for administering the doping control system for the UK and is the first organisation worldwide to have achieved ISO 9002 certification for the management of drug testing programmes in sport.

  Sports Council Database
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the updating of the Sports Council's National Sports Facilities Database is complete. [34212]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The English Sports Council (ESC) has collected extensive facilities data. This will form part of an integrated corporate database currently being developed by the ESC and which they advise me should be available later this year.

  Spirits

  1 January 1993

  29 March 1995

  1 June 1997

  Country

  Ecu (Ipa)

  £(lpa)

  £ litre at 40%

  £ litre at 37.5%

  Ecu (lpa)

  £(lpa)

  £ at 40%

  £ litre at 37.5%

  Ecu (lpa)

  £ (lpa)

  £ litre at 40%

  £ litre at 37.5%

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7.39

  6.02

  2.41

  2.26

  7.41

  5.10

  2.04

  1.91

  Belgium

  15.66

  12.40

  4.96

  4.65

  16.07

  13.08

  5.23

  4.91

  16.96

  11.67

  4.67

  4.38

  Germany

  13.16

  10.42

  4.17

  3.90

  13.27

  10.80

  4.32

  4.05

  13.29

  9.14

  3.66

  3.43

  Denmark

  18.80

  14.88

  5.95

  5.58

  18.98

  15.45

  6.18

  5.79

  19.42

  13.36

  5.34

  5.01

  Greece

  5.49

  4.35

  1.74

  1.63

  5.50

  4.48

  1.79

  1.68

  9.60

  6.60

  2.64

  2.48

  Spain

  5.78

  4.58

  1.83

  1.72

  5.52

  4.49

  1.80

  1.66

  7.06

  4.85

  1.94

  1.82

  Finland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50.16

  40.83

  16.33

  15.31

  52.24

  35.93

  14.37

  13.47

  France

  11.74

  9.30

  3.72

  3.49

  13.81

  11.25

  4.50

  4.22

  14.64

  10.07

  4.03

  3.78

  United Kingdom

  24.85

  19.81

  7.92

  7.43

  26.42

  20.60

  8.24

  7.73

  23.60

  18.99

  7.60

  7.12

  Ireland

  26.77

  21.19

  8.48

  7.95

  27.57

  22.45

  8.98

  8.42

  27.69

  19.04

  7.61

  7.14

  Italy

  5.50

  4.36

  1.74

  1.64

  5.93

  4.83

  1.93

  1.81

  6.09

  4.19

  1.68

  1.57

  Luxembourg

  10.11

  8.00

  3.20

  3.00

  10.63

  8.65

  3.46

  3.24

  10.63

  7.31

  2.92

  2.74

  Netherlands

  14.34

  11.35

  4.54

  4.26

  15.40

  12.54

  5.02

  4.70

  15.40

  10.59

  4.24

  3.97

  Portugal

  7.27

  5.75

  2.30

  2.16

  7.15

  5.82

  2.33

  2.18

  8.20

  5.64

  2.26

  2.12

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  51.32

  41.78

  16.71

  15.67

  59.21

  40.72

  16.29

  15.27

  Fortified Wine (Litre)

  1 January 1993

  29 March 1995

  1 June 1999

  Country

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  0.52

  0.42

  0.52

  0.36

  Belgium

  0.67

  0.53

  0.68

  0.56

  1.01

  0.70

  Germany

  0.52

  0.41

  0.52

  0.42

  1.04

  0.72

  Denmark

  2.20

  1.74

  1.31

  1.06

  1.39

  0.95

  Greece

  0.45

  0.36

  0.45

  0.37

  0.45

  0.31

  Spain

  0.46

  0.36

  0.45

  0.37

  0.47

  0.32

  Finland

  n/a

  n/a

  8.36

  6.81

  8.71

  5.99

  France

  1.80

  1.43

  2.13

  1.74

  2.16

  1.48

  United Kingdom

  2.76

  2.20

  2.57

  2.01

  2.33

  1.87

  Ireland

  3.94

  3.12

  3.94

  3.21

  3.97

  2.73

  Italy

  0.45

  0.36

  0.45

  0.37

  0.50

  0.34

  Luxembourg

  0.67

  0.53

  0.68

  0.56

  0.68

  0.47

  Netherlands

  0.84

  0.67

  0.87

  0.71

  0.87

  0.60

  Portugal

  nil

  nil

  0.41

  0.33

  0.48

  0.33

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  4.71

  3.83

  5.33

  3.69

  Wine (Litre)

  1 January 1993

  29 March 1995

  1 June 1997

  Country

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Belgium

  0.36

  0.29

  0.37

  0.30

  0.48

  0.33

  Germany

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Denmark

  0.86

  0.68

  0.87

  0.71

  0.92

  0.64

  Greece

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Spain

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Finland

  n/a

  n/a

  2.84

  2.31

  2.96

  2.04

  France

  0.033

  0.03

  0.035

  0.03

  0.039

  0.03

  United Kingdom

  1.66

  1.32

  1.80

  1.40

  1.75

  1.40

  Ireland

  2.72

  2.15

  2.58

  2.10

  2.74

  1.88

TREASURY

  Excise Duty
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of excise duty expressed in £ sterling per litre on(a) whisky, (b) gin, (c) wine and (d) fortified wine in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each member state of the European Union in (1) 1992, (2) 1995 and (3) 1998. [34037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The levels of excise duty are set out in the tables.

  Wine (Litre)

  1 January 1993

  29 March 1995

  1 June 1997

  Country

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Ecu

  £

  Italy

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Luxembourg

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Netherlands

  0.49

  0.38

  0.50

  0.41

  0.50

  0.34

  Portugal

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  2.84

  2.31

  3.21

  2.21

  Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if proposed tax changes in the forthcoming Budget(a) have been or (b) will be disclosed to the EU Peer Review Group prior to 17 March. [34287]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: No.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay his decision to allow the Inland Revenue to collect excess taxes for the current financial year. [34712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am not clear precisely what the hon. Member intends in his Question, and I am writing to him.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the monthly average interest cost on total Government debt in(a) 1996 and (b) each month since May 1997. [34030]
  583
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: There are no monthly debt interest figures for the public sector as a whole. Most public sector debt interest payments are from central government. These monthly figures are published in Financial Statistics.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response she has given to DG21 with regard to the official complaint made against selective higher rate IPT in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [34182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: There has been no such complaint from any Directorate General to the European Commission about the higher rate of insurance premium tax.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library correspondence with or from DGXXI regarding selective higher rate IPT; and if he will make a statement. [34519]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: There has been no such correspondence.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 716–17, if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence from DGIV referred to in the correspondence he has placed in the Library. [34518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: Subject to obtaining the appropriate permission from DGIV, copies of this correspondence will be placed in the Library.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of all female deaths in the Warrington, North Constituency for each of the years 1992 to 1997 were as a result of ovarian cancer. [34597]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Helen Jones, dated 17 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking what percentage of all female deaths in the Warrington North Constituency for each of the years 1992 to 1997 were as a result of ovarian cancer.
  The data requested are shown in the table below.

  Percentage of female deaths from ovarian cancer to women resident in the county district of Warrington7 1992–19962

  Year

  Percentage

  1992

  1.6

  1993

  0.9

  1994

  1.3

  1995

  2.1

  1996

  1.1

  1ONS does not routinely publish data by parliamentary constituency, and could only do so at disproportionate cost.

  2Data for 1997 are not yet available.

  584 Deaths due to ovarian cancer were identified as those certified with an underlying cause of International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision [ICD9] 183.0.Deaths for 1992 represent the number of deaths registered in the year, while deaths from 1993 are deaths that occurred in each year. Also, new procedures for coding cause of death from 1993, and the absence of medical enquiries, mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with earlier years. However, for most conditions (including ovarian cancer) these effects are small. More details may be found in ONS Series DH2 no. 21 for 1993 (revised) and 1994, which was published in September 1996. Copies of this publication are available in the House of Commons library.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response the Treasury has made to the Bank of England's January 1998 report on finance for small firms. [33404]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The Government welcome the Bank of England Report. We recognise that small and growing firms form the bedrock of a successful enterprise economy, creating wealth and employment and generating new ideas and products and are therefore committed to providing an environment in which they can flourish. To encourage more innovative and entrepreneurial activity in our economy we are also pursuing a number of direct policy measures to encourage investment into high-tech companies, including reviewing the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme to improve access to finance for technology-based firms, reviewing the Venture Capital Trust and Enterprise Investment schemes to encourage equity investment by private individuals in high-growth firms, and reviewing Capital Gains Tax to consider ways of increasing the incentives for investment in entrepreneurial firms.

  Official Accommodation
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax liability arises when ministerial official accommodation is improved out of public funds. [32954]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is accepted by the Inland Revenue that Government Ministers occupying official residences by reason of their office meet the statutory conditions (mainly in Section 145(4) of ICTA 1988) for exemption from a tax charge on provided living accommodation or on any structural alterations or additions made to it. Where improvements to the accommodation consist of repairs, decoration or furniture, tax is charged on a benefit limited by Section 163(2) of ICTA 1988 to 10 per cent. of the taxable Ministerial salary and any other benefits.

  The same rules apply for Ministers of the Crown as for other office holders or employees.

  Public Works Loan Board
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board. [35132]

  Mr. Darling
  The Public Works Loan Commissioners have issued a circular today notifying local authorities that there will be no change in the formula for calculating quotas for 1998–99.

  Copies of the circular have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Guy's Hospital
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the documents considered in the re-evaluation of accident and emergency services at Guy's Hospital, as recommended in Health Services in London—A Strategic Review. [30392]

  Mr. Milburn
  In line with our policy on open government the relevant documentation will be available from the National Health Service Executive on request.

  The NHS Executive is also preparing a paper which brings together the work on re-evaluation and contingency plans to ensure that St. Thomas's accident and emergency department can absorb the increased activity, and this should be available shortly.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority area the number of midwives per 1,000 deliveries. [32828]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 March 1998]: The number of midwives per 1,000 maternities (used as a proxy for deliveries, and defined as pregnancies resulting in the birth of one or more live or stillborn children) for each health authority in England is shown in the table. The figures should be interpreted with caution as midwives work across health authority boundaries.

  National health service hospital and community health services registered midwives working in the maternity area of work per 1,000 maternities by health authority, England 1996

  Health authority

  Midwives per 1,000 maternities

  England

  30

  Anglia & Oxford

  26

  Bedfordshire

  24

  Berkshire

  23

  Buckinghamshire

  25

  Cambridge & Huntingdon

  25

  East Norfolk

  25

  North West Anglia

  25

  Northamptonshire

  29

  Oxfordshire

  33

  Suffolk

  24

  North Thames

  26

  Barking & Havering

  23

  Barnet

  18

  Brent & Harrow

  22

  Camden & Islington

  29

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  16

  East & North Hertfordshire

  24

  East London & The City

  28

  Enfield & Haringey

  23

  Hillingdon

  59

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster

  50

  North Essex

  26

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  29

  South Essex

  22

  West Hertfordshire

  16

  North West

  38

  Bury & Rochdale

  35

  East Lancashire

  35

  Liverpool

  37

  586

  National health service hospital and community health services registered midwives working in the maternity area of work per 1,000 maternities by health authority, England 1996

  Health authority

  Midwives per 1,000 maternities

  Manchester

  63

  Morecambe Bay

  28

  North Cheshire

  30

  North West Lancashire

  54

  Salford & Trafford

  55

  Sefton

  49

  South Cheshire

  30

  South Lancashire

  27

  St Helens & Knowsley

  22

  Stockport

  84

  West Pennine

  28

  Wigan & Bolton

  25

  Wirral

  41

  Northern & Yorkshire

  35

  Bradford

  40

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  30

  County Durham

  26

  East Riding

  32

  Gateshead & South Tyneside

  38

  Leeds

  29

  Newcastle & North Tyneside

  45

  North Cumbria

  32

  North Yorkshire

  31

  Northumberland

  21

  South Humber

  45

  Sunderland

  34

  Tees

  32

  Wakefield

  38

  South and West

  32

  Avon

  30

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  35

  Dorset

  28

  Gloucestershire

  32

  Isle of Wight

  33

  North & East Devon

  36

  North & Mid Hampshire

  23

  Portsmouth & SE Hampshire

  33

  Somerset

  29

  South & West Devon

  40

  Southampton & SW Hampshire

  27

  Wiltshire

  45

  South Thames

  25

  Bexley & Greenwich

  32

  Bromley

  25

  Croydon

  28

  East Kent

  26

  East Surrey

  25

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  15

  Kingston & Richmond

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham

  22

  Merton Sutton & Wandsworth

  41

  West Kent

  31

  West Surrey

  15

  West Sussex

  30

  Trent

  28

  Barnsley

  30

  Doncaster

  38

  Leicestershire

  27

  Lincolnshire

  21

  North Derbyshire

  35

  North Nottinghamshire

  27

  Nottingham

  34

  Rotherham

  28

  Sheffield

  40

  South Derbyshire

  23

  587

  National health service hospital and community health services registered midwives working in the maternity area of work per 1,000 maternities by health authority, England 1996

  Health authority

  Midwives per 1,000 maternities

  West Midlands

  30

  Birmingham

  36

  Coventry

  37

  Dudley

  35

  Herefordshire

  30

  North Staffordshire

  34

  Sandwell

  24

  Shropshire

  29

  Solihull

  0

  South Staffordshire

  29

  Walsall

  40

  Warwickshire

  29

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Worcester & District

  35

  Notes:

  1. Maternities are defined as the number of pregnancies which resulted in the birth of one or more live or stillborn children.

  2. Maternities are attributed to the health authority covering the mothers usual area of residence.

  3. Midwives are attributed to the health authority area within which the NHS trust that employs them falls.

  4. The figures in the table should be interpreted with caution as it is possible for midwives to serve a population which is different from that of the health authority to which they are attributed.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census Office for
  National Statistics.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those bids under the Investing in Dentistry initiative which were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful; and if he will make a statement. [33260]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since the Investing in Dentistry initiative was announced in September last year, 81 funding requests had been approved and 84 refused. The table gives details of successful and unsuccessful requests made by health authorities, which are shown in alphabetical order. All the unsuccessful requests have been given feedback and health authorities have been invited to re-submit them if they can provide further information to satisfy the criteria of this initiative.

  Health authority

  Number of successful bids

  Number of unsuccessful bids

  Avon

  2

  2

  Bedfordshire

  2

  —

  Bury and Rochdale

  —

  1

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  —

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  County Durham

  3

  4

  Doncaster

  —

  1

  Dudley

  —

  1

  East Lancashire

  —

  9

  Enfield and Haringey

  —

  8

  Gloucestershire

  7

  6

  Isle of Wight

  2

  —

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  3

  1

  North East Devon

  4

  —

  North Cheshire

  1

  —

  North Cumbria

  1

  —

  North Derbyshire

  1

  —

  588

  Health authority

  Number of successful bids

  Number of unsuccessful bids

  North Essex

  2

  —

  North Staffordshire

  6

  2

  North West Lancashire

  4

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  4

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  Oxfordshire

  2

  —

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  5

  9

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  —

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  2

  Sandwell

  —

  8

  Shropshire

  6

  1

  Somerset

  4

  9

  South Cheshire

  2

  1

  South Essex

  1

  —

  South Lancashire

  1

  1

  South Staffordshire

  2

  5

  South and West Devon

  3

  —

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  —

  Southampton and South West

  1

  —

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1

  1

  Walsall

  —

  1

  West Surrey

  4

  2

  Wiltshire

  5

  1

  Note:

  As at 16 March 1998.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of fluoride retention on human health; and what plans he has for an indemnity for water companies required to introduce fluoride into the water supply. [33033]

  Mr. Milburn
  Appropriate use of fluoride improves health by reducing dental caries, partly through the retention of fluoride in the teeth, without any known adverse effects on health. The Department is already able to offer indemnities to water companies against costs, damages or other expenses incurred by them as a result of fluoridating water supplies.

  With the publication of the Public Health Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" on 5 February 1998, we have set out the terms for a wide ranging debate on the options for improving dental health including the fluoridation of water.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government is taking to reduce the number of cigarette smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's targets in this area. [34330]

  Ms Jowell
  Our strategy to reduce smoking will be set out in the Tobacco Control White Paper to be published later this year.

  On 4 December 1997 the European Union Health Council reached a common position on a European Union wide ban on tobacco advertising and promotion.

  In 1997/98, the Government are funding a £1 million anti-smoking promotion campaign called "Respect", and the Health Education Authority's adult smoking education campaign costing £5.5 million. As part of the HEA

  589
  campaign, £700,000 is being given to Quit to operate the Quitline—telephone helpline—which offers smoking cessation advice, counselling and support.

  In addition, a wide range of health professionals, notably general practitioners, routinely offer cessation advice and support.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further measures he proposes to reduce smoking in public places. [34489]

  Ms Jowell
  We are considering what measures might be included in the Tobacco Control White Paper, to be published later this year, to reduce smoking in public places.

  The White Paper will take into account the recently published conclusions of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health on the scientific evidence on the health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

  Workforce Planning
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1998,Official Report, column 112, in what ways workforce planning arrangements have been improved to ensure that the supply of doctors reflects demand. [34461]

  Mr. Milburn
  Recent steps to improve medical workforce planning include:

  (i) the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG), which advises on the numbers of doctors and dentists in training needed to meet future requirements for consultants, has recently extended its remit to cover general practice, enabling planning across the entire medical workforce; and

  (ii) SWAG's planning processes now build in greater input and involvement from National Health Service management, timed to inform national workforce planning at a much earlier stage in the cycle than has been possible previously, encouraging a more effective dialogue with the NHS and thus a better blend of top-down and bottom-up planning.

  We aim to improve NHS workforce planning by ensuring that workforce plans are considered alongside future plans for services. In particular, local NHS organisations are being encouraged to take an active role in workforce planning. Also, workforce planning should cover the whole NHS workforce.

  Cardiac Rehabilitation Units
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS cardiac rehabilitation units indicating which operate an upper age limit. [34321]

  Mr. Milburn
  A list of units is not held centrally but an audit of cardiac rehabilitation centres published in 1995 and funded by the National Health Service Executive showed that in 1993 there were 199 centres in England and Wales which offered a cardiac rehabilitation service.

  The White Paper "The New NHS" makes it clear that fair access to health services, based on clinical need, irrespective of age, is one of our top priorities.

  Evidence from recent studies shows that many heart patients can benefit from rehabilitation programmes whatever their age. Health authorities and NHS trusts
  590
  have been advised to eliminate all discriminatory practices and to ensure that all patients who can benefit from such programmes are given the opportunity to do so.

  We are determined to tackle any remaining problems of access.

  Coronary Care Units
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS coronary care units indicating which units operate an upper age limit. [34322]

  Mr. Milburn
  A list of coronary care units is not kept centrally. The Directory of Emergency and Special Care Units 1997, published by CMA Medical Data Ltd., Cambridge Research Laboratories, lists coronary care units in the United Kingdom. We are not aware of any units which operate an age limit for access to these services. However, we are aware that access to coronary services, including coronary care units, does vary. The White Paper "The New NHS" makes it clear that fair access to health services, based on clinical need, irrespective of age or any other factor, is one of our top priorities.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Insight report into the resources and performance management of community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [34618]

  Mr. Milburn
  We announced last year that we had no intention of implementing the Insight Report's recommendations on Community Health Councils' (CHCs) functions and resourcing. Officials have continued to work with CHCs on developing suitable arrangements for ensuring their accountability.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to deal with staff shortages among physiotherapists. [34542]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the continuing need for physiotherapist services. [34541]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is currently the responsibility of local commissioners to assess the health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services to meet those needs.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34828]
  591
  Mr. Milburn
  We announced on 22 December 1997 our intention to legislate to establish a General Care Council which will replace the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (an Executive non-departmental public body) as the body responsible for social services training.

  Since 1 May 1997 the Department has established the Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly, which has planned annual running costs for 1998–99 of £673,000.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has asked officials to identify ways of overcoming the financial effects of the Value Added Tax Order which came into effect on 1 January.[34807]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Value Added Tax Order had financial implications for local health services. Officials were asked to investigate the size and scope and to determine ways of minimising these effects without compromising the tax avoidance measures introduced by the Order.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to NHS trusts on the use of Taxol combination treatments in the treatment of ovarian cancer. [34599]

  Mr. Boateng
  Taxol is a drug licensed by the Medicines Control Agency for use in treating widespread cancer of the ovary or metastatic breast cancer where standard treatment regimes have failed. A clinical trial for first-line treatment of widespread breast cancer by Taxol in combination with other drugs is currently in progress. As with any other drug, it is a matter for individual clinicians, in discussion with their patients, to recommend a treatment regime which will be best for their patients. Guidance on clinical management of ovarian cancer was produced by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and was published in November 1991.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in the Warrington North constituency were diagnosed as having ovarian cancer in each of the years 1992 to 1997. [34600]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for Warrington North are not available separately. The latest available data for Warrington residents are set out in the tables, and relate to the five-year period 1990–1994:

  Warrington residents 1990–1994: number of ovarian tumours

  Age

  Number

  0–4

  —

  5–9

  —

  10–14

  —

  15–19

  —

  20–24

  —

  25–29

  —

  30–34

  —

  35–39

  1

  40–44

  5

  45–49

  6

  592

  Warrington residents 1990–1994: number of ovarian tumours

  Age

  Number

  50–54

  12

  55–59

  12

  60–64

  7

  65–69

  14

  70–74

  12

  75–79

  14

  80–84

  4

  85 plus

  4

  all ages

  91

  Warrington residents 1990–1994: age specific incidence rates per 100,000

  Age

  Rate

  0–4

  —

  5–9

  —

  10–14

  —

  15–19

  —

  20–24

  —

  25–29

  —

  30–34

  —

  35–39

  3.2

  40–44

  15.2

  45–49

  19.4

  50–54

  44.3

  55–59

  51.0

  60–64

  31.2

  65–69

  65.9

  70–74

  61.3

  75–79

  89.2

  80–84

  35.0

  85 plus

  44.0

  all ages

  19.3

  Source

  Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Registry, March 1998.

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26599]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: A list of research projects carried out by the Department in the financial year 1996–97 and since 1 May 1997 has been placed in the Library. The cost of each individual survey is a matter of commercial confidentiality. The total expenditure for 1996–97 and the estimated costs of work commissioned since 1 May 1997 are:

  –million

  1996–97

  Since 1 May 1997

  Department

  i) opinion polling

  0.2

  0.1

  ii) focus groups

  0.3

  0.1

  iii) other market research

  0.2

  0.1

  Agencies

  iii) other market research

  0.1

  0.1

  Total

  i) opinion polling

  0.2

  0.1

  ii) focus groups

  0.3

  0.1

  iii) other market research

  0.3

  0.2

  593
  The Department has a major survey programme amounting to £5 million which is "social research" not "market research" as ordinarily understood. The purpose of this research is to monitor change and inform policy development. As part of this programme the Department commissions questions to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) omnibus survey to look at behaviour and attitudes of the general population on specific topics. Although the majority of questions focus on behaviour some of these questions might be considered "opinion polling". For example, questions have been asked within the smoking module on views about tobacco advertising.

  In 1996–97, questions on food safety, back pain, condoms, contraception, drinking, smoking, sun exposure, living wills, attitudes to mental illness and part time working patterns of children aged 10–16 were undertaken. The total cost was £350,000.

  Since 1 May 1997, questions on contraception and condoms usage, sun exposure and smoking have been commissioned on the ONS omnibus. These costs totalled £220,000.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of community hospitals in the United Kingdom. [34437]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: This information is not collected centrally. However, the Community Hospitals Association estimates that there are currently 325 community hospitals in England. Community hospitals in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies (Reports)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the bodies within the responsibility of her Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33561]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: Reports of the following Northern Ireland bodies are required by legislation to be laid before Parliament:

  Table A: Industrial development board (IDB)

  £000

  Belfast constituency

  87/88

  88/89

  89/90

  90/91

  91/92

  92/93

  93/94

  94/95

  95/96

  96/97

  Financial assistance offered1

  North

  306

  —

  1,704

  360

  703

  218

  1,630

  —

  1,081

  5,233

  South

  1,431

  2,615

  2,286

  1,028

  587

  1,634

  223

  1,689

  482

  1,777

  East

  710

  4,541

  3,648

  914

  965

  4,209

  1,297

  681

  6,841

  1,245

  West

  5,160

  7,155

  7,089

  13,568

  4,406

  1,399

  12,008

  14,050

  11,176

  25,499

  Jobs promoted2

  North

  8

  —

  168

  467

  7

  —

  67

  —

  138

  79

  South

  75

  201

  226

  541

  82

  94

  13

  51

  93

  219

  East

  38

  261

  106

  74

  74

  268

  64

  —

  —

  40

  West

  30

  —

  197

  74

  66

  50

  575

  365

  247

  581

  594

  The Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  The Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  The Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  The Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  The Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland

  The Parades Commission for Northern Ireland

  Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives for Northern Ireland

  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

  The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list, for each offer of regional selective assistance made during 1997, the percentage of the project's capital cost represented by the grant offered; and if she will indicate, for each offer, if it related to an area of full or intermediate assisted area status. [33705]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the financial year 1996–97, 91 projects were offered Selective Financial Assistance by the Industrial Development Board (IDB) and 3,774 projects were offered Selective Financial Assistance by the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU). A list detailing percentage contributions for IDB and LEDU offers will be placed in the Library. The list covers all offers made during 1996–97 and which are still "live"—i.e. have not been declined or withdrawn.

  The NI Selective Financial Assistance corresponds broadly to Regional Selective Assistance in GB. It is available throughout NI. No technical distinction is made of full or intermediate assisted area status.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the (a) level of financial investment and (b) number of jobs created by (1) LEDU and (2) the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland within (i) North, (ii) South, (iii) East and (iv) West Belfast for the period 1987 to 1997. [34320]
  Mr. Ingram
  Available information is listed in the tables. Details on jobs created by LEDU are not available by Parliamentary Constituency.
  595

  Table A: Industrial development board (IDB)

  £000

  Belfast constituency

  87/88

  88/89

  89/90

  90/91

  91/92

  92/93

  93/94

  94/95

  95/96

  96/97

  Jobs safeguarded

  North

  46

  —

  —

  —

  335

  37

  —

  20

  3

  225

  South

  95

  —

  —

  215

  25

  75

  100

  62

  61

  26

  East

  358

  161

  491

  —

  61

  230

  26

  168

  656

  —

  West

  312

  640

  293

  540

  360

  72

  135

  830

  24

  770

  1The figures provided for IDB financial assistance relate only to Selective Financial Assistance (SFA).

  2IDB figures refer to jobs promoted, not created.

  Table B: "Financial Investment" by LEDU

  £million

  Belfast constituency

  Financial commitment (1 April 1988–1 December 1997)

  North

  18.9

  South

  17.7

  East

  11.8

  West

  12.4

  Notes:

  Above figures relate to direct assistance to companies. They include funding made available under the Making Belfast Work (MBW) Programme and the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (SSPPR).

  Information on investment prior to 1 April 1998 is not readily available in this format.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the level of financial investment and (b) the number of jobs created by LEDU within Northern Ireland for the years 1987 to 1997. [34324]

  Mr. Ingram
  The expenditure figures as outlined below represent LEDU expenditure on its main programmes of support as well as expenditure incurred through the Making Belfast Work and Making Londonderry Work schemes. This financial assistance is paid out both directly to clients and indirectly through third parties providing assistance to small businesses on LEDU's behalf.

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1987–88

  18.0

  1988–89

  26.6

  1989–90

  28.6

  1990–91

  25.9

  1991–92

  26.2

  1992–93

  23.3

  1993–94

  22.7

  1994–95

  24.9

  1995–96

  24.1

  1996–97

  23.7

  Prior to 1990–91 the principle measure of LEDU performance was job promotions—jobs promised by client companies in return for financial assistance. The job promotion figures for 1987–88 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  Year

  Jobs promoted

  1987–88

  4,047

  1988–89

  4,395

  1989–90

  5,221

  1990–91

  5,501

  596
  Since 1991–92 actual net employment change within all LEDU client companies has become the principle measure of LEDU performance. Net employment change for the years 1991–92 to 1996–97 are as follows:

  Year

  Net employment change

  1991–92

  -650

  1992–93

  730

  1993–94

  1,630

  1994–95

  3,500

  1995–96

  3,060

  1996–97

  3,525

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Inspections
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a common framework for inspection of educational institutions catering for the over 16s. [34601]

  Dr. Howells
  In our consultation paper on lifelong learning, "The Learning Age", we have stated our intention to work with inspectors and providers with a view to harmonising inspection arrangements across schools, further education colleges and LEAs, adult education and training providers.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list incidents of fraud and payment errors in connection with the award of NVQs in each of the last three financial years. [34818]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department logs all reported incidents of alleged fraud on Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) delivered programmes funded by the Department. Since 30 August 1995,105 cases have been recorded. Those involving invalid NVQs in the last three financial years are 1994–95 (Nil), 1995–96 (4) and 1996–97 (8).

  It is not practical for the Department to log discrete NVQ payment errors by Training and Enterprise Councils.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to(a) evaluate and (b) reduce the scale of (i) financial and (ii) academic fraud concerning vocational qualifications. [34819]
  597
  Dr. Howells
  The Department has established a financial scrutiny unit with the particular purpose of investigating allegations of fraud involving training providers contracted with TECs, including abuse of vocational qualifications. I have recently announced a strengthening of that unit. The Department has also established a 'fraud hotline' (0800 163 339) to enable suspicions of fraud to be promptly and directly reported to the Department. The maintenance of the standards of vocational qualifications is the prime responsibility of awarding bodies and the Department is currently providing £1.5 million to support additional external verification of NVQs by awarding bodies to help in assuring standards of assessment in TEC funded programmes. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has established a compliance investigation section to investigate allegations of abuse of vocational qualifications accredited by it. The QCA's section works closely with the Department's financial scrutiny unit.

  EU Equal Treatment Directive
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the nature of the advice given on behalf of the United Kingdom Government by Lindsey Nichol] of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Eleanor Sharpston Barrister and Michael Beloff QC, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities when it was considering the Marschell v Land Nordrhein Westfalen case. [34886]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  At the hearing of the European Court of Justice on 11 March 1997 in the case Helmut Marschell v Land Nordrhein Westfalen, Michael Beloff QC, representing the United Kingdom Government, made oral submissions to the Court.

  These submissions drew attention to the fact that the ECJ had already had occasion, in the case of Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, to examine the proper interpretation of Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive, and that in that case the ECJ had laid down four very important guidelines which, it was submitted, should be determinative of the result of the Marschall case.

  Those guidelines were:
  First, the ECJ upheld the importance of the principle of non discrimination.
  Secondly, it confirmed that national laws like the law at issue in Kalanke involve direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.
  Thirdly, it characterised Article 2(4) of the Equal Treatment Directive as a derogation from the core principle of equal treatment, and hence as a provision to be interpreted narrowly.
  Fourthly, it identified equality of opportunity, and not equality of result, as the means chosen by the Directive of achieving equal representation.

  National Curriculum Tests
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce more rigorous procedures for National Curriculum tests at Key Stage 1. [34879]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are introducing some additional procedures for the National Curriculum tests at Key Stage 1 in 1998. These include reducing the scope for 598
  potential malpractice by delivering tests later to schools, asking headteachers to sign a declaration that tests have been administered correctly, and external checks to be conducted during the assessment period. We are also continuing to support schools' administration and marking of the Key Stage 1 tests by funding supply cover, and through the audit of assessment standards in over a quarter of schools. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will continue to monitor test standards for consistency with the demands of the National Curriculum and comparability with previous years.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list applications to run education action zones received from(a) local education authorities and (b) other organisations; [34954]

  (2) if he will list the private sector organisations which have applied to run education action zones; [34955]

  (3) if he will list applications to run education action zones where the proposed zone crosses local education authority boundaries. [34956]

  Mr. Byers
  The deadline for applications is this Friday, 20 March.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish figures for the average class size, for each school, in the national performance tables for primary schools;[34817]

  (2) if he will publish figures for the average class size in the national performance tables for primary schools. [34883]

  Mr. Byers
  Primary school performance tables are published by individual local education authorities. We have no present plans to require the publication of information on class sizes in the tables, but if LEAs wish to publish such information and have the necessary data from schools they are free to do so. We ask all primary schools to consider providing parents with information on class sizes in their school prospectus.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34833]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1 May 1997 the Department has abolished two bodies and transferred their functions to a new body:

  (a)Abolished

  Date of closure

  School Curriclum and Assessment Authority(SCAA)

  30 September 1197

  National Council for Vocational Qualification (NCVQ)

  30 September 1997

  599

  £million

  (b) Established

  (c) Planned annual running costs

  1997–98 estimate

  1998–99 planned

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) 1 October 1997

  10.5

  19.5

  for 6 months

  Disability Rights Task Force

  1—

  New Deal Task Force

  1—

  Skills Task Force

  1—

  1Advisory NDPBs, travel and subsistence costs.

  School Expenditure
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the minimum per capita spent from local authority revenue budgets on education in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools necessary for satisfactory delivery of the national curriculum and achievement of the Government's educational attainment targets. [34602]

  Mr. Byers
  Education Standard Spending for LEAs in England will be £19.4 billion in 1998–99, an increase of £1 billion over the equivalent figure for 1997–98. The priority given to school spending within our plans for 1998–99 reflects the importance of delivering our targets for educational attainment. The total is allocated to Local Education Authorities in Standard Spending Assessments, using a formula which takes account of pupil numbers, deprivation and population sparsity. It is for Local Education Authorities to reach final decisions on how to use the resources available to them. We do not seek to set a minimum level of expenditure, but we have made it clear that we expect the substantial additional provision for 1998–99 to go specifically to raising standards in schools.

  New Deal (Deaf People)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are in place for communication support for young deaf users of British Sign Language entering the New Deal gateway with particular reference to the early stages. [30680]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is explicit guidance for dealing with those clients who are deaf or hard of hearing. Employment Service staff are trained to recognise hearing impairment and to lip read. They are asked not to make assumptions about an individual's ability to communicate or the ways in which they do so. They are advised to ask the client to tell them what means of communication they favour and to accede to any requests for sign language to be used. Jobcentres have access to sign language interpreters, often Employment Service staff in the offices. In addition, light writers, typetalk and hearing loops are available and are used if the client requests them.

  If there is a barrier, the Employment Service will first identify it and then take appropriate action to overcome it. Once in a job help for clients under the Access to Work initiative is available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she has taken or plans to take to ensure the millennium compliance of the computer systems involved in providing an uninterrupted supply of electricity and gas; if she has agreed or arranged for contingency plans; and if she will make a statement. [33315]

  Mrs. Roche
  DTI officials have discussed this issue with the electricity and gas industries and their trade associations. Both industries are aware of the potential difficulties arising from the millennium date change and companies have carried out, or are carrying out, full assessments of the potential impact of their computer and control systems. These assessments are continuing. Reports thus far suggest that the risk to the continuity of the electricity supplies is minimal.

  Transco, operator of the major part of Great Britain's gas transportation system, is conducting a thorough action plan to ensure that any risk to its ability to operate safely its gas supply network is managed. Each component of the "gas chain" is responsible for its own programme but Transco is playing a pivotal role in encouragement of best practice in the rest of the industry. It is offering support to its partners in the gas chain and other utilities in meeting their own responsibilities through sharing of best practice. Along with DTI, the Office of Gas Supply is actively monitoring the work being carried out by the industry on this.

  Notwithstanding the current risk assessments, individual companies will wish to review existing contingency plans with emergency authorities as appropriate to deal with any supply problems arising from the millennium date change.

  This is a complex area of work and the providers of utility service are dependent one upon the other to ensure that continued operation occurs without difficulty.

  Post Office
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will announce the results of her current review of the Post Office. [34813]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been reviewing carefully the views advanced by interested parties during the consultations following my announcement last year of a review of options for granting the Post Office greater commercial freedom. These will inform our decisions on the next phase of the work, about which I will make an announcement as soon as we are in a position to proceed.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to ensure that the West Midlands continues to benefit from Structural Funds after the introduction of Agenda 2000. [34296]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The Commission expects to publish on 18 March its detailed draft regulations covering the operations of the Funds for the period 2000–2006. These draft regulations will then need to be negotiated in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament.
  601
  In the meantime, Ministers have been in regular contact with the European Commission and other Member States, with an aim of securing a package which is fair to all Member States especially to the United Kingdom and regions and which is affordable and durable, simpler and more efficient. In these discussions, we have suggested that GDP per capita should be a factor taken into account in the allocation of the Funds.

  Yemen and Oman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff there are on her Department's(a) Yemen desk and (b) Oman desk. [34551]

  Mrs. Roche
  Both desks have a full-time Country Officer who has administrative support and reports to a Senior Country Manager and Section Head. Both desks also have Export Promoters on loan to the DTI from private industry.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to promote trade and investment in Oman. [34552]

  Mrs. Roche
  The DTI Oman Desk is involved in a wide range of promotional activities. In 1998, the DTI will support six outward trade missions to Oman, two exhibitions in Oman, six "Gulf Spotlights" in the UK, three inward visits by senior Omanis, the Oman British Friendship Association and Committee for Middle East Trade Round Table and the CBI "Invest in Oman" Conference in London. The Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board visited Oman last month. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade met his Excellency Maqbool Sultan (the Oman Minister for Commerce and Industry) and also his Excellency the Ambassador on an earlier occasion.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the number of British firms which have offices in Oman. [34550]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are approximately 70 British firms with offices in Oman.

  Adoption Leave
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on Government policy towards national guidelines on adoption leave for parents adopting a child. [34759]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to implementing the EC Parental Leave Directive, which will provide both parents with the basic entitlement to three months unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. The Directive contains a number of flexibilities, including the requirement to consider whether entitlement to parental leave needs to be adapted to meet the circumstances of adoption. We shall want to give full consideration to these matters and consult on options for implementation. We are required to implement the Directive by December 1999.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will regulate the prices charged for cosmetic surgery procedures; and if she will make a statement. [33922]
  602
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to regulate the prices charged for cosmetic surgery procedures, but we are aware of concerns about the quality of such surgery.

  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of overtime worked by private office staff of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs since 1 May 1997. [32689]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Overtime for the period 1 May 1997 to 31 January 1998 amounted to some £21,600 gross.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the fluoro-carbon gases, as regulated under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, that will be utilised in the air conditioning equipment for the Millennium Experience; and if he will make a statement. [28140]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) announced on 13 March the outcome of their competitive tendering process for the supply of chiller units which will provide chilled water for air cooling of the Dome's various exhibits, restaurants and hospitality suites. The refrigerant used in these units is R134a, a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) which is used as environmentally preferable alternative to CFCs and HCFCs. The NMEC will operate and maintain the units to the highest possible standard, and aim to keep emissions of HFCs below 1%—a target which will be monitored by regular independent audits of refrigerant usage. A robust plan for the safe handling and recovery of the refrigerant when the units are disposed of will be put into place. These arrangements meet in full the terms of the 1996 Declaration of Intent agreed between the then Government and Refrigeration Industry which recognises the essential role of HFCs as a replacement for CFCs and HCFCs.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how the temperature of the Millennium Dome will be controlled. [31193]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company will be able to maintain a constant temperature throughout the Dome through an effective ventilation and air-conditioning system.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Conferences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of his officials attended conferences(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas; and how many and what percentage made (i) oral and

  603
  (ii) written contributions to the matters under discussion in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [31179]

  Dr. David Clark
  For the purposes of this answer, my Department is defined as the Office of Public Service (OPS) and the Executive Agencies for which I am responsible. Records are not kept in this form, but so far as I can establish, the number of officials who attended conferences in the United Kingdom in the period 1 January to 31 December 1997 was 216 and the number attending conferences overseas was 33. Of these, 109 made oral contributions and 38 made written contributions to the matters under discussion.

  In addition, figures for the Central Office of Information, which is a separate Department, also reporting to me, are as follows: 32 officials attended conferences in the United Kingdom and one attended overseas. Of these, 7 made oral contributions and 1 made a written contribution.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will estimate the number and percentage of civil servants in his Department, at each grade including and above higher executive officer who(a) attended university and (b) attended either Oxford or Cambridge University; [33059]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of civil servants in his Department, at each grade, who received their schooling in the independent school sector; [33060]

  (3) if he will estimate for each of the last five years, the number and percentage of new civil servants in his Department who attended Oxford or Cambridge University, broken down into the number of entrants

  Government Office Region

  Civil Servants(1 April 1995)

  Civil Servants(1 April 1996)

  Civil Servants(1 April 1997)

  Number

  Per cent.1

  Number

  Per cent:1

  Number

  Per cent.1

  North East

  30,000

  1.15

  27,800

  1.07

  24,700

  0.95

  North West

  40,800

  0.75

  40,600

  0.74

  41,700

  0.76

  Merseyside

  15,300

  1.07

  15,300

  1.08

  13,500

  0.94

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  33,100

  0.66

  32,200

  0.64

  32,200

  0.64

  East Midlands

  21,700

  0.53

  20.900

  0.50

  20,600

  0.49

  West Midlands

  33,100

  0.62

  32,000

  0.60

  31,100

  0.58

  Eastern

  30,700

  0.58

  30,300

  0.57

  24,100

  0.45

  London

  103,800

  1.48

  96,400

  1.36

  86,600

  1.23

  South East

  64,100

  0.82

  60,900

  0.77

  62,200

  0.79

  South West

  53,000

  1.10

  49,700

  1.03

  50,700

  1.04

  Wales

  27,500

  0.94

  20,400

  0.90

  36,500

  0.90

  Scotland

  48,500

  0.94

  46,600

  0.91

  45,800

  0.89

  Northern Ireland2

  5,000

  0.30

  5,000

  0.32

  5,000

  0.30

  1Percentage of resident population at I July in the relevant year.

  2The Northern Ireland Civil Service are not included.

  Magistrates (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of having shared responsibility with the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine.[34747]
  604
  joining the Department from (a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, (b) the fast stream and (c) the private sector. [33061]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  (holding answer 9 March 1998): Although the precise information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, I can assure my hon. Friend that all career civil servants who join my Department, which for this purpose includes the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and its executive agencies and the Central Office of Information, (which is not an agency of the Cabinet Office but which reports directly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) are recruited by an appropriate Civil Service entrance procedure, using fair and open competition and recruitment on merit. Numbers joining my Department from the fast stream are approximately five in each of the last five years. Of those, approximately 50 per cent. spent part of their education at either Oxford or Cambridge Universities. Relatively few new entrants to the department are school leavers and many therefore have experience of the private sector.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the numbers of civil servants based in each economic planning region in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997; and if he will express the numbers as a proportion of the resident population in each region in each of those years. [34502]

  Dr. David Clark
  In common with most regional official statistics, since April 1997 regional statistics about the Civil Service have been compiled on the basis of Government Office Regions. The full-time equivalent numbers of permanent civil servants in each Government Office Region at 1 April 1995, 1996 and 1997 and those numbers expressed as proportions of the resident population in each region and year are shown in the following table:

  Dr. David Clark
  I do not share responsibility for the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine with the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I appoint magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside while the Lord Chancellor appoints magistrates in the remainder of England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor and I have a network of Advisory Committees who are responsible for recruiting and
  605
  interviewing candidates and recommending suitable people for appointment as magistrates. These committees work to a set of similar directions.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) he has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) he has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34822]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The non-departmental public bodies for both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister are listed under my Department in the booklet "Public Bodies" published by The Stationery Office. For purposes of this question I am answering on behalf of my Department and the Prime Minister.

  Since 1 May 1997 we have abolished two non-departmental public bodies: the Citizens Charter Panel of Advisers; and the De-regulation Task Force. We have established two non-departmental public bodies: The Better Regulation Task Force; and on behalf of The Prime Minister, The Security Vetting Appeals Panel.

  The planned annual running costs of the Better Regulation Task Force are £8,500.

  The costs of the Security Vetting Appeals Panel are minimal. Costs are met from within existing divisional resources, they do not have a separate budget and it is not anticipated that this is likely to change at least in the short term.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will call for a report from the Property Services Agency on its contact with Islington Borough Council concerning future use of Archway Tower and relevant local development plans; and if he will make a statement. [34313]
  606
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: As my hon. Friend is aware, Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) is responsible for the disposal of the vacant Government offices it inherited on 1 April 1996, including Archway Tower. The Chief Executive of PACE, Mr. John Locke, reports to me regularly on the agency's performance. Therefore, I have asked Mr. Locke to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Archway Tower.
  Since 1998 there have been major policy changes affecting Civil and Defence accommodation. Departments have been fully untied from the former PSA which was privatised in 1993.
  PACE has responsibility for vacant office buildings which have been declared surplus by other Government Departments. Archway Tower is such a building. PACE is charged with disposing of it at best value for the Exchequer.
  PACE has no intention of seeking to change current planning permission to use Archway Tower for office use. Furthermore the property is currently held under the terms of a lease which restricts occupations to office use. Mr. Colgan has made you aware that if the London Borough of Islington was to consider redevelopment of the area responsibility for implementation and funding would lie with them. PACE has a contractual commitment to the existing building and use.
  The lease on Archway Tower runs until 24 December 2009 and the current annual rent payable is £884,000. Further rent is payable for 49 adjoining car parking spaces. The outgoings for the property in the current year are estimated at approximately £1.1 million including rent. The best value solution for dealing with the building is to effect necessary repairs and refurbishment and bring it back into use as offices. A detailed scheme, which does not require planning permission as it is essentially repair, has been worked up and necessary contracts are about to be let. An occupier has been secured for part of the building and the remainder of the space will be marketed widely as soon as it is again in occupiable condition. In this way PACE intends to defray the cost of holding Archway Tower and bring about an improvement in the appearance and management of the building.
  I understand that you are in close contact with Mr. Colgan, Director of PACE, London and South East Region, and that he has outlined these proposals in more detail to you and representatives of Islington Borough Council at a recent meeting. Should the Borough Council have any proposals for the property which are achievable in view of the existing leasehold constraints and offer better value for money than naturally PACE would be pleased to consider them.

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

Lord Dearing
Sir Ronald Ernest Dearing, Knight, CB, having been created Baron Dearing, of Kingston upon Hull in the County of the East Riding of Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the Lord Baker of Dorking.

Bowes Museum
2.46 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the potential de-accessioning of works of art from the Bowes Museum, what steps they are taking to give statutory protection to publicly funded museum collections.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, despite recent press reports, I understand that the Bowes Museum, and Durham County Council which administers it, have no intention or wish to sell items from the collections. However, the Bowes is facing financial difficulties and I can announce today that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Richard Foster, the director of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, to carry out a review of the present position and future prospects of the Bowes Museum. The aim will be to identify a stable, long-term financial base for the museum which would avoid the need to restrict access in order to cut costs.
Museums that are registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission, which includes most local authority museums, can dispose of items only in accordance with the guidelines of the registration scheme. My department is currently considering recommendations made by the MGC for strengthening the legal status of museum collections.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Do the Government still believe in the guiding principles as set out in Treasures in Trust which was published by the previous government to review museum policy, and in particular with paragraph 3.2 of that review which states:
"a museum's collections are to be held on behalf of the public as inalienable cultural assets"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. We have confirmed that we agree with that part of the
568
review. The Museums and Galleries Commission has reported to us on how to implement that and we are considering its report.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if my ignorance may be forgiven, may I ask the noble Lord to tell us what "de-accessioning" is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Sale, my Lords.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while welcoming the news that my noble friend has given us about the inquiry, may I ask him whether it will take into account the fact that the local authority is proposing to cut the grant to the Bowes by £30,000 a year and is telling the museum that it should close between the months of November and March? Will those matters be taken into account by the inquiry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend may be glad to hear that Durham County Council's intention of requiring the museum to close for five months has been postponed in the hope that we can receive a report from Mr. Foster before any final decision is taken.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the reply he has given today will give great pleasure to many people in the north of England? Is he also aware that this is a most excellent and beautiful little museum in a marvellous building and in an attractive part of the country? Will the Government do all that they can to ensure that it has a future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. Our determination to ensure that the Bowes Museum has a future is evidenced by the invitation to Mr. Foster to conduct a very full inquiry.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Will the Government's commitment to the Bowes Museum include putting their hands into their pocket if that was called for by Mr. Foster?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall face that when we come to it. I confirm that the draft terms of reference for Mr. Foster, which have not yet been agreed, include the possibility of national status for the museum.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, Labour Party policy used to be to place a statutory responsibility on local authorities to develop an arts and museums policy so that as a result local expenditure on museums would be eligible for revenue support grant. Now that the Labour Party clearly will not help financially either the Bowes Museum or other regional museums, unless we hear something else in the Budget this afternoon, how will the Government help collections so that they will not have to sell treasured works of art?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's question is that Labour Party policy has not changed. Dealing with the second part of the question, the noble Baroness cannot expect me to anticipate the Budget. I am afraid that I have forgotten the third part of the question—and I am not obliged to answer it anyway.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the fact that the possibility of this museum having national status is not excluded will give great satisfaction to many noble Lords who wondered how the situation would be overcome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hedged my earlier answers with considerable qualifications. Mr. Foster has not yet formally agreed to conduct the inquiry and the terms of reference have not yet been agreed. But I am grateful for my noble friend's thoughts.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is not the Bowes Museum a prime example of the need to divert money from National Lottery heritage funds if the Foster report so recommends it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, substantial sums have been diverted—I use the noble Earl's word—from the National Lottery to museums and galleries. I do not believe that that process is at an end.

No. 2 Marsham Street
2.52 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the building in Marsham Street which presently houses the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, known as PACE, plan to let a contract for the demolition of No. 2 Marsham Street in the summer of this year unless its use as decant accommodation for other government departments would provide better value for money to the Exchequer.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the first part of his Answer is wholly satisfactory but that the satisfaction has been quickly dispelled by the threat contained in the second part of his Answer? Why on earth do we have all this mystery? The silence has been going on for a very long time. Is it not time that the Government made up their mind what to do with it instead of using words such as "if', "but" and "whether", which are the kinds of messy answers that are provided?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the second part of my Answer did not please the noble Lord. It depends upon aesthetic considerations, on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and the
570
interests of the public purse. If it appears that its use for decant accommodation provides better value for money to the Exchequer, the Government are duty bound to observe that better value to the Exchequer.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no announcement has been made about the particular site in recent weeks. My noble friend is quite right: there has been a web of silence. If the Government are to use Marsham Street as decant accommodation, when will that announcement be made? Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm two other matters. First, since the site was originally a gas works, is there a lot of contaminated land still to be dealt with before it can be redeveloped? Secondly, will the noble Lord demonstrate the commitment of the Government to improving the environment by ensuring that all the material from the demolition is recycled and not dumped in a landfill site?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must resist the suggestion that there has been any web of silence. There has been no announcement because there has been nothing to announce. As soon as a decision has been made about demolition or decanting, that will be announced. There has been no secrecy. As to decontamination, I am advised that, although it was a former gas works site, there is no risk of contamination. As to the environment, the building is constructed of concrete blocks and beams joined together by bolts. Demolition will be carried out probably by cutting the bolts. I rather doubt whether the blocks and beams will have any significant environmental advantage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House of the original cost of this building? To write off a building of this size after such a short lifespan indicates that whoever advised the then government on the construction gave bad advice. Is it not the case that this building was constructed at the same time that the huge local government housing programme was under way when the architects also failed us? Is this not another case? If this building must be written off can that be put down to the same failure of the architects at that time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the original architect is still alive I would not wish to offend his sensibilities. The building was finally occupied in 1971 after a number of delays. I do not know the original cost of the building, but I can say that Arup Associates carried out an investigation for the government in 1990. They took the view that demolition was the best as well as the most aesthetically attractive option.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the fact that this was an old gas works site prompts me to ask the noble Lord whether he can give an assurance that the heating of the new building will be as up to date as possible. If possible, will combined heat and power be used? I suggest that one feedstock may well be the waste paper from the Palace of Westminster.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that PACE will be very interested in the noble Lord's question. The intention is that when the site is redeveloped it will be for offices, retail and residential accommodation with some provision for open space.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, do the Government really need to demolish the building? Is it not falling down anyway? I have read many reports about bits falling off it. That possibly poses greater danger to public health than to the public purse. Can the Minister give an assurance that the building is still safe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are bits falling off the building. The building is encased in scaffolding at the moment for the protection of the public. As to the need to demolish it, I understand it is likely that the profits from disposal of the site will be greater than the costs of demolition, so it is to the Government's advantage to demolish the building. It is also an advantage to the neighbours that demolition should be carried out in a controlled way.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Lord go a little further into the interesting notion that he introduced about decanted accommodation? What is to be decanted: the building or the contents?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is neither the building nor the contents but the people. I understand that there are two government departments both of which have accommodation that is badly in need of refurbishment. If this plan proceeded, the staff from those departments would be decanted into Marsham Street while their existing buildings were refurbished.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Peyton upon tabling the Question. Can the Minister inform the House of the cost of security of the building? Does the noble Lord believe that it is suitable for development perhaps as a greyfield site if not a brownfield site?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the building is still occupied by staff from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and therefore there are no exceptional security costs. If demolition were to take place this summer, security costs would be relatively limited.
Lord Drogheda: My Lords, does the Minister doubt that the demolition of the building would produce anything other than delight in the general public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that I have made my position on that clear in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that aesthetically the best option is for the building to be demolished as soon as possible. It is not an efficient building.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the building is "disevacuated" will it be occupied by government offices, and, if not, by whom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand what my noble friend means by "disevacuated". If he is asking whether the building will be replaced by a government building if it is demolished, the answer is, probably not. If he is asking whether it will be held on to for decanting purposes, the answer is that staff from other departments will work there.

Police and Court Appointments: Declaration of Interests
3.1 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
For how many organisations they require members to declare their membership when applying for posts as magistrates, in the police or as judges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, magistrates are asked to give details of membership of any organisations or clubs as part of listing their general interests. People applying for appointment as police officers are asked to give details of any voluntary and community work which they have undertaken. Those being considered for appointment as judges are not asked about membership of organisations. In the future those being considered for appointment as members of a police force, the magistracy or the judiciary will be asked specifically whether they are freemasons.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as the Government are keen to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, how does that tie in with the Minister's stated intention to discriminate against freemasons, and freemasons alone?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a case of discriminating against freemasons. I take it that the noble Lord is referring to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which concerns respect for private and family life, but that is within the corresponding balance of the freedom and rights of others.

Chittagong Hill Tracts: Aid
3.2 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What position they took at the meeting held on 23rd February in Dacca of the Aid to Bangladesh Consortium to discuss follow-up to the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord and what specific commitments were made by the United Kingdom and other major aid donors to underpin and sustain the accord.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at the meeting on 23rd February British officials welcomed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, and confirmed that Her

573
Majesty's Government would be willing to consider proposals for development assistance in the region. It was agreed at this meeting that a core team of donors, led by the United Nations development programme, should work jointly with the government of Bangladesh to identify priority needs, develop plans for co-ordinating the overall donor effort and identify appropriate implementation arrangements. That would provide a framework for development assistance from donors, including the United Kingdom.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Bangladesh Government and the JSS, representatives of the Chittagong Hill tribes which have been fighting the Bangladesh Government, deserve congratulations on reaching that agreement? Is not that a perfect example of where the international community needs to respond with speed and adaptability so that a fragile peace is underpinned by aid assistance? Does he further agree that the Bangladesh Government, in particular, have considerable difficulties not just in Chittagong but with the Bihari refugees, which needs that kind of specific support for resettlement and, as I said, the underpinning of peace accords when they are reached?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am pleased to agree that both sides in the conflict deserve congratulations on reaching the accord at the end of a long period of difficulty in the Chittagong Tract area. Those agreements will need support from the international community. As regards development aid, the DID will be working with the joint donor/government of Bangladesh working team to identify needs and priorities, and to identify appropriate implementation arrangements. As the noble Lord said, it is in everyone's interest that that happens rapidly. On the separate point of the Biharis, that is a different situation. It is not just a matter of Bangladesh and the internal dissidents; it is a matter between the governments of Bangladesh and Pakistan. That has also been running for some time. We were encouraged by the Pakistan Government's statement in January that they were willing to do all they could to bring the Biharis to Pakistan, subject to funding being found. We would be ready to help if there were a constructive framework in which to do so. Bilateral dialogue between Bangladesh and Pakistan is the immediate way forward.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to join the Minister in expressing its satisfaction at the end of this most difficult and damaging dispute between the government of Bangladesh and the hill tract people. It has not been easy to find a way to solve the dispute. I am sure that congratulations are due to the government of Bangladesh and, in particular, the Prime Minister, as well as the leaders of the rebels, as they were described, in the Chittagong Hill Tract. In considering the contribution that I am glad to hear Her Majesty's Government are willing to make, will the Minister bear in mind that something over 37,000 former refugees have already returned to what is quite a small
574
Chittagong Hill Tract area? Many more will follow. If that peace is now to be cemented permanently, they will need a considerable amount of economic aid to underpin the political solution.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept the view that those who were parties to this difficult peace accord deserve all our congratulations and support. Some subsequent developments have already proved beneficial. As regards financial assistance, we shall need to go through the process of identifying specific projects which are agreed by the government of Bangladesh and the local people. That will take some time to achieve. It is also true that the security situation in the area has not been completely resolved, and that may have an effect on the way that the assistance is delivered.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Bangladesh authorities whether they will permit access to the territory by journalists, human rights observers and the UNHCR so that the circumstances in which the refugees mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, are repatriated can be monitored properly? Is he aware that the total number of refugees in the Indian state of Tripura was at one time 68,000, and that it is a major task not just to resettle those people in a manner that will enable them to resume their lives and work, but to ensure that they get back the homes and lands that they once occupied? Is it not necessary that the international community should have an observer or observers on the spot to see that those agreements are honoured?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the accords themselves provide for some access. As regards detailed access by specific officials from UN authorities, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to write to him on that matter. The UN aid organisations will be in there. When the normalisation of the situation has been achieved, there is no real reason why human rights observers should not be there. Owing to the difficult land-owning and other human rights circumstances, it will be useful to have such input. It must be borne in mind that some of the recent settlers, who may be seen as being put there by the Bangladesh Government, also have their rights in this situation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will my noble friend assure me that, given the fact that some of our poorest fellow citizens send as much as 10 per cent. of their income back to their home country of Bangladesh to help that desperately poor part of the world, the Government, too, will be generous in their support of the Bangladesh Government who are under considerable financial and economic pressures?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we recognise that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. A number of its citizens and people of that origin live in this country and keep alive our interest in Bangladesh. We have always regarded Bangladesh as a priority for aid and in terms of our new poverty strategy it will continue to be prioritised in any allocation of aid by this Government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that there is a large number of hill tribesmen still to return to Bangladesh from across the border and that they have little ability to generate income. Will he ensure that in the aid which is given to Bangladesh, training for such people in some form of income generation is made a priority?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that projects of that nature will be among those needed in the total package which we will be considering.
Lord Paul: My Lords, as this is a great achievement on the part of the Bangladesh Prime Minister, will the Minister convey to her the congratulations of the House? What further help can the Minister provide to encourage the process?
LordWhitty: My Lords, I am certainly willing to pass on those congratulations from my noble friend and the whole House. As regards additional assistance, I have outlined the form of package which will be required. Her Majesty's Government stand by to respond to requests to support the beneficial process which we hope will put an end to the long running conflict in the area.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the weakness in his reply is that everything seems post facto; the plans for aid come only after the agreement is in place? The Minister mentioned the Biharis, which pose a problem. Should not the Minister be making contingency plans to the effect that if an agreement between Bangladesh and Pakistan were reached, the British Government, the European Union, and the UN will immediately put into place these aid packages in order to facilitate the agreement? That would be a carrot and would show forward thinking, rather than waiting for the political accord and then considering how we underpin that with aid.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Biharis have always been able to integrate into Bangladesh society. However, in many senses they have felt that the politics and the existing situation make it sensible for them to seek access to what was West Pakistan. In such circumstances, one must have an agreement between Pakistan and Bangladesh before making serious and detailed plans about how to support the resettlement. While the Bihari population remains in Bangladesh we should be happy to consider assistance programmes which help them in particular.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("in an anti-social manner, that is to say,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. The House will remember that we devoted a major part of the first day in Committee to antisocial behaviour orders and Clause 1. I trust that we can be considerably briefer in dealing with Clause 1 on this occasion. However, I wish to return to one or two of the amendments which I tabled on that occasion. As regards Amendment No. 2, I am pleased to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, added to the other distinguished names which follow my undistinguished name. I am grateful for his support and for his acceptance of the amendment. I shall deal with that briefly in due course.
It was right to devote a considerable amount of time to the antisocial behaviour orders because they are a new concept and are important. We believed it important that the Government should explain the thinking behind their clauses and the way in which they would work. I am grateful for the Government's responses and for the responses which we have received in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
We generally support the intention behind Clause 1 and the antisocial behaviour orders. It is important that the wording of such a clause should be as clear as possible. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. They seek, first, to delete from page 1, line 13, the words,
"in an anti-social manner, that is to say",
and, secondly, at page 2, line 3, to leave out "anti-social acts by him" and insert "harassment, alarm or distress". That would leave Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) using the words "harassment, alarm or distress". Following the lengthy debate in Committee, I maintain that those words would be clearer and therefore they would be easier for the courts to understand and interpret. They appear in other Acts of Parliament and the courts have dealt with them for some time. I believe that to add words to "harassment, alarm and distress"—for example,
"in an anti-social manner, that is to say"—
further complicates matters and detracts from the precision which is important in a Bill.
We generally support the intentions behind the antisocial behaviour order but believe that there is a need for improving the wording. That is why I have tabled the amendments today. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the Government will be able to give favourable consideration to these amendments. The trouble is that antisocial behaviour is of many kinds and here we are dealing with only one particular kind. The Bill should make that clear. We see in subsection (1)(a) that the essence of the matter is causing harassment, alarm or distress. To introduce in addition the concept of antisocial behaviour confuses the issue. Let us stick to the point. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Henley has made a good case. It is a drafting matter, but an important one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, yes, it is a drafting matter and a very important one. I agree with everything that has been said, but how will the proposal

577
marry with subsections (5) to (10)? We are dealing with a new form of disposition called an antisocial behaviour order. Therefore, one must have some substance in the creation of the offence which relates to antisocial behaviour. I am not trying to be technical, but I see more than a difficulty in the drafting.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We spent quite a lot of time discussing these matters. We said that we would think carefully and we have. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that this was a drafting matter. We believe that it is more fundamental than that. It is perfectly plain in Clause 1(1)(a) that an antisocial order or behaving in an antisocial manner is to behave in a manner,
"that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
That is a new concept. It is entitled to be new because we believe that this is a significant social evil which at present is unaddressed.
We want to tackle antisocial behaviour. For quite a large number of people who live in this country, their lives are made a misery by it. It is not headline-catching behaviour but it is continuous, persistent misbehaviour which makes people unable to live happily and calmly in their own homes. We believe that it is the Government's duty to address that.
We have addressed it by defining what we believe the mischief is; in other words, behaving in an antisocial manner which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Nothing could be plainer. We do not dissent from the noble Lord's definition because in the Bill, "harassment, alarm or distress" is included as the definition of antisocial behaviour. We are setting out that that is an offence which we intend to tackle with due seriousness. It is a clear indication that that type of behaviour, which is an affront to the community, will be dealt with. Therefore, the label is there for a purpose; the purpose is important; and I regret to say that on this occasion, although not on other occasions, I am not able to feel persuaded by the argument that has been put.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I obviously agreed with much of what the noble Lord said. That was before he started to address the amendment itself. I accept that there are evils and mischiefs here which need to be addressed. That is why I made it quite clear that, generally speaking, we are content with the thinking behind Clause 1. That is why we accept that there should be antisocial behaviour orders.
As I thought I made clear, and as my noble friend Lord Renton made clearer, we believe that it would be better to have the wording which we have suggested; that is, if we keep to "harassment, alarm or distress" and use those three words in Clause 1(1)(a) and (b).
However, it seems that I have failed to persuade the noble Lord. It matters not much because I accept that we still have the words "harassment, alarm or distress" and, as I understand the noble Lord's explanation, the antisocial behaviour will be limited to that. The antisocial behaviour cannot go beyond "harassment, alarm or distress".
578
I know that this is Report stage but I ask the noble Lord to accept that that is the case. It would probably be possible for me to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the antisocial behaviour is so limited.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is Report stage, I am trying to be helpful. I do not believe that the drafting could be clearer than it is in Clause 1(1)(a) which states:
"that the person has acted…in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
I do not believe that it could be plainer as a matter of drafting and I am happy to give that assurance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance. I am sorry that he is not prepared to accept the amendment, but in the light of his considerable reasonableness on later amendments, it is right that I should withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("two") and insert ("one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said, I am grateful that the noble Lord has been able to add his name to the amendment. I always understood that only four noble Lords could add their names to an amendment, but on this occasion I am grateful that a fifth has been permitted so we are quite clear that the noble Lord accepts the amendment that we put forward and has agreed that the amendment should go on the statute book.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking the trouble to write to me and other noble Lords in his letter of 4th March in which he set out why, on balance, after considering those matters, he was prepared to accept the amendment.
We had a considerable debate about this in Committee. A number of noble Lords made the case very clearly that there may be occasions when those suffering from the mischief were solitary individuals, rather than two or more persons, and that those persons would not necessarily have the benefit of the protection provided by the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. Therefore, the protection which orders of this sort can provide may also be appropriate for them.
As I said, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for accepting our arguments and adding his name to the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be only too well aware, it takes a lot to silence a Welshman. However, on this occasion I shall summon enough air into my lungs to give him a very warm "thank you" in eager anticipation of his answer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have never heard such an aspersion cast against my fellow countrymen in the past.

579
Amendments Nos. 2 and 26 are grouped together and it may be convenient if I speak to them now. We had a very focused debate on this issue in Committee. We promised that we would think about the matter very carefully. It seemed to those of us on this side who were listening to that debate that there was a good deal of virtue and point in what was being said. All three of us undertook, when we started this Bill, to listen genuinely with an open mind and we said that if the Bill could be improved, consistent with its philosophy and structure, we should accept amendments. Therefore, I am more than happy to do so.
The noble Lord said that I had written to him on occasions and I did so on 11th and 12th March. I was able to say then, so that I shall not return to congratulate us all subsequently, that on 11 separate issues, we have tabled amendments on Report to give effect to points raised in Committee. Therefore, that is not the mark of absolute Neanderthal resistance to all possible suggestions of improvement. In fact, quite the opposite, if I may respectfully say so.
Originally we thought that this should better be cast as two and not one. My noble friend Lord Mishcon gave examples which we thought were important and other noble Lords assisted. It was thought that that remedy might be of general validity if it were cast in the way for which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, contended. I am more than happy to accept his amendment, to which I have attached my name, and also to indicate that in due time, having addressed the issue, I shall formally move Amendment No. 26 which is along the same lines.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, before we leave this amendment, the moment should not go unrecorded. This is the sixth day in Committee and on Report and I believe it is right to say that this is the first amendment, other than those tabled by the Government, which has been accepted. Therefore, it is an important moment.
I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just said; namely, that he gave undertakings on numerous occasions throughout the Committee stage to look again at matters that had been raised. As he has just told us, there are 11 separate matters on which he will be accepting amendments today. I welcome that.
My feeling is that it could have come a little earlier in Committee. I do not say that necessarily in a spirit of censure but, if it is not out of order to make those points about the handling of the Bill, it is better to have repentance now rather than to look forward to it in the future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() A person shall not be treated under subsection (1) above as having acted in an anti-social manner if his acts are neither motivated by an intention to harass or cause alarm or distress to other persons nor likely to cause serious and justified alarm or distress to other persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment; indeed, I suggest that it is a most important one. Like a number of other noble Lords, I expressed a
580
view both on Second Reading and in Committee that the definition in the Bill of acting in "an anti-social manner" in Clause 1 is dangerously wide. An antisocial behaviour order is a very powerful weapon indeed. As it stands, and subject to debate on other amendments on the Marshalled List, it must be imposed for a minimum period of two years during which time it cannot be discharged without the consent of the local council or of the police. A breach of an antisocial behaviour order is a criminal offence and may result in a five-year gaol term. The order may be imposed as a result of conduct which is not at all criminal, or as a result of criminal conduct carrying a maximum penalty of very much less than five years.
I accept that there are some circumstances in which such an order would be justified. Such circumstances could be persistent threatening and abusive behaviour, whether it affects a neighbourhood generally or specific individuals within it. Such conduct needs to be controlled. So, indeed, does seriously disturbing behaviour, even if it is not threatening and abusive, such as frequent, rowdy late-night parties in a block of flats with inadequate sound proofing.
However, an order as powerful as the antisocial behaviour order in the Bill needs a correspondingly serious level of misbehaviour to trigger it. All that is required at present to trigger the order is that the defendant has acted,
"in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
There is no test of the seriousness of the alarm or distress and no requirement that the alarm or distress felt by the victim should be objectively justified. We think of neighbours from hell as abusive, drunken, drug-dealing households which play loud music and hold all-night parties. But there is another type of neighbour from hell; namely, the over-sensitive neighbour who objects to the noise of normal children or who complains whenever a television set is switched on, however low the sound may be, after nine o'clock in the evening. The distress of such households may be genuine—indeed, it frequently is—but it cannot justify the making of an antisocial behaviour order.
It is possible to say—and no doubt the Minister will do so—that, in such a case, the council or the police are unlikely to apply for an order and that, if they did so, a court would be unlikely to grant it. However, I believe that there are two answers in that respect. First, harassment by councils or the police in the sense of taking unjustifiable action against local residents is not unknown, especially against people who are unpopular for many reasons, some good and some bad, in the community in which they live. Secondly, if the conduct does not deserve a penalty, then the law should not make it potentially subject to such a penalty. One should not be penalised by law and unpenalised by the exercise of discretion.
I have revised the amendments which I tabled in Committee. I hope that the amendment now before the House is clearer and better expressed, although I accept that it is no doubt capable of further improvement. The proposed new subsection, as set out in the amendment, is in my view reasonably self-explanatory. It would

581
tighten the definition of acting, "in an anti-social manner", and would divide conduct into two classes. The first is where the motive of action is itself to cause the alarm or distress. That might be described as bullying. In that case, I accept that the seriousness of the alarm or distress is irrelevant, so long as at least some is caused or likely to be caused.
However, that probably applies to a relatively small number of cases. Indeed, in most other cases the causing of alarm or distress is not actually the motive for the conduct. In such cases, I believe that the alarm or distress must be serious and justified: that is to say, the conduct of the defendant must be such as would cause alarm or distress to a reasonable person.
I find it very difficult indeed to accept that, if one or other of those tests is not satisfied, an antisocial behaviour order can be justified. Without those tests the order is over-strict, rigid and inflexible. The trouble with the definition—to borrow a phrase from another context—is that it allows no margin of appreciation. I believe that the circumstances which trigger an antisocial behaviour order should be modified in the way proposed in my amendment. That would greatly improve the application of the order as it now stands in the Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have always had great respect for the learning of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whom I have known as another member of the Bar for many years. However, I have very grave doubts about his proposed amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, we find in subsection (10) that, on indictment—which means that a jury considers the matter—there may be imprisonment for five years. We must consider this in a way that will ensure that the court can enable the jury to understand the matter; in other words, to understand what has happened. Indeed, the matter is positively expressed as it stands in subsection (1), with or without the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Henley, for which much can be said. However, if we were to accept Amendment No. 4, we would find that subsection (1) would be paraphrased in a somewhat negative way.
There is the further disadvantage in that in subsection (1) an antisocial manner is defined as,
"a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, a subjective test would be introduced; namely, whether the antisocial manner was motivated by an intention to harass or cause alarm or distress. I can imagine a jury becoming most confused when faced with both those options. I believe that members of a jury could become confused if they had to be advised on the exact meaning of both those expressions as regards what underlies the offence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I fully support my noble friend's amendment. A few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that a jury may
582
have to decide such issues. In fact, there are two stages set out in the clause. The first stage is that it must appear to "the authority," which is either the local authority or the police—not a jury—that the relevant conditions have been met. The amendment is addressed to that first stage. It is proposed that the antisocial manner should be defined in the way outlined by my noble friend.
The second stage is when the jury, or a magistrates' court, may become involved. That arises in subsection (10) of the clause, which says:
"If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an anti-social behaviour order, he shall be liable".
to the various penalties set out thereafter. Therefore, when it comes to the imposition of the criminal sanction, there is, presumably, a defence that the defendant has a "reasonable excuse" for what he has done. What my noble friend is suggesting is that one should, as it were, introduce the concept of the reasonable excuse before what he described as this dangerously wide order is imposed in the first place.
What concerns me is that at the stage when the local authority or the police are considering the making of this wide order, the person against whom the order is made may not be guilty of disturbing behaviour but of disturbed behaviour. Let us suppose someone who is mentally ill and is at large in the community is causing alarm and distress through his conduct. Is his mental illness not to be taken into account in the first place in the imposition of the order by the authority, and then can it be taken into account as a reasonable excuse if he should be subsequently charged with a criminal offence under subsection (10) at some later stage after the order is made? I believe there is a conflict between the first stage, the making of the order, and the further criminal stage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as this is Report stage I may not make another speech. However, will the noble Lord be so good as to bear in mind that although, as he rightly says, under subsection (1) there is the question of the making of an order by "a relevant authority", nevertheless the definition of the antisocial behaviour referred to in subsection (10) is dependent upon what is written into subsection (1) where the definition of antisocial behaviour appears? That is what we are concerned with.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I entirely agree with what he says. In a way he is making my point; namely, if you cannot commit the offence of being in breach of an antisocial order if you have a reasonable excuse, why should the order be made in the first place? Why should not the qualifications that my noble friend suggests in his amendment be before the authority who are minded to make the order in the first place? I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not find any inconsistency here. A relevant authority may apply for the order. However, there is a discretion under subsection (4) as regards the court. It does not have to

583
make an order; it may make an order. If there are mitigating circumstances and special considerations, the court retains under subsection (4)—as I see it, and I stand open to correction—a discretion whether or not to make the order. If that rather simple form of construction is correct, what is wrong with the clause?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I share the anxieties of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart. I do not know the right way to solve this problem. However, I am concerned that the phraseology of Clause 1 leaves open the possibility that an order may be made in circumstances where the alarm or distress caused was not, as it were, reasonable. Surely there should at least be a limitation that the alarm or distress is such as could be caused to a reasonable person and not just to any one person. That provision should be included as a minimum. I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
3.45 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, what underlies the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as I understand it, is a concern that there may be conduct which upon analysis does not justify the making of an antisocial behaviour order because it is either reasonable or not sufficiently serious to justify the making of an order. I believe that his concern is misplaced. I believe that insufficient attention has been given to the basic procedure which applies in relation to the making of such an order. Without being wearisome I hope I may indicate briefly what is involved.
The application for an order can be made only after consultation between the local authority and the police authority. There is no obligation on an authority which regards antisocial behaviour as taking place, or arguably taking place, to make such an application. Once it has consulted and decided to make the application, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rightly pointed out, there is a discretion on the part of the magistrates' court as to whether or not it makes an order. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, there is a specific provision in Clause 1(5) which requires the court, upon the application for an order being made, to,
"disregard any act of the defendant which he shows was reasonable in the circumstances".
Therefore there is the obligation to consult; there is the discretion as to whether to apply; there is the discretion on the part of the magistrates as to whether or not to grant the order; and there is the obligation on the part of the magistrates to remove from their consideration any conduct on the part of the defendant—the person against whom the application is made—which they regard as being reasonable in the circumstances.
We believe that that is safeguard enough to ensure that the orders are not made in inappropriate circumstances. Equally, we believe that one needs to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. We need to give magistrates a straightforward and clear test they can apply, which we believe our provision does. We believe that there are more than sufficient safeguards in the Bill as it is. I say with the greatest of respect to the noble
584
Lord, Lord Goodhart, that his amendment is unnecessary, misplaced and simply adds to complication where none is necessary.
I turn to the two elements in the amendment—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the Minister does that, can he explain what the Government have in mind by the expression "without reasonable excuse?" What kind of excuse would be reasonable for the breach of an antisocial order that had been made by a magistrates' court?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to start to define here what is a reasonable excuse because that quintessentially is a matter that magistrates decide on a day-to-day basis.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, an example as he made a strange noise when I said that. If, for example, the nature of the antisocial behaviour was continually to make a noise with a car, or a noise of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, makes from time to time, a reasonable excuse might be that a medical emergency required the arrival of a loud car at night to drive someone away. There is tremendous danger in someone seeking to indicate in this debate what constitutes reasonable excuse because then it would become defined. I say with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that I should have thought his vast experience in the courts would lead him to the conclusion that magistrates are wise enough and experienced enough to know a reasonable excuse when they see it. As one reads the provisions of the Bill, one can see that there is no conflict whatever between the criminal offence stage—namely, determining whether there is a breach of the order—and the stage at which one is considering whether to make the order.
I shall deal with the two elements of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. First, on the issue of specific intention, in considering whether to grant an order in the first place the courts will have to consider whether on the balance of probabilities the behaviour of the individual or the individuals was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress in the future. As I have already stated, the nature of this order is merely prohibitive. That is to say, a person subjected to the terms of an order is merely being asked to behave in a reasonable manner, in a way which is considered to be within the bounds of the law. We are not talking at this first stage about sanction for a criminal offence. Moreover, as I have indicated, a defence of reasonableness has been provided. Surely there can be no need to prove intent merely to seek an order which simply demands that a person acts reasonably. To ask for that would be to cut across one of the main purposes of the provision. We believe that it is the heedless, careless antisocial actions that the order needs to target, not just those with deliberate intent. The orders do not

585
simply duplicate that which is already provided in the Public Order Act 1986 and Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The prohibitive order is, as noble Lords know, backed by a criminal offence in the event of a breach, and this offers—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly pointed out, albeit with an air of bafflement—the defence of reasonable excuse. Someone who breaches the order will therefore not be liable to prosecution under the criminal law unless he wilfully breaches the order.
The second issue is whether the behaviour should be such as to cause "serious" or "justified" alarm or distress. For the reasons I have indicated, we do not feel this is necessary. I entirely agree that applications should not be brought where the behaviour at issue is trivial. But I believe that for the reasons I have indicated there are sufficient protections to prevent that happening. Moreover, the amendment makes the clause more difficult to understand and unnecessarily complicated. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Whether the making of an antisocial behaviour order is justified by the defendant's behaviour—it is an issue to which my amendment goes—is a matter for the court alone at the first stage of the procedure. If and when the matter comes before members of a jury, they will have to decide what will probably be a simple factual question: whether there has been a breach of the order; and, if so, whether the defendant has a reasonable excuse for it. Therefore the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are not justified by my amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, gave the answer I expected and foresaw; namely, that one can rely on the discretion of the local authority, the police or the courts to ensure that unjustifiable orders are not made. That is not good enough. As I said earlier, people should not be in danger of having antisocial behaviour orders made against them under the law and then having to rely on the discretion of the local authorities, the police or the courts to avoid having the order made against them. The level of conduct which triggers the order should in itself be high enough not to make it necessary in large numbers of cases to have to rely on the discretion of the courts.
I regret to say that I believe that Clause 1 as it now stands contains a potential—I hope that it will never be more than a potential—for a serious infringement of human rights. In those circumstances, I must seek the opinion of the House.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lane, L.

Addington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ludford, B.

Bellwin, L.

McNair, L.

Brightman, L.

McNally, L.

Calverley, L.

Maddock, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Coleridge, L.

Monson, L.

Dholakis, L.

Moyne, L.

Ezra, L.

Northboume, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Gainfotd, L.

Rochester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Goodhart, L. {Teller]

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harlech, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tope, L.

Holderness, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gilbert, L.

Alport, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Amos, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Annan, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hardie, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Blease, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blyth, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Crook, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kintore, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dixon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dubs, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Swing of Kirkford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milverton, L.

Fitt, L.

Molloy, L.

587

Monkswell, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Simon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Nelson, E.

Slim, V.

Nicol, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Palmer, L.

Stallard, L.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Strafford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Prys-Davies, L.

Tenby, V.

Putlnam, L.

Varley, L

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rea, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Wharton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Whitty, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sewel, L.

Winston, L.

Shepherd, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("less than two") and insert ("more than five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a variation on a pair of amendments, of which I moved one and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, moved the other at Committee stage.
In Committee, I argued that a total discretion ought to be given to the courts in terms of how long the period specified in the order ought to last. As the Bill is drafted, the antisocial behaviour order,
"shall have effect for a period (not less than two years)",
but no maximum is imposed. We argued that that could be left entirely to the courts and that the courts should be free to choose the length of time that they considered suitable without a minimum—or, for that matter, a maximum. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that it might be more appropriate that there should be a maximum figure. Therefore, I return to the matter with a variation whereby the minimum period, "not less than two years", should be deleted; but I have also specified a period not more than five years to make it clear that there is a maximum beyond which the courts should not go.
These are matters that can be left to the courts. I do not believe it is right that the court should be limited to a period greater than two years, with the possibility of removing the order with the consent of both parties as set out in subsection (9). I should be interested in hearing explanations from the Government as to why they feel that, again, not only should there be no minimum but also that there should be no maximum. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this amendment is on the lines of one that I moved in Committee. At that time I proposed a maximum period of two years. However,
588
I said then, and I repeat, that it could well be argued that a longer maximum is justifiable. In the circumstances, I am happy to support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment would change the nature of the antisocial behaviour order and what it is trying to achieve. We discussed this at some length during Committee when similar amendments to the clause were tabled.
We see the order as a tool to deal with a serious and escalating problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities. It is not to be used lightly. I hope that the procedures I set out in relation to the previous amendment made that clear. It is a last resort when other methods have failed. If it is not successful, as the structure of the order makes clear, the next step is the criminal law. We do not see it as a tool to deal with petty irritations, grievances or disputes between neighbours. The minimum two-year duration for an order is a mark of the seriousness with which we expect all those involved to view it. That is an important point. That includes the offender, the police, the local authority and the courts. Behaviour which does not merit a two-year order should not be dealt with in this way.
As regards the proposed five-year maximum duration for an order, I agree that an order going beyond this would only exceptionally be justified. For most cases, particularly young people, five years would be more than sufficient for such prohibitions. But I do not see any reason to limit the discretion of the courts where, exceptionally, an order is justified for a longer period. That is the line adopted for a restraining order in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and similar arguments apply.
I appreciate that our approach may seem severe. But we need to deal effectively with such behaviour to stamp it out. We do not underestimate the severity of the effect of such behaviour on people who are adversely affected by it. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept this amendment. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no intention of pressing the amendment today. However, I may wish to return to it at a later stage.
The noble and learned Lord talked in terms of not wishing to restrict the discretion of the court by not setting a maximum; however he does wish to restrict the discretion of the courts in setting a minimum. I should have thought that the courts are the best people to decide whether there might be occasions when a period of less than two years was appropriate. There might be a serious outbreak of antisocial behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress, but the courts might feel that a period shorter than two years—merely six months or a year—might be appropriate to deal with the mischief and prevent it recurring. It is certainly a matter that ought to be addressed.
Similarly, if the matter is of great seriousness, it is right that there ought to be a maximum period. If it is thought that a period longer than five years is

589
appropriate, then possibly other remedies ought to be pursued; or possibly the criminal law ought to be made use of.
Certainly there are arguments that imposing a limit on the courts indicates to them that they should think very seriously about the degrees of mischief that they are addressing between, say, one year and five years. Anything beyond that is a matter of much greater seriousness. One can envisage examples where the problem would be likely to continue for more than five years. I shall return to that minimum and maximum at a later stage because I believe the point is important. This afternoon I prefer to withdraw the amendment with a view to addressing it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("Subject to subsection (9) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, any bruising I may feel after the fairly clear rejection of my previous amendment is modified by my conviction that, if both the Government and the Opposition join forces against us, we must be in the right.
I asked for Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14 to be grouped together. They deal with two different subjects but there is a common link between them. Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12 deal with the exclusion of any power of the courts to discharge an antisocial behaviour order or a sex offender order without the consent of the applicant. Amendments Nos. 10 and 14 deal with the exclusion of the power to order a conditional discharge. They are two different subjects but they have a common theme, which is what I believe to be the Government's wholly unjustified refusal to trust the courts to act properly.
The Government appear to consider that the courts cannot be trusted to exercise the power to discharge an antisocial behaviour order within two years or a sex offender order within five years or the power to order a conditional discharge. My reaction to that is to ask: why ever not?
Let us look first at the power to order a discharge. The court has a discretion to make the order in the first place. As I said earlier, the antisocial behaviour order is a powerful order which should not be kept in place when it is not required. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, accepted in Committee on 3rd February (Hansard, col. 575) that there may be changes which fundamentally affect the basis of the order. He gave as an example the teenager who goes to college where he grows up and matures. The noble Lord said that he would expect no difficulty in discharging an order in such a case. I regret that I am not so confident.
The effect of the provisions covered by Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12 is to transfer the power of decision over discharge of an order from the court to the local authority or the chief officer of police. I believe that there are three objections to that. First, this in effect turns the applicant into a judge in his own cause, which I believe is wholly wrong in principle. Secondly, a local
590
authority is the wrong body to take decisions of this kind. It is likely to be influenced by political considerations of the popularity or unpopularity of the individual concerned and to play safe by refusing consent. Thirdly, I believe that it will create problems for the local authority or chief officer of police.
Since the power of decision has effectively been transferred from the court to the local authority or the chief officer, the local authority or the chief officer will have to consider in a judicial manner whether to consent to the discharge of the order. That decision is subject to judicial review. I believe that it is a burden which those bodies would prefer not to have and which it is not appropriate for them to have. It is surely better that a local authority or chief officer of police should put before the court any evidence that the order is still needed when the subject of the order makes the application for discharge and should be able, through their lawyers, to cross-examine the subject of the order on his evidence that the order is not needed.
The second aspect of failure of trust is the refusal to allow the power to order a conditional discharge. I ask again why on earth the court should not have power to order a conditional discharge. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in the same debate that a conditional discharge ignores the original order. He said:
"We have come to the policy conclusion that if, without reasonable excuse, which is a defence, a breach of the order occurs, it must mean that the defendant has continued in his actions in defiance of the court…It means that he has a pattern of behaviour that he either cannot or will not control".—[Official Report, 3/2/98; col. 605.]
I believe that that analysis totally ignores the reality of the situation. The reality is that many people will commit minor breaches of antisocial behaviour orders in circumstances where they do not have a reasonable excuse but where they equally have no intention of defying the court. Let us assume that an order requires a particular defendant to be in his house from 9 p.m. onwards every Saturday night because he is a troublemaker who has caused rows in the town centre late on Saturday evenings. He goes to the pub in good time, well before nine o'clock. Unfortunately, he fails to look at his watch and loses track of time. He is caught by the police sneaking back into his house at ten minutes past nine in the evening. Does he have a reasonable excuse? Manifestly, he does not. But is he acting in defiance of the court? Equally clearly, he is not. The fact is that there will be many trivial breaches.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, admitted in Committee when I put the question to him that the court can recognise that a breach is trivial by imposing a £5 fine. Why on earth, then, can the court not order a conditional discharge in circumstances such as I have described? That is surely a much more useful and appropriate remedy than a purely nominal fine. The court would be saying, "We accept that this is a trivial breach and is not deliberate, but you must be more careful. If you do it again, you will be in real and serious trouble." Why not trust the courts with powers of that kind? Why not give powers to the courts to discharge orders that are no longer needed? Why not allow courts to order conditional discharges?
No doubt the Government want to prove their toughness. It is, of course, right that seriously antisocial behaviour should be dealt with toughly. But there is a point at which toughness becomes authoritarianism. In restricting the power of the courts in the way proposed in the Bill, the Government have passed that point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows that as well as I do. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I was against the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on his previous amendment, on which he was defeated, I hope that the Government will give very sympathetic attention to this amendment. We must bear in mind that defendants may have become deeply ashamed of their antisocial behaviour. It may not take them very long to repent. We should not have orders of this kind in force longer than necessary, especially where young people are concerned. The late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx once said:
"A week is a long time in politics".
I can assure your Lordships, not without some experience, that two years can be a long time in law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend on these amendments, perhaps I may disagree with him on one matter. He says that there is a failure of trust in judges and magistrates on the part of the Government. I do not believe that there is a failure of trust. If there is a failure of trust in judges and magistrates doing their job properly, there is no objective evidence to justify it. Indeed, the evidence is all to the contrary. If the Government want toughness, the gaols are full to overcrowding.
As I see it, there is a continuation of an underlying theme from the last government that there is political capital to be made in castigating the judges as soft and projecting the Government as being tough. That is the theme that has run all the way through from mandatory sentences in the period of the last government to the restrictions on the powers of judges and magistrates as contained in the Bill. There is nothing to support that. For those reasons I ask the Government to think again and leave the discretion to the magistrates and judges to do what is appropriate and right in terms of these orders.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have a degree of sympathy for the first half of the group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, where he is seeking to give a discretion to the courts to discharge an order before the end of the period of two years. I have less sympathy with the second half of the group and would therefore be grateful for a degree of clarification from him when he comes to respond to the Minister as to how he intends to proceed. It is unlikely that we can support Amendment No. 6 if it means supporting all the amendments in the group. As he put it, they divide into two distinct categories.
As regards the first half of that group, though it is not grouped with them, Amendment No. 8 in my name and that of my noble friend deals with this issue in a slightly simpler manner. It leaves all the provisions as they are but gives a discretion to the court—where it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating
592
to the offender or the offence which justify it in so doing—to discharge an order without the consent of the two parties. However, it makes it absolutely clear that if the court does so, it shall clearly state its reasons.
As I said, I should be grateful for clarification from the noble Lord when he responds to the Minister as to how he intends to proceed with the two categories of amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, these amendments deal with two different issues: first, they give the court power to discharge antisocial behaviour orders and sex offender orders before they reach the end of their duration as ordered by the court; secondly, they give the court power to order a conditional discharge where there has been a breach of either the antisocial behaviour order or the sex offender order.
Perhaps at the outset I can deal with two completely unfounded points that were made. First, it was suggested that the provisions in the Bill as it is presently drafted indicate that somehow the Government do not trust the judiciary or the magistrates. That is quite wrong. I draw attention specifically to the fact that on the previous amendment the complaint being made was that we were giving too much discretion to the magistrates' court. It would appear therefore that in stage one we are giving too much discretion and in stage two, too little.
I believe that the approach we have taken in relation to both not giving a right to discharge against the consent of the local authority and not saying a conditional discharge is available, is based entirely on matters of practicality, which I hope to make out now. The second point was that we are simply trying to appear to be tough. That is quite wrong; we are simply trying to be practical.
Perhaps I can deal first with the minimum duration of the orders and the issue of discharge before this. The Bill as drafted at present allows for an order to be discharged if both sides agree. Such circumstances for an antisocial behaviour order might include a move to a different area, or a teenager going away to college—the kind of change which fundamentally affects the basis of the order. If there is such a fundamental change, there will be no basis for the local authority or the chief officer of police to refuse to consent to a discharge. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, there would be judicial remedies not in the magistrates' court if there was a problem in relation to that. Moreover, even without consent, the orders can be varied to reduce or change their conditions.
We do not believe it would be sensible to go further than that. An order is not a penalty. Antisocial behaviour orders should only prohibit antisocial behaviour, not interfere in the defendant's everday lawful and socially acceptable activities. Such an order carries no criminal record implications. We do not want to open up an area of continued dispute over possible early cessation of the orders, which would be the effect of the amendment. The defendant should be well aware that the kind of activity prohibited is unacceptable to society; he should cease that activity; and the order can run its length without adverse effect.

593
To turn to sex offender orders, we need to take a realistic approach. In reality, where an order has been established as necessary and a court has accepted that, the need for it will not go away. The circumstances may change but, unless something exceptional happens, the risk to the public will remain. We could not support the dilution of that position where a matter as serious as this is concerned.
The antisocial behaviour order should not be seen as banning activity which will become acceptable in time. Antisocial activity is simply not acceptable. That is what the order is about. Nor is the need to control the activities of a sex offender likely to change. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendments relating to discharge without the consent of the local authority or the chief officer of police.
To turn now to the issue of conditional discharge for breach of the orders, I understand why noble Lords have tabled these amendments since, at first sight, not to allow a conditional discharge for the breach of an order could be seen as fettering the discretion of the court. Let me explain why I do not feel that to be the case.
For an antisocial behaviour order to be imposed, prior to the order the defendant had acted in an antisocial way. We assume that he had not been prepared to stop those actions voluntarily. Though it is not within the legislation, the guidance will make clear that normally other means short of court action, such as mediation, should have been explored. The antisocial behaviour order, as I made clear in the course of the last debate, stands as a last resort against the individual concerned short of, if an offence is committed, invoking the criminal law.
For a sex offender order the defendant's original behaviour, although it may appear trivial, has been sufficient to convince the police and subsequently the courts that there is reasonable cause to believe that the public are at risk of serious harm from him. The prohibitions are justified as necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
This is a clear message to the defendant. The order is saying, "Continue in this behaviour and you will be in serious trouble. If you breach the order, there will be consequences under the criminal law". But to make a conditional discharge following a breach appears to ignore all that. The prohibition on the behaviour is already present in the original order. It does not need to be repeated. And the flouting by the defendant of the authority of the court is ignored.
Let me take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The defendant has behaved in a specific way which, after mediation and the exercise of all the considerations to which I referred, led to the court making an order which says, "Do not do this. If you do, you will be in breach of the criminal law". He does it. He is in breach of the criminal law and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is suggesting that the criminal law should say, "If you do it again, you will then suffer consequences". We do not believe that to be
594
appropriate. As a matter of commonsense it does not seem to us to be the way to stop people behaving in an antisocial manner.
I should perhaps make one final point specifically on the sex offender order. The defendant has been able to show no reasonable excuse for the breach of the order, where he is convicted of a breach. Without such excuse, the breach of the order means that the defendant has continued in the action in defiance of the court, and in the knowledge that his conduct will be viewed in that way. That suggests that this is a pattern of behaviour that he cannot control. This is a serious matter in relation to sex offender orders, especially in the context of behaviour which has been established as needing to be prohibited because of the risk of serious harm to the public.
For those reasons, after careful consideration, the Government cannot accept these amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that we were being inconsistent in saying that the courts had too much discretion in the making of an antisocial behaviour order and too little discretion in the punishment. That difference is because these are two entirely different kinds of discretion. As far as concerns the definition, we are saying that anything that is likely to give rise to a penalty—this is a penalty: it may be a civil penalty at stage one rather than a criminal penalty—must be clearly defined in the Act which creates that penalty. We should not rely on the courts to apply that as a matter of discretion and to use their discretion to prevent the law having an unjust and excessive operation.
When it comes to the question of imposing a penalty, which is what this group of amendments is concerned with, it is right that the courts should be given a very wide discretion. That is a matter not just to do with these orders but of the general principles of law.
As far as concerns the discharge of the order, the noble and learned Lord said that the order is not a penalty. However, if it is not a criminal penalty, it is at least a civil penalty. One of the principles of civil penalties, as with injunctions, is that they are always subject to discharge when the circumstances no longer justify them. That is recognised in principle because there is a power here to discharge. All we are saying is that the appropriate body to decide whether the discharge is justified is the court and not the local authority or the chief officer of police.
On the question of conditional discharges, I accept that the defendant will have acted in an antisocial way before an antisocial behaviour order is made. I certainly hope, though the Bill does not in itself make it clear, that this will be regarded as a last resort for dealing with the problem. But it is wholly contrary to common sense to suggest that there is no such thing as a trivial breach of the order. Clearly, the order cannot just say, "You must not continue to behave in an antisocial manner". It must lay down parameters of what the defendant can or cannot do. Those parameters may be broken. When they are broken, the matter should come before the

595
court. But the breach of the antisocial behaviour order may or may not be a serious one. It is perfectly possible for there to be a trivial one. The courts will have a power to impose a nominal fine. I say again, why on earth should they not have power to order a conditional discharge?
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me how I intended to proceed. My noble friends and I regard this as a serious matter on which we intend to test the opinion of the House. I do not intend to make a habit of that and it will be some time before we proceed to do it again in the course of this debate. However, together with the earlier amendment, we regard this as a very serious matter, indicating, if not distrust of the power of the courts, at least, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, a reluctance to allow them to exercise their powers freely.
I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 6, which is in effect a paving amendment. If that is defeated, I will not seek to take the matter further on Amendments Nos. 10 and 14. If it succeeds, we might have to look at that again. I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 6.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Calverley, L.

Ludford, B.

Carlisle, E.

McNair, L.

Cox, B.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

Ezra, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

Newby, L.

Geraint, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Grey, K.

Renton, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Russell, E.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thurso.V.

Kenyon, L.

Tope, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blease, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Borrie, L.

Alport, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Barnett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Berkeley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Biffen, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

596

David, B.

Longford, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milverton, L.

Dubs, L.

Molloy, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Ely, Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Evaas of Parkside, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nelson, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Gaiasborough, E.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hardie, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Gilmorchill, B.

Hoyle, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Strafford, E.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tenby, V.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Varley, L.

Jeger, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Whitty, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or offence which justify its doing so, in which case the court shall state its reasons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intend to speak to this amendment very briefly in order to ask just one question. We have already debated this matter. In the event we decided that we could not offer our support on these matters to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. The question deals with when the court is able to discharge such orders in under two years without the agreement of the two parties. We have been told that the orders have to last for two years.
Bearing in mind the response that I received from the noble and learned Lord regarding a previous amendment when he said that the two-year limit was there because it indicated the seriousness with which these matters should be viewed, can he inform us why these matters are considered to be very serious in England and Wales where an order must be for two years, but not, as I see from Clause 20(7), in Scotland where no such limit applies? I daresay I shall be told that things are different in Scotland. If these matters are considered to be so serious in England that the order must be for at least two years, I do not see why the same should not apply in Scotland. In addition, if it does not apply in Scotland, I do not see why we need such a limit in England and Wales. I shall be grateful for a response from the noble and learned Lord on that matter. It is probably a matter to which I shall return when I return to something similar to Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, advised me on the first occasion that I spoke that one should never get into matters relating to Scotland lest one did now know what one was talking about. I have set out in detail what is the justification for a minimum two-year period in relation to England. I am told that the different criminal procedure in Scotland makes it desirable for there to be no limit of that sort in relation to Scotland. It would not be sensible for me to go further than that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very interested in that response, particularly as the noble and learned Lord has his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate sitting next to him. As I said, I intend to return to this matter. I try to avoid getting involved in matters relating to Scotland—and I say that as someone who lives very close to it. I accept that the legal system is different there.
When the noble and learned Lord put the arguments in favour of having the two-year minimum period for the sentence, he said it was because the Government wanted to indicate the seriousness of the orders. The same must also apply in Scotland, and therefore similar rules ought to apply there. I do not intend to pursue the matter at this stage particularly as I do not have my noble and learned friend sitting next to me to assist me in arguing these issues with both noble and learned Lords.
I hope that one, if not both, of them can write to me giving some indication as to why Scotland should be treated differently in these matters and why the arguments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, put forward were valid for England, but not for Scotland. I hope that they can write to me between now and a later stage. I might come back to the matter at that later stage. I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to press me before I sit down.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would not dream of pressing the noble Lord. Perhaps I may assist slightly further. There has been consultation in both England, Wales and Scotland as regards this issue. The
598
consultation about England and Wales favoured a minimum duration, whereas there was no such feeling in relation to Scotland. So we reflect the difference, quite rightly, between the two.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that they responded to consultation and that is very good. That consultation indicated a different approach in the two countries. But the arguments he put forward earlier were not the same. They were arguments based on the fact that the orders should be taken so seriously that they should be made only for a period of two years or more.
I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord has said and I look forward to receiving a letter from both noble and learned Lords in due course setting out their arguments in slightly greater detail. However, I may wish to return to this matter at a later stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee two alternative amendments were tabled to limit the sentencing powers of the court for breach of an antisocial behaviour order. One of those versions sought to make the breach punishable as a contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 rather than as a criminal offence. The other amendment sought to retain such a breach as a criminal offence, but to restrict the maximum sentence under Clause 1 to two years. Both amendments would have had the effect of reducing the maximum sentence to a period of two years, which is the maximum punishment for contempt under the 1981 Act.
There are considerable advantages in using the contempt of court punishment, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out in Committee. In particular, a defendant, if punished for contempt of court, can be released on an apology and with adequate assurances of future good behaviour. As a result of the breach, a defendant does not become a criminal and is not technically a convicted person.
However, the Government have made it clear that they intend to treat a breach of an antisocial behaviour order as a criminal offence, and they have said that they regard that as a fundamental aspect of the Bill. In those circumstances, we have not tabled an amendment suggesting that the punishment should be that for contempt of court. We accept that one advantage for the defendant of treating the matter as a criminal offence is that he will have the right to a jury trial.
However, one may ask: why a five-year maximum? A breach of an antisocial behaviour order may, and often will, consist of actions which themselves are crimes. If so, the defendant can be punished for those crimes and can be separately charged with a separate offence of a breach of an antisocial behaviour order, possibly leading to a consecutive sentence. That course might be appropriate to mark a breach of the order, but I cannot see any circumstances in which it would be

599
appropriate to give a consecutive sentence for a period as long as five years. If the breach of the antisocial behaviour order is not itself a criminal offence, I regard it as inconceivable that it would be possible to justify a five-year sentence for that breach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said on 3rd February:
"there may well be extreme circumstances where a five-year sentence would be justified. I can easily conceive of those circumstances".—[Official Report, 3/2/98; co1.605.]
I have great difficulty in doing so.
The noble Lord may have had in mind repeat offences, but, if so, a two-year sentence seems an adequate maximum. If the defendant is released at the end of serving that sentence and breaches an antisocial behaviour order again, back to prison he will go on, no doubt, another two-year sentence. The same is true of the maximum period for breach of a sex offender order (Amendment No. 13). In those circumstances, I ask the Government to reconsider the extraordinarily long five-year sentence for breach of an antisocial behaviour order. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in Committee I suggested that it was somewhat ironic that the Labour Party (which all through the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s constantly castigated the Conservatives for introducing or advocating ever-higher maximum sentences, maintaining instead that what deters criminals is not higher sentences, but the near-certainty of detection) now seems to be donning some of the Conservatives' clothes with regard to sentencing policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, a five-year maximum seems ridiculously high for someone who contravenes an antisocial behaviour order. I know that we shall be told that a five-year sentence is only a maximum and that in practice that sentence may never be imposed—that is true—but the maximum is nevertheless a marker and, as such, is likely to lead to higher average sentences than would otherwise be the case. For that reason, I warmly support Amendment No. 9.
I was tempted to add my name also to Amendment No. 13—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke to this amendment although it has been grouped with Amendment No. 9—as, in most cases, a five-year maximum would, in my view, be excessively high for breach of a sex offender order. We must remember that many sex offences consist of nothing much more serious than an "Oval Office-style grope", so to speak. However, as a small proportion of past offenders were convicted of very much more serious offences, it would perhaps be dangerous to lower the maximum, so I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment No. 13.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I support the amendment. Unfortunately, I was not present for Committee stage, but I have read what went on. I think that this reduction is right. It happens to be the same as the two-year sentence for contempt of court. I believe that the amendment before the Committee related to that. It is right to have the same maximum here. Clearly,
600
if a former prisoner misbehaves after release, it is right that he should receive the same penalty as is given for contempt of court.
Apart from anything else, I find the five-year maximum extraordinary. I cannot imagine that any Labour Minister would feel it right to put on the statute book a maximum sentence of five years, especially if that will increase the number of prisoners. I have heard the noble Lord who is going to reply on this amendment saying—no doubt gently but teasing the Opposition—that the Labour Party is pure and clean and has no responsibility for the fact that there are 60,000 prisoners in our prisons; that since this Government have been in office, between 5,000 and 6,000 more have been added to the prison population; and that that is only another 10 per cent.—a mere trifle. However, provisions such as this, which seek to impose five-year sentences for comparatively minor trouble, will bring us up to the 100,000 prisoner mark—and it will be the Government who are responsible for that, not the Opposition.
I believe that the Government owe it to the House to explain why they have specified a high maximum sentence for a comparatively minor offence. I am not saying that it is not an offence, because it is a substantial offence, but it is not the greatest of offences. It is not as serious an offence as, for example, grievous bodily harm.
We were reminded a short time ago that a week is a long time in politics. It certainly can be sometimes. I believe that a week in prison is a long time and that it would do sentencers and Front-Benchers a great deal of good if they spent a week in prison so that they would know how long such a sentence really is. They would find it extremely upsetting. Even an introduction to prison is bad enough. I believe that in the majority of cases prison sentences should be considered in terms of weeks or even months, but not in terms of years. I am very sorry that this Government of all governments should seek to push through this provision. I very much hope that they will think again and indicate that at Third Reading they may relent.
5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the maximum sentence for contempt of court, to which I referred at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Goodhart also referred to it a moment ago. Your Lordships will recall that, in addition to the two-year maximum sentence for contempt of court for breach of a court order, there is a provision in the prison rules that the person who suffers imprisonment as a result of the contempt is kept separate and apart from prisoners who are convicted of ordinary crimes in the criminal courts. I urged the Government to accept that that was the proper way of dealing with this matter. That argument was not accepted and we have not persisted in it. However, we persist in relation to the five-year maximum sentence.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for writing to me on 3rd March on this topic. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I challenged the

601
noble Lord, Lord Williams, to come up with a set of facts that would justify a maximum sentence of five years. In his letter of 3rd March he painted a scenario that was intended to be illustrative only. Grateful to him as I am for taking the trouble to do that, I regret that I cannot accept anything approaching a five-year sentence for the scenario that he has painted.
It is of interest that on Friday last a sentencing conference took place in Cardiff. The nature of that conference will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The morning was spent discussing sentencing. There was discussion of various sentences for serious crimes in the region of two to four years both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. Following lunch, we were addressed by the Minister in the other place, Mr. Alun Michael. I put to him the question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I asked what possible set of circumstances he could envisage to justify anything approaching a five-year sentence for breach of an antisocial behaviour order when another more serious crime had not been committed. Although some explanation was provided, that explanation was not satisfactory either to me or to the professional judges with whom I later conversed. The idea that breach an order of this kind should be placed above various other serious offences was one which the professional judges simply could not accept.
The only justification put forward for the five-year maximum is that that was the maximum sentence imposed in the dying days of the previous government under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We opposed the maximum sentence in that Act. It is sad to see a Labour Government repeating the same error.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not intend to make a Second Reading or Committee speech. To look at each particular component of this Bill as though it stands entirely alone is perhaps a fallacious approach. We have proposed a regime that is intended to stop young offenders from offending at a very young age. The components of that regime are to assist young offenders and prevent continuing crime. But if in this context a crime has been committed we must look at what the penalty should be.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that these are comparatively minor troubles. They are not if one is at the receiving end of them. I understand the concerns of noble Lords in relation to antisocial behaviour. I make two points. First, it is a maximum penalty only and need not be applied by the courts, and it will be subject to appeal in the usual way. Secondly, we believe that it will be used rarely but that its existence is necessary to show how seriously the community regards this kind of behaviour, which often goes unpunished, which means that at the moment the community is unprotected. There may be occasions when it is appropriate: continuing or escalating serious antisocial behaviour, possibly in a racist context or possibly not, in spite of warnings that action will be taken for a breach, or even continuing actions by way of breach while the action for the original breach is before the court.
602
I stress that this is a maximum penalty and it does not have to be used. We believe that it has the virtue of being there to indicate that in the gravest, grossest circumstances that is the penalty which is available. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has indicated, it is the maximum penalty—I know that he disagrees with it—for protection against harassment. Perhaps it is difficult for some of us who have not been at the receiving end of continued antisocial conduct to realise how it can grievously wound an individual's entitlement to live a reasonably calm and ordered existence without constant aggressive action by others.
I turn to sex offender orders. As indicated earlier by the noble Lord who spoke to this matter, Amendment No. 13 is grouped with Amendment No. 9. We believe that breach of a sex offender order without reasonable excuse is a serious matter. We all know the dangers of it. We know the concerns of parents and those who have to care for small children. I repeat that five years is the maximum penalty. The courts can impose a lighter sentence, and that is a matter for their discretion. There may be some circumstances in which five years is the right sentence. We do not believe that we should remove the options where they are justified.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not respond to his wider views on sentencing generally. With great respect to him, I believe that that may be part of another debate on another occasion. We cannot accept these amendments.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, nothing that the Minister has said convinces me that there is any need for a sentence of as long as five years or that it is appropriate to retain that in the Bill as it stands. However, I am conscious that we have a lot of business to get through. The reason I do not take the matter further is my belief that a five-year sentence will in practice never be applied. Therefore, we are not talking about something which in practice is likely to be as serious an infringement of rights as some of the other provisions of the Bill may be. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Sex offender orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Sex offender orders: supplemental]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a sex offender order is, as I described the antisocial behaviour order earlier, an extremely powerful sentence. Of the two it is clearly the more powerful. It lasts for a minimum period of five years and makes the defendant subject to notification regulations under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. A breach carries a five-year penalty. My noble friends and I believe that it is wholly inappropriate to make this order where the triggering offence is one that has been dealt

603
with by a caution. A caution is given where an offence has been admitted but is not so serious as to justify prosecution.
When I raised this matter at Committee stage the noble Lord said that,
"the reason [for the caution] may be that the complainant is simply not up to the trauma of giving evidence in court".—[Official Report, 3/2/98; col. 626.]
I suggest that that is very unlikely to be the reason because the defendant has to admit the offence before the decision can be taken to caution him. If the defendant has committed the offence, if he is not cautioned but taken to trial it must surely be that a guilty plea is virtually inevitable.
The sex offender order seems to be directed, mainly if not entirely, and rightly, at paedophiles. We want to stop the situation that we have seen reported in the newspapers recently of a paedophile, released from prison, who has been discovered hanging around a children's library. I do not believe that paedophile offences are ever likely to be the subject of a caution after there has been an admission of guilt.
Cautions are likely to be imposed for different kinds of offences, in particular, for the unwanted grope at the office party or the 16 year-old boy who is having sex with his 15 year-old girlfriend. Such a case does not lead to the circumstances where a sex offender order is necessary or appropriate. The sex offender order should be confined to cases where the defendant has been duly convicted in a court and not where he has merely been cautioned. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Government do not appear to have carried out any analysis of the sex offences for which cautions are administered. I accept entirely what my noble friend said a moment ago: where there is anything approaching a serious sexual offence, a caution would never be administered and the person would appear before the court to be convicted if he is guilty of the offence.
The type of circumstances to which my noble friend referred, where something is much less worthy of opprobrium, are circumstances where cautions would be administered. This is far too serious an order to be imposed in such circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment raises the issue of why a sex offender who has only merited a caution would still be caught by the Bill's provision in relation to sex offender orders.
There is a good reason for that, just as there is a good reason why such offenders are covered by the registration provisions in Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. We all know that some sex offenders are likely to repeat their offences and that sex offenders may start with minor offences and progress to more major ones. That is sad but nevertheless true. We may not be able to judge conclusively if that will happen with any individual but we can reach a judgment on the basis of some kind of risk assessment. That is being seen as an ever more crucial part in dealing with sex offenders and in protecting the public from their abuse.
604
But what matters in any such assessment is both the nature of the original offence and the up-to-date assessment of the offender. How the offender was dealt with at the time of the original offence is not a material factor in the subsequent assessment of risk. There may have been particular reasons for the original disposal—trauma of the complainant, the defendant's age, the promise of a supportive environment to help him overcome his problems or other reasons. Those may have since changed. But the offence was still committed—admission of the offence is a necessary element in a caution—and the risk of re-offending still remains.
I doubt very much whether there will be many, if any, orders made in those circumstances, but we cannot afford to rule out the possibility, just as we could not afford to rule it out from registration under the Sex Offenders Act. To do so would jeopardise our aim of protecting the public in a way which we feel is unnecessary and unjustified. We have thought carefully about it. We feel that it is justified. In those circumstances, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that the Government could reach a judgment on the basis of some kind of risk assessment. It does not appear that any such risk assessment has yet been carried out. I regret that this penalty is being introduced before a risk assessment is looked at. The whole point of a caution is that it is not a penalty, although it may be taken into account if there is a subsequent offence within a certain period of time.
The effect of the legislation is that the person who is cautioned will indeed be exposed to a penalty. The penalty is the possibility that he will be put into the class of people against which a sex offender order can be made. That is a matter which causes me serious concern, but due to the pressure of time I do not propose to press this amendment to a vote this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Formulation and implementation of strategies]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert ("(taking due account of the knowledge and experience of persons in the area)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the government amendment changes the basis by which reviews of the levels and patterns of crime and disorder are carried out. That is in relation to the Bill's provisions with regard to the developing of a strategy in relation to crime and disorder. Before the proposed amendment, the onus was on the police and local authorities to review these and carry out some analysis of the review before consulting the public. That approach ran the risk of the results of the review being published before they were verified against public perceptions. The amendment we are proposing will involve the local community from the

605
start of the process. It will be able to express its concerns about both the actuality of crime and disorder and, as importantly, the fear of crime. The crime and disorder strategies will then address both those concerns and will gain credulity in the eyes of the community. The post-legislative guidance we shall be issuing will stress the need to establish the levels of fear of crime and to act to reduce them if necessary.
Amendment No. 18 is grouped with Amendment No. 19. That is an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others, which includes a provision that in preparing a strategy the relevant body should carry out a review of the fear created by crime and disorder in the area. It is inevitable that the levels of the fear of crime would be determined during the consultation with the local community. The practical effect of this second amendment is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the amendment that the Government propose. In view of that, I hope that noble Lords supporting the amendment will be satisfied and will, accordingly, withdraw their amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall do even better than that and not bother to move my amendment. It gives me the opportunity to discuss this issue and to raise the question of the fear of crime so that the Government can make their position clear.
It was brought to my attention by bodies representing a number of pensioners and pensioner organisations that fear of crime was as serious a problem as crime itself. That was a matter addressed in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, when he gave the example of his brother, who is a minister in a fairly law-abiding part of west Scotland, who was unable to hold meetings in the evenings because, even though there was relatively little justification for it, many of the elderly residents were frightened of going out due to a fear of crime.
I therefore tabled the amendment merely to rehearse some of those views and seek the Government's response. I am grateful that the Government have taken that point on board and have come forward with Amendment No. 18 which, as the noble and learned Lord put it, addresses our concerns.
I have one other related question which goes back to Clause 5 rather than Clause 6. Clause 5(2) provides for responsible authorities acting in co-operation with the listed persons and bodies. Subsection (2)(c) refers to:
"every person or body of a description which is for the time being prescribed by order of the Secretary of State under this subsection".
I presume that in due course the Secretary of State will issue a circular to the responsible authorities setting out who those persons are. Will the regulations which come before the House be under the affirmative or negative procedure? Will the noble and learned Lord elaborate on that issue and make it clear to the House that among those consulted will be bodies representing the elderly and pensioners as well as many others? Will the noble and learned Lord explain whom he believes the Secretary of State will suggest and what guidance will be given?
606
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward Amendment No. 18. I give an assurance that once the House has accepted that I shall not move my Amendment No. 19.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord for his remarks in this connection. I believe that Amendment No. 19 puts the case more frankly, but perhaps the wording is too emotive. In recent days, I have received representations from organisations representing the elderly and pensioners expressing their concern about the fear which those people have of crime. Although many senior police officers will say that many of those fears are exaggerated and stoked up by the media, for whatever purpose, the reality is that in recent years crime has increased substantially, whatever the statistics may show to the contrary. Therefore, it is essential to take into account the feelings of local people in this respect, and I welcome the noble and learned Lord's remarks.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand that we are discussing Amendment No. 20 with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are discussing the Government's Amendment No. 18 and my Amendment No. 19.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. In spite of what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, we will come to Amendment No. 20 in a moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have come forward with the amendment. I have received a number of representations about the matter. Although I wish the amendment were more strongly worded, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I know that the aim is the same and I thank the Government for bringing it forward.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I put my name to Amendment No. 19 and I am delighted that the sentiment will be contained in the Bill. I wish to stress the extent of the fear of crime and to cite an example from a survey carried out by the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners which I received today. It indicates the extent of fear among old people. Of the 300 respondents—they are waiting for the results from 20,000 others-56 per cent. go out less at night due to fear of crime; 45 per cent. feared crime against the person and property; 71 per cent. felt that policing levels in the neighbourhood were inadequate; and 13 per cent. had been the victims of bogus callers. Amendment No. 18 will go a long way to redress that situation. If the aim of the Bill is to adopt the multi-agency approach in dealing with crime and disorder it is right and proper that an audit of the fear of crime is undertaken. Furthermore, old people should have a place at the table during discussions about the fear of crime. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for indicating that he will not move his Amendment No. 19.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions about Clause 5(2)(c). It refers to:
"every person or body of a description which is for the time being prescribed by order of the Secretary of State under this subsection".
The order will be a statutory instrument by negative resolution. The precise details of how that will be dealt with are set out in Clause 92(2).
We have not yet decided which the prescribed bodies will be and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for his suggestions. They will probably include bodies such as social housing providers, environmental health officers and voluntary organisations. I am sorry that I cannot go further at this stage, but I believe that that answers most of the noble Lord's questions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 3, after ("meetings") insert ("which are easily accessible to the elderly and disabled").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment continues on the same theme, It addresses directly the risk that the fear of crime may prevent certain sections of the community from attending a public meeting on a crime and disorder strategy. My amendment refers to the elderly and disabled.
It also addresses the more general issue of access, which is important. It is not merely access for elderly or disabled people, important though that is, but access in terms of time. If, for example, as a result of worries about crime at night it was believed that meetings should be held during the day, one would have to make arrangements to allow for those who are at work during the day and can attend meetings only in the evening.
I appreciate that the amendment might be inadequately drafted, but its purpose is to ensure that meetings are held in ways and at times that enable as many people as possible, from as wide a section of the community as possible, at some time or another, and at some place or another, to attend and contribute to the development of the crime and disorder strategies which are set out in Clauses 5 and 6. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard this as an important and necessary amendment. The elderly and disabled are most vulnerable to criminal attacks, even in their own homes. Recently, we have seen reports of appalling cases in which people living alone have been assaulted and sometimes killed and anything of value in their home has been stolen. Those people really should be at the meetings which are envisaged. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment which is extremely important.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, there is one small point which I wish to make. It would be better to insert the word "people" or "persons" so that the amendment reads,
"which are easily accessible to persons who are elderly and disabled".
or,
"accessible to elderly and disabled people".
It is important not to forget that people are people first and foremost, whatever their disability or age.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be difficult to oppose the sentiment underlying this amendment as it is the Government's intention to encourage widely-based consultation during the crime and disorder analysis stage of developing local strategies. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I accept also what the noble Baroness said in relation to ensuring that the elderly and disabled are treated as people rather than as something else.
However, in practical terms, as a matter of legislation, there may be occasions when complying with the legal requirement proposed could result in it being impossible to hold meetings in some communities because an appropriate venue was not available. Therefore, a more appropriate way forward to deal with that important issue is for the non-statutory guidance that will accompany the legislation to urge specifically the use of a venue which will encourage as many people as possible to take part in the process and which will be readily accessible by elderly and disabled people.
I am happy to give an undertaking that the guidance will contain such advice. By doing that, the particular needs of every member of the community, whether from minority groups, the young, elderly people or disabled people, will be recognised but the practical difficulties of making such a specific legal requirement as that proposed will be avoided. The views of such vulnerable groups can be sought by other means apart from public meetings, if necessary. We should bear that in mind in developing our strategies. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start with an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I have been a Minister in a number of different departments with responsibility for disability issues. I should have known far better than to use the word "disabled". We have seen a development of the use of language over the years and we have begun to get away from crude terms such as "the disabled". We have moved on to the phrase "disabled people". The noble Baroness may remember that we then moved on to an expression, which was rather a mouthful, which was "people with disabilities". However, we have now moved back to "disabled people" which is a more satisfactory form of words. I deeply regret that I did not think of that when drafting the amendment and should I wish to return to the matter I shall make sure that I get those matters right.
Having said that, I have no plans to return to this matter because I am satisfied with the answer given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He states

609
that there will be non-statutory guidance which is obviously the appropriate manner in which to proceed. That guidance will set out how the responsible authorities are to go about the consultation process.
The Bill refers to "public meetings or otherwise". I trust that we shall have an opportunity to see the draft guidance in due course. I hope that the guidance will make it clear that where possible public meetings should be held and that the "or otherwise" is very much an "or otherwise" and should not be used with great frequency. Where public meetings are held, all that can be done should be done to make sure that they are as accessible as possible in relation to both time and place and that as many people as possible can attend. On the basis of such an assurance from the noble and learned Lord, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 21:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
PROSTITUTION BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
(".—(1) Section I of the Street Offences Act 1959 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) It shall be an offence for a woman who has attained the age of 18 to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution."
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
"(5) An authorised person (as defined in section 31 of the Children Act 1989) may apply to the court for an order to be made under section 44 of that Act with respect to a child who loiters or solicits in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution."
(4) In paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (penalty for offence committed under section 23 (procuration of girl under twenty-one)), for the words "Two years", in both places in which they occur, substitute "Four years".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 was printed last Thursday and I apologise for the fact that it appears not to have been available generally until yesterday. However, the Government and some of your Lordships have had much longer notice of it than that.
The amendment follows directly from a long sequence of work which led to legislation penalising the organisers of sex tourism overseas and giving extra-territorial jurisdiction to the British courts in cases involving sexual abuse of people under 18 in countries overseas.
For some years now there has also been concern about child prostitution in this country. The Children's Society, Barnardos, and other voluntary organisations together with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Directors of Social Services and, in particular, the Magistrates' Association have all asked for better and more consistent inter-agency co-operation plus changes in the law.
This Government claim to be a listening government, and I am glad that that is so. Therefore, I urge them to take heed of the advice from the expert groups which are most directly involved in this matter. What is the extent of the problem? In the seven years to 1996, 4,495 cautions and convictions were recorded against
610
children involved in prostitution. Yet, in a similar six-year period, there were only six convictions of adults for procuring children for prostitution. It appears that those figures gravely understate the scale of the evil.
The evidence from the Children's Society's five streetwork projects in England and Wales shows that each year substantial numbers of children and young people, some of them as young as 10 or 12, run away from their families and from the care of local authorities. They seek to escape physical, emotional and sexual abuse and other acute forms of bullying. Many of those children become homeless and destitute. They have no access to social security. They may be, or may become, addicted to drugs and alcohol. Such addictions are often used by pimps as a means of control.
Voluntarily or otherwise, large numbers of children become trapped each year in prostitution. In my opinion, all those children need protection, education and rehabilitation. Above all, they need loving care from adults whom they can trust.
The purpose of the proposed clause is to try to ensure that young people under the age of 18 receive the protection they need when they are at risk or already involved in prostitution. That approach complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which this country ratified in 1991. Articles 3, 19, 34 and 35 of the convention are particularly relevant.
Police cautioning of such young people is not a sufficient or satisfactory approach. On the other hand, prosecution may take a considerable time and is not in itself a desirable option unless it means that the young person is quickly moved to a safe environment and is then effectively rehabilitated. Conviction may also become a bar to gaining employment.
For those reasons, the Children Act is the right framework to use. That is why subsection (3) of the amendment refers specifically to that Act in an enabling way. Sections 17, 20 and 47 of the Act already place relevant duties on the local authority. Sections 22, 24 and 31 are also likely to be helpful.
In Subsection (3) of the amendment, "an authorised person" would normally mean a local authority or an approved voluntary organisation. The purpose of subsection (2) is to continue for women over the age of 18 the offence of loitering or soliciting for prostitution. The options of cautioning or prosecution, therefore, remain open for these people. The purpose of subsection (4) is to increase the maximum penalty for acting as a pimp from two years' to four years' imprisonment, although I understand that at present such people cannot be remanded in custody. That may be a weakness which should later be addressed. The existing legislation on the subject is the Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 23 of which refers specifically to girls under 21—hence the wording of my amendment.
Your Lordships may consider that the penalties for acting as a pimp should be still further increased. Perhaps the fines applicable should be much larger. If the amendment is agreed, I would be happy to accept further amendments imposing stronger penalties. If the Government or Members of this House can devise effective deterrent sanctions to dissuade men, other than

611
pimps, from sexually abusing young people under the age of 18 and, a fortiori, under the age of 16, that could also be most helpful. Such men are indeed serious sexual offenders and yet they are seldom—almost never—prosecuted.
The amendment is the result of ad hoc drafting and I accept that it probably does not come up to the high standards usually set by government experts. Nonetheless, it addresses urgent social problems and reflects the approach of the whole Bill by seeking to prevent serious crime, especially that among and affecting children and young people. I commend the amendment to the House and trust—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting. However, would he be so good as to explain why it is that Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 needs to be altered?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is that that section provides for the prosecution and cautioning of girls, women, under the age of 18.
However, perhaps I may continue. I trust that the Government will reflect deeply on the issues involved and learn from the excellent preventive work of a variety of voluntary organisations. If that happens, it seems to me that Her Majesty's Government will be able to offer a better amendment, either in this House or in another place at a subsequent stage. But would a government redraft include boys as well as girls? I ask that question because a small number of boys are sometimes involved. Further, would it provide proper penalties for those who have sexual intercourse with under-aged people? It may be asked whether the amendment, if approved, would cost money. I believe that the answer to that question is yes, it would. But, in my view, it would be money well spent if we believe in social inclusion and in helping the victims of abuse. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have but one short point to make. It is due to the fact that, 39 years ago, I had the responsibility of piloting the Street Offences Act through its Committee and Report stages in another place. I believe that that legislation has stood the test of time remarkably well. I intervened to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to explain why there was a need to replace Section 1 of the Act. I do not think that it is necessary to do so. However, that is a relatively small point in relation to his amendment as a whole which, if I may say so, should commend itself to the House.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should like to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, why this substitution is sought. The original Act creates an offence which is not age specific. We are seeking to ensure that prosecutions of young persons and children should not take place. We believe that the appropriate way of dealing with
612
young people committing such acts is through welfare and the provisions of the Children Act. That is the rationale behind the amendment.
Research and Home Office figures show that there is an increase in children and young girls found on the streets, most of whom are in that situation because they have been victims of abuse in their own homes or while in care. They are profoundly damaged and often see no value in their own bodies because they have already been exploited by adults. They find this activity to be a way of making money; indeed, it is the only way that they can do so. We want to show that the proper way of proceeding in these cases is to provide assistance to such young people through welfare and not through the criminal courts by way of the criminal process. In recognition of a growing problem, we are seeking to divert from the criminal process towards welfare.
We are also seeking to increase the penalty for those who are arrested in relation to such matters where the young people involved are under age. We believe that the penalties for exploiting young women and children should be greater. One knows from experience that there are adult men who, for particular reasons, seek out girls and children. In our view, that abuse is more serious and should draw down greater penalties than those which exist at present in relation to adults. Those are the bases upon which we are proposing the amendment.
There is, of course, an issue surrounding age. It is possible that some people feel that the age of 18 may be somewhat too old, given the fact that the age of consent is 16. Certainly, the position from these Benches is that we are happy to hear what my noble friend the Minister may say in that respect. I am sure that we could be assuaged if the view were taken that particular concern exists about those under the age of 16 and that it would be problematic in relation to those over 16 but not yet fully adult as defined in the Children Act. We would like the amendment to relate to those who have not yet attained the age of 18. However, we would probably be content if the Government were at least prepared to consider the amendment in relation to girls and young women up to the age of 16 if my noble friend the Minister feels that problems could arise with regard to legal definitions as to age.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can be persuaded on those arguments While it is right that his piece of legislation, which is almost 40 years old, has in many ways stood the test of time, it has not done so in this regard. Indeed, thinking has moved on and social problems, especially those regarding the abuse of children, have been recognised in a way that was perhaps not possible 40 years ago. We believe that the proper process is a welfare process rather than a criminal one.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Children's Society, much of whose work is reflected in the case now being put forward. In support of the amendment, I should say that we have a growing concern about child prostitution. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, the evidence gained from projects is distressing indeed. One reads case histories of young women and girls who sometimes

613
almost from the beginning of their lives enter a downward spiral and end up in prostitution. I have visited projects, including homeless projects, where one often meets youngsters who are totally exposed to these kinds of situations on the streets.
Much of this prostitution derives from the flight from what is impossible, whether that is from residential homes or from abuse in the family home from a parent or other people in that home. Many young people who have found themselves homeless and unprotected have offered sexual favours to pay for a home and what they perceive as security, but they enter a form of entrapment and imprisonment. It may be said that this amendment could undermine the didactic function of the law, but for those who are above the age of childhood the law is clear. We are trying to press home the fact that children need to be considered in a different way. So often in these cases prosecutions focus on the children who have become prostitutes rather than on those who have abused them or who continue to abuse them. We believe that the prostitution of children is in many ways a form of child abuse and should be dealt with as such. I do not believe that if we change the attitude towards children who are prostitutes, that will undermine the seriousness of prostitution as a crime.
It is important to ask whether the law as it now stands achieves its objectives. So far it has not done so. Children still hear the voice of the man who promises to protect them and feel the pain of homelessness. Often they have lived with violence from childhood and that has made them flee into society. They find that experience infinitely more powerful an influence on what they decide to do than what the law may say. We believe that this amendment preserves the recognition of the wrongness of prostitution but at the same time recognises that children are enormously at risk in this area. We have learnt from our projects that we can help them emerge from this provided that they have not been criminalised. By being present and gaining their trust and by offering a place of security that is not bound to prostitution, we can help children rebuild their lives.
As regards the question of age, I believe that in this Bill the age of responsibility is shifting or becoming less clear. Our understanding is that under 18 would be a reasonable age for this purpose. I follow a Lord who regarded the misuse of power over someone who commits adultery in the following way; namely, you say to the person who has committed the sin, "Go and sin no more" but you recognise that the hypocrisy, blame and misuse lie elsewhere and should be pursued as such by the law.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment. I speak with the experience of someone who has had many dealings with local authority care proceedings. It is a sad fact that children who are notionally in local authority care and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, have already been abused, are particularly vulnerable to organised prostitution and pimps. In my view the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was absolutely right to say that cautioning is
614
simply not enough. There is much to be said for now using the machinery of the Children Act to deal with this problem.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on raising this important issue. Child prostitution is a serious problem in our society and one which I regret to say is getting worse. It seems to me that the objects of this amendment are threefold; namely, to decriminalise prostitution for the under-18s; to provide for child prostitutes to he taken into care or rehabilitation; and to increase the penalties for pimping. It seems to me that of those three objectives the last two are the most important; namely, to get child prostitutes into care and rehabilitation, and to ensure that pimps are properly dealt with by the law. In that context I cannot see why they should not be treated simply as child sex offenders.
I see the difficulties of taking into care girls between the ages of 16 and 18 who are consenting to prostitution, or perhaps even initiating the process and are not in the clutches of pimps. I have one further point to make. It is not only girls who are in the clutches of pimps who are prostitutes today. Many teenage girls and, I regret to say, many lone mothers are prostitutes because they have simply run out of money and they see no other possible way of making ends meet. That is an underlying problem that we should also consider in this context. I do not think the amendment is perfect but if the noble Lord were to press it I would certainly support it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support this amendment. We had a session of the all-party children group to discuss child prostitution. There were spokesmen from Barnardos, the NSPCC and, I believe, the Children's Society. A great many of us present at that meeting were shocked to hear of the extent of the problem. Pimps pick up these children and make them fall in love with them. Then the young children will not give evidence against these men. The children may be kept in the most horrible circumstances shut up in a room for weeks on end. As has been said, these children have probably already been abused or have run away from home. The situation is bad. Whatever we can do to help to get these children into welfare would be a good thing.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise only to express one concern about this amendment—the spirit of which I accept—and that is concern about the proposed new subsection (2) which states,
"It shall be an offence for a woman who has attained the age of 18 to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I have some concerns about that age of 18 and wonder whether 16 might be more appropriate, particularly as the Children Act would apply to those below whatever age one put in place. If one puts possibly very street-wise 16 and 17 year-olds into care with younger children that could pose considerable dangers. For that reason I do

615
not wish to support the amendment as it is but I certainly think that it deserves considerable thought from the Government. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I think it needs more than thought; it needs action from the Government. Why have the pimps got away with it for so long, because they do horrific things to children? I believe it was the Barnardos report which gave an example of young children running away from care in Leeds and being used as prostitutes in Bradford. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, they were locked up and tortured, so they were frightened and did not give away the pimps. Some action is needed here. I include boys. It is an international issue. Boy prostitution is on the increase as well as girl prostitution. Many men will say, "The younger the better".
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I declare a former interest. Until the election I was a trustee of the NSPCC and therefore over the years I have been aware of some of the problems identified tonight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out, there is a threefold consequence from the amendment: decriminalising soliciting for prostitution in the streets for girls under the age of 18; enabling emergency protection orders to be obtained for a child found soliciting; and an increase in the penalty for procuring a girl under 21 from two years to four years.
I entirely agree that it is terrible for any child, boy or girl, to be involved in prostitution. It is our view that there is no doubt that a child involved in prostitution, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, is primarily the victim of coercion or abuse and not a consenting participant. Indeed, a girl under 16 cannot consent in law to sexual intercourse, so those who have sexual intercourse with girls under 16 are already committing an offence. We are seriously concerned that to decriminalise child prostitution would increase the numbers of child prostitutes on the streets.
The Children Act 1989 already requires all agencies to make the protection of children at risk of harm a paramount consideration. The police are aware of the problem, an awareness due in no small measure to the efforts of the children's charities to which, among others, the right reverend Prelate referred. We entirely agree that children in prostitution should be treated as victims in need of welfare. I reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Between the police, children's charities and others, there has been development of guidelines about how one deals with children in this age group and in this dreadful situation. They are now treated as victims in need of welfare. The guidelines were piloted, I think it is well known, in Wolverhampton and Nottingham. They are being adopted throughout the West Midlands and in other forces. The ACPO spokesman on prostitution issues has confirmed his opposition to any decriminalisation because of the risk that that would lead to an increase in the number of child prostitutes.
616
I do not take nitpicking points but it is right, as the noble Lord indicated, that his amendment deals only with girls, not boys. It would mean that those over 18 who solicited for sexual purposes would be guilty of a criminal offence. We have serious worries, which I put as soberly as I can, that this will create a new market—I am sorry to use that word; but that is what it is—in 16 and 17 year-olds who could legally solicit. There is a serious risk that it will put more not fewer girls at risk from pimps and exploitation.
My noble friend Lady David, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked why pimps are so rarely successfully prosecuted. In quite a lot of experience of the criminal law I think that I only came across two cases. I believe that the reason is the difficulty of proof for the reasons specified by both noble Baronesses.
It is unfortunate—I have to put it brutally again—that on the advice we have the pressure for younger prostitutes is now increasing. I am sorry to say this but it is partly a function of fashion and partly because of the development of AIDS among older prostitutes. The description I give is not a happy one, but I have to put it before your Lordships, in case we pass an amendment to a law which has consequences entirely opposite to those we want.
There is no doubt that these young girls are victims; that the efforts of the police should be to get girls out of prostitution. But we do not want in any way to indicate that prostitution or soliciting for prostitution by young girls under 18 is not to be unlawful. We think that we should work with the police and other agencies along the lines undertaken at present to see whether we can deal more effectively with the problem.
The Children Act already provides for protection orders for children at risk of prostitution. If a child is at risk or is in commercial sexual exploitation, he or she would be at risk of significant harm, and that is the ground already for the protection order under the Children Act. So the opportunity is there.
There is then the question of the increase in the penalty for the offence from two years to four years. Unfortunately, as I think we all agree and recognise rather gloomily, pimps are rarely successfully prosecuted. We need to look carefully at the overall context of the Bill. We want to deal with children as soon as may be who are at risk of harm or have been harmed. We want to see how reprimands and final warnings will work. It is an issue which needs to be urgently addressed. At present we are looking at the way in which police should deal with young prostitutes when the Bill becomes law. We are discussing it with ACPO. There is no doubt that new guidance is needed. The present circulars were issued immediately after the Street Offences Act 1959 and are thoroughly out of date.
I sympathise with the purpose of the amendment. It is a worthy purpose. We are deeply troubled that if we decriminalise this activity we shall be creating a new market. We believe that the way ahead is to develop the present pilot schemes we have, to which I referred, to make sure that full use is made of the opportunities under the provisions of the Children Act. We believe that we need to look at penalties in terms of sexual

617
exploitation so that we have a coherent regime rather than picking out one sentence from legislation. The noble Lord proposes an increase from two years to four years in the case of procuring a young woman for sexual intercourse when she is under the age of 21 years.
I am sorry if my conclusion is disappointing. But at least if noble Lords do not agree with the reasoning, I hope that they will accept it to be a legitimate view. I know that I am alone in resisting this. But I should be deeply troubled if we were to amend the law to provide that girls under 18 could solicit for prostitution without the ultimate legal sanction. Many people who prey on young girls will think, "Choose them under 18".
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he was alone in expressing his view. Perhaps I may say that having heard him, he has converted me.
Lord Meston: My Lords, is the Minister saying that he is satisfied with the existing use of emergency protection orders? Alternatively, is he hopeful that in the future better use might be made of them in order to deal with the problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is undoubtedly the latter. We have been dealing with guidelines which are now 40 years out of date. I believe that the pilot projects to which I referred may be of great value because the problems are not single, individual problems. Each child will suffer a range of problems. I believe that one has to deal with a particular child in an individual way. I think that that is the best way of trying to attack a problem which is cruel and vicious in the extreme. It is exploitation of children, after all.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I found it extremely encouraging that all speakers were prepared to support the amendment even though some may have had reservations on specific aspects of it.
I confess that I found the Government's reply somewhat discouraging. I could have said a good deal more in relation to the amendment. For example, I could have quoted the recommendations of the Council of Europe in 1993–94; or Sir William Utting's report on safeguards for children living away from home, entitled, People Like Us; or the point of view of the National Women's Commission. There is a very great deal of outside opinion and study to support the thrust of the amendment.
The Minister referred to police awareness of the situation. What has been the impact of the guidelines issued, not 40 years ago, but much more recently in the context of the Children Act? I understand that there are only two police pilot projects using the Children Act. That seems a highly insufficient number.
As to the principle of the matter, concerning decriminalisation, again I was not very happy with the Government's reply. If this amendment can be approved, I will undertake to bring forward a new one
618
at the next stage of the Bill which would limit the age to 16 and not 18, and which might incorporate other improvements. On that basis I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.12 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 21 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Question is, That Amendment No. 21 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 [Parenting orders: supplemental]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to parenting orders, about which there has been a good deal of criticism by a number of children's organisations and indeed by many others. This amendment removes the statutory presumption in favour of courts making a parenting order where the offender is under 16. The Bill as it stands requires the court to make a parenting order if it is satisfied that such an order would help to prevent further offences and to give reasons if it does not make such an order.
Reinforcing parental responsibility is an important part of tackling youth crime. Experience shows that parental skills courses provided on a voluntary basis work well: they can help to improve parenting and reduce family break-up, the taking of children into care and the likelihood of offending, truancy and antisocial behaviour by young people. Funding more such courses on a voluntary basis, as part of family centres and other community projects in disadvantaged areas, would make an important contribution to preventing delinquency. Group work with the parents of young offenders alongside intermediate treatment programmes for young offenders has also been shown to be beneficial in bringing about more effective parental control and leading to improved behaviour and reduced offending by their children.
However, organisations working with young offenders and their families have reservations about the likely efficacy of a compulsory court order. Co-operative parents who are keen to accept help could be involved in parenting skills groups, whether or not it was compulsory. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, Chairman of the Parenting Support and Education Forum, said in Committee:
"We must listen to the voice of those who work with parents.
"Counselling and guidance sessions could conceivably, and may sometimes, help. But there are very severe limitations … parents will go into these sessions in a spirit of rebellion and resentment.

619
That will mean that they are not normally receptive. The severity of the sanction in many cases will seem unreasonable".—[Official Report, 10/2/98; col. 1073.]
The order is least likely to work with unco-operative parents—and if they are returned to court and fined for not co-operating, this is very unlikely to help reduce the child's offending. Fines simply increase the degree of pressure and hardship on families, for many of whom life is already a struggle to survive. If parents do not pay the fine, they could be imprisoned for non-payment—the alternative of community service for fine defaulters is currently available in only two pilot areas—which would have devastating effects on children. The parent who faces these sanctions most often will be the child's mother, as it is the mother who most often attends court. These penalties would be particularly harsh on women who already face great difficulties in bringing up and trying to control children who are getting into trouble.
There are also difficulties about fining a parent because of a child's refusal to obey a requirement—for instance, a curfew. To punish a parent for a child's actions could result in injustice. It could also increase resentment on the parent's part, lead to excessive physical punishment and thereby put children more at risk.
Because of the complex considerations involved, it is inappropriate to include in legislation a statutory presumption that courts should make such orders. It would be preferable to leave the use of these orders to the court's discretion.
In Committee on 10th February my noble friend Lord Williams said:
"Some inadequate parents can be assisted. They can sometimes—as the right reverend Prelate said—be assisted on a voluntary basis … We would prefer voluntary counselling and parenting guidance, but for those who do not wish it, who are perhaps afraid of it, in some cases a sanction may he of assistance".—[Official Report, 10/2/98; col. 1077.]
My noble friend Lady Kennedy commented:
"I am concerned that by creating a presumption in favour of the court making such orders they will be made much more often than would be the case if involvement in voluntary schemes were the course taken".—[Official Report, 10/2/98; col. 1079.]
By removing the statutory presumption in favour of courts making parenting orders, the amendment would increase the likelihood that the courts will use these orders only when they are genuinely appropriate and not in circumstances when voluntary help is a preferable and more effective option.
I believe that the argument against the statutory presumption is a very good one. I should be very surprised if I am convinced by what my noble friend says when he replies, unless he is prepared to accept the amendment, which I very much hope he will. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps I may support the amendment from this side of the House, if that is agreeable to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is one of the sponsors and to whose comments we look forward.
620
We are concerned here with the balance, never easy to strike in formulating public policy, between compulsion and voluntarism. Surely the test should be what is likely to be the outcome in practice. In replying to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, applied that very test. However good the intentions, the consequences might be different from what the promoter intended. The test should he not what sounds tougher or softer on the public platform, but the likely practical consequences.
I am sure we can all agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that parental responsibility is a relevant factor in tackling youth crime. It is right that it should be the focus of attention in the discussion documents, in the White Paper and in the Bill before us. Persuading parents, sometimes inadequate or single parents of unruly children who are more often a source of anxiety or anger than of love, to try to improve their parenting skills must be a desirable aim of public policy. But how is it to be achieved?
In Committee we heard several references to the good work done by voluntary agencies. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells spoke about the work of the Children's Society, of which he is chairman: and other examples were given. All those with first-hand knowledge emphasised the importance of voluntary attendance. Expert guidance is important, but attendance should be voluntary rather than compulsory. Compulsory attendance was vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, an extract from whose speech was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady David. He said that parents taking part in guidance sessions because they had been compelled to do so would attend,
"in a spirit of rebellion and resentment'.—[Official Report, 10/2/98; col. 1073.]
Those struck me as two accurate and well-chosen words. The problem therefore lies with unco-operative parents; not with those who are willing to co-operate. I submit that that is the crucial distinction.
While the Bill stops short of imposing criminal sanctions, the statutory presumption in favour of a court making a parenting order nevertheless takes a significant step in that direction. Failure to co-operate will be punished by fines. In many cases fines will not be paid. Default will lead to criminal penalties. To take this path can only worsen, rather than strengthen, relationships in malfunctioning families which already are subject to many disadvantages. What is likely to be the outcome? More children taken out of their homes, however dysfunctional those homes may be, and into care. The frequency of offending and re-offending by young people in institutional care is so high that it needs no repetition this evening. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have myself been involved in a parenting skills course and I support such courses. When my children were very small I visited our local school and became involved with something called Parent Link. I attended courses dealing with issues such as sibling rivalry, childhood tantrums, and so on.

621
I believe I acquired some skills which I found extremely useful. As my children are approaching adolescence, I may again wish to attend a course.
Courses are not confined to those who have serious social problems or those whose children might appear before the courts. I believe that we should extol their virtues for all parents; we all have things to learn. I remember learning something called "reflective listening with one's children". I found it useful in the courts when dealing with judges. I believe that there are many skills to be learnt. Undoubtedly, the experience of all those involved is that such courses are most successful when the people taking part do so on a voluntary basis. Of course, there may be occasions—as the Minister said on the last occasion—when a sanction may be of some assistance. I accept that that may be the case. I accept that occasionally coercion may be useful. However, the clause introduces a statutory presumption in favour of the courts making such an order. That is what concerns those who have considerable experience in these matters.
Courts can be instrumental in encouraging parents to take part in such programmes and in reminding them that they are not just for people whose children get into trouble or who have problems, but that all parents can benefit from them. My experience is that parents are only too happy to find that such assistance is available. But as soon as we take a stick to people and introduce punishment for non-participation, we move into a different situation in which we may increase problems within families, rather than assist them.
I ask the Minister therefore to consider the anxieties expressed. This is not about being soft; it is about recognising what is most effective. While we are wholly in favour and in fact have been scholars of parenting courses—I suspect that there are not too many other noble Lords on these Benches who have attended courses as I have, admitting that they have something to learn even on parenting—there are other ways of dealing with this issue. I therefore support the amendment of my noble friend and hope that the Minister will give due consideration to it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I agree with those who have spoken. The parenting order made against parents who are unwilling to co-operate is likely to be counterproductive. An order under Clause 9(1) can be made only if the relevant condition under Clause 8(6) is fulfilled; that is, that,
"the parenting order would he desirable in the interests of preventing".
certain types of criminal behaviour. Is the Minister suggesting that under Clause 8(6) the court could take the view that a parenting order is not desirable where the parents are clearly not going to be co-operative? If so, that is certainly not clear and I support the amendment because that makes it clear. If the Minister does not take the view that that is a relevant consideration under Clause 8(6), then I strongly support the amendment because, in those circumstances, it
622
would clearly be necessary and desirable and would substantially improve the effectiveness of a parenting order.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I too support the amendment. There is not a great deal that I can add to what the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Kennedy, said or to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. However, I should like to emphasise what I said in Committee.
I am extremely concerned about any legislation which may fine an unco-operative mother for not attending a parenting course and then, because she cannot or will not pay the fine, send her to prison with disastrous results to the children who will almost certainly have to be taken into care. We have heard a lot this afternoon about some of the things that are apt to happen when children are taken into care, especially when they run away or leave care.
I am sure that many residential homes are excellent. But no residential home, however good, can replace a child's own home. After many years I am convinced that even a fairly bad home is preferable to no home at all. That is what being taken into care means: that at the end of the day, when the child leaves care, the child has no home.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point. Parenting skills cannot be dissociated from the relationship between the parents. It is sometimes thought that people can simply go on a course in parenting skills; but as soon as they begin, those attending are immediately involved in trying to understand how they relate to each other. In the families where these issues arise, there may well be violent, angry relationships which would be dangerous to bring into the situation.
We cannot simply start a course on parenting skills as though those skills do not depend on the relationship between the parents. We have just heard a reason why single parents may suffer under such a provision. But with regard to the parents themselves, the necessity to face up to the implications of their mutual non-relating may be a further reason for not imposing the order. Also, and more seriously, if parenting skills courses are to tackle the relationship between husband and wife or between partners, the child will be even more exposed because the child will then carry the conflict between the two parents who are refusing together or not refusing together to face up to the implications of what they have become.
It all seems to me to endorse the amendment that says that something may be offered and pressed home. And, while I understand the desire for coercion, in the area of family relationships it is extremely difficult to use.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I too rise briefly to express support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
At Second Reading I expressed anxiety about the effect of parenting orders on, say, disordered single mothers and those least able to cope with the provisions.

623
The Minister, in his usual courteous and reasonable way, replied that it was unlikely that any court, having regard to the specific circumstances of a case, would impose a financial penalty for non-compliance where it was unlikely that the terms of the fine would be met. I agree that—thank goodness!—most courts will be guided by such common sense considerations.
But if a financial penalty is deemed to be appropriate and there is failure to comply, what alternatives are possible? Is it the case—this is something to which the noble Baroness referred and if possible I should like the Minister's answer to it—that at present community service orders in relation to fine default can only be imposed in two pilot areas? I believe that to be an important question, not only in this instance, but in the whole area of the lower courts where the imposition of community service orders has been found to be most desirable. I should therefore be grateful for an answer on that point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, voluntary co-operation by way of counselling groups and such organisations is always to be preferred to coercion. I should like discretion on whether or not to issue a parenting order to be left in the hands of the appropriate court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 22 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, are Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 in my name. I shall speak to them together if I may.
Amendment No. 22 is the identical amendment which we discussed in Committee. Clause 9(1) puts a duty on the court to make a parenting order in cases where a child or young person who is under the age of 16 is convicted of a criminal offence and where the court is satisfied that the condition in Clause 8(6)(b) is met; namely, that it would be desirable in the interests of preventing the further commission of an offence by that child or young person.
As has been observed, in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds, the duty is replaced by a power to impose a parenting order. It is worth bearing in mind what a parenting order is. It requires the parent to comply for a period not longer than a year with such requirements as are specified, and to attend for a concurrent period not exceeding three months not more than once in any one week for counselling or guidance sessions. None of these orders under Clause 8(3) can be made unless the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for implementation have been made within the relevant area.
We believe that there should be a distinction between 16 and 17 year-olds and those who are younger. It is quite a frequent divide in the criminal justice system. After all, 16 and 17 year-olds may well have left school; they may be living independently, they may even these days have family responsibilities of their own. Some may be in full-time education and fully dependent on their parents. We believe that there should be that distinction.
As the noble Baroness has said, and quite plainly, if her amendment were carried the court would simply have a power rather than a duty to impose a parenting
624
order. We do not think that is the way to go. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said. It is not a case of being soft or effective; it is a case of looking for the best solution in all the circumstances. We think the most effective solution is the one that we have set out in the Bill.
On the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, perhaps I may write to him, having researched that question further, if he is kind enough to allow me to do so. I am grateful to him.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. These are two of the 11 issues on which I indicated earlier we had reflected and decided that the arguments were persuasive and that we ought to respond to them in that way. Clause 9(2) as it stands requires the court, when considering a parenting order resulting from the conviction of a juvenile under 16, to consider information about family circumstances and the likely effect of the proposed order on those circumstances. Subsection (2) parallels the arrangements in some criminal disposals for juveniles. Similar family-related information will be before a family proceedings court when it is dealing with a child safety order under Clause 12(1).
Those arrangements do not exist with the antisocial behaviour order, the sex offender order and convictions stemming from failure to ensure a child's attendance at school. The courts would have to rely on the facts before them. My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General pointed out that an order can only be made provided the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions are fulfilled; that is, preventing a repetition of the behaviour which led to the order in the first place.
We listened to the arguments and considered them subsequently and we accept that, as the clause stands, there is potential for confusion. We accept, therefore, having listened to the arguments, that it would be better that the requirements in Clause 9(2) extend to all cases involving children under 16 where a parenting order is made. I wrote to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on 20th February to explain that we had accepted the arguments and would bring forward an amendment—it is Amendment No. 23—to rectify that position.
Amendment No. 24 responds to concerns which were raised when we discussed a similar amendment at Committee stage tabled by the noble Lord. Lord McNally. He was not present on that occasion but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was. The Solicitor-General indicated that we would consider the question of reasonable excuse and that we saw the force of the arguments. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on 20th February to say that we would be tabling an amendment to that effect. That is what we have done. It is Amendment No. 24. Therefore, in respect of Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, we have listened to the arguments and have been persuaded. In respect of the first amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, we have not been so convinced.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed. I should like to thank very much all those noble Lords—noble Lords from absolutely every Bench—who have spoken in support of this amendment: and very strong and good support I have had. I wonder whether my noble friend would be willing to take this away and think about it, and think that the power would he adequate in the circumstances. I should be very grateful if he would do that. I hope that when he thinks about the support I have had for this amendment he will agree that that would be a decent thing to do. I very much hope that he might be willing to do that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always listen to argument but I do not want to mislead. We have listened to the arguments quite carefully. I have put forward our response to Amendment No. 22 and I have put forward a completely different response to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, where we thought the arguments were such that we were persuaded. I have not been persuaded so far. I think it is unlikely that any of my colleagues in another place will be persuaded. But obviously everything that is said in your Lordships' House is discussed by the Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate and myself, and frequently we transmit our views about—I say this carefully—the virtue and merit of arguments in your Lordship' House to our masters above us; and they sometimes listen—in fact they always listen, but they do not always agree.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if they are going to have this discussion, surely they can have it before the next stage of the Bill. I should like to hear the result of that discussion with the Secretary of State, or whoever it is. Could that not happen please?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there will be a concluded government view before the Bill goes from your Lordships' House. Whether it will be pleasing or displeasing is another question.
Baroness David: My Lords, if there are going to be discussions, I think my best plan is to withdraw the amendment now and come forward with it or something very similar at Third Reading and hope that there will have been discussions—and perhaps more profitable discussions from my point of view than seem to have happened so far. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("where the person convicted of the offence is under the age of I6,") and insert—

("(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 8 above;

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, where the person concerned is under the age of 16; or

626

(c) in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, where the person to whom the offence related is under that age,").

Page 8, line 43, after ("parent") insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Child safety orders]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 25 I must advise the House that, should it be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 26 due to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 13. leave out ("two") and insert ("one").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Local child curfew schemes]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 15, at end insert ("or under the effective control of the parent of the child").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 14 introduces local child curfew schemes. A local authority will be able to impose a curfew scheme over a specified area and the local authority can further then specify which age groups of children under 10 will be forbidden by that ban from leaving their homes between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. or at some period between those two times. What I would call the let out clause is in subsection (2)(b). The only way that children can go out legally in curfew time is by being under the effective control of a responsible person aged 18 or over. My amendment would make it legal for them to go out in curfew time in addition if they were then under the effective control of their own parent, a parent who could be under the age of 18.
That may at first sound a rather odd objective but it is a fact that young people under the age of 18 could be parents of children covered by a curfew order since such schemes can affect children between the ages of nought and 10. I rather suspect that the order itself will he so difficult to implement in the eyes of a local authority if different ages are specified that local authorities will be tempted to impose a blanket ban on all children in an area under the age of 10.
The report issued last Thursday by the Office for National Statistics shows that under-age pregnancies have now hit a 10-year high with almost 9,000 girls becoming pregnant in 1996. It is the third successive annual rise in pregnancies among girls aged between 13 and 15 years. It is estimated that about 48 per cent. of those young girls will not have an abortion and therefore will give birth. Some of the children will be put up for adoption, but it is estimated that the majority will remain with their natural mothers.
As it stands, this Bill would make it an absolute offence for a parent under the age of 18 years to take his or her own child out of the home in an area covered by a curfew scheme. Perhaps the parent wants to take the child to the grandparents or away on holiday travelling on an overnight train or a flight. Is it really what the Government intend that they should fall foul of such an absolute offence? Surely it is not good practice to create offences as a consequence of which innocent parents must rely on the mercy of administrative indulgence in order to escape prosecution.
I note that the Government seem perhaps to agree with that general principle given their support last night for the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Bill, which received its Second Reading in this House. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, the sponsor of that Bill, said that the purpose of it was to put an end to reliance upon an administrative arrangement which the police and the CPS can use in individual cases to give chemical manufacturers freedom from prosecution when they are assisting the police.
When responding for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said,
"It is perfectly true that the Crown Prosecution Service can, by arrangement with the police, give an undertaking that a manufacturer or supplier will not he prosecuted. We believe that that should he on a proper statutory basis".— [Official Report, 16/3/98: col. 548.]
I believe that there is a "read-across" of principle here.
I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I pointed out this matter myself at Second Reading. I said that, as it stands, if a curfew scheme is in force, a 17 year-old girl carrying her baby through the area in which the scheme operates technically would be in breach of the scheme. Therefore, I naturally support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It seems to me to be an obvious matter of common sense.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. The basic point is a very simple and short one. Alas, there are now too many parents, especially mothers, under the age of 18. But that does not make them other than loving towards their children and anxious to protect and do all they can for them. Therefore, we should bear that in mind. This amendment is necessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness put her point extremely clearly and well. She had very eloquent support from the two noble Lords. There is plainly potential for a problem. Therefore, I agree in principle with the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment. If she is prepared to withdraw it, I can give her an undertaking now that I will return at Third Reading with an amendment to the same effect.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am almost speechless, but not quite, because I have further amendments on which I shall try to persuade the Government tonight. I thank the Minister for his
628
courtesy and the offer to look at this matter again, bringing back an amendment in his name on the same subject. On the basis of the undertaking he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("with").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 87 and 106. Amendment No. 28 responds to a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at Committee stage when he pointed out that the use of the word "with" in Clause 14(3) was otiose and inelegant English. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn wrote to him on 20th February to indicate that at Report stage we would table an amendment to remove the word "with" in Clause 14(3). The other two amendments have the same effect in relation to Clauses 30 and 40 respectively. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that this amendment is not as important as the amendment previously moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay. But I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for meeting my particular requirements. I believe that I moved only one amendment deleting the word "with", and the noble and learned Lord and those who advise him have found the use of the word in two other instances in the Bill. I trust that there are no further ones that need removing, but if there are, that can be done along with the raft of other amendments that no doubt the noble and learned Lord and his friends will be bringing forward at Third Reading to meet other requirements that we may make during the passage of this Bill. I believe that we have something of the order of 221 amendments before us at Report stage, over half of which are government amendments. I am very grateful that a great many of the government amendments such as these are in response to requests made by Members on all sides of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not confirm a local child curfew scheme unless he is satisfied that—

(a) the local authority and police authority have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the need for such a scheme;

(b) the behaviour of the children to whom the scheme would apply has been sufficiently serious to warrant the making of the scheme; and

(c) so far as is practicable, the views of all those who would be affected by the proposed curfew have been ascertained and given due consideration.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister knows that my position is that the local child curfew scheme is an entirely unnecessary provision. It is my view, and that of others, that the police already have powers under the Children Act to return home any child that is at risk. The local authorities investigate if there

629
is suspected neglect or abuse. Local authorities have powers under the Children Act to obtain orders if they feel that a child is beyond parental control.
So I make it clear from the outset that our view is that a local child curfew scheme is unnecessary. However, I anticipate that the curfew provisions are not going to be abandoned and therefore we put forward these amendments. They seek to fetter the Secretary of State's powers within primary legislation.
On a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made promises as to how the Home Secretary would conduct himself. Promises are not good enough. If that conduct is not specified on the face of the Bill, there is nothing to stop a future Home Secretary behaving in a less responsible manner than the current one. We believe that it is far more satisfactory to have on the face of the Bill a fetter on the powers of the Government in this regard.
The three conditions of this amendment are put before the House on the basis that it is our view that the curfew is likely to be in breach of a family's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. I raise that now because it should be a matter of concern to this Government, particularly as they have championed a Human Rights Bill through this House and it is about to move to its next stage.
Under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights the state can interfere with family life only if it is necessary in a democratic society. In our view it is doubtful that those under 10 years of age could ever be so out of order and behave in such a way that a blanket curfew can be considered acceptable. In the absence of a public emergency it is our view that it is necessary for some degree of parental rights over a named child to be secured by a court order. I raise that point because I believe that the amendment we are putting forward in these three separate propositions would save the Government from falling foul of Article 8.
Paragraph (a) makes it clear that the curfew must be a measure of last resort. When we debated this in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, confirmed that the curfew would be used only if the local authority believed that there was no other way of dealing with the problem of unsupervised children. He rejected the wording of our amendment, so we have changed it and what we now propose, as the first "fetter" on the Home Secretary, is less stringent than were our previous provisions, but makes the point that less draconian steps should be considered before a curfew is sought.
Paragraph (b) makes it clear that the curfew must be in response to a "serious" situation. At present, the Bill provides that a curfew may be granted simply for the purpose of maintaining order. That could allow a curfew to be imposed without any evidence of children being out of control.
Paragraph (c) requires that the views of all those who would be affected by the proposed curfew must be ascertained and given due consideration. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that before the order becomes effective there must be consultation with the area affected. He said that it was hoped that it would then be possible to consult those affected—that is, those having a bad time because of the conduct of the under-10 year-olds, as well as the children who may be affected by the order or, as is more likely, their parents. They can say whether it is a good or a bad idea. None of that appears in the Bill and it is our submission that the noble Lord should turn his hope into a requirement. That is why we have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I recognise the need for action in this area, having received quite a lot of feedback from the sort of places where such difficulties occur. The communities affected sometimes recognise that this is a necessary step for exposed and vulnerable children in what is so often a brutalising situation. It is recognised that we need to increase a parental sense of responsibility. All of those points are important, but I support the amendment because I do not think that the right way to deal with this problem has yet been found.
There are profound difficulties in what the Bill proposes. I keep returning in my own mind to the question of how such provisions will work. We have talked about practicalities with regard to other parts of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has said that legal opinion suggests that these provisions interfere with parents' rights under Article 8 of the European convention. We, too, have received this advice.
I also support those who question whether the threat posed by young children can be so great that it is necessary to have such provisions to deal with it. It is not that I underestimate what they can do in particular places, but I feel that there are other ways of dealing with this, such as taking a multi-disciplinary approach to the problem.
Looking back over long years of such problems, it has often been difficult for communities to take the initiative in this direction. Communities need encouragement to tackle such situations. However, I question whether this is too big a solution to the problem. Would we not do better to mobilise and support community groups and voluntary organisations which are already involved in tackling such problems?
The amendment is also important because it seeks to gain police approval for such a scheme. Community policing is tremendously important, but very often it is not given the support that it deserves. The work of community policemen, in liaison with other organisations, can often help to tackle this blight on some estates.
I wonder whether, unamended, these provisions would not undermine the purpose of the youth justice teams which the Bill is setting up. As we have heard, children are significantly at risk, but, again, as we have

631
just heard in the debate about child prostitution, the Children Act 1989 can tackle the problem of such children. Are we not overdoing our reaction to a problem that can be tackled in the local community by those who are involved in caring for those communities?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 29 which has been moved by the noble Baroness. Lady Kennedy. We must be careful that we do not get carried away by the idea of imposing a curfew without adequate safeguards. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce those safeguards. It is crucial that our starting point is that "all reasonable steps" have been taken to ensure that such a scheme is needed. Having dealt with that difficulty, we must then be careful to ensure that there is adequate consultation with those who live in the areas concerned.
I raise this matter because we are dealing with a new scheme and the consequences for community relations could be serious. Many of the areas about which we are talking are multi-racial and multi-ethnic. Can your Lordships imagine what would happen if the police, local authorities and others who are responsible for the order were to target such areas? I have given examples earlier of what has happened with the stop-and-search powers. Black communities have been targeted. That could lead to a serious situation. The noble Baroness is saying that we must ensure that safeguards are introduced. I hope that the Minister will take what we have said into account.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rises to reply, my name is to this amendment and I should like to add my support. The child curfew order is a cumbersome affair which probably will not work. There was a long discussion on it in Committee when many noble Lords said that it would he difficult to put the order into operation. There are other methods of dealing with young children under the Children Act and it seems a great pity not to use them.
I ask specifically that the Minister replies to the point about the provisions of the Bill breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. There seems to be a real likelihood of that happening and we do not want to be taken to court again for something like that. I very much hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we do not believe that these provisions breach Article 8 of the European convention, but bearing in mind what the right reverend Prelate said about the legal advice that he has received and what my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, I undertake to reconsider that point. As I have said, we do not believe that the provisions breach Article 8 but, as the question has been raised, we shall look at this again.
We discussed the matter in detail in Committee and a number of questions have been raised again today.
632
The right reverend Prelate asked about consultation. That is specifically provided for in Clause 14(3) which states:
"Before making a local child curfew scheme, a local authority shall consult with—
(a) every chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within its area",
so the question of community police liaison is already covered. Furthermore, Clause 14(3)(b) gives the local authority very wide discretion because it must also consult,
"such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate".
Perhaps it should be remembered that the overarch of the entire scheme is Clause 14(1)(b). The authority can only propose a scheme,
"if, after such consultation as is required by the scheme, the authority considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of maintaining order".
It must be done within a specified time, not exceeding 90 days, and a specified area.
I do not see how this amendment would work. Under the proposed paragraph (b) the order is to be made if
"the behaviour of the children to whom the scheme would apply has been sufficiently serious to warrant the making of the scheme".
I do not see how that could possibly work in practice. One is dealing with children of specified ages whether or not their individual behaviour has been sufficiently serious to warrant the making of the scheme. That is my observation on paragraph (b).
I return to the general point. These powers are not mandatory but entirely permissive. If a local authority considers that there are alternatives, such as those indicated by the right reverend Prelate, it can proceed with them. The provision is entirely permissive: there is no obligation to make use of the scheme. It is for each local authority to decide whether something of this kind is an appropriate response to a particular problem for the purpose of maintaining order.
One is referring to elected representatives of a particular area. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but this is not a matter of stop and search. I recognise the criticisms made of that. That was police activity whereas this is the preliminary conclusion of a local authority. The local authority is elected by the people within the relevant area and its members, unlike Members of your Lordships' House, are subject to the discipline of re-election periodically. That is step number one.
I come to step number two. On the face of the Bill, having come to its preliminary conclusion, the authority must consult the police and the local community. Such persons or bodies whom it considers appropriate will vary infinitely because communities differ. We trust that local authorities, being democratically elected, are fit to decide what is appropriate by way of consultation within their local communities. It is perfectly plain that without the support of the local community these schemes are unlikely to work.

633
When all that has been done the local authority needs to give the Home Secretary a clear indication of the reported problem or identified nuisance and an indication of what other measures have been taken to solve the problem. It will need to provide details of the consultation arrangements that have already been undertaken. It must indicate to the Secretary of State any views that may have been expressed. It will need to show how it intends further to consult those in the local area where the curfew notice is to be applied. We intend to set out fully all of those issues in the guidance that we shall issue to coincide with the implementation of the legislation.
I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lady Kennedy dealt with her concerns. I hope that I have been able to deal with them on the basis of, first, the limited parameters of Clause 14 and, secondly, my undertaking as to the nature of the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue to coincide with the implementation of the legislation.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear my noble friend say that he will, with others, give due consideration to Article 8. That is a matter of concern to those who have tabled these amendments. We would be very unhappy to see the Government fall foul of that article, particularly in light of the courageous steps that they have taken to place before Parliament the Human Rights Bill.
Having taken account of the matters raised by my noble friend, it may well be that the wording of these amendments can be drafted in a more felicitous way. If consideration is to be given to Article 8 it may well be that the safeguard here will allow the Government to proceed with a curfew scheme but in the limited circumstances that we seek to impose. I am content that the Government should look again at the particular article. It may well be that they will be able to draft better safeguards than those that we have proposed.
In tabling this amendment we are concerned that the threshold should be high before any local authority or any persons in authority take steps to introduce curfews. For all its faults, the antisocial behaviour order can be obtained only through the courts for children over 10 years of age who have been shown to have done something wrong. On the other hand, this curfew involves no due process and does not apply to named children. It may result in a parent who has done nothing wrong and whose child has done nothing wrong being punished by the criminal courts. That is our concern. Although the description of the steps to be taken by a local authority to obtain a curfew sounds almost Byzantine, there are concerns which it is right to raise and which we would like the Government to consider again in the context of the possibility of the Government falling foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new clause—
CHILD CURFEW ORDERS
(" .—(1) A child curfew order is an order which applies a ban on children of specified ages (under 10) being in a public place within a specified area and for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days)—

(a) during specified hours (between 9 pm and 6 am): and

(b) otherwise than under the effective control of a responsible person aged 18 or over.

An order may specify different hours in relation to children of different ages.
(2) An application for a child curfew order under this section may be made by a local authority if it appears to the authority that the relevant condition is fulfilled, namely, that it is necessary for the purposes of maintaining order.
(3) Such an application shall be made to the magistrates' court whose commission area includes the specified area.
(4) Notice of the application shall be given—

(a) by posting the notice in some conspicuous place or places within the specified area;

(b) in such other manner, if any, as appears to the local authority to be desirable for giving publicity to the application.

(5) Notice of the application shall be served upon—

(a) the chief officer of police;

(b) the probation officer appointed for or assigned to the magistrates' court.

(6) Any person or body of persons interested may make representations in writing or may be heard orally on the hearing of the application.
(7) The magistrates' court if it is satisfied that the relevant condition is fulfilled, may make a child curfew order.
(8) Notice of the order shall he given in like manner as in subsections (4) and (5) above.
(9) If while a child curfew order is in force it appears to the court which made it, on the application of any person or body of persons interested, that it is appropriate to make an order under this subsection, the court may make an order discharging the child curfew order.
(10) In this section—
"local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England, the council of a district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isle of Wight and the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

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

"public place" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Public Order Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 is grouped with Amendment No. 31. Perhaps I may first address some remarks to the latter. That opposes the whole principle of the child curfew order. I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on the previous amendment that it is unnecessary to have child curfew orders and there are already powers under the Children Act to deal with individuals. The objection in principle to curfews is that they attack whole groups rather than difficult and problematic individuals.
While the noble Lord is considering Article 8 perhaps he will consider also Article 5, which deals with liberty. These proposals involve the issue of liberty and family

635
life. I urge the Government to consider the alternative approach favoured by the National Association of Probation Officers, which is to look at ways of introducing crime prevention strategies on difficult estates and revitalising urban areas—to cut the jargon, to give children something to do or, as the right reverend Prelate said a moment ago, to mobilise the community, parents and others, in order to do something about the difficulties that they face.
I received a letter from a Mr. King of Bristol. He listed various activities that would be outlawed by a blanket curfew order. His first suggested activity was seeing granny round the corner. He went on to list: riding bikes with friends; football; stick in the mud; going to the shops; posting a letter; carol-singing; bob-a-job and matters of that kind. Child curfew orders involve the essential principle of liberty.
If there is to be a child curfew order—the Government appear to be pretty determined on such a course—is this the right way? The proposed system in Clause 14 is cumbersome. When all that has been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said a moment ago, something else must be done. This is a cumbersome machinery which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, pointed out in Committee, is unlikely to be put into practice very often.
I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister on 20th February in which he said:
"The Home Secretary has no role in terms of varying a scheme once it is submitted. His role is confined to the area of satisfying himself that the consultation which the authority has undertaken is adequate and reflects local views to a sufficient degree. He cannot be expected to second guess a local authority on detailed points which are of a local nature".
What, then, is the role of the Home Secretary that is envisaged? It is not to make a decision upon the merits of the scheme that is being put forward. It is merely to exercise a supervisory role to see that there has been consultation. Presumably some official in the Home Office will be given a check list to tick off that the right organisations have been circulated and have made some representations. That leaves the Home Secretary with no supervisory role with local knowledge of what the problem is.
In a further letter of 12th March the Minister wrote:
"One of the principle features of our proposals is the measure of support which the local community itself expresses towards a local child curfew scheme. It is crucial to its success".
The proposals that I have set out in Amendment No. 30 are criticised because the application would be made by the local authority direct to the magistrates' court without first seeking the views of the local community.
If noble Lords look at the detail in Amendment No. 30, they will notice some important points. First, it is suggested that the local authority make the application to the magistrates' court. As the Minister said a moment ago—he has made the point for me—a local authority consists of elected members who are responsive to the needs of the people who have elected them to the position that they hold upon that local authority. So, first, the community is reflected in the local authority that brings forward the proposal.
Secondly, the amendment makes it clear that public notice should be given of an application to the magistrates' court for a child curfew order by the affixing of a notice in appropriate places and by advertising in the press or on the radio, as needs be. Thirdly, the local community, on the proposal that I put forward which does not involve going to the Home Secretary and producing a scheme, can have a direct input by oral and written representations to the decision makers; namely, the magistrates. Under the government scheme as drafted in Clause 14, the local community cannot appear in front of the local authority or the Home Secretary and make representations of the sort that can be made to a magistrates' court.
Crucially, under the scheme that I put forward in the amendment the local community can apply for the discharge of the order if it thinks that it is no longer necessary for that order to continue. The community is involved through the bringing of the scheme by way of local authority representatives; it has the right to make representations in person to the decision makers—the magistrates—and it can apply for the discharge of the order. There cannot be greater community involvement than the scheme put forward in Amendment No. 30.
Further, the magistrates' court—unlike the Home Secretary—will be fully apprised of the local issues because the magistrates will be from that area. They will understand the difficulties in the estate from which all their customers come. They will know the area. They can ensure that proper evidence is brought before them by the police and other interested persons. If there is a dispute about the making of an order, that can be tested before the magistrates by evidence and cross examination.
So I reject the suggestion that may be made again that these proposals do not go far enough on consultation and public involvement. My proposals involve the public to a far greater degree. The decision makers will have knowledge of the issues, as opposed to what is proposed in Clause 14.
Furthermore, my proposed clause has the advantage that it retains the character of a judicial process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it maintains due process. It cannot smack of a political decision, whether it is a local political decision or a national one, if it is a court that takes that decision.
Secondly, the decision of magistrates is made in public, not in the Home Office or in the confines of the local authority committee room where the public may have no right of access, and certainly no right to speak. Any issues that may arise in relation to the curfew order can be aired in the presence of the press and the public and add to the publicity that would surround the making of the order. More important, instead of going through the machinery envisaged in Clause 14—consultations followed by a trip to the Home Secretary, followed by the Home Secretary's decision and then further consultation for an order that lasts for 90 days only—a decision by magistrates can be obtained, implemented and removed quickly.
In today's debates on the various issues that have arisen in relation to the Bill, the Minister talked of magistrates being wise enough and reasonable enough

637
to know a reasonable excuse when they see one. That was in answer to Amendment No. 4. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, refuted the suggestion that I made that the Government no longer trust the judges and the magistrates. Later, he said that they rely upon the discretion of the local authority and magistrates' courts to do the right thing.
So when it comes to other clauses of the Bill the Government are the first to rush to the courts saying, "We rely upon them. They know what they are talking about. They know their own area". But when it comes to this proposal we are faced with machinery that is so cumbersome that it will never operate. It is decision making at a distance from the people whom it affects. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support my noble friend. This is a bureaucratic sledgehammer. There is a bunch of young children roaming around, gathering on a street, a public garden or public path and making a bloody nuisance of themselves. What happens then? The local authority has to consult, has to draw up the order, have it approved by the Home Secretary and publicise it. When it has the order, it turns out to be totally useless because most of the children are 10 or 11, or the ringleaders are 10 or 11, and there is nothing that the curfew scheme enables the local authority to do.
By the time the order is obtained, it has taken so long that winter has set in and the evenings are too cold for the children to be mucking about anyway. Why not, for heavens sake, use the Children Act power for the police to pick up the children, take them home and, if necessary, report them to the social services, and drop this extraordinary scheme?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am strongly in favour of local control in matters like this, which is why I support the amendment. I like subsection (6) especially enabling local affected people to make representations or be heard before the magistrates. I strongly approve also of the 90-day period. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords. I shall address my remarks to Amendment No. 30 only. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that I am the first to praise the value of magistrates and to resist the erosion of their judicial activities. I hope that I shall be able to speak about that on Thursday when we reach Clause 40. So one might expect that I would welcome the extension of their sphere of action, as proposed in Amendment No. 30. However, on this occasion I question whether it would be appropriate for the magistrates' courts to be used in the manner prescribed in the amendment. It provides that curfew order applications would be made directly to a magistrates' court either by the local authority or the police and that there would not be the requirement first to obtain the views of the local community who would be affected by the order. Of course, I note that under the existing subsection (3)(b) the local authority should consult such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate.
638
Of course magistrates could take evidence. That is their job when they sit daily either in the family proceedings court, the adult court or the youth court. It is not beyond their competence so to do. But I wonder whether the court is a proper forum for holding what would need to be much in the nature of a public inquiry about the potential impact of a curfew order on a category of the local population and the requirement to take into account the needs and conditions of the locality. Magistrates' courts take evidence about individuals and they adjudicate upon their actions. Whether they are hearing issues of breach of the peace or affray, they are, in practice, tackling issues from the viewpoint of assessing actions of the individual within the framework provided mostly by the criminal justice system or within the matters governed by the family proceedings court.
I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord seeks to achieve and I share some of his concerns about the cumbersome machinery contained in the Bill. However, I have reservations about whether the magistrates' court could provide the right venue as enshrined in Amendment No. 30.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood entirely the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the 90-day period. A period not exceeding 90 days is contained in Amendment No. 30 and in the Bill at Clause 14(1). Therefore, there is no difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked us to put our minds to Article 5. We do not believe that we are in danger of breach, but as he has raised the issue we shall look at it in exactly the same way as I undertook at look at Article 8. We do not believe that there is a problem.
Local child curfews are intended to be a response to a particular problem for the purpose of maintaining order. Amendment No. 30 recognises that, because it takes the phrase from the Bill. We believe it to be self-evident that the role and support of the police are crucial. They are likely to be the primary source of advice and they will undoubtedly have a primary duty for enforcing the curfew. We find it strange that in the amendment there is no requirement for prior consultation with the police. Indeed, the police are served with notice only once an application is made to the magistrates' court. The views of the police would not be sought. Taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the local community would not be asked its view before the application was made. The probation service and the voluntary agencies would not be consulted by the local authority before it went directly to the magistrates' court. Indeed, the notice of re-application is only then to be served on the chief officer of police and the appointed or assigned probation officer. That strikes us as putting the cart vigorously before the horse.
We believe that our scheme is perfectly workable. It consults as appropriate; that is, before the scheme is put to the Home Secretary. Everyone who has a view can put it forward. The local authority is given abundant

639
discretion. We believe our scheme to be substantially and significantly better than the scheme put forward in the amendments. For those reasons, which I have briefly outlined, I do not believe that your Lordships should accept the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I listened to the Minister's reply and I regret to say that I do not accept his premise that there is no consultation. Where under-10s are running riot it is not enough to spend weeks and months in prior consultation before action is taken. What is needed is quick action which will involve the community in the sense that it can make representations directly to the decision makers and then leave it to the magistrates, who have local knowledge, to take the appropriate decision in the interests of the community.
I am disappointed at the way in which the Government stick to their cumbersome machinery. I do not propose to divide the House on this amendment, but when Amendment No. 31 is called I may have a different view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Avebury, L.

MarandKellie, E. [Teller.l

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B

Dholakia,L. [Teller.]

Ripon, Bp.

Dundonald, E.

Rochester, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Blackstone, B.

Desai, L.

Blease, L.

Dixon, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Burlison, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Carter. L.[Teller.]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gallacher, L.

Colville of Culross. V.

Gilbert, L.

Darcy de Knayth. B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Davies of Coity. L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

640

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hardie, L.

Napier and Ettrick. L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Nicol, B.

Haskel, L.

Palmer, L.

Hattersley, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hayman. B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld. L.

Ramsay of Cartvalc. B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Randall of St, Budeaux, L.

Howie of Troon.L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hoyle, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sewel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor ]

Shepherd, L.

Simon, V.

Islwyn, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean. B

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tenby, V.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Walker of Doncaster. L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Watson of Invergowrie, L,.

Wharton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Moslyn. L.

Molloy, L.

Winston. L.

Monkswell. L.

Young of Old Scone. B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

UN Human Rights Commission
7.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their programme of work for the UN Human Rights Commission.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the House for this opportunity of reviewing the Government's proposals for this session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission which began yesterday in Geneva.
This year, occupying the presidency of the European Union, we have a particularly heavy responsibility, having to co-ordinate and, where possible, harmonise the views of the 15 on the initiatives that we shall be taking on their behalf and agreeing the drafts of the statements which are to be made. We are all extremely grateful to the officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have been working so hard in the run-up period to achieve the necessary agreements on the resolutions which we shall be sponsoring, the presidential statements that we hope to negotiate, and on issues to do with the reorganisation of the Centre for Human Rights under the leadership of Mrs. Mary Robinson to whom I am sure your Lordships would

641
wish to extend best wishes for a successful and effective term of office and also best wishes in relation to her visit to China, which I believe has now been agreed. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that.
I do not propose to talk about individual country issues but about the way in which the commission carries out its work and how it could be improved. First, unfortunately, the work of the Human Rights Commission and its special procedures—the rapporteurs and the working groups that it appoints—are not well known in member states. One of our priorities should be to put that right. Those procedures should be able to rely on the support and active encouragement of an informed public and there should be regular discussion of the issues arising in the legislatures of member states. I hope that the promised annual report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will make a start, but more is needed.
Debates in government time before every session of the commission on the main questions that were due to arise would be useful. But by far the best solution would be a Select Committee on human rights, as was proposed again last week by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn in another place. It was good to see that the Leader of the House then reaffirmed the Government's commitment to establish a parliamentary committee with human rights functions and that in answer to a supplementary question put by my honourable friend Mr. Simon Hughes, she did not rule out the idea of a joint committee of both Houses. I hope that the Government will settle on such a joint committee because the expertise and experience of your Lordships in human rights matters could make a significant contribution to the work of such a body.
Another reason why the commission's work is not as widely publicised as we should like is that it has never been properly funded. For example, it took the commission much longer than the UN headquarters in New York to get its website under way because of budgetary constraints. Rapporteurs have sometimes had to postpone missions because there is no money left in the kitty to pay for air fares and accommodation.
I know that the United Kingdom has helped to establish the centre on a proper footing from a budgetary and accounting point of view. That is important. I hope that, as a result of that work, it will be possible, ultimately, for us to see how much is being spent on each of the special procedures—how much on administration, how much on the meetings of the commission and sub-commission and so on. Last time I looked at the figures, it was not possible to split up the expenditure into useful functional headings. I ask the noble Baroness whether that work on budgetary reorganisation has been completed and where one can see the results. The accounts of the centre are not readily available and certainly I could not find them on any of the occasions when I have looked for them on the commission's website.
However good the accounting is, there is still a problem if the centre has inefficient funding to do the jobs assigned to it. Growth in demand may be assessed roughly from the number of reports submitted to the
642
commission year by year. I looked at the years 1994 and 1997. I found that in 1994 there were 110 reports and in 1997, there were 150. Therefore, the tasks are increasing inexorably year on year but the money allocated to the centre is not being increased in proportion to the workload. Are the Government, and the European Union, for which Britain will be speaking, determined to see that human rights receive a proper share of UN resources? What proposals do we have to make to the commission in Geneva in that regard?
The commission appoints country rapporteurs to look at states where there are exceptionally serious human rights problems; for example, Myanmar, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cuba or Sudan. It appoints thematic rapporteurs to examine phenomena such as torture, extra-judicial executions, religious intolerance, freedom of expression and so on. In previous years, all these rapporteurs on thematic issues have reported well in advance of the commission's annual session so that delegates have been able to consider their findings when they prepare their speeches and decide what measures by the commission they will support.
This year, not a single report has appeared. I believe that this is due to an edict of the General Assembly providing that no report shall be published until it has been translated into all the working languages of the UN. When I asked the noble Baroness about this recently, she said that changes in procedures involving the UN's official languages would be resisted by member states, but what has happened is that a change has been made which disadvantages everybody. If the General Assembly's decision must stand, then either the rapporteurs must complete their work roughly four weeks earlier, or the commission's meeting should be deferred until mid-April, so that all the reports of the rapporteurs and the working groups will be available before the session begins.
All the statements that we make on behalf of the EU will already have been drafted, and this has been done without the benefit of advice from any of the special rapporteurs or working groups. I hope that the Minister will agree that this must severely impair the credibility of the process and must never be allowed to happen again in future years.
If the reports had been available, I was going to suggest that the commission be asked to prepare a summary of the instances where a rapporteur had requested an invitation and the state concerned had refused, failed to reply, or prevaricated. Then it would be possible for other member states, NGOs and journalists to identify at a glance which states were being unto-operative. I asked the Government by way of a Question for such a summary but was referred to the Library of the House on the grounds that there was too much work involved in the preparation of such a study. However, the Library staff also found the task beyond them. If the commission knew that it was required to produce that list, it would be a simple matter of copying the relevant paragraphs from the reports of each of the rapporteurs and working groups as they were being keyed in. Then, at the beginning of the session,

643
we would have a full summary of the states which were not being co-operative with the procedures of the commission.
In the 53rd session of the commission last year, there was only one report by thematic rapporteurs on a country which had refused to invite them, and that was the study on Nigeria conducted by the rapporteurs on extrajudicial execution and on the independence of judges and lawyers. This means that the consent of a state is not a sine qua non for these investigations, but that the power is very rarely used. I did suggest to Mrs. Robinson, when she was here last November, that it should be the normal practice to go ahead with planned investigations, whether or not the state concerned issues an invitation. Otherwise, there is an incentive for a state which does violate human rights to withhold invitations in the expectation that, by doing so, it will avoid the detailed scrutiny that accompanies any mission. If, on the other hand, the states concerned knew that the rapporteur would report anyway, relying on the evidence which he or she could obtain from journalists, local NGOs, from international human rights organisations, from exiles or lawyers, they would have nothing to gain by refusing to issue the invitation. Indeed, that is the procedure which is followed by the country rapporteurs such as the distinguished rapporteur on Iraq, Mr. Max van der Stoel. I suggest that we encourage the Human Rights Centre to follow the same procedure with regard to the thematic rapporteurs.
I want to mention briefly the work of the Secretary-General's representative on internally displaced persons, Dr. Francis Deng. I do so because internally displaced people are a phenomenon which accompanies many of the conflict situations we see around the world today. Almost certainly those people are internally displaced because of the human rights violations which are occurring in their countries. In his 1997 report, Dr. Deng pointed out that the problem,
"is of great magnitude and global dimension, involving some 35 to 40 countries".
One could add that, in every one of those countries, the displacements have been accompanied by gross human rights violations.
Dr. Deng wrote to me in June 1994 saying that he was,
"confronting a monumental task with minimal capacity".
In his 1997 report he still says that,
"there is a serious lack of resources at the Centre to meet this challenge".
Dr. Deng is a part-time volunteer and has no senior staff member to assist him in managing his mandate; nor does he have, as he would like, a co-ordinator to promote collaboration on issues of internal displacement with intergovernmental agencies and NGOs. Regrettably, the scale of internal displacements has increased since the mandate was created, and the trend seems likely to continue.
The Foreign Secretary told me that the Government welcomed the initiative of Dr. Deng to develop a strategy for dealing with such problems and assured me that the Government would carefully consider his recommendations, which are presumably to be laid before
644
the commission this year. Humanitarian aspects are dealt with by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, formerly the DHA, which incidentally operates an extremely useful web site offering regular updates on 15 "complex emergencies", as they are termed. The commission's task is to develop a normative framework for addressing the needs of the internally displaced and for preventing internal displacements and the promotion of effective institutional arrangements for protection and help. I hope that the Government will continue to take a close interest in this work and will see to it that Dr. Deng is provided with the resources he needs, minute as they are in relation to the size of the problem.
Finally, I want to mention a subject which has not been tackled at all by the commission and to suggest that it is important enough to justify the creation of a new mandate. This is the human rights effect of large projects by first world companies in the third world. The World Bank already recognises that the projects it finances could have an adverse effect on the lives of people living at or near the sites concerned and has developed a set of guidelines which are to be applied particularly when there is compulsory displacement of people in the neighbourhood of those sites. That is one aspect of the problem. Another is that when resource developers undertake operations in third world countries, the host state often provides them with protective forces which then commit human rights violations. Indeed, one has the examples of Shell in Ogoniland, BP in Casanare, Total in Burma with the Yadana pipeline or RTZ in Indonesia. In none of those cases has it been suggested—and I am not so suggesting this evening—that the companies either violate the rights of the indigenous people or encourage the state to commit abuses on their behalf. Yet there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of large resource developers and human rights abuses. Several companies, including Shell and now RTZ, have recognised that implicitly by developing their own codes of practice.
A third strand of the problem is the purchase by western companies of goods manufactured in the third world under conditions which may constitute an abuse of the human rights of the workers. Here, again, some initiatives have been taken by the companies to develop codes of conduct; for example, prohibiting the employment of young children by their suppliers. I should like to mention the initiative of the British Toy and Hobby Makers Federation, announced some time ago, in adopting a code which it is hoped the suppliers of goods from south China will observe.
I suggest that the commission needs to monitor those developments with a view to identifying best practice and perhaps helping to draft model codes. A rapporteur could be assigned the task of collecting and analysing the measures taken by companies, trade associations and lenders to ensure that their operations overseas were conducted so as to avoid the risk of human rights violations. He or she might also explore the possibility of collectively monitoring the codes of practice—always a problematic area for commercial firms which have no locus to ask for rights of inspection.
The commission will only be effective if it has the support and respect of all member states and of their parliaments as well. It can become even more effective if, with the approval of an informed public, it is properly resourced, if states co-operate fully with its procedures, and if, where they are unhelpful, the spotlight on their activities is turned up. I hope that while Britain occupies the presidency of the European Union, and particularly during the session of the commission which is just beginning, we shall do as much as possible to achieve those objectives.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whose work on human rights is known internationally and whose leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights was for a long time the dominating feature of its intensive investigations into global-wide breaches of human rights. I am particularly fortunate to sit on the same Benches as the noble Lord and to learn from much of his work.
Indeed at the far end of Westminster Hall this evening in the Grand Committee room a group is meeting with which he is involved. He is the honorary president of a new group, the Kurdish Human Rights Project. That is just one small example of the unremitting work that the noble Lord does on behalf of people in many parts of the world. The Kurdish Human Rights Project is one of many organisations which exist in such profusion in the United Kingdom, which has a longstanding commitment to human rights. People of many backgrounds who have suffered many miseries are free to express their unhappinesses and their views and to work to try to free their peoples. I commend the Kurdish Human Rights Project to your Lordships.
It is typical of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to have chosen this opportunity to mention the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and to call attention to the important role of Her Majesty's Government in bringing forward a programme of action for Mary Robinson to examine. About 10 days ago I heard Mary Robinson speak at the Africa Centre in London. In that speech she concentrated upon human rights in Africa. She gave the hopeful message that,
"new changes are taking place in Africa, fuelled by Africans, led by Africans and aimed at securing lasting peace, based on democracy, human rights and sustainable development".
She reminded us that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called this "Africa's third wave" in his statement to the Heads of State and Government of Africa in Harare last June. That was a challenging speech by Mary Robinson on the tremendous progress that is being made in Africa on matters affecting human rights.
I wish to raise a particular concern of mine which centres on prisoners held without trial. Somehow that has always seemed to me to be the bleakest of all situations. Those prisoners have not had an opportunity to prove their point or had a chance to say whether or not they have done the things of which they are accused.
646
They have been flung in gaol with no opportunity at all to speak to their peer group or to put their point of view. It is a case of summary and inhuman justice. Frequently those who suffer from it in many parts of the world are subject to torture.
In recent weeks the Minister has told us a great deal about the current situation in Iraq and has conveyed to us much knowledge. Tonight I remind the House of a small group of people imprisoned in Iraq who I believe suffer gravely and who need our care and attention, even though we are at present unable to release them. I speak of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war. I remind your Lordships that in 1991 Iraq released 5,772 Kuwaiti prisoners of war as a result of the tripartite allied committee's pressure with the backing of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. However, Kuwait knows that Iraq still holds a large number of Kuwaitis in prison and—as the Kuwaitis themselves say—a large number of non-Kuwaitis too. I know of several thousand Iranian prisoners of war who were imprisoned 15 years earlier. When I visited Kuwait I saw the paperwork that the Kuwaiti Government had supplied to the international committee. It contained a list of names and the complete files of the 605 prisoners still held in Iraq. Kuwait has demanded, and continues to demand, that Iraq should release them all now if they are still alive—as we hope and pray they are—or should return their bodies if they are dead. I have had the opportunity to meet some of the families of those missing prisoners. Some were soldiers but others were civilians. Young people, older people, men and women were all scooped up and taken. I am sad to say that Iraq has misled the international committee, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It has deliberately misled Kuwaiti families and the Kuwaiti Government, the Amir and his Ministers. Iraq has suggested that 126 files could be found out of 605. I believe that that is incorrect. I think that Iraq was merely dangling a hope in front of the Kuwaiti families. A paucity of information was provided that was far too insignificant to be able to identify where any prisoner was held.
The Iraqi Government admitted arresting 119 Kuwaitis but they suggest that, as a result of the uprising in 1991 after the allies had departed, they cannot locate them. Iraq has admitted that seven are dead and it has returned only one body, that of a Mr. Al Mutairi. Iraq has refused to give any information on the burial site of the other six whom it admits it has killed. Iraq has said nothing about the remainder. This is a deeply tragic situation. In the weeks and months ahead, when I fear we shall continue to wonder about these prisoners, I beg noble Lords to remember them and pity them in their trouble because it does not seem possible at the moment to get them released.
That is just one most miserable example of prisoners kept without trial. When the Minister reports to the United Nations and whenever Britain speaks on these important matters in which we have the high moral ground, I believe it is important that we should also consider the European Union in particular and make absolutely sure that in our countries we are doing all we

647
can to conquer any human rights deficiencies that we have either inherited as a government or have not perhaps had time completely to analyse and to sort out. Although we examine other countries, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is responsible for the human rights situation in each and every country in the world. The main function of its committees is to monitor the implementation of various treaties under which reviewing state reports are submitted. Those treaties are broad and deep. I have no doubt at all that the United Kingdom has been instrumental in much of the drafting.
However, Britain and Europe should perhaps examine more closely our own record in son-le respects. I am concerned, for example, about the position of children in Greece who at an early age experience truly devastating working conditions. In the other place I was a member of the Select Committee on Employment and I was sorry indeed that that committee was unable to adopt part of an EU directive which I believe would have lightened those children's burdens. Under the previous government the committee was unable to accept that provision because it did not wish to limit the hours of work of school-age children delivering newspapers and other things during the school week. Therefore the Greek children who are much younger, some of whom work in had conditions, suffer. When considering directives, it is important to understand the beneficial impact for the poorer parts of the European Union. We should consider how we as a strong, powerful, integral member of the European Union can help them.
It may not be improper for us to consider that some issues in the United Kingdom breach human rights. I am concerned about the situation inherited by the Government from the previous government. I refer to asylum seekers. Like other prisoners to whom I have referred, they are imprisoned without trial. I raise a difficult point here. Of course it is true that the physical detention in which those asylum seekers find themselves in the United Kingdom is completely different from that of most prisoners in many parts of the world. Nonetheless, the principle is there. If one criticises other nations for breaches of human rights, it is surely right that we should be prepared to examine our own record.
In that context, I welcome the report, which I believe the Government will soon publish, by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, on the imprisonment of those asylum seekers in the United Kingdom in places such as Campsfield. I know that Her Majesty's Government will wish to give the report the fullest possible attention. I applaud them in that attitude. I speak as a former Member of Parliament who was forbidden access to any prison in the United Kingdom after I visited the detention centre and felt concerned about the plight of those inside. Although I made no public statement, the Minister for Prisons forbade me to visit any prison, even the prison at Dartmoor, then within my constituency. Transparency and the capacity for parliamentarians to look at these matters is vital. I know that the new Government regard these matters with a proper sense of respect for the individuals; namely, the asylum seekers.
648
I speak with partiality as a British citizen and as a European Union citizen. I do not believe that throughout the EU any situation reflects even partially the horrors about which we speak with regard to Kuwaiti prisoners of war, and the many devastating places that my noble friend Lord Avebury has visited and knows, and for whose people he fights tirelessly. Nonetheless, I ask that the universality of human rights should always remain in our minds. We should address our own problems with as much celerity as we address the problems of others.
Finally, I quote the wise words of someone who must today be the most famous ex-prisoner of all, President Nelson Mandela. He said:
"When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both. Some say that has now been achieved. But I know that that is not the case. The truth is that we are not yet free; we have merely achieved the freedom to be tree, the rights not to he oppressed … The true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning".
Although Mary Robinson has a small budget, I know that Her Majesty's Government will wish her work well and will do everything they possibly can to assist her in that high task.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this timely opportunity to raise some pressing issues and to seek some satisfactory answers from the Minister on the question of the Government's human rights policy and the work of the UN Human Rights Commission. Today is only the second day of the annual session of the commission. During the next six weeks, it will endeavour to review the state of human rights around the world as part of the UN's founding mandate to promote respect for human rights and human dignity as the,
"foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world".
The 53 member countries of the commission have a delicate and difficult task ahead. They have attracted criticism for their failure both to press a resolution criticising China this year and to investigate the massacres in Algeria. The commission must confound those allegations of politicisation if the UN is to retain its international gold standard of human rights advocacy.
I intend to concentrate on the Government's approach to the cases of Algeria and China in this session of the commission. It is an approach which goes right to the heart of the Government's ethical foreign policy, a policy that has been tested in recent months by the tragedy of Algeria and in recent days by the question of China's human rights record and a policy that is increasingly infused by the scent of creeping hypocrisy.
I start with Algeria whose people continue to dwell in the shadow of the evil face of terrorism. The world has been shocked and revolted by the scale of savagery and the crude brutality witnessed there. An estimated 65,000 to 100,000 people have been killed since the conflict began six years ago. Over 1,000 men, women and children have been killed this year alone.

649
The situation in Algeria demands a concerted and immediate international response. Yet so far that response has comprised a show of hand wringing and verbal condemnation by the Foreign Secretary and a brief and bungled diplomatic troika mission. I should be grateful if the Minister will update the House on the outcome of that mission which apparently succeeded in,
"[opening] up the current political dialogue between the EU and the Algerian Government".
Has a date been set for the Algerian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Attaf, to visit London to continue that dialogue?
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has stated that the scope for international action is limited and that this is an internal problem. Given the Government's ethical foreign policy, I should therefore like to ask the Minister whether she agrees with Mary Robinson when she said,
"I cannot and do not consider [the situation in Algeria] to be an internal situation",
and that human rights have "no borders" when such violations occur and that the international community has a "responsibility to end such violence."
Amnesty International reports that not a single allegation of torture, "disappearance" or extra-judicial execution has been the subject of a thorough, independent and public investigation since the conflict began. Yet the Algerian Government have refused to set a date to allow the UN special rapporteur into the country, insisting that this is a question which can only be resolved at the current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to encourage the Algerian Government to accept the special rapporteur and, as EU president, what initiative they have taken to ensure that other governments do the same in Geneva? Furthermore, what lead will the Government take during the UK presidency if, over the next few weeks, Algeria continues to rebuff UN suggestions that the Commission on Human Rights has a role and continues to refuse to admit the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial, arbitrary and summary executions even after the current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights?
Given their ethical foreign policy, have the Government made any contingency plans to consider conditionality in the context of their economic and social relationships with Algeria to encourage the Algerian Government to be more forthcoming in their co-operation should no progress be made at the UN commission?
I now turn to China where the Government's new policy has caused amazement, disbelief and increasing cynicism among human rights campaigners and politicians of all hues because, for the first time in the nine years since the censure motion was introduced after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the United Kingdom will not support the annual resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to draw
650
attention to China's record on human rights. Given the Government's previous much publicised commitment to a so-called ethical foreign policy, and the importance they have attached to UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq, it is not surprising that many have concluded that the Government have bowed to the politics of expedience and as a result have reneged on their loudly proclaimed ethical promises and gone soft on human rights violations.
It is even less surprising that the Government have given two very different reasons for that decision: first, that the resolutions did not work. We have been told that over eight years the attempts to secure resolutions repeatedly failed to work and, as a result, in practical terms very little was achieved for human rights in China. In contrast, the Government's policy of constructive dialogue, supported by practical assistance, is already bearing fruits and is more likely to continue to do so than the censure approach.
It is true, as the noble Baroness pointed out last week, that there have been some improvements in China's human rights record. Yet Amnesty International, to which I pay tribute for its work in China, has said:
"1997 was yet again a year in which many people in China suffered gross human rights violations, despite some high profile human rights initiatives by the Government. The past year saw the arbitrary detention of possibly thousands of protesters and suspected government opponents, the continued imprisonment of thousands of political prisoners, grossly unfair trials, widespread torture and ill-treatment in police cells, prisons and labour camps and the extensive use of the death penalty",
and although,
"the Chinese authorities have responded to international criticism [and] while these steps are welcome, little has changed in practice. There is no reason for complacency on the part of the international community and no excuse for relaxing pressure on the Chinese authorities".
By failing to support the resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights, that is precisely what the Government have done. The Government's decision is no timely defeat for hollow symbolism. The resolution ensured that, despite efforts on China's part to suppress such debate, China's human rights record was discussed in a very public forum, and there is no doubt that the widespread international criticism of a permanent member of the UN Security Council caused its leaders embarrassment.
Nor was the resolution subject to the vicissitudes and expediency of the "human rights democracy" sometimes practised by China's leaders; that is, concessions on human rights, which, far from being sincere attempts to entrench democracy in China, in fact reflect tactical manoeuvring when the issue of human rights threatens to become an obstacle in China's conduct of diplomacy with the West. Instead, the resolution reflected an absolute international standard of respect for human rights and democracy which could not be compromised. That is what the Government have failed to support.
The second reason the Government have given for failing to support the resolution is because it is essential for the European Union to speak with a single voice on human rights and not to appear "deeply divided" in its

651
efforts to press China to improve its record. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary, in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers General Affairs Council, said:
"there is a broad recognition within the European Union that at last year's meeting of the Commission on Human Rights we did not do the best possible service to human rights in China by showing a European Union that was deeply divided. We have therefore resolved on a new approach on which we are going to put our priority and pressure on human rights in China through dialogue with China".
However, there is also broad recognition that France's intransigence in 1997, far from being the result of a sudden conversion to the carrot-and-stick school of diplomacy as opposed to the censure approach, was rooted in the irresistible draw of commercial realpolitik, given that France was on the verge of signing a £1.25 billion Airbus Industrie deal with Beijing.
What is the Government's answer to critics who fear that Britain's,
"fresh start down a broad road … wide enough to develop relations on the many matters of common interest",
promised by the Foreign Secretary, refers only to the protection of our trade interests rather than to our principled beliefs, and that the sole purpose of that "broad road", as he terms it, is to accommodate the inevitable traffic jams in the dash for a slice of China's lucrative markets?
Such critics include the prominent and highly respected dissident, Wei Jingsheng. He has said:
"what I am worried about is that the human rights movement will be sacrificed for the businessmen … feel pain knowing that western democracies are caught by the Chinese market economy's fishing hook".
During his recent visit to London, he was outspoken and uncompromising in his criticism of the Foreign Secretary, whom he called a "coward" whose "soft pedalling" on human rights violations in China for the sake of commercial contracts he described as a "large and wrong-headed gamble". What weight do the Government give to criticisms emanating from such a quarter?
This new policy, entitled "zero tolerance of division in Europe", is indeed radical, with far-reaching and critical ramifications for the work of the Foreign Office. Clearly, it must have implications for the Government's policy towards Iraq, given the divisions that exist in Europe over the need to keep the military option open. The Government seem to have developed a little schizophrenia in the application and importance attached to UN resolutions. I should like the Minister to clarify why a UN resolution was so necessary in the case of Iraq, when there were clearly potentially damaging divisions within the Security Council, yet in the case of China a resolution is proscribed by the slightest hint of European divisions.
Does that mean that in future, British principles and policies must be sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism in a bid to avoid a divided Europe? Perhaps it is this, and not human rights, which is at the centre of the Government's foreign policy.
The Government have listed a number of benchmarks by which their new policy towards China will be judged. The Chinese leadership will have to honour its promise
652
to "take seriously" a future visit by Mary Robinson; it will have to allow the Red Cross to resume prison visits; it will have to allow the release of dissidents on a joint EU-American list; and it will have to permit a totally independent European Union troika visit to Tibet. Could the Minister give the House some details as to how the Government intend to ensure that those criteria are honoured? Furthermore, what is the Government's minimum requirement for what must be agreed and achieved during that visit in order that it is deemed to have been "taken seriously"?
Yet it seems that, in the key litmus test of China, a paradox has been uncovered in the Government's ethical foreign policy. On the one hand, we have a Foreign Secretary who poses as "ethics man", yet on the other hand he could not find time to meet China's most eloquent defendant of democracy, Wei Jingsheng, during his visit to the UK in January, even though he was about to leave on a trip to Beijing. The result of that trip was a "warm, constructive and expansive" meeting with President Jiang Zemin, in which it is not clear that the Foreign Secretary raised the issue of the release of further dissidents at all. By contrast, Mr. Cook's subsequent meeting with Mr. Wei, who suffered almost two decades of imprisonment, torture and deprivation and attempts at "thought reform", was simply described as "friendly". The Foreign Office code is not hard to decipher.
On the one hand, we have a Government who claim to have put human rights at the heart of their foreign policy; yet, unlike the previous government, who insisted on a UN resolution as an absolute prerequisite to focus international attention "on the need for improvement in China's human rights situation", they have failed to sponsor the same UN resolution. On the one hand we have a government who claim to have taken "the lead in dialogue with China on human rights", yet human rights groups and dissidents alike have united to condemn the Government's policy while praising that of their predecessors.
When the Government announced their ethical foreign policy, amid much fanfare and ostentation, from these Benches I sought to elicit from the Government what exactly the "new" policy would mean and how it would differ from that of the previous government. Initially, there was no discernible change; no examples of stronger action towards perpetrators of human rights abuses, no case of greater penalties imposed on the countries concerned. In fact, there seemed to be a seamless transition of policy, indicating that the Government's "new" ethical credentials were no more than superficial rhetoric dressed up as policy.
But now, in their failure to renew sponsorship of the United Nations resolution on China, the Government have actually breached the ethical foreign policy established by the previous government. The Foreign Secretary's rhetoric of high principle has been uncovered as a sham and inevitable accusations of low comprise and double standards have followed. China is the litmus test for the Government, the litmus test that a true ethical foreign policy is judged by deeds, not words, by actions not rhetoric, and that a policy of true

653
statesmanship will be judged by its results, not by the presentations used to launch it, not by the impressive but ultimately hollow rhetoric used to describe it.
8.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this timely debate as the commission opens its annual sessions. The noble Lord's exemplary record on human rights is well known not only in your Lordships' House and throughout this country but also, I venture to suggest, elsewhere in the world. We thank him for the very valuable work that he does.
The Government are fully committed to the promotion of human rights. It is a centrepiece of our foreign, as well as our domestic, policy. We are committed to the principle of universality of human rights. All human rights, economic, social, cultural, civil and political, are for all people regardless of sex, age, ethnic origin or where they live. And all human rights are interrelated and interdependent. People cannot fully realise their economic rights in countries where their civil rights are consistently violated. The right to vote is meaningless when people are starving.
We are strongly committed to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as a vital forum for promoting human rights. We are major supporters of the UN's human rights machinery. So far this year, we have already contributed over £4 million to the UN's human rights voluntary funds for field operations, technical co-operation and victims of torture.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. As EU presidency this year, we have a special role to play at the commission. We are using it to make our views clear about human rights situations around the world. This year we shall be particularly working to ensure that the special concerns of women and of children are taken into account through all the work of the commission.
The UK will, throughout the commission, make a series of formal interventions on thematic and country issues. These will include interventions on children, democracy and development, women, racism, rule of law issues, advisory services, human rights defenders, and detention and advisory services. We shall also deliver a statement setting out our human rights concerns in countries around the world. We are still discussing with our partners the exact formulation of these interventions.
Her Majesty's Government are concerned at the increasing divisions in recent years within the commission between the EU and like-minded western countries and some G77 countries. We shall seek to use our presidency to reduce those divisions. When we can, we shall seek to engage countries in a constructive approach. But we shall not be deflected from highlighting human rights violations and refusal by countries to allow access to the commission's independent experts.
654
As noble Lords would expect, I have listened to the speakers this evening with considerable interest as they have dealt with not only the thematic issues around the world but also some of the country issues. I shall now try to address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. If I am not able to cover them all, I shall do so by letter later.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was nothing if not trenchant in his criticisms of the Government in relation to China. He used very strong words, such as "hypocrisy", "sham", "double standards" and "expediency". Let me be clear with the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House. We have raised at all levels with the Chinese Government our concerns over the continuing human rights violations within China. The Foreign Secretary made the Government's views clear during his visit to China in January. We shall continue to press the Chinese Government—as the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett have done—to live up to these international standards.
However, we do not believe that yet another failed resolution on China at this year's commission is the best way to bring about real changes on the ground. EU Foreign Ministers therefore decided on 23rd February that neither the presidency nor member states should table or co-sponsor a draft resolution on China at the commission. We believe that the EU's dialogue-based policy, supported by practical assistance, is more likely to bring about real improvements to human rights on the ground in China than repeated failed resolutions.
Let us be clear. I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in supporting human rights in China, and I hope that he does not doubt mine or that of the rest of the Government. Where we differ is on the best means to pursue human rights in China. The noble Lord advocates a means used in the past eight years: to achieve a vote against China. In seven of the past eight years that resolution was not even voted upon. It is not, as the noble Lord said, that it did not work; it did not even get as far as a vote being taken. However, since October last year we have attempted to engage in dialogue with China. I can cite eight positive results of that dialogue: first, the signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; secondly, the release of Wei Jingsheng; thirdly, agreement to transmit Hong Kong reports under the UN covenants, which was one of our major goals; fourthly, an agreement of the EU technical co-operation package covering civil and political rights, as well as economic and social rights; fifthly, an invitation to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Mrs. Robinson, to visit China; sixthly, a visit to China by the UN group on arbitrary detention; seventhly, an agreement to visit Tibet by EU troika embassies; eighthly, the EU-China legal affairs seminar, attended by legal experts, academics and government officials from both sides held on 23rd and 24th February.
The noble Lord again cites Mr. Wei. There is no doubt that Mr. Wei is a very brave man. But Her Majesty's Government have to do what they believe to be right in the sense of what can be achieved on the ground and in the sense of pursuing those eight

655
improvements which we have seen since we began our dialogue with China. When Mr. Wei met the Foreign Secretary there was, of course, an exchange of views. There was not agreement on every point; no one would suggest that. But Mr. Wei recognised not only what had been done before 1st May last year but also what has been done since then. He recognised the continuing commitment of Her Majesty's Government to human rights in China and thanked my right honourable friend for everything he had done in order to secure his release.
Noble Lords will have noted the United States' announcement that, in the light of China's recent decision to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States too has decided not to table or co-sponsor a resolution on China.
The noble Lord also raised the question of Algeria. We continue to be deeply concerned about the appalling massacres and the reports of widespread torture in Algeria. We are seeking to bring about improvements in the situation there through dialogue. We believe that that approach stands the best chance of achieving real improvements on the ground. That, after all, is what Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy on these issues is about—real achievements, not just clever exchanges over the Dispatch Box.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, led an EU mission to Algeria in January to continue the political dialogue established during the visit to Luxembourg in 1997 of the Algerian Foreign Minister, Mr. Attaf. We are in discussion with the Algerians about access for UN special rapporteurs, including on torture and extra-judicial killings.
I now turn to the some of the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The noble Lord raised the question of the High Commissioner's office. The Government fully support the Secretary-General's track-two reform proposals, which Her Majesty's Government believe will significantly enhance the role of the UN human rights machinery. We particularly support the strengthening of the High Commissioner's office in New York because we believe that this will play a key role in ensuring that human rights feature across the full range of the work of the United Nations.
The British Government funded a review by Price Waterhouse of the office of the High Commissioner. The review advised the High Commissioner on ways in which the office could be more effective. The review played an important role in the reorganisation of the office now being completed by the High Commissioner. The noble Lord is right; it is important that the High Commissioner's office is properly funded, both through the UN regular budget and through voluntary contributions. We are working to ensure that there is sufficient focus within the UN on that kind of regular budget.
The noble Lord also raised the question of thematic rapporteurs. Thematic rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights are independent experts and we strongly believe that they have to decide their own methods of work. But there is no reason why thematic rapporteurs cannot produce detailed reports of countries that they have not been allowed to visit. After all, it would be
656
quite wrong if countries were to escape scrutiny by refusing access to those special rapporteurs. Many rapporteurs' reports contain reporting and analysis on countries which they have not been allowed to visit.
The noble Lord raised questions in relation to delays in the translation of UN documents. It would not be acceptable to many UN member states if documents were made available in some languages before others. For example, we could expect legitimate objections from Arab states if documents relating to them were in the public domain in English before they were made available in Arabic. Many reports to the Commission on Human Rights are available only once the commission has started. That often reflects the desire of the rapporteur to produce absolutely up-to-date work when producing the reports.
The noble Lord raised the question of internally displaced persons. Of course human rights apply as much to internally displaced persons as to anyone else. It is vital to tackle the root causes of internal displacement and we are therefore looking forward to Mr. Deng's special report to the current session of the Commission on Human Rights. We will study his proposals carefully before developing the framework in the protection of internally displaced persons, including the important resource issues which the noble Lord raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, raised questions about Kuwaiti prisoners of war in Iraq. It is deplorable that there are still Kuwaiti prisoners of war in Iraq. We will be pushing for that to be a focus of our EU base resolution on Iraq at the Commission on Human Rights. The noble Baroness raised the issue of a number of other nationals who are also imprisoned in Iraq without trial. Those persons will also be the subject of our discussions.
The noble Baroness raised questions over the rights of the child. We will use the commission to emphasise the need for universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and EU support for a new ILO declaration on the most intolerable forms of child labour.
The noble Baroness raised questions about UK asylum procedures. We know that the system for dealing with asylum seekers has been expensive; it has been too slow. As she rightly said, it was a system that we inherited. But we are looking critically at all aspects of asylum law and procedures, including the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to ensure that decisions are not only fair, but that they are swift.
I wish to return to some of what I felt were the most extraordinary criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in relation to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on human rights. I should like to run though some of the important points that have been secured by Her Majesty's Government since 1st May last year.
The noble Lord raised issues in relation to China on questions of the death penalty. The Government decided that the death penalty will now be challenged. We, with our EU partners, have made a series of démarches already on the use of the death penalty in countries

657
where it is used. We are discussing with Italy the prospects of, in this year's session, calling for the abolition of the death penalty.
We have been engaged with the ILO in working for a new convention on unacceptable forms of child labour. We have a new policy for new and tougher criteria on the sales of arms. We are working for an EU code of conduct on arms sales. We will be barring and have barred the export of torture equipment. We have launched the human rights projects fund so that missions can back up the dialogue with real assistance on the ground. We are replacing the old military training programme by redirecting funds to the new ASSIST fund. We have close co-operation between the DfID and the FCO on a human rights-based approach to development. On many other issues of engagement the Government, in the past 10 months, have made considerable inroads on human rights issues.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government take concerns over human rights seriously. The 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a time for all countries to implement universal, international human rights standards. We wish the commission well and we wish Mrs. Robinson well with her work.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
8.45 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 15 [Contravention of curfew notices]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("() A constable who, acting in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) above, removes the child to the child's place of residence and discovers that there is no responsible adult at that address, shall then inform the relevant local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 seeks to plug a perceived gap in the process by which the police deal with children under 10 who have broken the curfew ban.
Clause 15 sets out what happens when the curfew ban is broken. The constable must first tell the local authority that the child has contravened the ban and then he must decide whether or not to take the child home. In making that decision, he must first take the decision as to whether or not, by taking the child home, that child will be likely to suffer significant harm—as in the threshold criteria with which we are used to dealing in the Children Act.
The constable must therefore consider whether, by taking the child home, the child is being put in a position where it may suffer significant harm. After all, as a local police officer he may have some knowledge of the area; he may know the history of abuse or neglect in a family and, if so, if he comes to a decision that the child would suffer significant harm, at that stage he has powers to take the child into police protection under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989.
That much is clear. But what is unclear is what happens when the constable decides to take the child home on the basis that he or she is not likely to suffer significant harm, but when he rings the doorbell of the home there is no reply. It may simply be that the parents or guardians are not at home. At that stage the Bill does not help with what the constable should do next. It jumps to the stage after that and gives details as to how the local authority shall investigate the incident as soon as practicable; in any event, within 48 hours. That is of course a proper direction. But what happens in the meantime?
Amendment No. 32 seeks to fill the gap so that, when a constable is on the doorstep and there is no reply, he or she shall then inform the local authority. I realise that the Government may feel that the amendment is defective in its wording because I have not specified where the constable should take the child, having notified the local authority. It will be apparent to noble Lords therefore that this is a probing amendment. I genuinely seek to find out whether or not there are existing powers to cover that eventuality which are not to be found within the Bill. If so, perhaps the Government can say where they are to be found. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 32. It may seem to be a case of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's"; it may seem obvious and appear to be one of those byways in a Bill which does not have to be on its face. But it presents a real problem.
If a policeman turns up to a child's home with a child and there is no one in, he will of course take the child back to the police station. But what happens then? Some sort of provision should be made. If not, all kinds of difficulties may ensue and the whole process may be put in jeopardy. I congratulate the noble Baroness on finding this apparent loophole in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has put the matter and for the way the noble Viscount came to her assistance in questioning whether there is a gap. These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask and I hope that I can offer a satisfactory answer.
In subsection (3) of Clause 15 the Bill provides that the constable may remove the child to the child's place of residence. That is the proper first step. If the constable believes that such a step would place the child—one is dealing with children under the age of 10—at risk of significant harm, he would be expected to make use of existing powers under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 to remove the child to suitable accommodation. That suitable accommodation has to be a matter for discussion between the relevant local agencies prior to the imposition of a curfew notice so that appropriate arrangements will be in place during the period of the curfew. That is a matter which we will cover in guidance, which I mentioned earlier, but not this specific topic.
The amendment would place a requirement on the constable to inform the local authority if no one responsible is at home—I think I paraphrase fairly.

659
The answer is to be found in subsection (3)(a) of Section 46 of the 1989 Act, which provides that when a child is taken into police protection, which would be the result of there being no one responsible at home, the constable shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after taking the child into such protection, inform the local authority about the situation surrounding the child. Therefore, I am happy to be able to say, I think confidently, that the Children Act covers the possible lacuna which was identified by the noble Baroness and by the noble Viscount. I hope that I have been of assistance to them both as well as to your Lordships.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Provided the clause fills the lacuna, I will not bring this back. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Interpretation etc. of Chapter I]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 14, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("pursued") in line 42.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this fairly large group of amendments, starting with Amendment No. 34, is aimed at ensuring that antisocial behaviour orders are sought by a local authority only in circumstances of persistent reported nuisance. I do not believe that there are circumstances where a single event would occur which was serious enough for an antisocial behaviour order without it also being an offence.
I acknowledge that there are people who behave in a consistently antisocial manner towards their neighbours. The key to this amendment is that they are building up a dossier of evidence against themselves. I am sure that it would be a mistake to allow a local authority to believe that it could proceed with an antisocial behaviour order on evidence of a single noisy late-night party. It is important that these new orders are not brought into disrepute. The adoption of these amendments would ensure that ending continuously unacceptable and positively interfering behaviour was the target of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I rise to offer support to the noble Earl for the amendment and also for the other amendments which are grouped with it. As I believe the Minister who is to reply will be well aware, these amendments have been suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, which is concerned to guard against any possibility that an antisocial behaviour order could be granted on the basis that the person who is to be made the subject of the order has committed a single act which could be described as being an antisocial act. What this group of amendments seeks to suggest is that a similar approach should be adopted in this clause as has been adopted in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; namely, proceeding on a course of conduct.
Arguably, the need for this amendment may be fortified by the next couple of amendments, to which we shall turn in a moment, whereby the conduct that could justify an antisocial behaviour order can be directed at one person alone. Therefore, there must be a possibility that, unless this clause remains unamended, one act against one person could justify a sheriff pronouncing an order sought by a local authority.
It is my suggestion that this amendment and the other amendments fit in with the whole philosophy of antisocial behaviour orders as has been explained by government Ministers when dealing not only with the Scottish provisions but also with the English provisions which have detained us for a few hours again today. The whole philosophy is that this order is to be sought as a last resort after the neighbours themselves have failed to sort out their differences, after any police involvement has achieved nothing, after any warnings from the local authority, whether by visit or warning letter, have failed to bring about a change, and after mediation has failed. The suggestion is that it is then and only then that the Government would consider it appropriate that a local authority should act by raising the appropriate proceedings in the sheriff court and seeking an antisocial behaviour order.
In those circumstances, it is very difficult to imagine how one act by one individual directed against another individual could justify such action being taken. It is against that background that I hope that this series of amendments will receive sympathetic consideration by the Government.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, this group of amendments, as any amendment, receives sympathetic consideration by the Government. However, it is our position that these amendments are fundamentally mistaken. They are designed to ensure that an application can be made and an order can be granted only if there has been persistent antisocial conduct and that further persistent conduct is feared. I have no difficulty whatever with the point made by the noble Earl and repeated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that applications should not be a response to one-off acts. They should be a last and not a first resort, as the noble and learned Lord has observed. As the consultation paper issued at the end of last year said, they should be a response to repeated unreasonable behaviour. I would hope to allay the fears of the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord by referring to Clause 18(6) where "conduct" is defined as including speech and a course of conduct which involves conduct on at least two occasions. So the single act theory cannot apply in terms of the Bill as framed.
Having said that, we would not wish to remove the possibility of the sheriff making an order after one antisocial act if it was sufficiently serious and if there was obvious evidence that there was a likelihood of repetition. There is also a difference between the behaviour that prompts an application and what has to be proved in court.

661
If the amendments were accepted, the benefits of these provisions for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses would be substantially reduced. I deal with a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Of course, neighbours may seek to sort out differences and the police may be involved. But the whole point of these orders is to provide a remedy where neighbours are frightened to involve the police and they go through the anonymity of the local authority.
I postulate a situation of a group of elderly residents of a street whose lives are made miserable by the behaviour of a gang of youths. It is likely that there will be several occasions when they suffer alarm and distress before they even contact the local authority. But they may be too frightened to speak to any of these incidents in court. In that situation the local authority would arrange for the behaviour to be witnessed by one of their officers so that the witness can give evidence of behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.
However, if these amendments were made, the witness would have to witness at least two incidents. He would have to wait and see a second occurrence and we believe that that would be unreasonable. Furthermore, the addition of the word "persistent" to the provisions which are sought to be amended would be likely to mean that even more incidents would require to be proved. That would clearly prolong the evidence-gathering period and therefore the period before the local authority could act on behalf of the residents.
There is a further difficulty that the sheriff could only make an order if he were satisfied that one was necessary to protect the public from further persistent conduct rather than from further conduct. So even if he were satisfied that the behaviour was likely to take place again, that would not be sufficient if these amendments were given effect. I do not know how the courts would interpret "persistent" in the context of future events. One can easily envisage a defence solicitor arguing that the applicant had not proved that further persistent conduct was likely although there was a likelihood of further conduct. In that situation I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for so patiently explaining the position. I had anticipated a great deal of what he said. I can see that as regards the word "persistent" one needs to look for a word that implies two, three or four, rather than a never-ending stream, of events, which is what I believe "persistent" means.
I take the point about the single incident which has been reported to the sheriff and that that will in fact be the result of some fairly persistent misbehaviour. If I were initially worried that it was going to be a genuine one-off incident leading to an antisocial behaviour order, I believe that it has been quite clearly established that such an incident cannot exist and not just because of the
662
reference to two or more occasions. In order to build up the dossier to which I referred to earlier, a frequent course of unsatisfactory behaviour will have to be displayed in order to gain the interest of the local authority in the situation. Having said that, I am happy with the answer that I have received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Dean of Harptree): My Lords, if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 37.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 45, leave out ("two or more persons who are not members") and insert ("one or more persons not").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed Amendment No. 2 to the English provisions which reduced from two to one the number of people who have to be affected by antisocial behaviour before an application for an order can be made. This amendment does the same for Scotland.
In Committee I agreed—like my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—that I would reconsider the case in favour of such a change. I have now done so. I recognise the strength of the arguments put at that time by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how much I welcome the change of mind by the Government in bringing forward Amendment No. 36. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had a slight dilemma as to the choice of the way forward—either Amendment No. 36 or Amendment No. 37. The latter amendment is in identical terms to one which commended itself to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, earlier. Amendment No. 36 is a different way of achieving the same result.
I am anxious to discover whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate intends to insist on his amendment or perhaps prefers Amendment No. 37, which obviously had certain attractions for the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said earlier about "reflective listening" which, I venture to suggest, is not only of benefit to parents, but also of benefit to those who sit on the Government Front Bench. Therefore, while I fully support what lies behind Amendment No. 36, I would prefer Amendment No. 37, if for no other reason than to have one opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 3, after ("accordingly);") insert—
("() that, whenever possible, an attempt to resolve the situation by mediation has been tried and has failed or that the persons involved are not willing to seek resolution through mediation or other voluntary means;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is an improvement on the amendment which I withdrew at Committee stage. Its purpose is to establish on the face of the Bill the steps which a local authority shall take in its approach to seeking an antisocial behaviour order. The amendment includes the ideas of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate from our discussion in Committee.
I acknowledge that it was promised that the issue of mediation would be included in guidance. However, I do not think that it is reasonable to leave that important stage in the process of building a case for an antisocial behaviour order to administrative guidance notes, particularly when the requirement to consult the chief constable is on the face of the Bill in Clause 20. Furthermore, there is a government amendment, Amendment No. 47, to which we have yet to come, which confirms that a local authority may proceed with other measures simultaneously while seeking an antisocial behaviour order.
Consistency demands that the main elements of the process should be given equal weight. I believe that sheriffs will find it reassuring if they are able to read a report based on an assessment of a mediation intervention or a report on why mediation cannot be attempted. Ultimately, a sheriff should have the power to reject as incomplete an application for an antisocial behaviour order without evidence of a local authority's intervention considerations. The Bill is not distorted by the amendment: it is most definitely enhanced by the clarification which it brings. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as I indicated at Committee stage, I entirely agree with the principle behind this amendment that antisocial behaviour orders should be a last rather than a first resort. I also indicated that I am a firm supporter of mediation projects, including those managed by SACRO.
I remain of the view, however, that such matters as the need to consider mediation before making an application for such an order are administrative and should properly be dealt with in the guidance rather than the primary legislation itself. As I said earlier, this will be issued in draft to a wide range of bodies, including the local authorities, for full consultation. I am sure that SACRO and other similar bodies will have meaningful input into that guidance, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to impose a requirement for mediation on the face of the Bill in every case. Obviously, there will be some cases in which it will not be appropriate. On the understanding that the importance of mediation will be fully dealt with in the guidance, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I take the noble and learned Lord's point that this can be dealt
664
with in guidance. However, I am interested in knowing the minimum amount of effort to which a local authority must go before approaching the sheriff clerk to set a date to apply for the order. Irrespective of the amendment having come from SACRO, it is important that a local authority must have tried to do something to engage with the people who are causing the nuisance rather than simply receiving evidence from neighbours who are being driven to distraction. I wonder whether the guidance will insist on a report of the intervention which the local authority has made or whether it will be sufficient for a local authority simply to report that it has had such evidence laid before it and that on one occasion one of its officers has witnessed the nuisance. Can the noble and learned Lord say something about that?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I hope that in any complaint the local authority will first approach the offending neighbour, individual or individuals and seek to persuade them of the error of their ways and to dissuade them from the activities in which they have been indulging. One would expect that to be the first stage.
I should have thought that the guidance would lay down the principles which the local authorities should follow. As I have said, interested bodies and individuals can have an input into that. However, guidance is precisely that: it is there to guide the local authorities. It does not impose a requirement to do anything. So, I do not think that the guidance could possibly require local authorities in every case to prepare a report of what they have done. Indeed, mediation would be neither possible nor appropriate in every case. For example, if the antisocial behaviour affected an entire community and it was apparent from the history that the individuals were unlikely to be dissuaded from pursuing those activities, it would be appropriate for the local authority in an extreme case to go straight to the court rather than enter into mediation. I hope that what I have said assists the noble Earl in seeking to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am assisted by the response of the noble and learned Lord. I remain a little frightened by the idea that a local authority may make virtually no effort to become involved. I had come here intending to test the opinion of the House. I have decided not to do so because I may wish to return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("fulfilled,") and insert ("proved beyond a reasonable doubt,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42. The purpose of this amendment and Amendment No. 51, which is grouped with it, is to define the standard of proof required when an antisocial

665
behaviour order or sex offender order is to be made by the sheriff. I fully understand the desirability of both orders being made under the civil law. However, in view of the criminal prosecution which follows a proven breach of an order I believe that it is sensible to maintain one standard of proof rather than switch between two standards. Even so, an unbreached order will remain within the civil law. As the previous amendments stressed the need to avoid one-off incidents being the sole evidence, particularly for the making of antisocial behaviour orders, and stressed the need to concentrate on persistent misbehaviour, I do not see why the standard of proof cannot be beyond reasonable doubt. A series of reports to establish persistence (for want of a better word) should be quite sufficient to meet that standard of proof. It is a pity that no opportunity is given to cross-examine the evidence and adduce counter-evidence. I believe that that denies the citizen of an automatic opportunity to explain why his behaviour may have been reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, these amendments would increase the standard of proof for antisocial behaviour and sex offender orders from the civil standard to the criminal standard. As discussed in detail at Committee stage, however, these orders are prohibitory and are neither convictions nor punishments. In these circumstances, it is right that the laws of civil evidence should apply and that an order should be granted if the need for it is proved on the balance of probabilities. This is no different from the situation in interdict cases where often one is dealing with similar types of behaviour or with applications to the civil courts for non-harassment orders. As to the ability to adduce counter evidence, the Bill does not preclude anyone from doing so in an application before the sheriff. I invite the noble Earl to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am interested to learn that the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence and adduce counter-evidence is available if the person concerned wishes to avail himself of it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("doing anything described in the order") and insert ("continuing the course of conduct which gave rise to the summary application").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45 whose purpose is to narrow the possible scope of the order. It also places limits on what the order should proscribe. I believe that it should be restricted to the behaviour that is reported to the court. At present the scope of the order appears to be too wide. A citizen who is subject to an antisocial behaviour order must know what he is forbidden to do. In the civil court an interdict prohibits the continuation of the conduct that gave rise to the application for the interdict. As an
666
antisocial behaviour order and a sex offender order are both civil law measures the same approach should be adopted. Without such an approach, there is a danger that behaviour which has not yet been complained about may be banned in anticipation. I have always praised these orders for being forward-looking, but I do not believe that the order should second guess the citizen's future misbehaviour. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the amendment would restrict the sheriff to making an order prohibiting the person from doing the same act that it had been established he had done before. That does not necessarily mirror the situation in interdict proceedings. Although interdict frequently stops someone from doing the same act that he or she has been doing before, it can also be used to preserve rights. If there is an apprehension that someone is going to dispose of an asset, the ownership of which might be in dispute, the interdict might be used to preserve it. It might also be used to protect an individual from harm if he or she thought that he or she was going to be assaulted. It would need to specify that the assault had to be in the same manner as any previous assault.
So if, for example, the amendment were agreed to, and if an application for an order related to youths who had been knocking or banging on the doors of three houses in a particular street between midnight and 2 a.m., the order would prohibit them from doing only that. It would not prohibit them from banging on the door of another house in the same street, or perhaps from banging on the same doors at different times, although that may be more doubtful.
The effect of the amendment would be to limit the order too much. In the circumstances it would be too easy for individuals to continue their antisocial careers while avoiding breaching the order. It is clear that the provisions as drafted enable the sheriff to impose any prohibitions that he considers necessary to protect the community from any antisocial acts or conduct. It is not limitless. It is limited to what measures he considers necessary to protect the community from antisocial acts or conduct.
The person against whom an order is made will have a clear indication of what he or she is prohibited from doing, because he or she will be served with an order which will spell out the behaviour which is prohibited. So the interests of those against whom orders are made are protected. It is our view that the sheriff must have discretion to impose whatever prohibitions he considers necessary to protect the public. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the amendment was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It was inspired by the thought that the sheriff could produce an order which said something to the tune of, "not to indulge in antisocial behaviour". The noble and learned Lord has made it clear that it will be a much tighter range of behaviour, but at the same time it will not be a fishing trip or catch-all which would surprise the offender who did not know that he was thinking of doing certain things in the future. Understandably, a

667
limited and realistic range of activities will be banned; those which the person might be about to undertake. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 14, at end insert—
("() On an application under subsection (1) above, the sheriff may make such interim order in terms set out in subsection (3) above as he considers appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment which seeks to introduce into Clause 18 a power to allow the sheriff to make an interim antisocial behaviour order in the same way that Clause 19(4) allows him to make an interim sex offender order.
Your Lordships will recall that the matter was discussed at Committee stage following which I was pleased to receive from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate one of a number of letters dealing with the issues discussed. He stated that while agreeing with certain of our suggestions he did not propose to introduce provisions for interim antisocial behaviour orders because, among other reasons, he did not wish to skew civil business unnecessarily in that way. He added:
"Cases where there is a need for urgency should be rare, given that conduct which is clearly criminal will be addressed by other means. If exceptionally there is a need for particular speed the local authority applicant can ask the sheriff to hear the application quickly".
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I am not clear what he means by the expression "skew civil business unnecessarily". Daily, sheriffs throughout Scotland have to deal with a variety of applications for interim orders, including interim interdicts. I do not understand how that skews civil business unnecessarily. Sheriffs are well accustomed to dealing with them on the basis of ex parte submissions by solicitors or counsel. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded by that argument.
Undoubtedly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepts that there will be cases of urgency, albeit rare, and the amendment is designed to take account of them. As regards his statement that:
"If there is a need for particular speed the local authority can ask the sheriff to hear the application quickly",
as I suggested on the last occasion, that may be easier said than done. If the person against whom the application for an order is directed seeks to apply for legal aid, even standing the availability of emergency legal aid certificates, that may take some time. If he then lodges answers or defences disputing the factual allegations and averments made against him the case will require to be set down for the hearing of evidence of proof. It may take some time to fix a suitable date and the hearing may last one day or two or, in a complicated case, several days. The sheriff will then have to consider his decision and in some instances that may involve a delay in issuing the judgment.
Therefore, there is a distinct possibility that, in a case of urgency where there is a stateable and colourable argument that an interim order is appropriate, in the
668
absence of a power making it competent for the sheriff to grant such an order it may he weeks if not longer before it would be possible for him to do so. That is a sound reason why the sheriff should he given such a power.
However, there is a further reason which I mentioned in Committee. I am concerned that if a defender hears that the local authority is to seek such an order against him, that may seek to inflame the situation and provoke him into further antisocial behaviour in which he might otherwise not have engaged. No doubt from time to time when someone who has misbehaved as a bad neighbour is warned, whether by the police or by a friendly representative of the local authority, that he ought to mend his ways, he will do so.
However, my experience as a solicitor and counsel suggests that there will be others who will be aggravated by such a threat and, far from improving their behaviour, they will go from bad to worse. If they offend against the criminal law and there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, no doubt the police and the procurator fiscal will deal with them. But if they are sly and cunning individuals, they may act when there are no witnesses available, apart from the particular individual against whom their behaviour is directed. In such circumstances, the police may be powerless to act.
One of the benefits of this provision, if it is to be enacted, is that there will be no requirement for corroboration and no requirement to meet the criminal standard of proof. And yet, if there is no power to grant an interim order, it may be some weeks before the victim of the bad neighbour can be protected.
I have considered carefully what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the last occasion. I have thought about the matter and discussed it with the Law Society, which has an interest in this matter. I remain to be persuaded by the argument against including such a power which it is acknowledged will be of value in Clause 19 but which it is disputed will be of value in Clause 18. This does not require the sheriff to grant such an order. It merely affords him the power to do so. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I have considered carefully whether we should make provision for interim antisocial behaviour orders. As the noble and learned Lord remarked, I wrote to him on 10th March indicating that I had considered the matter and I remain of the view that I do not support the amendment.
As I indicated in my letter, I should not wish to skew civil business in that way. Perhaps I may explain what I had in mind. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, this will be a summary application. In such applications, the sheriff determines the procedures so that he can make the procedure as quick or as lengthy as he wishes.
My concern is that if interim orders were permitted in summary applications in the context of antisocial behaviour orders, it would place an undue burden on the court. The noble and learned Lord will know that,

669
although only those which were truly urgent and true emergencies would justify interim orders, if there were provision for interim orders, the availability of that remedy would result in people making applications for them as a matter of course.
Equally, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that many interim orders are sought, whether it is interim interdict or any other interim order, which are not granted. The burden on the courts would be unreasonable.
In my respectful submission, it would not be appropriate to have interim orders. If the complainant or the people who were suffering as a result of the behaviour wished, they could apply for interdict and obtain an interim interdict. But the whole point about the orders is that they seek to take the neighbours or victims out of the situation and to enable the local authority to take the initiative.
I take the noble and learned Lord's example of the sly person who was victimising neighbours and so on and was committing acts which were not witnessed by anyone other than the victims themselves. In the context of this legislation, it is unlikely that the local authority would be able to come forward with an order unless the neighbours or victims came forward as witnesses. That is one thing that we are trying to avoid.
However, having said that, truly urgent cases—that is to say, urgent compared with the rest of civil business—should indeed be rare. Given the fact that this is a summary form of application, the sheriff could be encouraged by a local authority to hear the application quickly. The local authority would make an application to the sheriff to have an early diet. Further, in those urgent cases, the probability is that the conduct complained of would almost certainly be criminal and, as the noble and learned Lord observed, there are other remedies in that respect. The police would be involved and could take swift action.
During our earlier discussions, the noble and learned Lord drew. a comparison with interim interdict in Scotland. It may be necessary to obtain an interim interdict in a very short space of time because of the urgency or imminence of the threat, whether it be of violence or of removal of property. However, that is not the situation where antisocial behaviour orders are concerned; indeed, they are not intended to address such immediacy and immediacy will not normally apply. There is also the question of title interest of local authorities to raise interdict proceedings in respect of someone who is not their tenant. The noble and learned Lord will be aware of the case of Dundee City Council against Cook in 1995.
The noble and learned Lord also suggested that the application for an antisocial behaviour order might inflame the situation and exacerbate the antisocial behaviour. In our view, the reverse is more likely. The local authority will inform those responsible for the behaviour that an order is contemplated. That, in itself, might, as the noble and learned Lord accepted, induce some of the recalcitrants to mend their ways so that an order would no longer be necessary. However, if it does
670
not, and the behaviour is exacerbated or the complainants threatened, as the noble and learned Lord fears, then it is more than likely that a criminal offence, such as a breach of the peace, will have occurred. In that situation, the police—who will of course have been consulted on the case beforehand—could quickly intervene. In those circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am obviously not surprised at the burden of the noble and learned Lord's reply in the light of the letter which he helpfully sent to me. However, I regret to say that I remain unpersuaded by his argument. The noble and learned Lord said at one stage that, if interim orders were permitted, it might lead to an undue burden being placed on the courts. I have two observations to make in that respect.
First, as I have sat here for several hours listening to discussion about these orders, both in the English and the Scottish context, my clear understanding of the Government's policy is that such orders should only be resorted to by a local authority as a last resort. Indeed, they should only be resorted to after careful examination of the factual situation and after the efforts of police and local authority representatives to try to reach an accommodation between neighbours or individuals who are upsetting or offending each other have failed. It is only as a last resort, before criminal action is resorted to, that such an application should be brought.
If my assumption is correct, I would be most surprised if local authorities in Scotland were to bring a long succession of interim orders which had no prospect of success. On the contrary, one would expect—if the procedure is followed in the way the Government wish—that they would do so only if there was a strong argument for an interim order to be pronounced.
My second observation is that if the Government bring legislation onto the statute book, it is incumbent upon them to provide the courts with the resources to deal with the extra litigation to which such legislation may give rise. I feel strongly about this matter. I do not wish to allow this measure to pass without testing the opinion of the House on my amendment.
9.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Crathome, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

671

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borre, L.

Judd, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L

Randall of St. Budeaux, L

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Varley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winston, L.

Hoyle, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this section shall prevent a local authority from instituting any legal proceedings otherwise than under this section against any person in relation to any anti-social act or conduct.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes it clear that the existence of the antisocial behaviour order mechanism does not affect the power of local authorities to make use of other remedies available to them to tackle antisocial behaviour.
I understand, for example, that Dundee City Council has successfully used interdict against some of its own tenants. The council will no doubt find the antisocial behaviour order mechanism useful where the behaviour of owner occupiers or of tenants of other landlords is in question. It may also find it helpful in circumstances where the court may not accept that the authority has the necessary right and interest to seek interdict.
But we do not intend that the existence of such orders should prevent or cast any doubt on a council's power to use existing common law remedies in cases where these are appropriate.
This amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am happy to indicate from these Benches that we support the amendment. The last thing anyone would wish is that the provisions relating to antisocial behaviour orders should in any way inhibit local authorities or anyone else from prosecuting legal remedies that are available to them. I therefore support Amendment No. 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved manuscript Amendment No. 48A:
Page 15, line 27, at end insert—
("() A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects of doing, or having done, anything prohibited by an anti-social behaviour order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should explain how this manuscript amendment comes to exist. It is a replacement for Amendment No. 53, which, as the result of an error that I made in intimating the amendment to the Public Bill Office, was tabled against Clause 19 as opposed to Clause 18.
The purpose of the amendment is to give to police officers (to "a constable") power to arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects of doing or having done anything prohibited by an antisocial behaviour order. This issue was discussed in Committee. On further consideration, I have again brought forward an amendment.
My concern is along these lines. If a person who is the subject of an antisocial behaviour order commits a criminal offence, and there is corroborative evidence of such an offence, he can be arrested, reported to the procurator fiscal and placed before the court for prosecution. However, there may be other situations where that course of action is not possible. On the one hand, the act that he may do may not constitute a criminal offence on its own, whether at common law or under any statute. In such circumstances there is obviously no possibility of a police officer being able to arrest or detain the offender against whom the antisocial behaviour order has been pronounced. Another alternative is where it is obvious to the police officer when he arrives on the scene that there is no possible source of corroboration for the complaint from the person who has been the victim of antisocial behaviour by the defender who is the subject of the antisocial behaviour order.
It is in the public interest that in either of those situations a power of arrest should exist and be available to a police officer to use if he deems it appropriate, confronted as he may be in the middle of the night or early in the morning by a very tense, unpleasant and difficult situation.
In Clause 19 the Government acknowledge that there may be scope for arresting someone who has apparently acted in breach of a sex offender order in such circumstances. In the Matrimonial Homes (Family

673
Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 Parliament recognised that it was appropriate to give such powers of arrest to police officers to deal with those subject to matrimonial interdicts, as they are sometimes referred to. When the Scottish Affairs Committee of another place reported in July last year on an investigation which it carried out into housing and antisocial behaviour, it made a number of recommendations, including one that powers of arrest should be available in interdict cases where there was violence, or a threat of violence, or a significant risk of harm, to persons who had sought or were protected by an interdict.
The previous government accepted the recommendations of that all-party committee which, by the very nature of the political composition of the other place as regards Scotland, even in the previous parliament had more Labour members than members of any other party. The government response stated:
"The Government note the Committee's recommendation that legislation should be introduced to empower the courts to attach a power of arrest to interdicts directed against persons who use or threaten violence against their neighbours. The Government accept the case for attaching a power of arrest to interdicts in the circumstances outlined and will consult interested parties on how this should be done".
Therefore the principle of having such power of arrest was acknowledged. I suggest that the principle applies to the subject matter of Clause 18. It is for that reason that I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 48A.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as I indicated when we discussed this matter in Committee, there is no need for a power of arrest without warrant for breach of such an order. Where the behaviour is serious enough to justify arrest, it will almost certainly constitute a criminal offence in its own right and the powers of arrest relevant to that offence would apply, although any arrest for such an offence without warrant would require to be justified in the particular circumstances.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred, as he did this evening, to the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee of another place that interdicts involving violence should have powers of arrest attached to them and suggested that a similar argument could be made for antisocial behaviour orders. But breach of an interdict is a form of contempt of court which would result in separate proceedings for the breach. The police are not involved until the breach has been established. Breach of an antisocial behaviour order, on the other hand, is in itself a criminal offence and the normal powers of the police apply. The interests of justice might well justify the police arresting without warrant an individual for breach of an antisocial behaviour order where the breach involved violence or another criminal offence, just as the police would be justified in arresting an individual for breach of the peace or assault.
The noble and learned Lord gave two examples this evening of when the police might not be able, without such a power, to arrest an individual. As I understood it, the first was that the act itself may not constitute a criminal offence. In that situation, I would be reluctant to confer on the police a power of arrest for acts which
674
do not in themselves constitute a criminal offence. The other situation was where it may be obvious to the police officers that there is no corroboration of the breach. As the breach of an order is a criminal offence, it would require to be proved to the criminal standard and would require corroboration. If there were no corroboration, I would be concerned that the police had powers of arrest in respect of a charge that they could not prove. Accordingly, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, again I regret to say that I am not entirely persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's reply. As regards my first example of where the activity is not a criminal offence, the noble and learned Lord said that he would be reluctant for a power of arrest to exist in that situation. That may well be the position under Clause 19. As I understand it, it is acknowledged in relation to that clause that, while going to a particular place may not be evidence of a criminal offence, it is a clear breach of the order, for which the public interest warrants having a power of arrest.
My second point in relation to the lack of corrobation was a matter which was considered by the Committee of another place and clearly must have been before Parliament when the provisions for the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act was passed. Again, therefore, I feel it appropriate to test the opinion of the House.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said manuscript amendment (No. 48A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18: Not-Contents, 70.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gilbert, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Goodhart, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grenfell, L.

David, B.

Hardie, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Haskel, L.

675

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Islwyn, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kilbracken, L.

Sewel, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Varley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.7 p.m.
Clause 19 [Sex offender orders]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 15, line 45, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary for public safety").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment spells out what is probably implicit in the Bill and sets slightly higher standards for the making of sex offender orders. The inclusion of the words "necessary for public safety" is much clearer than the word "appropriate" when it comes to describing why a sex offender order should be made. This will ensure that sex offender orders are used only for convicted sex offenders who are intending to reoffend or whose actions suggest that they are very likely to do so. That is typical of a paedophile who does not accept that what he wants to do is utterly wrong.
I do not believe that sex offender orders are intended for all convicted sex offenders. The use of "proved beyond reasonable doubt" clarifies that sex offender orders should be used only when the individual is continuing to behave in an offending manner. It would be wrong to place convicted sex offenders on sex offender orders on the basis that they might continue their offending behaviour. They are already subject to official monitoring in various ways—for example, by the need to register with the police, or by being subject to extended post-imprisonment supervision, or indeed by participation in treatment programmes within a probation order. This amendment makes all these points admirably clear and will establish what is really intended. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 is grouped with Amendment No. 50 in the names of myself and my noble friends. My amendment seeks to put in very similar, but not identical, terms the point made by the noble Earl in Amendment No. 49. We seek to provide that when the sheriff makes an interim sex offender order the same legal test should be applied as that which he is required
676
to apply when he makes a permanent order. The amendment seeks to ensure that at least part of subsection (2)(b) is satisfied; namely, that there has to be,
"reasonable cause to believe that an order … is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him"
and that it is the same high test which is necessary before an interim order is pronounced.
When this matter was debated in Committee, as I recollect it the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he would not wish to unnecessarily fetter the sheriff's discretion when dealing with interim orders. But the same legal test ought to apply because once the order is pronounced the same criminal sanctions will apply if the offender breaches it. I believe that it would be wrong to have a lesser or more discretionary test available at the interim stage than that which requires to be followed when a permanent order is pronounced. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, these amendments would reduce the sheriff's discretion over when he could make an interim order under Clause 19. Instead of being able to make such an order when he considered it appropriate, he would only be able to do so if he considered one necessary in the interests of public safety or to protect the public from serious harm.
As I indicated during our discussions of the identical or very similar amendments in Committee, I would not wish to restrict the sheriff's discretion over interim orders in this way. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has referred to that tonight. It is of course our intention that the sheriff would look to the purpose of the provisions of the clause, namely, public safety grounds, to enable him to reach a decision on whether an interim order was appropriate. It is important to remember the distinction between an interim order and a final order and what information is available to the sheriff at that stage.
We would be concerned that a requirement for the sheriff to be satisfied as to the "necessity" of the interim order would impose too high a burden on the applicant at the interim stage when it is not possible to have a full hearing of evidence. What information would the sheriff need to have before he could be satisfied as to the necessity of the order?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, will be aware, interim orders such as interim interdicts and other interim orders are usually given on ex parte statements. Would the applicant have to lead evidence before the sheriff could be so satisfied? In view of the nature of the behaviour that the orders are intended to address, we consider that the test of appropriateness at the interim stage strikes the right balance between the applicant's position and the rights of the person who will be subject to the interim order. I do not accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that the same requirements ought to be imposed on the sheriff at the interim stage as at the completed stage.

677
We have to bear in mind the protection of the public in the context of someone who has a conviction for a sex offence. Where a responsible authority has a reasonable apprehension that an order is required, it is appropriate that an interim order should be given on the standard indicated in the Bill. I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I think that I follow the noble and learned Lord's argument, but it is interesting that we have had two debates to try to define what "appropriate" means. I find it difficult to accept that the sheriff might make an interim order if he does not think it necessary for public safety. I should have thought that the point of the orders was that they were necessary. However, perhaps I am expecting the interim proceedings to have more information before them and to be less of an emergency measure. If they really are an emergency measure, I can probably accept what the noble and learned Lord has said about them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 16, line 25, after ("by") insert ("an order under subsection (4)(a) above or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 57. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, expressed concern that breach of an interim sex offender order had not been made a criminal offence. That would mean that a breach would have to be pursued as a civil contempt of court and that the police would not be able to make an arrest, no matter how serious the circumstances. I entirely agree that that would be anomalous and undesirable. Our overriding concern is to take public safety into account in framing the provisions. There would also be merit in having an internally coherent system to deal with breaches.
The amendments therefore provide that breaching an interim order is a criminal offence, that the provisions relating to breach in Clause 21 will apply to interim orders as to sex offender orders, and that the power of the police to arrest those who breach orders, which the Committee supported, should extend to breach of interim orders. These amendments will ensure that breach of interim orders (which will, after all, be made only in the most serious and pressing cases) can be treated appropriately by the police. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I welcome the fact that these amendments have been tabled, because they fully address one of the issues that I raised in Committee. Unfortunately, I no longer have before me the letter which the noble and learned Lord wrote. I wonder whether it dealt also with another issue on which I believe that I touched in Committee, which was whether the power of arrest, referred to in Clause 19(8)
678
should also apply to interim sex offender orders. Perhaps I may invite the noble and learned Lord to consider that matter further before the Bill returns to the House on Third Reading. In the mean time, I fully support Amendments Nos. 52 and 57 and am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Procedural provisions with respect to orders]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("or indefinitely").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove the possibility of an antisocial behaviour or sex offender order being indefinite. That is not to say that I believe that antisocial behaviour is antisocial only when it is proscribed by an order. Clearly, it is always unacceptable.
What I do not believe to be right is the idea that a citizen should have a punishable order hanging over him in perpetuity when he may not have committed any offence to warrant the imposition of such an order. It is the burden of punishment in perpetuity that concerns me. If a citizen on an order has not breached the terms of the order during a period of, say, five years, I believe that the pattern of behaviour with which the order aimed to deal has successfully changed. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this amendment would mean that the sheriff would have to impose a specific duration for every order at the outset to prevent the orders being of indefinite length. As I indicated in Committee, it is not normal practice to restrict the judiciary's discretion over the terms of civil orders such as these, at least in Scotland. The sheriff should be able to determine in each case whether he wishes to specify a particular period of the order or leave it to run indefinitely. One of the factors that he will take into account is the nature of the conduct complained of and the duration of it. However, the person against whom the order is made is free to apply to the sheriff at any time to have it revoked. That is a system of review. He or she can bring the matter back before the sheriff at any time he or she thinks is appropriate.
In addition, the planned guidance will make clear that the applicant should periodically review the continuing need for all orders, particularly those of indefinite duration. Not only does the person who is subject to the order have the right to come back to the sheriff as and when he or she wishes but the guidance will recommend that the applicant should review such orders on a regular basis and seek to have them revoked when that becomes appropriate. I do not necessarily accept that the failure to breach an order over a period of time means that the order should not remain in place. It may be that the fact that the order is there has prevented conduct of that type. Obviously, that factor would have to be considered. I should like to deal with one point raised by the noble

679
and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Amendment No. 52 provides a power of arrest for interim orders.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I liked this amendment because it provided an incentive for the individual. Normally only the most serious offences merited indeterminate sentences. Perhaps that analogy is not strictly true because this is a civil law order. I still believe that if someone has refrained from unacceptable behaviour for five years, the habit has been broken. However, I should like to consider what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("shall continue to have effect") and insert ("may be suspended").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 55 whose purpose is to give the court the opportunity to suspend the order while an appeal is being considered. This will bring the orders into line with the criminal law. Often prisoners are released on the basis of interim liberation, or, as they call it, "interim lib". This amendment seeks to resolve that anomaly. It is unfair that a citizen should be charged with breaching an order when it is not certain that the order is valid. However, I concede that a further reported incident during an appeal would tend to confirm the need for such an order. I believe that the sheriff should have the opportunity to suspend the order during the appeal process.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 55, and am speaking to Amendment No. 56 which seeks to achieve the same objective. The purpose of the two amendments is to enable an appeal court, whether it be the Sheriff Principal or the Court of Session, to suspend an order pending the full hearing of the appeal. That was a matter that was debated on the second day of Committee (Official Report, 10/2/98; cols. 1050–51). On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made a number of points in response to the arguments which were advanced.
As the noble and learned Lord said, an antisocial behaviour order should have effect immediately. I agree with that. Nothing in the amendments would automatically have a contrary effect. Secondly, he suggested that such orders should remain effective until revoked. I also agree with that, because there is nothing in either of the amendments which would bring about an automatic recall or revocation of an order pending the decision on appeal.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord stressed, as other Ministers have stressed, that the order is of a prohibitory nature only, and does not impose any requirements upon those against whom it is made. While, on one view that is strictly true, there can be no doubt that if an order prevents someone from going to his or her own house, that person will perceive that as being a requirement placed upon him, and, further than that, perceive it as a
680
punishment imposed upon him or her. Therefore that person will be anxious to have it recalled if there are grounds to do so.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord suggested that there was no need for such orders to be suspended. I do not argue that in every case which is appealed there is a need for such orders to be suspended, but there is a need for there to be a power for the appeal court, in its discretion, to grant an interim recall of the order, pending a full hearing of the appeal, which may, because of the need to apply for legal aid or the need to find court time, take a few weeks or months before it can be heard.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, when actions of interdict are appealed, whether to the Sheriff Principal or the Court of Session, similar issues arise. If the orders appealed against are interim orders, they remain effective unless they are recalled by the appeal court pending the full hearing of the appeal. If, on the other hand, they are permanent interdicts, they are not effective until the appeal court has adjudicated upon the issue.
It is accepted—it was mentioned earlier this evening by the noble and learned Lord—that there may be instances where, if the local authority is not minded or prepared to act in a particular case, an individual who has been upset, distressed or annoyed by antisocial behaviour can raise interdict proceedings in his own name. In that event, if the court finds in his favour, and the decree is appealed, the decree or the interdict, will be suspended pending the hearing of the appeal.
It seems equitable that the appeal court should have a similar discretion with these orders. If it does not, there is a risk, in some cases at least, of injustice which will not merely adversely affect the defenders who are the subject of such orders, but will bring this remedy into a measure of disrepute. I therefore hope that it will be possible for the Government to find a way to meet the argument which the noble Earl and I have advanced.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as has been observed, the amendments are intended to allow orders to be suspended while appeals are considered. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has said, the present position in relation to summary appeals is that there is automatic suspension of the order pending the appeal. That was the reason for inclusion in the Bill of Clause 20(10) which specifically keeps the order in effect pending disposal of the appeal. There is no need for any exceptions to Clause 20(10) because if the subject of the order wishes to complain about its effect he may at any time return to the sheriff on a summary application under Clause 20(7)(b), even when the case is subject to appeal. That would be quicker, if he were able to satisfy the sheriff that the order ought to be revoked or varied.
The other difficulty about permitting the Appeal Court to make an interim suspension of the order is that the sheriff will have heard the evidence relating to the granting of the order. As regards interim suspension of the order before the Appeal Court, I anticipate that one

681
will be dealing with an ex parte application, unless the court was to look at the evidence. In that case, one might as well have a full hearing.
Keeping the order in force is not a risk to the subject of the order. One must start with the premise that the order was made on the basis of justifiable evidence which persuaded the sheriff that it ought to be made. The sheriff will have made the order, which he considers will enable the subject to behave normally, in the context of an antisocial behaviour order, or, in the case of a sex offender order, will require the subject to do something or refrain from doing something in order to protect the public.
During the Committee discussions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, suggested that there might be an occasion when it became evident that an applicant had been hoodwinked by a group of alleged victims into seeking an order, but there was a delay in getting the matter to a final appeal hearing. In such cases, the applicant or the person against whom the order was made could apply to the original sheriff for the order to be revoked. In my submission, that would be the appropriate way to proceed. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, despite the reassuring words of the noble and learned Lord, I still believe that there is a possible risk of injustice. That is difficult to quantify. However, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, although I prefer the wording in Amendment No. 56.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert ("unless it is suspended by the Sheriff Principal or the Court of Session").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before I decide whether to follow the route taken by the noble Earl, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a question. Do I understand him to suggest that the provision of Clause 27(b) would allow the sheriff and/or the sheriff principal and/or the Court of Session to vary an order pending the disposal of an appeal which had been taken? If so, I respectfully suggest that it might be sensible to clarify that on the face of the Bill. If he were prepared to consider that, it would not be necessary for me to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. If one looks at paragraph (10), it states that,
"any order made in the application shall continue to have effect pending the disposal of the appeal".
As I understood what the noble and learned Lord was saying a few moments ago, notwithstanding those fairly peremptory words, under subsection (7)(b), they fall to be qualified to enable a new summary application to be lodged, which, on the noble and learned Lord's estimation, could be disposed of more quickly than an appeal might be. If that is correct, it seems to me that it
682
should be clarified. As I say, if there were an undertaking to do so, I should not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, in the light of what has been said, I shall agree to consider this matter and either write to the noble and learned Lord or come back with something at a later stage. However, that must be taken in the light of the commitments given in Committee that there is no promise. However, I certainly promise to write to the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful for that willingness to undertake reflective thinking and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Offences in connection with breach of orders]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 18, line 21, after first ("relation") insert ("to an order under section 19(4)(a) above and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AS GROUND OF EVICTION
(".—(1) Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (grounds of eviction in relation to secure tenancies) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) For paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"2.—(1) The tenant, a person residing or lodging in the house with the tenant or a person visiting the house has been convicted of—

(a) using or allowing the house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes; or

(b) an offence punishable by imprisonment committed in, or in the locality of, the house.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "tenant" includes any one of joint tenants and any sub-tenant."
(3) For paragraph 7 there shall he substituted the following paragraph—
"7.—(1) The tenant, a person residing or lodging in the house with the tenant or a person visiting the house has—

(a) acted in an anti-social manner in relation to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity in the locality; or

(b) pursued a course of anti-social conduct in relation to such a person as is mentioned in head (a) above,

and it is not reasonable in all the circumstances that the landlord should be required to make other accommodation available to him.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—
"anti-social", in relation to an action or course of conduct, means causing or likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance;
"conduct" includes speech and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions; and
"tenant" includes any one of joint tenants and any sub-tenant."

683
(4) For Ground 15 in Schedule 5 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (eviction on ground of use of premises for immoral or illegal purposes etc.), there shall be substituted the following—
"Ground 15
The tenant, a person residing or lodging in the house with the tenant or a person visiting the house has—

(a) been convicted of—

(i) using or allowing the house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes; or

(ii) an offence punishable by imprisonment committed in, or in the locality of, the house; or

(b) acted in an anti-social manner in relation to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity in the locality; or

(c) pursued a course of anti-social conduct in relation to such a person as is mentioned in head (b) above.

In this Ground "anti-social", in relation to an action or course of conduct, means causing or likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance, "conduct" includes speech and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions and "tenant" includes any one of joint tenants."
(5) No person shall be liable to eviction under paragraph 2 or 7 of Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 or Ground 15 in Schedule 5 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 as substituted respectively by subsection (2), (3) and (4) above in respect of any act or conduct before the commencement of this section unless he would have been liable to be evicted under those paragraphs or, as the case may be, that Ground as they had effect before that substitution.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to allow for tougher action against drug dealers and other criminals by extending the grounds for eviction to cover the behaviour of visitors to the property by providing that it will no longer be necessary to prove actual nuisance or annoyance, but simply the likelihood of nuisance or annoyance; and by extending the grounds to cover criminal acts in the locality of the house, not just within the house itself. In these respects, it will bring Scotland into line with England and Wales.
The aim is to make it possible for landlords to take tough action to deal with those who are carrying out their criminal activities in and around tenanted properties. The person must have been convicted of the offence before the local authority can take action to evict the tenant on this ground. The sheriff will exercise his discretion in deciding whether in all the circumstances it is reasonable to evict the tenant. Where the tenant has been coerced by visitors or those residing with him, it is unlikely that the sheriff would find it reasonable to order repossession of the house. Guidance to landlords will stress that eviction should not be sought in such circumstances.
The requirement that there should simply be a likelihood of nuisance or annoyance is intended to deal with the difficulties encountered in practice in persuading neighbours to give evidence. On the basis of the proposed amendment, the victim of the behaviour would not have to give evidence that nuisance or annoyance had been caused. Evidence could come instead from third parties—for example, the police or employees of the landlord—to support a judgment that nuisance or annoyance was likely to he caused by the behaviour in question.
These provisions mirror those introduced in England and Wales under the Housing Act 1996, which have already been shown to go some way towards combating the menace of drug dealing and serious antisocial behaviour which blight the lives of so many decent people on our housing estates. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I welcome this amendment for three reasons. First, it seeks to incorporate into the law of Scotland something which has proved to be of value in England. Secondly, it implements a commitment set out in the Tory Party manifesto for Scotland which had, as one of its policies, to introduce legislation to make it a breach of a tenancy for a tenant to deal in illegal drugs from rented premises or permit others to do so. I look forward to similar good ideas being brought forward.
Thirdly, and seriously, this a very valuable addition. There is no doubt that drug dealing bedevils a number of the housing areas of Scotland, whether it be privately owned property or property owned by local authorities. Dealing in drugs affects not just people that live in the immediate vicinity of the house but those further down the street and the general environment. Any measure that this Government propose to attack that evil will have the full support of these Benches. Therefore, I very much welcome the initiative to introduce such a clause at this stage of the Bill's proceedings.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have quite such a glowing response as that of the noble and learned Lord to the amendment, which would introduce wide powers and extend the range of grounds to evict antisocial tenants. It is the proposed powers of eviction which concern me. Indeed, Shelter Scotland has encouraged me to ask a number of questions and make a few points about these new powers.
First, those powers apply only to tenants and not to owner-occupiers. The spirit of these new causes of eviction are no doubt admirable; but the letter is drawn too widely. The eviction of drug dealers, other criminal or immoral operators and actively antisocial people will be welcomed, but many more tenants will be caught by these new powers. Anyone who is imprisoned for an offence committed in the vaguely defined "locality" of his home, can be evicted. That includes motoring offences, not having a television licence, not paying a fine, breaching a community service order or even defrauding a mail-order catalogue. Conversely, an assault to severe injury committed three miles away would not merit eviction.
This raises the question of the definition of the punishment of imprisonment; it now seems that the loss of one's home is to be added to the loss of liberty, reputation and income. That flies in the face of the commonsense evidence that reoffending is more likely to occur when ex-offenders are homeless. It also flies in the face of the Scottish Office code of guidance on homelessness, which states that local authorities should try to prevent prisoners becoming homeless on release, and help them safeguard existing tenancies. Is that extension of imprisonment intended? When can a line be drawn under the offence?

685
Among those soon to be evicted are vulnerable women and children who have committed no offence. They are in the frame because someone else has committed an offence in the house or in its vicinity. This could be a visitor, and not just a resident. Eviction could follow the conviction of a visitor with a small quantity of drugs for personal use. Is it realistic for tenants to operate an active search on every visitor—a sort of Wild West saloon, "Leave your drugs at the door", regime?
There is also danger that there will not be consistency across Scotland. Not only do we have 32 local authorities and more housing associations adopting their own unique policies on housing convicted persons; we also have more than 100 sheriffs, each with his or her own consistent, but unique, practices. Unless the wording of these new grounds of eviction are more tightly drawn, I believe that the chances of eviction will vary too much across Scotland. Finally, no fast track procedure is proposed in the amendment. It will take just as long for an eviction order to be acquired as it does now. Presumably the intention is to deal swiftly and resolutely with seriously antisocial neighbours.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I shall begin by dealing with the points raised by the noble Earl. First, so far as concerns the question of penalising tenants as opposed to owner occupiers, the owner occupier could lose his or her home if he suffered a custodial sentence either by virtue of not being able to keep up the mortgage payments or, in the context of drugs, by virtue of the confiscation provisions.
In addition, owner occupiers, like tenants, could be subject to other orders such as antisocial behaviour orders. This measure has been extended to tenants to reflect the social menace of drug dealing which is frequently at the root of much antisocial behaviour in our cities and towns. The existing grounds for eviction do not catch all of the offending behaviour. The provisions we are introducing simply reflect the provisions which were introduced in England and Wales in 1996 to allow eviction for criminal activity in the locality of tenanted properties, to cover behaviour of visitors, and to facilitate the use of professional witnesses.
The noble Earl referred to the definition of "locality". This is intended to cover as wide an area as possible, not just immediate neighbours. At the same time some recognisable link would need to be established between the tenant's behaviour and the fact that he lives in an area that may be affected by that behaviour. For example, the definition would certainly cover the common parts of a tenement or block of flats. It would also cover other parts of a housing estate. It would even cover parts of the same general locality which did not have the same landlord. I do not have any difficulty with that definition because of its nature the antisocial behaviour would cover—particularly if it is related to drug dealing—that sort of locality. One would consider the locality to determine whether it would be appropriate
686
for the tenant in question to remain as a tenant within that locality, having regard to the dangers to the rest of the citizens living within that area.
The noble Earl quite properly pointed out that the measure would affect tenants who were unfortunate enough to have visitors who had committed such offences. He asked whether a tenant would need to search his or her visitors to see whether they were in possession of a small quantity of drugs. Clearly, if we are talking about a small quantity of drugs not carried for the purpose of dealing, that would be a matter that the sheriff would take into account in the use of his discretion as to whether it would be appropriate to evict the tenant, particularly if it was a case of possession of drugs by a visitor to the premises. On the other hand, in drug dealing and other situations much serious antisocial or criminal conduct is perpetrated by visitors to houses, either in or outwith the dwelling house, and often the tenant is well aware of what is going on and it is not appropriate that that should be permitted. It is important to deter tenants from allowing visitors to behave in an antisocial manner particularly as regards drug dealing.
I understand the anxieties of the noble Earl and of Shelter about these provisions, particularly as regards the possibility of women and children being evicted. But eviction should always be considered as an action of last resort, in particular where children are involved. I am sure that that would be another factor that the sheriff would take into account. He would look at the whole circumstances of the family and of the offence before deciding whether it was appropriate to evict. Before initiating any such action, local authorities would have to take the welfare of any child into account. The welfare of such a child would be a paramount consideration for the local authority in accordance with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
Housing and social work departments must therefore work together in exercising their respective functions in relation to children under the different legislation.
I hope that some of those comments have satisfied the noble Earl and that he is able to withdraw his opposition to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
NOISE-MAKING EQUIPMENT: POLICE POWER OF SEIZURE
(".—(1) The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall he amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 54 (offence of playing instruments, etc.), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(2A) Where a constable reasonably suspects that an offence under subsection (1) above has been committed in relation to a musical instrument or in relation to such a device as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection, he may enter any premises on which he reasonably suspects that instrument or device to be and seize any such instrument or device he finds there.
(2B) A constable may use reasonable force in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2A) above.
(2C) Schedule 2A to this Act (which makes provision in relation to the retention and disposal of property seized under subsection (2A) above) shall have effect."

687
(3) In section 60 (powers of search and seizure)—
(a) in subsection (5)—

(i) after the words "Nothing in" there shall be inserted the words "section 54(2A) of this Act or"; and

(ii) for the words from "which" to the end there shall he substituted the words "which is otherwise exercisable by a constable"; and

(b) in subsection (6)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for the words from "in pursuance" to the word "vessel", there shall be substituted the words—
"to enter and search—
(i) any premises in pursuance of section 54(2A) of this Act or of subsection (1) above; or
(ii) any vehicle or vessel in pursuance of the said subsection (1),"; and.
(ii) in paragraph (c), after "under" insert "section 54(2A) of this Act or".
(4) After Schedule 2 there shall he inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule 2A to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, one of the main causes of complaints about antisocial behaviour is excessive or inappropriately timed noise. This new clause will add to the options the police have to tackle noise nuisance.
The clause implements one of the recommendations in the 1996 Scottish Affairs Committee report on housing and anti-social behaviour. When the committee considered the problem of noise nuisance, it concluded that existing police powers to confiscate noise-making equipment—which are limited to common law powers including the power to take equipment which may be needed as evidence—were inadequate. It recommended that the police should have the statutory power to confiscate equipment where they have grounds to suspect that a noise offence has been committed under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
This clause provides that power. If a person causing a noise fails to stop when requested to do so by the police, then the police will be able to take the noise-making equipment away and hold it for 28 days. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will be relieved to know that we are speaking about equipment and not noises emanating from him! After that period, the owner will be able to apply to get it back, but will have to meet whatever conditions are imposed by the police on its collection and to pay whatever charge the police consider reasonable to cover their costs. Where court proceedings are instituted, then the equipment can be held until the end of the case.
There will, of course, be safeguards to protect the interest of an innocent owner who did not cause the noise nuisance himself and did not know that the equipment was likely to be misused. And there will be an appeals mechanism to ensure that the police do not act unreasonably in handling claims for the return of such equipment.
Overall we consider this to be a modest but useful measure to assist in the effort to tackle antisocial behaviour. We hope that it will make people think twice about disturbing their neighbours with, for example,
688
loud music late at night if they know that they run the risk of being deprived of their music equipment for a period.
I commend this clause and the associated schedule to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, for the purposes of the record, I think that I should say to noble Lords that the only noises I have made have been by the blowing out of air through my mouth in what was once called in happier days a raspberry.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be pleased to know that I do not oppose the amendment. I am certain that the first time the provision is operated there will be loud cheering in the neighbourhood.
With regard to a third party owner, the breaking of equipment while the constable uses reasonable force to seize it may produce a problem, but it does not cause me to object to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Racially-aggravated assaults]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 19, line 1, after ("harm);") insert—
("(bb) an offence under section 18 of that Act (shooting or attempting to shoot or wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 64, 66 and 67. We come now to racially aggravated offences, on which we spent some three hours in Committee. I trust that we can deal with these matters rather more quickly at this hour.
First, perhaps I may make it clear that all of us on this side—and I trust that is true of all parts of the House—are opposed to and abhor racial violence, or for that matter any crime that has racial undertones. I believe that everyone in all parts of the House believes that these matters should be addressed with rigour and that the courts should be able to take these matters into account in sentencing along with any other aggravating circumstances. In the light of the recent opening of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, it is very important that all of us should make that clear.
The second point I wish to make is that on these Benches we all welcome the fact that the Government wish to take these matters seriously and ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with racially aggravated offences. But whether these clauses achieve that aim is another matter. As I put it in Committee, I believe that the jury is still out, particularly in the light of the comments that I and others quoted at Second Reading from both the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General that the courts did have powers to take racial—I await correction from the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am surprised to hear a reference to the Attorney-General saying that the court has enough powers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understood that it was the Attorney-General. I am afraid that I do not have a copy

689
of Hansard from Second Reading, when I quoted from the Attorney-General. But, whether he thought that the courts had sufficient powers, the Attorney-General certainly made it clear that the courts had power to take these matters into account and could do so in sentencing. I will look very carefully at the quotation that I used at Second Reading.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, these amendments are more or less the same ones as I moved in Committee. I moved them then very much in a spirit of inquiry. First, I was asking just why some offences of violence were not included, and in particular why the more serious offences under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act were not included; and similarly, why the more serious offences of public order were not included? Again, at that stage I moved an amendment relating to criminal damage—a matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will deal later and one on which I wish to offer him a degree of support.
I moved the amendments also because it seemed to me—as I argued earlier (I suspect not very effectively), when I received considerable support from the noble Lord, Lord Colville, who argued the case much better—that there could be occasions when, not including the more serious Section 18 offences, the provision could actually complicate the job of the trial judge in directing the jury. I should certainly like to refer the noble and learned Lord to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Colville, at col. 1282 on the third day of Committee, when he dealt with those matters somewhat more effectively.
In responding, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, (I do not know whether he will respond this evening; I believe it is the noble and learned Lord) made the point that it was not beyond the wit of the prosecution to get matters right by including the appropriate range of offences. My response then, as it is still, was that it would make matters much simpler to include the greater offences. To put it very simply, in the case of the first amendments to include the Section 18 offences in the list of racially aggravated offences, and by that means make the job of those involved in the prosecution much simpler and prevent that particular problem from arising.
As I said, I propose these amendments in a spirit of inquiry, but I believe that there are matters that ought to be addressed and I should be grateful for a response from the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, do I understand correctly that the proposal is that there should be two counts on an indictment: Section 18 with life imprisonment and racially aggravated Section 18 with life imprisonment? Is that the proposal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is not Committee stage, but perhaps I may explain again—probably inadequately—what I tried to say before. If a Section 18 offence were not included in the Bill, it might be that someone would be charged under Section 18, in which case racial aggravation could not come into it. To include racial aggravation, one would have to charge for
690
the lesser offence under Section 20, which is included in the Bill. I think it could create complications if, when directing the jury, a judge had to make clear that racial aggravation could not be considered under Section 18, hut, if they decided not to convict under Section 18 but to convict on the lesser offence under Section 20, at that point racial aggravation could be taken into account. That seemed to me to create problems, and I believe I received a degree of support from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others. I refer the noble Lord to the argument at Committee stage.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before I comment on this group of amendments, which seek to add to the list of specific offences which can be considered as racially aggravated under Part II of the Bill, perhaps I may make three points.
First, I express the Government's gratitude for the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about abhorring racially motivated crimes. Secondly, I also express gratitude that he is glad that the Government wish to be seen to be serious about these matters. Thirdly, as regards the way we shall deal with the amendments today, an amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, also seeks to introduce the offence of racially aggravated Section 18, if I may call it that. As I understand it, his amendment focuses in particular on the complication of charges and summing-up to the jury by the judge. It was a point specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in moving his amendment. Perhaps I may deal with that point after the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has moved his amendment, because the whole argument in relation to that will then be exposed. That is not to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has not exposed the argument; he has done so entirely adequately, as far as I am concerned. However, it would be repetitive if I had to repeat the arguments after the noble Viscount has made his remarks.
In dealing with this group of amendments, perhaps I may deal with the principle of why certain offences have been included and others have not. The Government gave careful consideration to the offences to be included in this part of the Bill. We made it clear that the purpose of these provisions is to provide increased sentences for racially aggravated crimes directed against the person. As I said in Committee, where the basic offence already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, as in the case of Section 18, the racially aggravated offence is not required in practical terms as the maximum sentence cannot be increased. It is for this reason that we have not included, for example, murder and manslaughter in the list of offences. We made the point in the course of the debate in Committee that, if one simply increased the maximum sentence for offences where the maximum was not already life, one would be dragging all those crimes, racially aggravated or not, up to a level, and we did not believe it was appropriate to do that.
I should emphasise—though the noble Lord, Lord Henley, understands this—that we are not creating new racially aggravated Section 18 offences. Nevertheless, the judge can increase the sentences for racially aggravated Section 18 offences as a result of Clause 69

691
of the Bill, which permits it to be taken into account when sentencing. That is why Section 18 has not had added to it the racially aggravated element as part of a crime.
Amendments Nos. 64, 66 and 67 propose to extend the provisions to deal with affray, unlawful violence and riot. The Government's intention in proposing the new offences is to deal with a specific problem of racial violence and harassment. For that reason we restricted the range of the provisions to concentrate on those violence and harassment offences directed against the person. This second group of amendments, which deals with affray, unlawful violence and riot, are not directed against specific persons; they are mêlée or public order offences. We do not believe it is appropriate to add a racially aggravated element to them.
There could in theory be a large number of offences which could be added to the list of specific offences we have included in the Bill. The offences in the amendment go beyond offences against the person to include public order offences, which need not be directed against a specific individual or victim. Criminal damage raises special issues because of the peculiar nature of the offence and its particular connections with racial aggravation. I shall not deal with that in relation to this amendment; it will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn when he comes to deal with a later amendment.
The offences proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, fall outside the immediate area of concern. The offences included in the amendment would nevertheless be covered by the provisions in Clause 69 so that, where there was evidence of racial hostility, the court could consider that as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence. I hope that I have explained the Government's thinking behind what is and what is not included, and that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will call the jury back and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we will see about that. In rejecting my arguments, the noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that what is important is that the courts have the ability to increase the sentences for a number of specific offences. For example, the Government wish to increase the sentences for offences under the Offences Against the Person Act, but do not see the need to increase them under Section 18 or for manslaughter or murder because there is already a maximum beyond which one cannot increase them.
At Committee stage, as I understood it, the noble and learned Lord was at pains to point out that the Government were creating new offences and that it was not merely a matter of increasing the sentences. But if in the end the sole aim is to increase the sentences, could not that have been done by increasing the sentences rather than adding the new offences? By increasing the sentences, one could then have dealt with not only racial aggravation, but also any other form of aggravation it was felt necessary to include—for example, if there were growing problems of homophobic attacks on
692
people and it was felt that the courts should be able to make a stand, then they would be able to do so under the Act as it was.
The Government have probably got a good case here. But it may be that they feel it necessary to single out racial aggravation over and beyond all other forms of aggravation that may come about. In that case, I can see the point of their argument. But I believe that somehow the Government have got their argument twisted. They are trying to increase the sentences. That they could have done. They have in fact created new offences, which was not necessary.
Having said that and having said that I welcome what the Government are trying to do, it will not serve any purpose for me to continue with these amendments. I shall therefore take the opportunity on this occasion to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 69. These modest amendments reintroduce one which I moved in Committee but which was rather subsumed into a discussion about the general principles of Clauses 22 to 26 inclusive. As I said then, like The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Conservative Party certainly up until 1990 and possibly a little later, and a great many other people, I believe that all crimes of violence of a given magnitude ought to be punished with equal severity, no matter who the victim may be. However, neither the present Government, nor, as I understand it, the Liberal Democrats, nor the Conservative Party under its current leadership, take that view, so obviously there is no point in continuing that argument, in this House at any rate.
I hope it will be accepted that these are not in the slightest degree wrecking amendments. Their purpose is to ensure proper moderation and some consistency in the enhancement of any prison sentence imposed following conviction where a racial or national element has been proven.
It is true that the Bill as it stands provides for sharp increases in many fines—100 per cent. in some cases and up to 150 per cent. in others—but that is inherent in the established pattern of maximum fines on scales 3, 4, 5 and so on. There is very little that can be done about that. But I suggest that disproportionate prison sentences worry people far more than disproportionate fines do.
In this regard, the next amendment—Amendment No. 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—seems to me faultless if you accept the general principles underlying this group of clauses. It increases the maximum by 20 per cent., from 10 years to 12 years. Some of the Government's own provisions, which increase the maximum sentence by 40 per cent., from five to seven years, are somewhat harsher but still not totally off the map, so to speak. But to increase the maximum by 300 per cent., from six months to two

693
years, really does seem excessive, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, suggested at the Committee stage. I am sorry that he is not here tonight, but of course one could hardly expect that so late in the evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out that common assault was a very trivial offence, not involving physical injury. I am not a lawyer, as your Lordships will know, but from the legal dictionaries with which your Lordships' Library is copiously supplied, one sees that shaking one's fist at somebody without laying a finger on them constitutes common assault. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said at the Committee stage:
"It seems to me to be a matter of judgment as to whether or not one increases it"—
the maximum sentence for common assault—
"to nine months, 12 months, 18 months or two years".—[Official Report, 12/2/98; col. 1294.]
Indeed, it is a matter of judgment, but I suggest that most people would judge it quite unreasonable that an individual could be sentenced to two years' imprisonment merely for shaking his fist at somebody of another race or nationality without touching them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the point of these amendments is to reduce the maxima which are proposed in the Bill. The basic offences all carry maximum sentences of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. The proposal is that that should be two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine as maxima. New offences are no longer created with a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment and there are very few remaining examples of older offences with a 12 months' maximum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated, racial aggravation is sometimes extremely serious and grave. We believe that the maximum penalties should be set at the level which we propose—two years—rather than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. With great respect, I reject the suggestion that one looks at percentage increases and then comes to the conclusion that if it is 300 per cent. it is a meaningless penalty, whereas if it is 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. it is perfectly acceptable.
We believe that as a measure of the proper, considered indignation of a community about racially aggravated offences, we have set these penalties correctly. I am bound to say that the majority of those who responded to the consultation exercise agreed and thought that we had struck the right balance between the different considerations. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree that these offences can be very grave, but I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could possibly agree that shaking a fist at somebody constitutes a grave offence. I take his point about maximum sentences on conviction on
694
indictment. We shall reach Amendment No. 80, to which I have added my name, the day after tomorrow. I believe that the noble Lord has been very helpful to my noble friend Lord Bridges in connection with that amendment. It provides for a maximum sentence on conviction on indictment of six months rather than 12 months or two years. So the matter is not totally without precedent.
I say again that I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, with his enormous experience, is not here. Those noble Lords who were here at Committee stage may remember that he suggested that all sorts of problems might arise from a two-year maximum sentence. It would be very costly because people would opt for trial by jury and juries might fail to convict. However, there is little point in trying to take this matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may inquire of the Minister whether it is intended that offences under this clause should attract a consecutive or concurrent sentence or whether the purpose is to charge on indictment common assault and an offence under this clause which would carry consecutive sentences. Can the Minister clarify the position?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, before the Minister replies the House ought to know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is not here because he is sitting in the Court of Appeal in Guernsey.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what happens when prosecutors bring charges is within their discretion. When consecutive sentences are imposed, classically, and rightly, that is within the province of the presiding judge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES OF CRIMINAL DAMAGE
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which is racially aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both:

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 years or to a fine, or to both.

(3) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1) above, the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that subsection.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Henley, and also by the Front Bench opposite, that racist behaviour of any nature ought to be condemned. I am delighted that that has been made very explicit.
I had hoped to introduce this amendment at Committee stage, but unfortunately I was abroad. I have looked at the discussion which took place. I am delighted that I have an opportunity to have a second bite at this particular cherry. The new clause would add to the new racially-aggravated offences in the Bill a further offence, which is of racially-aggravated criminal damage.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was good enough to mention Stephen Lawrence. I believe that everyone accepted that it was a racist murder of this young man. One adds to that what happened at the place where he was murdered. A little plaque marking the death of Stephen Lawrence was damaged by hooligans only the other day. One must consider the reaction of the family and the hurt that it would have caused. That is just a very small example. There is example after example of the extent to which criminal damage based on racist action is perpetrated against synagogues, temples and mosques, and properties occupied by people from ethnic minority communities.
It is interesting that the Home Office consulted a large number of organisations, asking whether there should be an offence of racial criminal damage. Approximately 90 per cent. of those who responded, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, said that there should be such an offence. In other words, more or less everyone involved in the criminal justice system agreed that there should be such an offence. Therefore, I was surprised that the Government initially declined, or omitted, to include such an offence in the Bill.
I have tried to understand why that should be so. If the intention is to identify and to encompass within criminal statutes the types of racist offences which most frequently and most devastatingly affect the lives of ethnic minorities in Britain, there is a strong case for the inclusion of an offence of racially aggravated criminal damage.
Of the racial incidents recorded by the police during 1996, one of the most frequent matters reported to the police was damage to property. Further, where the criminal damage is racist graffiti on more public property, such offences are counted or reported only very seldom.
As the Bill is currently drafted, an act of criminal damage could constitute one of the two incidents which could give rise to a prosecution of racially aggravated harassment under Clause 25. To members of ethnic minority communities it will be ludicrous that racial harassment in the form of damage to their home, their car or other possessions will constitute a racially aggravated offence only if it occurs twice or if it is preceded or followed by a separate incident of harassment.
Turning to Clause 24, which creates new racially aggravated public order offences, it would be possible to include certain acts of damage to property as all or part of the behaviour at issue, but in order for one of the offences under Sections 4, 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to be committed, it will be necessary, in addition, to prove the intention of the perpetrator to
696
cause harassment, alarm or distress. It would he inappropriate and artificial to try to bring criminal damage committed on racial grounds within this new legislation by such means.
The Government should not be constrained. There is a clear need, supported by the police and the CPS, to establish a specific offence of racial criminal damage. I suspect that the Government may be influenced because the new clause will not always neatly fit their formulation of "racially aggravated" in Clause 22 since the victim of some types of criminal damage with a racial element may not be a person within an identifiable racial group; an example would be if racist graffiti were daubed on the walls of the town hall or on the staircase of a large council housing estate. In such cases the racist nature of the offence would be obvious, and it is likely that the message itself should be sufficient to satisfy the second limb of the definition of racially aggravated; namely, that
"the offence is motivated…by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group"
I plead that another reason could be that criminal damage under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 already carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, unless it is arson, which carries life. To be consistent with the structure of the Bill, the amendment proposes that the maximum tariff for racially aggravated criminal damage should be two years longer—that is, 12 years. I believe that the amendment, which is supported by many organisations, tests the Government's intention. Ultimately, the test of a civilised society is whether it confronts such racist behaviour as we would confront the antisocial behaviour we discussed earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I support this amendment. At a previous stage the Government argued that the current maximum sentence for offences of this kind was 10 years. They said that that was enough and there was no need to increase it. I accept that broadly speaking 10 years is enough for the most serious kinds of offences, short of arson where obviously a longer sentence can be imposed. However, the proposed amendments to Clauses 22 to 24 do not simply create new maximum sentences but new offences in themselves. I take it that part of the reason for that is the importance of getting across the right message. If so, surely the Government should accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—they should also accept the arguments that I have advanced—in relation to this matter and ensure that these offences are taken seriously. Alternatively, they might turn to Clause 69 (previously Clause 68), to which no doubt we shall refer at a later stage, and not bother at all with any part of Clauses 22 to 26 (racially aggravated offences in England, Wales and Scotland). Clause 69 allows racial aggravation to be taken into account by the court. That increases the seriousness of the offence and presumably the sentence available to the court at present. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I also support my noble friend's amendment and the sentiments that

697
he expressed in moving it. My noble friend has identified an important omission in the Bill. In particular, he has referred to damage caused to property by graffiti of a racial nature. Very often the damage is of a much more serious nature. My noble friend's proposed subsection (3) points out the matter to which I referred in the debate on the previous amendment. If that subsection were part of the Bill there would be only one offence charged in an indictment; namely, the offence of criminal damage under this clause with an alternative verdict open to the jury. It follows that there would be a single sentence passed for that offence. I am anxious to clarify the position for the benefit of those who are charged with bringing prosecutions under this Bill when it becomes an Act. Is it suggested that there he two charges in the indictment of a single charge with an alternative that leads to a single sentence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yesterday we were able to accept the thrust of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, relating to ethnic monitoring in the context of the Data Protection Bill. We did so on the basis that we had listened to views expressed by the noble Lord and other noble Lords and interested parties outside the Chamber. I believe that the noble Lords makes a good case subject to one or two matters that require further examination. We have decided to look at the issue again and have concluded that we should accept the principle of a racially aggravated offence subject to finding a way of overcoming certain difficulties. Perhaps I may outline them briefly. One is length of sentence, to which the noble Lord referred; another is defining the victim. Normally, in criminal damage cases it is the owner of the property, but there will be cases where the victim of the racial hostility will not be the owner of the property. He might be the tenant of local authority accommodation, or, as the noble Lord said, there may be some cases where there is no identifiable victim of racial hostility. His example was a good one: racial graffiti sprayed on bus shelters for all to see.
I hope to be able to look at the problems which are technical and not of principle and bring forward an amendment on Third Reading which would address the concerns expressed by noble Lords.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that will be a matter for individual prosecutors. In some cases, at the moment, where there are alternatives, some prosecutors prefer to have the alternatives plainly on the indictment and others prefer to open the case in the alternative on a single charge, there is merit in allowing discretion to prosecutors in particular cases, subject, of course, to the overall discretion of the trial judge. On the basis of the undertaking, not just the assurance, that I have given to the noble Lord, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment for the moment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, decides what to do, perhaps I may urge him if he is discussing this with the Government, to choose 14 years rather than 12. If the
698
case is very serious, and the offender is under 18, unless the maximum sentence is 14 years one cannot deal with him under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act. Sometimes that is the right thing to do. The way that the provision is drafted at the moment, one would be debarred.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, just to be helpful, that is a question which the Government have in mind. I was being economical earlier when I said that one of the problems was length of sentence.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for their support. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to take this matter back and return with the appropriate recommendation on Third Reading.
It is a sheer joy, as the Minister rightly pointed out, that he accepted my amendment to the Data Protection Bill yesterday, and he has today accepted my amendment on racially aggravated offences, he has been very kind to me. I suspect that since the day when the supreme champion at Crufts was a Welsh terrier, he has changed his attitude towards this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn
Clause 24 [Racially-aggravated public order offences]:
Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 not moved.]
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED OFFENCES: ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS
(" .—(l) A person charged with an offence under—

(a) section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, etc.);

(b) section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (violent disorder); or

(c) section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (affray);

may be charged with that offence as being a racially-aggravated offence.
(2) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) above as so aggravated, the jury find him not guilty of that offence, they may find him guilty of any offence specified in section 23(1) above.
(3) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) above as so aggravated, the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 24(1)(a) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have not yet said thank you to the Government Front Bench for the letters that have been sent, and in particular, for accepting the principle that I suggested in Clause 9. I am grateful and I have absorbed what was said in those letters.
The amendment has already been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We discussed it in Committee. I hope that I have made a constructive suggestion in relation to what I envisage being a difficult problem. It may not be comprehensive, but at least I think that I

699
have illustrated the type of difficulties that will arise. I hope that the Government will address the matter, because what they are doing has my full support.
I am pleased that racial aggravation is to be recognised on the face of the statute and that certain of the maximum penalties are to be increased. They are inadequate. It is wholly desirable that they should be increased so that the racial aggravation can be reflected properly.
The difficulties are practical. As already stated, the Bill creates new offences. We have a new offence which constitutes racially aggravated Section 20, and similarly under the Public Order Act. Perhaps I may illustrate the problem by using the Offences Against the Person Act. I agree that the prosecution should be given a certain amount of discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. However if it chooses to bring an indictment under Section 18 of, let us say, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and it does not add a second count under Section 20 or the new Section 20 relating to racially aggravated offences because it does not want a conviction under anything other than Section 18, the matter in its view being very serious, the trial may proceed. It not infrequently happens that as the trial proceeds the prosecution case wavers and it becomes apparent that it will not obtain a conviction. Although the jury is sufficiently astute to tell the difference between intent to cause grievous bodily harm and unlawful and malicious wounding under Section 20, it will not be given the opportunity unless one can find a method of bringing in that alternative verdict.
At present, there is no necessity to add another count to the indictment because under the Criminal Law Act all the ingredients of a Section 20 offence are included in a Section 18 count on the indictment. Therefore, it is possible to direct the jury that they may convict under Section 20 if that is the way they find the facts have emerged. There is no difficulty about that and frequently juries get it right. It is an extremely happy state of affairs and one finds that justice has been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that in Section 18 cases it is for the prosecution to decide whether to open on the basis that it was a racially aggravated Section 18 wounding. Very well, it may do so. However, unless it also brings the racially aggravated Section 20 Charge, the latter newly created offence will not be available under the Criminal Law Act 1967 because it will contain an element that is not present in Section 18; that is, the racial aggravation. Therefore, it will not be a true alternative and without adding a count to the indictment it will not be possible for the jury to convict on the new offence.
I am bound to say that if I were conducting the trial and the prosecution came along late in the day and stated that it wanted to add a new indictment carrying not what the defendant would have expected, which is a five-year maximum sentence, but a new count which carries a seven-year maximum sentence, I would hesitate because I would not be certain that that was correct. Whether a new count can be added is for the judge's discretion. I would think that the later it was in the trial, the more prejudice there would be to the
700
defence and the less likely I would be to add the new count under the provisions of the Bill. Much the same thing happens under the Public Order Act.
The other difficulty is that, in the end, there may be no trial. It may be that at the pleas and direction stage in the Crown Court the defendant decides to plead not guilty to the count on the indictment but guilty to a lesser count. That happens frequently. Looked at in the round, it is probably justifiable to accept that. The prosecution must decide whether it will do so and the court must sanction it. But it may well be that that is the proper course to take; it is just and it avoids all the witnesses having to give, in some cases, traumatic evidence, which they detest. It will not be possible, unless there is permission from the court at that stage, to add the racially aggravated offence which is not on the indictment because the defendant will be confronted with pleading guilty not to what he thought carried a comparatively short sentence, for instance, under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, but under a much enhanced maximum of a racially aggravated Section 4. One would find it very difficult, in justice, to allow the prosecution to add the count to which the defendant could then plead.
I am not saying that that is insuperable but the complications which will arise from that most laudable attempt to increase the maxima where they are, at present, inadequate has not been entirely followed through. I am sure we can all get by but I do not believe that the prosecution will find it nearly as easy to use the new provisions as the Government hope in the proper cases. There will be complications in the course of trial which will result in less than adequate sentences being passed for what are very nasty, racially aggravated, violent or public disorder offences simply because it will not be possible to have the right count on the indictment.
I do not know what the answer is. I have suggested that one can artificially create, for the purposes of alternative verdicts, racially aggravated Section 18, racially aggravated violent disorder and affray, simply in order that they can be argued and indicted with those alternatives as a possible let-out, alternative verdict or plea.
I do not know what the Government have to say about that. In my submission, it will make it much easier to use those admirable provisions if something of the sort that I suggest could be introduced into the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for setting out the background and the basis of his amendment with such clarity so that everyone understands it. I recall that he gave a detailed explanation of his concerns about charging in Committee with the same degree of clarity.
I understand the concerns which the noble Viscount has expressed but the Government do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to create the new offences he suggests with no increase in sentence simply to offer a jury alternative verdicts, which I believe is the basis on which the noble Viscount puts the matter.

701
In practical terms, the suggested amendments would require the prosecution to meet the additional hurdle of proving racial aggravation without providing any additional sentence. Where there is evidence of racial aggravation, Clause 69 already enables the court to impose a higher sentence. I pointed to the difficulty of dealing with public order offences which are not directed against the person in my response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
The problem which the noble Viscount identifies, as I understand it, is that there is a Section 18 offence which does not have the racial aggravation feature in it. The circumstances lead to the conclusion that what may be appropriate is a conviction on a Section 20 racially aggravated offence. But that is not a verdict open to the jury or to which the defendant can plead on the basis of an indictment that only has Section 18 on it because racial aggravation is not an element in Section 18 unless the amendment is accepted.
The first answer, as a matter of practicality, assuming that the circumstances justify it, would be for the prosecution at the outset of the case to include upon the indictment not just Section 18 but also racially aggravated Section 20. If that course was taken, the range of verdicts which the noble Viscount would wish to be available would indeed be available. Whether that course is appropriate will obviously depend upon the particular case. We believe that that course provides a sufficient degree of flexibility for prosecutors to permit the whole range of outcomes to be covered.
The noble Viscount is right to say that cases which start off looking rather good, particularly before you get anywhere near court, often tend to fade and subside the closer you get to court and when you get into court. But prosecutors are aware of that and are able to use their judgment in how they draw up the indictment. I do not believe that an indictment with a Section 18 and a racially aggravated Section 20 would be an indictment in respect of which, assuming it went to trial, there would be real difficulties about the summing up.
I entirely understand the points made by the noble Viscount in relation to the situation where the prosecutor seeks to add a racially aggravated Section 20 offence at a later stage in the trial. Of course, there will be cases where it is not appropriate to allow that to be added simply because it would be contrary to the interests of justice for a defendant to have to face a new charge, with a new element, and a much higher sentence at such a late stage. Again, it is a matter of judgment for the prosecutor. He must decide at the beginning the appropriate way in which to deal with the case.
There was a case where a Section 18, but no racially aggravated Section 20, was on the indictment. The defendant wished to plead to a lesser offence than Section 18, while the prosecution wanted him to plead to a racially aggravated Section 20. Again, there may be circumstances where that may be ruled out because it is too late or because the defendant will not agree to anything except a non-racially aggravated Section 20. However, when one is in that situation, it would
702
normally be possible for the indictment to be amended, even at a late stage, if what is wanted is to give effect to the plea that the defendant wishes to make.
I appreciate that not every situation can be readily catered for, but we believe that the way in which we have dealt with it is better than creating a new offence simply for the purpose of allowing alternative verdicts. We do not regard that as an appropriate basis to create a new offence. We believe that we must leave it to prosecutors and that, using good sense, most circumstances will be covered. Although we are genuinely grateful for the problem being aired, we do not feel able to accept the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lord, I am not really surprised by that response. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having applied his mind so thoroughly to the matter. Indeed, he is quite right to say that the prosecution will really have to choose at an early stage whether or not to add a second count, whether it be a racially aggravated Section 20 for a violence case or a racially aggravated Section 4 for an affray or violent disorder case. I believe that, quite frequently, the prosecution will not wish to do so because, merely by doing so, they will indicate to the defence that they are prepared to accept the lesser offence. In their wisdom they may not think that it would be just or proper in the public interest to charge the person with the lesser offence when in fact the conduct which he is alleged to have committed warrants a much higher degree of indictment.
Unless we get over the problem, I am afraid that the use that will be made of the Bill's provisions will not be as extensive or appropriate as would otherwise be the case. I know that the Government do not want that; nor, indeed, do I. When they continue to consider the matter with the CPS, I just hope that they can work out the practicalities involved. This is something which will come through when the Bill reaches the statute book. I do not want to lose the opportunity of being able to use these greater powers of sentencing in appropriate cases. Nevertheless, I must leave the matter there and trust that the Government will continue to think about it.
I do not expect any further amendments to be brought forward, but I do expect the Government to consult with the CPS on the matter. I believe that the CPS will express very strong views as regards the correct way to handle such matters. If there are strong views then, for goodness sake, let us ensure that they are used consistently across the whole length and breadth of the country, because that is the other thing that is liable to go wrong. It is extremely late. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Racially-aggravated harassment etc.]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 70. I must point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 71.
Clause 26 [Racially aggravated offences]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 21, line 9, leave out ("a racially") and insert ("an").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall be brief. I have six amendments in this group which seek to secure one of the two major omissions from Clause 26. The omitted categories are, of course, religion and social class. I shall say no more about social class today and concentrate on the inclusion of religious bigotry in the clauses on harassment and aggravation.
I see religion as divisible into two parts. First, people in Scotland discover that they have been born into a particular religious background. That is a cultural inheritance that they can do nothing about, but about which other people will make all kinds of assumptions. The second element is the doctrinal position that some citizens may adopt. These are voluntary personal decisions and, it could be argued, as such may be worthy of criticism. In other words, I am happy to be criticised for being an Elder of the Kirk, but far from it for being a lowland Protestant. These amendments call for different subsections for the Scottish equivalent in this legislation. I see no difficulty here as I am trying to capture the Scottish dimension and incorporate it into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 inclusive are also being spoken to, I must point out to your Lordships that if Amendment No. 72 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 73, and if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 75.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Earl is one of a series of amendments to Clause 26. Later in the Report stage we shall discuss amendments to Clause 80 which concern the same issue of offences whose motivation is some form of religious bigotry or aggravation, or however one wishes to put it.
I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will reply to these amendments. He will be aware that they have been suggested to Members of your Lordships' House by the Law Society of Scotland which has clearly reflected on what was said in Committee, as indeed have all of us who took part in the debates at that time. Unfortunately, those of us who have practised in the criminal law whether as lawyers or, as in the case of the noble Earl, as a social worker must be aware that religious bigotry is just as prevalent as racial bigotry as an underlying reason for criminal conduct of a variety of pernicious natures.
There is a concern that as regards Clauses 26 and 80 the wrong message may be perceived; namely, that not only the Government but society think that such offences—which are to be deplored—are in some way more unsettling for the peace of society than those which are motivated by some form of religious prejudice. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will agree, when one is involved—as he and I have been—in criminal cases in Scotland, one
704
finds that religious bigotry is often intertwined with racial bigotry. One does not, I think, need to give examples to vouch for that proposition.
This is not the time or the hour to debate this matter at length. I hope that between now and Third Reading the Government will consider whether it might be possible to expand the provisions of Clauses 26 and 80 to take account of religious motivation in the same way that they seek to address racial aggravation as a motivation. It does not seem to me impossible for that objective to be achieved. When the issue has been raised previously, Ministers have said, "We fully accept that you are right to be concerned about religious prejudice. We fully accept your right to be concerned about crime which is motivated for some other reason such as sexual orientation. But these chapters of this Bill are concerned with racially aggravated offences". I hope that a slightly more expansive view may be taken. I am satisfied that one could be taken.
While these amendments clearly will not be pressed to a Division, I hope that raising the issue will encourage Ministers to discuss with their colleagues whether two messages may be sent: that society will not tolerate crime which is motivated either by racial reasons or religious bigotry. I support the noble Earl.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it is ideally not the right time to debate this matter at length. On the other hand, it is effectively the only opportunity we have. There will much to be dealt with on Third Reading. There is no guarantee that the issue will not arise late at night then also.
Introducing religion into the equation would open up a can of worms. If we introduce religious belief, why not philosophical belief, political belief, or, for that matter, irreligious belief? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, in his seminal book on the Spanish Civil War, reminded us that there were occasions during that war when declared atheists were killed and actually dismembered by fanatical Catholics. The same fate or worse has often been suffered by atheists in Moslem countries.
I mentioned philosophical belief. It is well known that many paedophiles sincerely believe that children enjoy the attentions of older people, and sometimes positively encourage them. It is not an offence to express such a belief, nor should it be. But it is going too far to suggest that someone who shook his or her fist at a paedophile expressing such a belief should risk being sent to prison for two years rather than six months. I cannot support any of these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I express my strong support for the amendments put forward. It so often happens that it is the midnight hour when we discuss amendments to Scottish legislation. Perhaps I may draw upon my strong Scottish connections to say that it is by no means a can of worms that is opened up by the amendments proposed by my noble friend and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Anyone with any connections with Scotland will know the reasons that these amendments

705
are urged. I do not think that it is appropriate for me at this time of night to spell them out. I simply draw comfort from the fact that for once there appears to be a preponderance of those of Celtic origin in this House.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I agree that it is an advantage that most of the noble Lords present are Celts. However, in relation to the amendments which are being discussed, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl, and the noble and learned Lord, in their condemnation of offences motivated by religious bigotry. As I am sure do all noble Lords, the Government abhor such crimes which are wholly unjustified in any civilised society.
These amendments seek to extend the definition of the offence of racially aggravated harassment to include a reference to religion. As has been said in Committee, the Government have a clear objective in Clause 26; namely, to deal with racially aggravated harassment which poses a clear threat in our multiracial society. Unfortunately—I am not proud of this statistic—there has been a steady rise in the number of recorded racial incidents in Scotland in recent years. In 1989, there were 376. That figure rose to 832 in the fiscal year 1995–96.
The particular evil of racial harassment is that offenders identify their victims because of their appearance and because of what they naturally and inescapably are. Other groups in society do become victims of crime, including racial groups, because of who they are, but none is so open to harassment, based purely on prejudice, as the minority ethnic groups who form the majority of victims of racial crimes.
All attacks on vulnerable groups are deplorable. Section 26 is intended to reinforce the protection given to those members of our society who are particularly vulnerable to the action of bigoted criminals, and builds on long-standing legislation which seeks to protect individuals from prejudice on grounds of race.
I am aware that attacks which include elements of religious bigotry do arise in Scotland and they, too, are deplorable. However, as I said when we previously discussed this issue, such acts are difficult to identify and define in any satisfactory way. I should make it clear that I have no difficulty in prosecuting crime under the existing law, no matter what the motivation. The new offence of racial harassment carries the advantage that it may fit the facts of some cases of racial harassment better than would a breach of the peace, particularly where there is a course of conduct involved.
706
I do not believe that there is the same correspondence in the case of attacks that may include an element of harassment on the grounds of religion.
We consulted on the grounds of race, which is the issue that we are addressing in this Bill. We do not wish to detract from the message that this House will send out through the Bill to the victims of racial harassment. Our priority is to provide this additional protection for them. While I therefore understand and sympathise with the aims of the amendment, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw it.
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I referred to the response of the Church of Scotland Church and Nation Committee to the consultation paper. In that response, the Church of Scotland recognised that, although small, there is a difference between religious and racial bigotry. That might well be an appropriate answer to the noble Earl, who raised the question of the Scottish dimension. This is a Scottish institution recognising that there is such a difference. In these circumstances, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords. I have clearly been trying to extend this clause to deal with the nature of intolerance, for whatever reason. I am certainly aware that there are many matters that people cannot do anything about. I am obviously concerned about—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put it—the wrong message being sent to the public.
However, I accept that the Government's proposal is to target this provision very much on racial communities. I accept that, and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 not moved.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of amendments on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes past midnight.

  Public Trust Office: Framework Document
  Public Trust Office: Framework Document
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  House of Lords: Attendance Data
  House of Lords: Attendance Data
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders
  Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders
  Arthur Newton and Albert Goodman: Appeals
  Arthur Newton and Albert Goodman: Appeals
  Firearms Certificates: Processing of Applications
  Firearms Certificates: Processing of Applications
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Firearms: ACPO Committees
  Firearms: ACPO Committees
  Former Ministers: Police Protection
  Former Ministers: Police Protection
  Police Firearms Operations
  Police Firearms Operations