Sitting of 19 March 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Flood Defences (Edgware)
    Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement on flood defences in the Edgware area. [33751]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Although the Department has policy responsibility for flood defence, individual works are designed, constructed and maintained by the operating authorities for each area. The Environment Agency and local councils are jointly considering improvements to defences in the Edgware area.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the last extensive flooding many people feel that they are living on borrowed time and have sandbags piled high in their back gardens? The floods affected not just Edgware but Burnt Oak and Colindale, and caused substantial damage with consequent distress to my constituents. My constituents are concerned that recent changes to MAFF criteria for approval of schemes may adversely affect them. Before making any final decision on the expected report from the Environment Agency, will my hon. Friend agree to listen to further representations on that study?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has pursued the threats to his constituents with diligence. The Environment Agency is considering a catchment plan for the Silk stream and its tributaries, which is probably the best way of approaching the problem. That proposal has not yet been put to MAFF, so we are not in a position to ascertain whether it meets the criteria. If it does not, stand-alone schemes may be considered to protect the interests of residents. We are always willing to receive representations.

    BSE
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What recent developments there have been on the issue of BSE. [33752]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): On 16 March, the Agriculture Council agreed by a convincing majority to lift the beef export ban for certified herds in Northern Ireland. That is
    1394
    excellent news for our beef industry, and is the first crucial step towards lifting the ban for the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success, but has he seen the most recent claims of Professor Lacey, who alleges that farmers are burying on their land BSE-infected fallen stock? I am having great difficulty understanding how that is possible, given that farmers are being paid between £540 and £680 for each animal that they notify as having BSE. What is actually happening?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our success in Brussels this week. The United Kingdom Renderers Association wishes to make it clear that no official representative of the association has ever met or discussed any issue with Professor Lacey. My hon. Friend is right that BSE is a notifiable dise, and the burials to which the allegations refer would therefore be an offence. He is also right to point out that, from April this year, if a BSE case is confirmed by post mortem, the farmer will receive £531 and, if it is not confirmed, and the animal has been destroyed, the fanner will receive £663. Given the position of UK farming, I find it difficult to believe that farmers would voluntarily forgo £500 million to £600 million.
    Mrs. Spelman: Will the Minister confirm that the Workington site chosen for the new British cattle movement centre had the highest set-up costs of the three sites considered?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can confirm that a cost-benefit analysis showed that Workington was the best site for the taxpayer and the industry.
    Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening of the inquiry into BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome? I attended last week with a bereaved family from my constituency, who were very impressed.
    Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about some of the initial evidence given to the inquiry, concerning a supposed culture of secrecy in the Ministry over the period involved, and about the suggestion that at least one vet was asked to change some of his findings? Will he ensure that Ministry officials are encouraged to attend the inquiry, and to give full information about the tragedies surrounding BSE and CJD?
    Dr. Cunningham: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what is happening in the inquiry, but I can say that the culture of secrecy in the Ministry ended on 3 May 1997. I have made it clear to all Ministry officials that they are free to give the inquiry whatever evidence they think appropriate, and that there is no question of any action being taken against them subsequently.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of the significant breakthrough that has been achieved in Northern Ireland—which we all hope will be followed as swiftly as possible by similar progress in respect of England, Wales and Scotland—will the Minister comment on reports leaked from his Department earlier today concerning the

    1395
    selective cull scheme? Civil servants expressed concern about the effectiveness of traceability, and feared that such reports would send the wrong signal to our European Union counterparts. Can the Minister assure us that everything possible is being done in regard to the remaining 20 per cent. of animals, and that if further action is needed to maintain and build on the momentum at European level, no stone will be left unturned?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House a categorical assurance to that effect. The last Administration, however, were very slow: the selective cull did not begin until January 1997. Because of the delay, it is not surprising that not all the animals that we thought could be identified have been identified. However, because of the age of those animals and the operation of the over-30-months scheme, there have been no consequences to human health. If the animals were not killed, they would have been caught by the over-30-months scheme.
    Mr. MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the borough of Rotherham is about 65 per cent. rural? It is one of the beef-eating and beef-producing centres of Yorkshire, so my constituents are delighted with the news that my right hon. Friend has brought back from Brussels. Does not that news, along with news of the reform of the common agricultural policy—the Commission is adopting a British agenda to force down food prices, which will benefit the British people—contrast with the isolationist, anti-European, xenophobic politics that caused such disaster in our farming communities when implemented by the Conservative Government?
    Dr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) have pointed out, we must press on as quickly as possible with the date-based export scheme for beef producers in the rest of the United Kingdom. I assure the House that we are doing that.
    My hon. Friend is also right to remind us that the stupid isolationism of the last Administration, and their obsession with the European Union, left Britain not only without friends in the Agriculture Council but often derided, and greatly damaged the interests of all our farmers.
    Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister take pleasure in the fact that the farmers of Northern Ireland greatly appreciate all the work that he and his colleagues have done over the months since he took power to persuade the European market to lift the ban, especially in Northern Ireland?
    Some of the provisions that have been agreed mean that there will be extra flagged herds in Northern Ireland. The only long-term solution to that is the date-based system. Will the Minister continue his efforts to ensure that it starts to operate as soon as possible?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks and kind remarks. I recognise the significance of agriculture to Northern Ireland's economy and that beef producers in Northern Ireland have had a particularly difficult time. I know that they are delighted by this week's result in Brussels and the emphatic nature of the vote in the Council, which voted by qualified majority to accept the scheme. I accept, however, that it is
    1396
    imperative that we press ahead and try to achieve similar success for the dated-based export scheme because of the universal nature of that scheme.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a great need to understand the scientific basis of this disease and its progression: the BSE prion and its mutational properties, its stability in blood and water, its cross-infectivity and the incubation time? Does he agree that scientific funding still needs to be found to understand the full properties of the prion?
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree that we need to know much more about BSE and new variant CJD, but I have recently authorised considerable additional expenditure for research of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers. That is an extensive research programme. We have probably the widest-ranging research programme into BSE and its consequences of any country. That programme will continue under this Administration.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Following on from his earlier replies, will the Minister give us a candid assessment of the difficulties that he will face in achieving acceptance of a date-based export scheme within the European Union?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can foresee some of the difficulties because some of our colleagues in the Council have been reluctant to cast their votes on the basis of the scientific and veterinary advice, opinions and evidence. It is important that we should insist that decisions are taken on the basis of science, not of political or economic advantage. I have already made my views abundantly clear in Brussels and in capitals throughout Europe, and I shall go on doing so.

    Sea Defences
    Mr. Tyrie: If he will make a statement about resources made available for sea defences. [33753]
    Mr. Morley: Allocations for MAFF grants and credit approvals to operating authorities for capital flood and coastal defence works in 1998–99 are at the same levels as plans proposed last year by the previous Government. For future years, the funding level will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that the cost of emergency repairs at Selsey in my constituency is approaching £500,000 and that that money is coming from the Environment Agency budget that was originally earmarked for making more permanent repairs? Is that not a Catch-22 situation, because the more money is spent on emergency repairs, the less is available for making the sea defences permanent? Will the Minister assure my constituents that the Government will make available the resources necessary to bring an end to that absurd situation?
    Mr. Morley: I can confirm that, because of the particular problems on the Sussex coast, extra resources have been available in relation to the grant-earning ceiling. That has been raised from the original allocation of £3 million to £3.9 million, which takes into account

    1397
    the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for emergency repairs and the fact that the cost of permanent repairs has increased.

    Beef Export Ban
    Mr. Grogan: If he will make a statement on progress towards lifting the beef export ban. [33754]
    Dr. John Cunningham: As I have just told the House, on Monday, we secured the first crucial step towards lifting the ban when the Agriculture Council approved the export certified herds scheme by a substantial majority.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there two lessons to be drawn from the successful meeting on Monday? First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—whose constituency, even if it is 65 per cent. rural, is not as rural as Selby, which is is about 80 per cent. rural—said, if we are to have the ban lifted in England, Scotland and Wales, we need to maintain our constructive attitudes to Europe. Secondly, and more important, in the coming months we need to maintain the strongest possible public health measures.
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. It is because we have developed an open and constructive dialogue with all the institutions of the European Union—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—that we have been able to make progress. The progress is due equally to the fact that we have taken stringent measures to safeguard the public and to ensure that our beef is safe to eat.
    Mr. Jack: On behalf of Opposition Members, I welcome the announcement on the lifting of the Northern Ireland beef ban. It is a tribute to the foundation work put in place by previous Agriculture Ministers that this Minister has been able to achieve success in Brussels.
    May I press the Minister a little further? A moment ago, he announced that he was confident that the date-based scheme offered the key that would unlock the door to the permanent lifting of the ban for the remainder of the United Kingdom. May I have his assurance that that remains the only barrier to lifting the ban? Will he be initiating a discussion at the next Agriculture Council to try to get on the record some form of indicative timetable for the lifting of the ban? Can he tell us when he expects the centre at Workington to be up and running?
    Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. First, I give the right hon. Gentleman at least nine out of 10 for brass neck. The previous Administration made no progress towards the lifting of the ban, which the right hon. Gentleman, the House, the country and, more particularly, our farmers know very well. The right hon. Gentleman is also out of touch with what is happening at the next Agriculture Council. The next Council will be a special Council which I have called to hold the opening discussion and debate on the Agenda 2000 proposals. There is no question of my tabling any indicative timetable at that time. The Council has the special and single purpose of discussing Agenda 2000. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time and paid more attention
    1398
    to detail, we might get some sensible questions from him. Finally, we expect the centre at Workington to be operational later this year.

    Farm Subsidies
    Mr. Eric Clarke: When he last visited the north of England to discuss subsidies to farmers. [33755]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I visited the region in February when I attended a meeting with the local National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. So much for the Conservatives being the party of the countryside. How can the Conservative party represent the countryside when it has no rural representatives—and no urban representatives, either, come to that—in Scotland or Wales? It is illogical. I assume that my hon. Friend will continue to meet farmers throughout the United Kingdom in order to discuss their problems.
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to the question implied in my hon. Friend's comments is that we meet farmers regularly throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Subsidies to farmers in Scotland—part of which my hon. Friend represents—were £480 million last year, which is an all-time high.
    Mr. Jack: Farmers in the north of England will be interested in the recently published proposals for Agenda 2000—and particularly the way in which they affect the dairy sector. Can the Minister tell me whether, at the special Council which his right hon. Friend the Minister will be attending at the end of the month, he will be raising the fact that there is to be a 2 per cent. increase in milk quota, but that, as we have no mountain dairy producers or, at this stage, a newcomers' scheme, Britain will get no increase in milk quota, but will suffer a 15 per cent. reduction in the price of milk? Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will protect Britain's dairy farmers in those discussions?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, the issue will be raised.

    Meat and Bonemeal (Disposal)
    Ms Drown: What steps his Department is taking (a) to provide for the incineration of more meat and bonemeal and (b) to reduce the need for MBM storage. [33756]
    Mr. Rooker: The Government are actively considering a number of major disposal options involving incineration for the meat and bonemeal derived from the over-30-months scheme. Our goal remains to find a disposal solution which takes full account of the need to protect human and environmental health, while keeping the cost to the taxpayer as low as possible.
    Ms Drown: I thank the Minister for his reply. My constituents turned out in force last week at a council planning meeting and they were delighted that the council unanimously rejected a plan to store meat and bone meal at an inappropriate site in Wroughton in my constituency.

    1399
    Will the Minister assure my constituents that MAFF, the intervention board and the Environment Agency will put no pressure on the applicant to appeal against the decision, so that my residents' wishes are respected?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes; not only will MAFF not put any pressure on the applicant to make an appeal, but, if the applicant makes an appeal, we will put no pressure on the appellate authorities.

    Farm Products
    Mr. Hoyle: If he will launch a campaign to promote the safety and quality of British farm products. [33760]
    Mr. Rooker:The safety and quality of British foods are second to none. My colleagues and I take every opportunity to publicise that fact, and to stimulate the effective marketing of our products. Promotional campaigns are really a matter for the trade, as they are far more expert at them than are the Government. However, we do what we can to support the various and many trade initiatives.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am slightly disappointed by that answer—although it might help a bit if the Minister were to take on board the fact that the oldest agricultural show is staged in my constituency of Chorley. There are many agricultural shows across the country, at which MAFF has exhibitions. What better opportunity could there be to ensure and promote the safety and quality of our good British products? With a little imagination, which I know they have, the Government could raise the profile of safety and quality by promoting them at those shows. Such promotion is all the more important as some people, such as the French, continue to block British beef products but are not sorting out their own house.
    Mr. Rooker: I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. MAFF has travelling exhibitions which visit most of the shows and major exhibitions, such as the food fair that will soon be held in London. We have also sponsored a major British specialities exhibition at the food and drink expo—which I visited on Monday—at the national exhibition centre, in Birmingham. Although we shall continue our exhibitions, it is for the trade to push the matter. Ministers will give what support we can, and we shall visit as many shows as possible—especially targeting shows that Ministers have previously avoided.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: How can the Minister justify the continuing ban on sales of beef on the bone in the light of the advice given by his own Ministry to the landlord of the Elm Tree pub in Swanwick that it is perfectly legal for him to cook beef on the bone if he strips it off the bone after it is cooked in the kitchen and before he serves it to his customers? How do the Minister and his colleagues, having introduced the legislation, feel to be the first Labour Ministers since Ramsay Macdonald—who earned the title from Winston Churchill, in 1931—to be boneless wonders?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman and most of his colleagues have not quite got the message: the decisions that we took last December have enabled us to start to secure the beginning of the lifting of the beef ban. If what
    1400
    the hon. Gentleman said about the cooking of beef on the bone is accurate, it is contrary to the regulations. It is an offence to cook beef on the bone. As we have repeatedly made it clear, the danger will be in the juices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Oh, yes; and we will not be the first Government knowingly to put infectivity in the food chain. Fairly soon, Conservative Members will get that message.
    Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers and consumers in my constituency realise that one of the best ways of promoting the safety of British food is by establishing the Food Standards Agency? Will he perhaps tell the House how he will promote that agency, so that producers and consumers understand the importance of promoting and improving our food?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. The consultation round on the White Paper "A Force for Change" concluded on Monday, and more than 400 representations were made. We expect to produce draft legislation for the House to consider by the early summer, to produce a Bill for the next parliamentary Session, and to have the agency up and running in the second half of next year.
    Mr. Swinney: Once the date-based scheme is secure, will the Minister and the Government consider launching a campaign based on the safety and quality of United Kingdom beef, to ensure that our farmers can reclaim some of the export markets that have undoubtedly been jeopardised by the beef ban of the past two years?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. It would be useful to the House. Recently, Professor Philip James, having been asked about the safety of British beef, said in evidence to the Agriculture Committee:
    "From my analysis of the BSE issue, I am embarrassed to tell you that…not just myself, but many members of our steering committee"—
    the European Commission's scientific steering committee—
    "believe that meat and meat products from Britain are safer than in most other European countries."
    Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in applauding the work of Food From Britain, which does an extraordinarily good job of promoting British food abroad? Does he agree that farmers need to do more to sell food directly to the consumer? What plans does he have to encourage farmers' markets, which are such a success in the United States of America and could do so much to bring farmers closer to consumers, to the benefit of both?
    Mr. Rooker: Question Time is not the time to go into great detail, but when I was at the expo on Monday, I saw the excellent way in which Welsh beef farmers have been marketing pink beef and veal. They never thought of or needed to do such marketing before and they have the full support of my Department.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Garnier: When he will visit Harborough to discuss stock farmers' incomes. [33761]
    Dr. John Cunningham: I have no plans to visit Harborough in the near future. However I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2 March to discuss farmers' incomes and other issues.
    Mr. Garnier: May I begin by thanking the Minister of State for receiving that delegation? It was an extremely helpful and useful meeting. May I draw to his attention the case of one my neighbours, who is a beef farmer? The price of his beef bulls, which were selling at about £720 before March 1996, is now £530. He has not been able to sell any breeding heifers at all, his cull cows have gone down in value from £750 to £300 and the value of his herd, which has increased in number from 257 to 290, has been devalued by £50,000. Will the Minister bear that in mind in his further discussions with the European Commission?
    Dr. Cunningham: First, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Minister of State; we are always willing to receive delegations consisting of right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents. I shall certainly bear in mind his example which, sadly, is typical of problems in the beef industry. That is why we are determined to press ahead to seek acceptance for the date-based export scheme to bring further support to the beef sector, in addition to the agrimonetary compensation and the other financial support that we have recently announced.
    Mr. Paice: After two Labour Budgets, the average 300-acre family farm, in Harborough and elsewhere, will be £1,300 worse off—and that in a week when the Minister has announced that farm incomes have almost halved. As the Budget did nothing to dampen the strength of sterling, farmers now face the prospect of a further green pound revaluation. Yet the strength of sterling has helped save the Minister some money in his Department's budget. Will he go further than his welcome U-turn on the subject of meat hygiene and cattle passport payments and seek additional ways, within his departmental budget, of relieving the massive burden on British agriculture? He could do that without asking for any further increase in public expenditure, which I know perfectly well he would find it difficult to obtain.
    Dr. Cunningham: Both Budgets under the present Government have benefited people in rural as well as urban areas. Only the Conservative party cannot find a single word of praise for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his excellent Budget earlier this week. Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the hon. Gentleman never lets an opportunity pass without demanding more public expenditure. They say that I should find money from within my existing budget. What do they suggest I should cut to provide that extra money?

    Agriculture (West Country)
    Mr. David Heath: If he will visit the Royal Bath and West show this year to discuss the current state of agriculture in the west country. [33763]
    Mr. Rooker: I am unable to attend the show. I am aware of the current state of agriculture in the west country following a visit by my noble Friend Lord Donoughue to north Devon and Exmoor early in January.
    Mr. Heath: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman cannot visit the Royal Bath and West. He may recall that the previous Minister was warmly received there. He would be equally warmly received in my constituency. Given the figures released by his Department last week, showing a 35 per cent. decrease in dairy farm incomes and a 65 per cent. decrease in lowland beef and sheep farm incomes, does he accept that his right hon. Friend the Minister was incorrect to tell me last year that there was no crisis in west country agriculture?
    Mr. Rooker: I respect the hon. Gentleman's argument and that of his farmers, who have suffered along with others. The extra help that we announced in December and confirmed in February—the cheques will be arriving this month—is going to the upland and less favoured areas. By common consent, that is where the need is greatest.
    Mr. Tom King: Agriculture in the west country is in a serious predicament. The most obvious immediate effect of the Budget has been a rapid increase in the value of the pound. What is the Minister's estimate of the likely impact of that on farm incomes in the coming year?
    Mr. Rooker: It is too early to say at the moment.

    Beef Export Ban
    Charlotte Atkins: What progress he is making on lifting the ban on British beef. [33764]
    Mr. Love: What progress has been made with the lifting of the beef export ban. [33766]
    Mr. Rooker: As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier this afternoon, we have made a major breakthrough with the European Council's agreement to the export certified herds scheme. We will be working hard to secure agreement to our proposals for a date-based export scheme, which would apply throughout the UK.
    Charlotte Atkins: May I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on that? Is it true that only two European countries voted against the partial lifting of the ban? Does that represent progress on the issue with our European neighbours?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right—only two voted against. In the Veterinary Committee a few weeks before, four voted against and one abstained. All the recent movement has been towards the position of the British Government.
    Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that, without the strictest possible anti-BSE measures, including a ban on

    1403
    the sale of beef on the bone, there is no chance of the beef ban being lifted and that, unlike the Conservative party, he will act to protect public health?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. We cannot repeat often enough that without the most rigorous precautions on the safety of the beef food chain we shall not make any further progress and would not have made the progress that we have secured. Unlike the policy that we inherited, that approach seems to be working.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister feel that the British Army's buying British beef and British lamb would give people on the continent confidence about accepting our meat? How is he progressing in the efforts that I know he is making with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to increase the proportion of British beef, lamb and other meat the Army uses?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The knowledge that the Ministry of Defence is not sourcing from the United Kingdom raises questions among our competitors and others. We have had discussions with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We expect more British beef to be purchased in future. There is a long-term contract for frozen lamb from New Zealand, which was based on best value for money. I do not know when the contract finishes. We are discussing the issue.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not conceded that computer traceability should be the precondition for the lifting of the beef export ban in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he take this opportunity to confirm his view that there are manual records which are perfectly adequate for the satisfaction of that purpose?
    Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. It must not get around that the lifting of the rest of the ban under the date-based scheme depends on a computerised system. The position was different in Northern Ireland for the certified herds scheme because the necessary records were available due to their computer system, which they have had for many years and which had nothing to do with BSE.
    The date-based scheme will be secure for cattle born after 1 August 1996. We can guarantee that such cattle will not have been exposed to any contaminated feed. That scheme does not depend on the start of the computerised cattle traceability system, which is a wholly different operation. Although in future the traceability system will help, the lifting of the ban for the rest of the UK under a date-based scheme does not depend on it. If it did, we could not hope to make early progress because, by definition, the date of birth of cattle would be entered only from the summer, and we know that cattle born on 1 August 1996 will be 24 months old by then. We therefore expect early progress on the date-based scheme.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, will he say whether there is any hope for English producers who can demonstrate that their herds have been totally BSE-free for some considerable time? Usually because their cattle are pedigree animals, farmers are able to demonstrate that they have had no problems, but they are still unable to export. That seems unfair.
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. It is not generally appreciated that the majority of cattle herds in this country have never had a case of BSE. Some 67 per cent. of the 120,000 herds have never had a case of BSE. For beef suckler herds, the situation is more extreme—84 per cent. have never had a case of BSE. That is why the majority of fanners are so angry; they have been affected by what happened to a minority of farmers. We can show that the majority of herds in this country have been BSE-free. Lifting the ban under a date-based scheme, or indeed a certified herd scheme, should be easier, but the myth gets around that every farmer has had loads of BSE cases. That is not true. The 171,000 cases of BSE have been identified on a minority of cattle farms.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Letwin: What estimate he has made of future trends in farm incomes in the United Kingdom. [33767]
    Dr. John Cunningham: It is difficult to predict the trend in farm incomes because of the many factors involved. I am kept informed by officials on how specific market developments could impact on farm incomes.
    Mr. Letwin: Is the Minister aware that, for many farmers in my constituency, that answer will seem very odd? They have performed their own calculations and believe that they will be out of business next year due to the present state of the pound and the Minister's steadfast refusal to apply for agrimonetary compensation at the level they require.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong on that final point. The announcement that I made in December, and confirmed earlier this year, was based on agrimonetary compensation.
    Mr. Letwin: It was a small amount.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand. He says that it was a small amount, but it was virtually all that was available in agrimonetary compensation for the beef sector at that point.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that farming incomes are particularly vulnerable to currency fluctuations? Does he therefore welcome the support of the National Farmers Union for the single European currency? Does he agree that it is absolutely ludicrous for the Conservative party to claim to be the friend of the farmer when it is still viscerally opposed to the single European currency?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend puts it very succinctly, and I agree with him.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Wilkinson: If he discussed the reform of the common agricultural policy with the Minister of Agriculture of Chile during his recent visit to the United Kingdom. [33768]
    Dr. John Cunningham: My noble Friend Lord Donoughue met the Chilean Minister of Agriculture on Thursday 5 March. Reform of the common agricultural policy was one of the items that they discussed.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am not surprised at that answer inasmuch as it must seem extraordinarily perverse that the

    1405
    United Kingdom allows itself to be part of a European Union agricultural policy that deliberately excludes some of the very best and cheapest agricultural produce in the world, such as that from Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. As the European Union's agricultural policy is up for review, could not only the consequences of enlargement but the paramount importance of satisfying the need for British consumers to get the best possible and most economic deal be taken into account?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. We should lose no opportunity to press for reform of the common agricultural policy, because of this country's support for successful enlargement of the Union, because of the impending next round of the World Trade Organisation talks on liberalisation and because, as the hon. Gentleman says, we want to give our consumers the best value for money and the best choice in the food that they buy.

    Fishing Industry (Coastal Management Schemes)
    Mr. Quinn: What consultations he has had recently with leaders of the fishing industry with regard to coastal management schemes. [33769]
    Mr. Morley: I plan to meet leaders of the fishing industry shortly to discuss their recent paper on zonal and coastal state management.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and suggest that it would be useful if he could visit fishing communities in Scarborough and Whitby and along the rest of the North Yorkshire coast to receive from them in person the thanks that they have expressed to me for the good start that the Government have made with fishing policy.
    Mr. Morley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I am always more than willing to meet people from the fishing industry in fishing ports to talk about issues of concern. It is true that we have brought stability to an industry that has lacked it for many years, by getting to grips with the issue of multi-annual guidance programmes III and IV after years of delay.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    International Bribery
    Mr. Bayley: What advice he has given the Government on the implementation of the EU and OECD conventions on international bribery. [33782]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Officials in the departments for which I am responsible are involved in providing assistance in such matters, but my hon. Friend will know that, by convention, advice given by the Law Officers, and even the fact of its existence, is not disclosed outside Government.
    Mr. Bayley: What action are the Government taking during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU to combat corruption in the public and private sectors?
    The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's strong interest in this matter. Indeed, he introduced a Bill
    1406
    on the subject in February. The Government have been a strong supporter of measures to penalise corruption. As president, the United Kingdom is taking forward a Luxembourg presidency initiative on corruption in the private sector, which will build on and complement existing EU legislation against corruption of officials. Furthermore, a detailed report being produced by the presidency and the Commission evaluates existing anti-corruption measures in both the first and third pillars.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us more about what the Government are trying to do to ensure that our EU partners are not using bribery or other corrupt practices to obtain contracts in other parts of the world? During my visits to other countries, I have heard that Britain often loses out because companies, rightly, are not willing to engage in bribery and corruption with officials in countries such as the former Soviet Union, whereas some other notable large countries in the EU appear only too pleased to do so, to win contracts from Britain.
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that my right hon. Friends who will be concerned with such matters in any discussions will seek to do what they can within the European Union to ensure that there is a level playing field. In our domestic law, we can deal only with offences committed within the jurisdiction.
    Mr. Skinner: As we are told that Cyprus is trying to join the European Union and will thus be affected to some extent by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and all the other areas of influence, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether, if discussions take place, the Government will tell the people of Cyprus that we shall bargain to ensure that Asil Nadir is brought back to this country as part of any deal so that he can tell us precisely when he handed the money over to the Tory party and what steps will be taken to give it back to the shareholders who were robbed of it in the first place?
    The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's repeated concern and interest in this matter, which I suspect will not arise during the discussions. I shall take it up with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: When he now expects to receive the report of the committee reviewing the work and organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [33784]
    The Attorney-General: Sir Iain Glidewell has informed me that he will not now be able to finalise his report this month, as he had hoped. Both he and I understand how important it is to the staff of the CPS that it should be completed as quickly as possible. I am satisfied that the review team is proceeding as expeditiously as it can, consistent with thoroughness.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Pending receipt of the report, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cast his mind back to when he was in opposition and recall how critical he was of the CPS in relation to discontinuances? Has he noticed his own most recent figures, which show that,

    1407
    during the months he has had responsibility, they seem to have gone up somewhat? What is more, those discontinued before the first hearing seem to have dropped. Can he given an explanation and assure the House that the CPS has all the backing it needs?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the CPS has the backing it needs. This matter comes under the terms of reference of the Glidewell report, and the House would be right to await the report before forming a view. Evidence is required, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to recent figures.
    Mr. Barnes: In North-East Derbyshire, we cannot get the CPS to prosecute motorcyclists, or bodies organising them, who misuse designated bridleways and bridlepaths. Might the review provide some opportunity to allow the CPS to do its work, or might we need a change in the law?
    The Attorney-General: I shall draw that matter to the attention of the Director, although these are substantially matters for the police in the first instance.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [33785]
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the Attorney-General aware that the CPS's computer system, SCOPE, had to be abandoned, at a huge loss of public money, because it was unable to cope with the new teamworking practices introduced by the CPS? This means that the CPS is now without any computer system that allows its branches to communicate with each other, let alone with every police force in England and Wales. What will the Attorney-General do to ensure this unsatisfactory situation is resolved?
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of the interest and the criticism of the hon. Gentleman, who raised this matter in a Select Committee. I am grateful to him for giving notice of his question. SCOPE is a basic tracking and management system and, where installed, performs those functions adequately. It has been overtaken as the CPS changed and greater demands were made of the system. The CPS is pursuing methods to meet those needs, including consideration of the private finance initiative. I attach importance to compatibility with the remainder of the criminal justice system and I know that the Glidewell review is considering the issue.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In light of press reports on the Glidewell review, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether it is proposed to restructure the CPS to 30 or 42 separate areas?
    The Attorney-General: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because there has been a misconception about it during the past few weeks. We took office with a commitment to restructure the CPS to 42 areas so as to align CPS areas with police force areas. That was the
    1408
    object of the exercise and it remains the policy. Sir lain Glidewell's terms of reference are clear and require that his recommendations are on the basis of the service being organised into 42 areas.
    Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in West Sussex, in particular the division run from Horsham, which looks after the magistrates court in Haywards Heath? Does he agree that it does a remarkably good job, despite the fact that it is short staffed and under great pressure? The most important thing that the CPS needs to carry out its task to the best of its ability is a little more money.
    The Attorney-General: I understand why the hon. Gentleman presses for more public expenditure, but he knows the remit under which we have decided to operate. I am glad that he has paid tribute to his local staff—a large number of very hard-working and hard-pressed men and women work in the CPS. The Glidewell report is considering the means to ensure that the resources that are available are used to the best advantage and that lawyers get on with prosecuting and managers get on with managing, so that there is not the current undue mix.
    Mr. Bermingham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Glidewell report will thoroughly review the working relationships between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Attorney-General: Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Concern that the relationship was not as smooth as it could be was a big factor in our decision to set up the review and to align police and CPS areas. It is also a specific topic in the review's terms of reference. The House will be aware that a very experienced former chief constable and inspector of constabularies, Sir Geoffrey Dear, is one of the team of three, which includes, of course, Sir lain as chairman.

    Fraud Trials
    Mr. Lock: What representations he has received on the use of juries in fraud trials. [33786]
    The Attorney-General: Last month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched a consultation exercise seeking views on whether an alternative method of trial should be available in serious and complex fraud cases and on the viability of various options for change. I have not received any representations following the launch of the consultation exercise.
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he share my surprise that those who present fraud trials in an extended and lucrative way have taken no steps to preserve the current system? Does he also agree that Britain's reputation as a place for international financial business depends on effective and thorough mechanisms to combat fraud? What further steps do the Government propose to take to combat financial fraud?
    The Attorney-General: In his consultation exercise, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining

    1409
    the effectiveness of current trial management procedures. Moreover, the Government intend to widen the gateways to allow for the flow of information between all relevant agencies in the fight against fraud. We are also considering a system of civil fines for behaviour that, although not criminal, nevertheless tarnishes the market's reputation. The Government also recognise that an effective system of regulation is necessary to complement the criminal justice system, so a new single financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, has been set up to help secure the United Kingdom's place as a fair, safe and clean place in which to do financial services business.
    Mr. Burnett: Does the Attorney-General agree that juries should set and decide on standards for honesty in fraud as well as other trials?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out various options. The Government recognise that there are concerns that the current system for handling some major, complex fraud trials is not working satisfactorily and that there may be a case for considering some change to the system, but we have not yet reached a conclusion on whether the ending of jury trials in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle. Moreover, we have not yet formed an opinion on any particular option for change and will not do so until the consultation procedure is complete.
    Mr. Blunt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of any fundamental objection to a system of specialist jurors with financial qualifications, and who have time available to sit, as the solution to that problem?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to read the Home Secretary's White Paper and look at the options there canvassed. As I said in my first answer, I have not received any
    1410
    representations. That is one of the suggestions that could be canvassed; I invite the hon. Gentleman to make his representations to the Home Secretary.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Red Meat
    Mr. Spring: If he will make a statement on the impact on the livestock industry of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy's recommendations on red meat consumption. [33771]
    Mr. Rooker: We have no way of measuring the exact impact on the livestock industry of recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy in its recent report on the relationship between diet and cancer. For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the House that all the work on that report was completed before the Government came to power.
    Mr. Spring: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how demoralising all this is for beef farmers and, indeed, how confusing it is for consumers? I do not want to make any party-political point, but does he accept that constant change in what is supposedly safe and what we can or cannot eat is very undermining and reduces significantly the credibility of Government spokesmen?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are based on many of the myths and press reports surrounding the publication of the report. The fact of the matter is that COMA' s recommendations about reducing the consumption of red and processed meat apply only to above average consumers, especially those who consume very high quantities of red and processed meat. The recommendations do not apply to the vast generality of the British public who eat red meat.

Schools Funding
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Tuesday's Budget has rightly been well received. It confirmed new Labour's reputation for economic competence. It was a Budget for enterprise, a Budget for work and a Budget for families and for education.
The Chancellor pledged an extra £250 million for schools and skills in the coming financial year. Let me remind the House that that increase is part of the £2.5 billion boost for education and skills that we have already earmarked in the 10 months since we were elected last May. We inherited a situation in which, between 1993 and 1996, the Conservative party had cut £110 in real terms from every secondary pupil in the country and £44 from every primary pupil. Already, we have made a substantial start to repair the damage of those Tory years of neglect, by providing an extra £110 for every pupil in the coming financial year. We have increased the standards fund to more than £500 million in 1998–99, which includes an extra £59 million to improve literacy standards.
Today, I want to detail the big difference that this week's Budget will make, in increasing the means available to improve our schools and their pupils, by outlining four further major steps that we intend to take. First, I can make this pledge. We will bring to an end the scandal whereby children in 600 of our schools, most of them primary, still have to go outside to use the toilet. Tens of thousands of children have to go outside to use facilities that often date back to the Victorian age. That is simply unacceptable in the last years of the 20th century. We are inviting the authorities affected to apply for a share of the extra £35 million that we are earmarking, so that they can provide the decent facilities that every modern school should have. By next year, we shall have ended the scandal of outside toilets for ever. That will take our schools from the Victorian age into the age of the new millennium.
Secondly, I am concerned at the number of schools that have inefficient boilers and heating systems, which often break down. They waste energy and leave thousands of children spending the winter days in cold and draughty classrooms. We shall provide an extra £15 million to allow up to 500 schools to replace or improve their inefficient heating systems.
That will make classrooms more comfortable and learning-friendly places, save a great deal of money and put a stop to the waste of energy and damage to the environment, with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. As many as 100,000 children will have, at long last, the working conditions that they should be able to take for granted in a civilised society.
Thirdly, we have already announced the first £22 million to provide the extra teachers to ensure that we make an immediate start on our class size pledge, so that by 2001 every five, six and seven-year-old will be in a class of 30 or fewer. That first tranche will mean that 100,000 infants will benefit from this September.
When we announced that funding, redirected from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, we made it clear that there would be extra money to build extra
1412
classrooms where they were needed. Today, I can announce that an extra £40 million from the Budget will be targeted specifically on providing those extra facilities in 1998–99. That will help us to deliver our core pledge on class sizes, which will help us to meet our demanding literacy and numeracy targets.
Those three capital spending measures will be in addition to the £250 million from the new deal for schools to be allocated in 1998–99 and to the £800 million that local education authorities and schools are spending in the normal way on repairs and maintenance this year.
There is a fourth piece of good news on schools from the Budget. I can further confirm that we shall expand rapidly our education action zones programme. We shall fund a fivefold increase to establish 25 zones by January 1999. We have already had considerable interest from imaginative partnerships between schools, LEAs and business at local level.
The zones offer extra flexibility to help schools in challenging circumstances to meet demanding targets and to make significant improvements in standards and expectations. By making a substantial expansion in the coming year, I am confident that we shall be able to extend the programme yet further in this Parliament.
This is a coherent programme that will help the process of transforming schools for the future. It means no more children having to go outside to use the toilet; improvements in the heating of schools; substantial further progress towards meeting our class size pledge; and a big boost to our flagship programme of education action zones.
In the years ahead, we shall meet our manifesto commitment to increase the proportion of national income spent on education. We are making a substantial start in the year ahead. By doing so, we are transforming the life chances of millions of children. We are modernising the fabric of our schools and making real progress in raising standards for all our children.
This is a new Labour Budget; a Budget for a modern Britain in a new century; a Budget to turn ambition into achievement.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: It would be churlish not to welcome extra money to be spent on education, and I am pleased to welcome the Chancellor's announcement of extra spending on schools—
Mr. Blunkett: But.
Mr. Dorrell: There is indeed a but. As the Chancellor went to considerable trouble on Tuesday to obscure precisely how much extra he intended should be spent on schools, can the Secretary of State confirm that the total of new money to be spent on schools in England that he has announced today is a £90 million capital programme, to be spent on the no doubt desirable objectives—certainly, they are desirable—of ending outside lavatories, modernising heating and building extra classrooms to accommodate the expansion required by the Government's class size pledge? Can the Secretary of State confirm that, when the Chancellor announced on

1413
Tuesday £250 million for education, he was misleading the House and that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon the reality—
Madam Speaker: Order. Did I hear the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) accuse another right hon. Gentleman of misleading the House? I am sure that he will apologise.
Mr. Dorrell: Inadvertently misleading the House, Madam Speaker. Has not the Secretary of State made clear this afternoon that the quantum of the Government's commitment, following the Budget, is £90 million in new money for schools? That is my first question.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State clarify exactly the status of the new deal for schools? He said in his statement that the capital plans are in addition to the £250 million from the new deal for schools allocated for 1998–99. However, the Red Book from last year's July Budget says that, in 1998–99, the new deal for schools should be £300 million. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new deal for schools in 1998–99 is £300 million, as announced last July, or £250 million, as set out in his statement this afternoon?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he is now acknowledging that the Government were always wrong in saying that they could meet the cost of their class size pledge from the savings arising from the abolition of the assisted places scheme? Nobody except Ministers believed that that was possible. The Secretary of State announced this afternoon that the cost of meeting the class size pledge next year will be £22 million—as the Minister for School Standards announced to the Standing Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill earlier this year. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government now recognise that they cannot meet their class size pledge using the savings from the assisted places scheme.
Fourthly, I should like to ask the Secretary of State about education action zones. The Conservatives have, broadly speaking, welcomed those ideas as they have been discussed in Committee. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the purpose is to provide opportunities for private sector firms to offer an alternative to local education authority-managed schools? That is certainly what the Secretary of State's adviser, Professor Barber, announced to the north of England education conference earlier this year—indeed, he said that it made it possible for Procter and Gamble to run schools. Is that the Secretary of State's policy, or was it a bit of private enterprise on the part of Professor Barber? I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's response.
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the £90 million in new money that he has set out to the House this afternoon represents roughly half a per cent. of school spending? Will he confirm that it makes no difference at all to the pressures being experienced in schools up and down the country? Reports are coming in, day by day, from Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Suffolk and many other counties about schools that are facing severe resource constraints.
Is it not the case that the Government will enter their second year in office with many schools facing cuts and many teachers worried about their jobs? Is not the substance of what the Secretary of State hails as a new
1414
Labour Budget that the Government's priorities are not, as the Prime Minister likes to claim, education, education, education but in fact presentation, presentation, presentation?
Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed more vividly than I could the importance of the extra £835 million allocation to our schools as a result of the July announcement. He confirmed how crucial it is that education in England will receive £250 million more in the coming year through the new deal and that we shall manage to provide 1,500 more teachers from this September in order to fulfil our class size pledge. Those measures are in addition to the miserable £182 million that the previous Government allocated for education in the coming year.
I shall certainly answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions. There is £250 million for education in skills, which is what I said in my statement to the House this afternoon. A proportion of that goes to England, Scotland and Wales, which answers the right hon. Gentleman's second question. Wales, Scotland and Ireland get a proportion of the £300 million for the new deal. I am making a statement, as is the usual convention in the House, about England, because that is where I have responsibility for education.
Let me spell it out. There will be £250 million for the new deal for the coming year, and an extra £250 million across the UK for education in skills in the coming year, £90 million of which I have announced today.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the class size pledge. We made it clear that the phasing out of the assisted places scheme would slow down implementation of the class size pledge. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has helpfully allocated an extra £40 million in the coming year to accelerate the implementation of the class size pledge—for preparing, planning and ensuring that the design of extra facilities, the expansion of a classroom or the alteration of a building can take place in the months ahead, so that we can do even better in 1999 than we originally envisaged.
I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was welcoming or criticising the measure. Is he in favour of the class size pledge or against it? Does he want smaller classes, or is he against them? Is it just sheer disappointment that has provoked him this afternoon to make what sounded like a griping, critical statement about £40 million more for schools throughout the country? If one was generous, that could be described only as extremely churlish, and the right hon. Gentleman was very churlish.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's fourth question, schools manage schools and will continue to do so, LEAs will continue to give their support and others will give their enterprise and initiative where it is appropriate as part of a partnership. I hope that Conservatives will welcome, encourage and support the development of education action zones, which will bring new initiatives in areas that need them most.
There will not be an authority from inner London, Essex or Derbyshire, or from the south-west of England, which will not today rejoice that they will at last be able to do what they have yearned to do for years, and what parents and children have wanted, which is, after 18 years of Conservative government, to eliminate the

1415
600 remaining outside toilets in Britain's schools, so that we can have a civilised nation in the build-up to a new century—the end of the 19th century as we move to the 21st century.
Mr. David Drew: I roundly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It may be too early to put out the flags for the schools with outside toilets, but if he would like to come to my constituency and cut the ribbons when they have all gone inside, I am sure that the heads will be only too delighted to welcome him.
Mr. Blunkett: I should be delighted to come to Stroud to celebrate, and even to use the new facilities; to declare new Britain, new loos.
Mr. Phil Willis: We are disappointed that the Secretary of State's statement was widely leaked to the media well before we heard it today. After the debacle of the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, we were assured that that would never occur again. Yet when we did the media rounds at lunchtime today, every media outlet had the full statement.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Flush out the leakers.
Mr. Willis: We must flush out the leakers. That is a most appropriate comment.
Liberal Democrats welcome any new spending on education and, although £90 million is not as much as we would have liked, it is still extremely welcome. The £35 million to eliminate outside toilets is particularly welcome because, in this day and age, outside toilets raise the important issue of child safety. However, we are surprised at the speed at which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to move, because on 3 March my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was told that the Secretary of State did not know how many schools had outside toilets. We also welcome the £15 million to be spent on heating. It is important that our children and our teachers have quality facilities in which to work. However, we are disappointed that, again, there is a bidding system for both those sums. It does not seem appropriate that we have a new, trusting arrangement with local education authorities only to bypass them and go into the schools the first time that money is available.
We welcome the extension of education action zones—we have always supported that proposal—but ask the Secretary of State to ensure that there are a number of rural action zones, and that the preponderance of education action zones is not concentrated on the inner cities.
We are hugely disappointed that the whole area of lifelong learning is neglected and that there are no additional resources to meet the pledge that the Secretary of State made in "The Learning Age", or the pledges that have been made in response to the Dearing and Kennedy reports. Sixty per cent. of further education colleges face deficits, and more will be technically insolvent this year. When will this Cinderella sector be given the resources that it needs, to tackle the bridgehead between schools and universities?
Mr. Blunkett: I look forward to the day when the Liberal Democrats whole-heartedly welcome anything,
1416
because lifting the morale and motivation of the teaching profession is all about not griping and being cynical about every move that is made. I reassure the House that the media did not have my statement at lunchtime; I was still revising it. Secondly, I took the trouble of not going on the "Today" programme, which is unheard of in terms of Government presentations—I say to the Leader of the House that I am only joking.
Let me deal with the last point head on. This is not a statement about lifelong learning. There are resources for skills and lifelong learning, which will be announced separately. We have already allocated £100 million to further education and £165 million to higher education over and above what was allocated by the previous Government. It is simply not true that resources are not available to implement the proposals in "The Learning Age". The comprehensive spending review will deal with that.
There will have to be a bidding process to ensure that we target the money at schools that are in greatest need: first, to replace outside toilets—and that means all outside toilets, wherever they are—and, secondly, to replace the heating systems that are in most need of immediate action. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that education action zones will be available in rural areas, and we look forward very much to evaluating the bids from counties that believe that this initiative will help them to raise standards.
Madam Speaker: After the intervention made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), perhaps we can have questions.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is not it a fact that, for 18 years, we had a Government who did nothing to tackle the problem of our decaying schools and often refused to recognise that poor school facilities, such as toilets, boilers and so on, have an effect on learning in schools? We now have a Government who are prepared to put money into those areas, and who will, over the next five years, show that we mean business as far as education, education, education is concerned.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The means to ensure a transformation in the life chances of youngsters who have had to put up with intolerable conditions in the past will bring great comfort to people in Burnley.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell me how many London boroughs surrounding the borough of Bromley will become education action zones; and when does he expect their standard of education to improve to the standard in Bromley? Bromley parents will then be able to use the places in their schools that are currently taken up by the 25 per cent. of out-of-borough pupils. Those pupils are very welcome, because they get a decent standard of education, but it should be provided in their own Labour-controlled borough.
Mr. Blunkett: On the first question, the bids for education action zones are completed and will be with the Department tomorrow. When we are able to evaluate them, we shall announce where the action zones will he placed.

1417
On the second question, the hon. Lady has raised this issue before. I give her the same reply that I gave before. It is a scandal that children cannot get into Bromley schools because of the selective system, even though they may live just round the corner. It may be good for people in other areas to travel to take up places in Bromley schools, but it is no joke for those who have to travel miles from Bromley because they are pushed out by children coming in from elsewhere.
Kali Mountford: I am flushed with pleasure at my right hon. Friend's statement. Before the election, Conservative Members did not think that class sizes mattered, but now they do. Is it not churlish of them not to welcome the statement whole-heartedly, given that children often lose days of education because of broken boilers? Is it not better that we invest in their classrooms rather than have them huddle together for warmth?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it certainly is. I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and echo what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday: the money for the health service will ensure that we are prepared, even if we are hit by the meteorite. I am preparing children to be able to get somewhere quickly should they learn that the meteorite is coming.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: With the cry, "New Labour, new loos", the Secretary of State confirmed our fear that the future of education will go down the drain under the Government. Is it not bound to be noticed that the most welcome improvements of facilities at the 600 schools that he mentioned will cost £35 million, which amounts to £60,000 per school? Why is the Secretary of State inviting local education authorities to spend the money, and not enabling schools directly to get their hands on it so that it could be spent more efficiently and more carefully?
Mr. Blunkett: That takes the biscuit. We shall be replacing toilets, putting boilers into schools and replacing heating systems through the most administratively efficient mechanism possible. When LEAs are responsible for capital investment for schools under their auspices, it is sensible that they carry out improvements. We shall not advertise across the country for schools to declare themselves; we must move swiftly. We want bids to be in by 30 April, so that we can ensure that the scandal of children going across the yard and around the corner in the wet to spend a penny does not continue into the winter months.
Ms Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he not agree that the Opposition education spokesperson should not deliberately muddle, if not inadvertently mislead, the House by pretending that the money is not new? Would not it be better if the Opposition apologised for spending 18 years failing to address the basic issue of installing inside lavatories in our schools? Many good Labour-controlled local education authorities have spent the past 18 years trying to provide inside toilets, and they would welcome being given some of the resources to improve their heating systems. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will not be disadvantaged when he determines how the money will be spread?
Mr. Blunkett: We shall distribute the money on the basis of need. As with the new deal for schools, we shall
1418
ensure that it is applied to assist in overcoming the legacy that we have inherited, and to assist us with the standards fund. I welcome my hon. Friend's opening words: we are at the end of an era, and at the beginning of a new one. I had hoped that the Opposition would welcome that. With regard to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, we are working hard to get the numeracy schools off the ground as fast as we can.
Mr. Edward Leigh: What is the increase in education funding for Lincolnshire in the first year of Labour government compared with those in the last two years of Conservative government? If, as I suspect, the difference is modest, would it not have been more honest if my Labour opponent at the general election, instead of saying, "Education, education, education" had said, "Same old problems, same old problems, same old problems; same old increase as the Tories every year, same old increase as the Tories every year, same old increase as the Tories every year"?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that schools in Lincolnshire that have £1,000 extra to spend on books before 31 March would say, "Same old expenditure, same old Government." When they are given their allocation from the new deal for schools programme next year, they will not say that it is the same old story. As I announced in my statement, schools will receive, on average, £110 more for each pupil next year than they would have received under the Tories.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parents of the kids in those 600 schools, many of which are in rural and semi-rural areas, will not care whether it is old or new money? They will not get terribly excited about whether it is in the Red Book, the Blue Book or the Green Book. They will know that this is real money. Those 600 schools need sorting out: the Tories had 18 years in which to do it. This work will be done before the end of the century, and those parents and kids will be better off as a result of the action announced today.
Mr. Blunkett: If every hon. Member showed such spirit, we would make enormous progress in giving the children of this country the life chances that they deserve.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the case of Fairfield Road primary school in Market Harborough? It has already put in a bid under the new deal for schools. Will the boiler money that he has just announced be in addition? The school has three separate boilers and three different fuel systems, and it would obviously be sensible to have one boiler system and one fuel system.
Mr. Blunkett: I am aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman has written about that matter. The money that I have announced will be additional to the bids under the new deal for schools.
Fiona Mactaggart: I greatly welcome the Secretary of State' s statement. Does he agree that 20 years of under-investment in education, of children peeing in disgusting lavatories, and of freezing classrooms often in huts that contain asbestos has given the message that

1419
education does not matter, which it did not under the previous Government? Will he consider following up this excellent scheme with a programme to get rid of the use of huts, many of which leak and contain asbestos? Will he also ensure that education action zone proposals can be made in future? This year, Slough is becoming a unitary authority and a local education authority for the first time. That is not an appropriate time to make a sensible proposal for the creation of an education action zone. Will he give me an assurance that the programme will be available to such authorities in the future?
Mr. Blunkett: Health and safety is one of our key priorities under the new deal. The replacement of asbestos and the removal of what are no longer temporary classrooms, because many of them are more than 40 years old, will be part of that programme. Moreover, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. Subject to the outcome of the comprehensive review, I hope to expand the education action zone programme during this Parliament.
Mr. Tony Baldry: No doubt the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) will have explained to the Secretary of State that Oxfordshire this year faces a £3.5 million deficit on its education budget, which is leading to reductions in school budgets. Is the Secretary of State aware of the feeling in shire counties such as Oxfordshire that they are losing out on the standard spending assessment system, and that they will not benefit from initiatives such as the one that has been announced this afternoon, however welcome they may be? I do not expect the Secretary of State to answer now, but it would be helpful if he would write and explain how much money he thinks Oxfordshire will receive under this initiative, because I suspect that it will be very little.
Mr. Blunkett: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know how many outside toilets in Oxfordshire schools will be replaced and how much will be spent on the replacement of boilers and heating systems. I can assure him that the allocation of new deal resources will be made fairly and openly and will be based on need, as is the allocation from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I am sure that he will agree that it will be done in precisely the same way as his right hon. and hon. Friends allocated resources before the general election.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The statement is exceptionally welcome for Derbyshire, which is in great difficulty in all the respects described by my right hon. Friend. It has had to exceed its capping level in order to maintain its expenditure, and its primary schools probably have larger classes than those in any other shire county. Schemes to tackle such problems are very welcome. If it all works in Derbyshire, it will work throughout the country.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and for his commitment and enthusiasm. It is worth recalling that we have also allocated £1.1 million to Derbyshire county for the investment that will be needed in September to fulfil the pledge on class sizes,
1420
and a further £1 million for the city of Derby. We have made some progress, although much more remains to be done to overcome the legacy of 18 years from which Derbyshire is suffering.
Mr. David Chaytor: Parents and teachers in Bury will welcome the statement, as they welcomed the education statement in last year's Budget and the statement on the standards fund in February this year.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst legacies of the past 18 years is the continued existence of enormous discrepancies between the per capita funding of children in primary and secondary schools across the country? My schools in Bury are in one of the small group of authorities with chronically low per capita funding. Consequently, they struggle to obtain basic materials, and, even with the help over class sizes, they will continue to struggle next year.
The solution can lie only in the reform of the current SSA system. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to start reforming it, so that education investment can be distributed more equitably?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing are aware of the considerable pressure for rapid change exerted by, among others, those who previously supported the SSA system. I think we all know that there is improvement to be made, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on that.
Bury makes excellent provision. It has an excellent local education authority with excellent schools, and it will have come as close as any authority in Britain to eliminating classes of 30 or more by September this year.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Following today's performance, the next statement that we hear from Opposition spokesmen about education will have to feature this question to my right hon. Friend: "Apart from cutting school class sizes, getting rid of outside toilets, providing proper heating systems and improving education standards, what have a Labour Government ever done for the education of our children?"
Let me make a more serious point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to make capital go as far as possible, the Government need to consider private-public partnerships? Might it not be a good idea for the Department to scour the executive agencies under its umbrella for talented people with experience of such partnerships, and to try to establish a unit that would put their skills to use?
Mr. Blunkett: I cannot list all the items—including books and equipment—that we have provided in our first 10 months of government, and all the things that we have managed to do so far. Over the months ahead, however, I shall do my best to ensure that the outside world hears about them.

1421
I am mindful of the important question that my hon. Friend has raised. There are people with great expertise whose present employment has enabled them to understand the development of capital programmes and the planning process, and we hope to be able to draw on their expertise in developing still further the substantial public-private partnership programmes that are about to take effect throughout the country.

Business of the House
4.8 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 24 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
WEDNESDAY 25 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the second to fifth reports from the Select Committee on Health on children's health, followed by a debate on the third report from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the proposed strategic rail authority and railway regulation, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (First Day).
THURSDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (Second Day).
FRIDAY 27 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows:
MONDAY 30 MARCH—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Seventh Day).
TUESDAY 31 MARCH—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Eighth Day).
WEDNESDAY 1 APRIL—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Regional Development Agencies Bill.
THURSDAY 2 APRIL—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day] (first part).
Until 7 pm, there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 3 APRIL—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 25 March there will be a debate on bananas in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on aid to shipbuilding in European Standing Committee B.
On Wednesday 1 April, there will be a debate on renewable sources of energy and the energy framework programme in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 25 March:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 5357/98, Bananas; (b) 6150/98, Assistance for Traditional ACP Suppliers of Bananas. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 155-xvi (1997–98); (b) HC 155-xxii (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 11165/97 and 11167/97, Aid to Shipbuilding. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-ix (1997–98).

1423
Wednesday 1 April:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 13035/97, Annexes I, IV and VI—Energy Framework Programme (1998–2002); (b) 13035/97, Annex V—Energy Framework Programme: Save II; (c) 5140/98, Renewable Sources of Energy; (d) Unnumbered, Renewable Sources of Energy: Council Resolution. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 155-xxi (1997–98); (b) HC 155-xxii (1997–98); (c) He 155-xviii (1997–98); (d) HC 155-xxii (1997–98).]
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter recess on Wednesday 8 April until Monday 20 April.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business, and echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) in thanking her for again giving us two weeks' business. I also thank her for clarifying the dates of the Easter recess and say how helpful it is to know those. Last week, she said that she hoped to say something at a fairly early date about any possible Whitsun recess. The sooner we can have that news, the better.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Government of Wales Bill in next week's business. She will know that we have been extremely glad to co-operate in the programming experiment in respect of two major constitutional Bills. We want that experiment to succeed, as I know she does, but does she accept that, now that the Government have tabled several important new clauses, which we welcome, and well over 100 amendments, the two days that were initially agreed for Report are not adequate?
If the programming system is to work, it is terribly important that some flexibility should be built into it, so that if the Government do that to a major Bill at a late stage we can have some extra time.
Will the right hon. Lady also accept that it is essential for the House to have a sight of the registration of political parties Bill—in draft form at the very least—before we complete consideration of the Government of Wales Bill?
The right hon. Lady has worked hard as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee; both my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk and I have paid tribute to her on several occasions for that. When are the Committee's two latest reports likely to be debated, bearing in mind the fact that, this week, the Leader of the House has written to hon. Members suggesting that, in some cases, there will be a need to change the Standing Orders of the House and perhaps even legislative changes will be called for? The sooner the reports themselves can be debated and approved in principle, the better.
On many occasions recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk has called for a debate on the national health service. Although we fully appreciate that the health service is relevant to the Budget debate, particularly in the light of yesterday's statement, may I point out that that was the eighth statement that we have had in recent times on the NHS, and that the substance of yesterday's statement was that it will take the Government two years to get back to where waiting lists were on 1 May? It is essential that we have a debate on that as soon as possible.
1424
Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a great crisis in the museums world, particularly for many of our great national museums and galleries? Will she accept that the Budget did not begin to address the seriousness of the problem? May we have a debate on the matter quite soon?
In view of the considerable uncertainty that the Prime Minister displayed yesterday over the Red Book, or, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called it, the unread book, perhaps the Government should organise a teach-in on that document and ensure that all Ministers attend.
In the light of today's revelations, may we have a further statement next week on the conditions and security in Northern Ireland prisons? Will the right hon. Lady accept that we should like to have a full debate on the issue in the near future?
This is the period of our presidency of the European Union, but we have not yet had a general debate on foreign affairs. The Foreign Secretary's love of racing and support for country sports endear him to many Opposition Members. We realise that he is trying to do his best and that he has not yet made the sort of bloomer that a predecessor is alleged to have made when he asked a cardinal archbishop to waltz during the national anthem. However, it seems to us that the right hon. Gentleman's finesse is perhaps not as accomplished as it might be, and we should like a debate on foreign affairs so that he can explain himself.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, and I will try to deal with all of them. He asked about the Whitsun recess. I am hoping that we can have a week at Whitsun, but it will depend on the progress of business. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pressures on time, and I cannot give a guarantee at this stage.
We were pleased that the official Opposition and the minority parties thought it right to make progress on the Government of Wales Bill through a programming motion, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, we wish to see that experiment succeed. When the timetable was originally drawn up, it was envisaged that there would be significant issues to be discussed on Report stage; hence the two days that have been allocated. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Opposition welcome some of the more significant changes that have been made, and many of the other amendments to which he referred are technical. It is for the Business Committee to consider whether any injury time might be required on either of those days should there be the prospect of statements. Overall, the experiment has been extremely useful, and I am grateful for the co-operation we have had from all parts of the House.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the need to make progress on the Bill on the registration of political parties. He will know that there have been significant consultations on the matter to try to ensure that what we propose is satisfactory to everyone involved. I hope that we will be able to see the Bill before long.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on the reports from the Modernisation Committee. I, too, would like to see a debate on those matters, not least because I think that the general reception throughout the House has been positive and because, as he said, we may wish to make specific changes to Standing Orders. I do not hold out any

1425
prospect of such a debate before Easter, but I hope that we will be able to make some time available after that, so that the House can have an opportunity to express its views.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on health. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would welcome an opportunity to talk about the extra money that he has been able to make available for the health service. As the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has requested a debate on the health service previously, I checked up on the matter. When the Conservatives were in government between 1992 and 1997, they had only one general debate on the health service. I hope that we can do slightly better than that. It is always open to the Opposition to use Opposition days for that issue.
As for the impact of the Budget on museums, it is still open to hon. Members to participate in the on-going Budget debate. Hon. Members who have a specific interest in that matter still have two days in which to take part in the debate.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the serious situation in prisons in Northern Ireland. He will be aware that, at the beginning of the week, there was a private notice question—which you, Madam Speaker, allowed—enabling the relevant Minister to explain the situation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware also that there are inquiries into events there. I am sure that the House will be kept informed of any developments.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the presidency of the European Union and a general debate on foreign affairs, I cannot promise that we can have such a debate before Easter. However, we should like to have a debate on foreign affairs as soon as we can find some time in the parliamentary calendar to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will acquit himself well, as he always does.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I tell my right hon. Friend how grateful the Select Committees will be for the opportunity to debate their reports? I look forward to Wednesday morning's debate on the strategic rail authority. It will be a great asset if the Select Committee's work is recognised on the Floor.
However, having congratulated my right hon. Friend on that, may I ask her whether she will expedite the debate on modernisation of the House? Although there seems to be an astonishing amount of compliance between the two Front Benches—which always worries any sensible Back Bencher—some of the suggestions on timetabling, including timetabling in Committees, are not only extremely difficult to accept, but could be said to be anti-democratic. I hope that she will not run away with the idea that everyone in the House thinks that those reports are the best thing since sliced bread.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier comments on the Select Committee report. Some Select Committee reports should be debated on the Floor of the House, and she has been very fortunate to get a debate on a report in which I know she has a very specific interest.
My hon. Friend mentioned Committee timetabling and procedure. I should remind her that those matters were the subject of previous reports of the Modernisation Committee, and that those reports were endorsed by the
1426
House, which approved them with nobody voting against. However, opinions are divided on some of the matters, and the two Front-Bench teams are not in agreement against everyone else. The Modernisation Committee's reports have had the support not only of Front Benchers but of Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and of experienced Members and new Members alike. That is another reason why everyone should be able to participate in the debate.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House take very seriously the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the Government of Wales Bill, to which the Secretary of State for Wales has tabled 117 amendments? I take the right hon. Lady's point that we will have to work constructively, and it would be very helpful if there could be further discussions on that matter.
Will the Leader of the House speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask them jointly to publish a Green Book, which was originally promised to accompany the Red Book and would outline the Budget's environmental impact? Some pages in the Red Book cover some of the Budget's impacts, but they give a very partial and incomplete picture of the environmental impact of the overall Budget strategy.
Will the Leader of the House also ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement to the House on radioactive discharges from Sellafield that have entered the North sea? They are now the cause of international complaint and are affecting fisheries in Scandinavia.
May I also reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the Modernisation Committee? It would be a sad thing indeed if all the Modernisation Committee's proposals were greeted with utter unanimity. I would welcome—as I know that the House would welcome—an opportunity to debate the proposals, with the agenda moving forward even more strongly.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the environmental impact of the Budget. As he acknowledged, some pages of the Red Book deal with that. If he has further points to make, I repeat what I said earlier—there are two days left of the Budget debate and he may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in radioactive waste in the North sea. He will be aware that a change in the authorisation in 1994 resulted in increased radioactive discharge limits. The Environment Agency has just completed public consultation on draft new authorisations which will reduce discharge limits. I hope that that will reassure him that the Government share his concern and are keen to take action in an attempt to minimise the problems.
The hon. Gentleman is right in his comments about the Modernisation Committee. We cannot expect unanimity, but, so far, the responses that we have received to our proposals have, by and large, been positive. However, it remains to be seen whether there will be such a level of agreement when we discuss such issues as electronic voting or even the timing of sittings of the House.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the way in which Tory Members have done their very best to

1427
destroy the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to ban hunting with dogs, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling among Labour Members that the measure should be discussed in Government time? Even if the Government cannot rescue the Bill—although one wishes that they would—may we have a statement that, at least in the lifetime of this Parliament, the issue will be debated in Government time so that that barbaric sport can be stopped for ever? That is what Labour Members want. Undoubtedly, a large majority in the country want the House of Commons and Parliament to take the necessary action to stop hunting with dogs.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes it clear that if the Bill fails, it will be due to the actions of Conservative Members and not the Government. The Government have always made it clear that there is no question of making Government time available for any private Member's Bill during this Session, and it would be wrong to treat the Bill to which he refers differently from any other. We have said on a number of occasions that we intend to keep the issue under review; that remains our position.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the right hon. Lady of the Government's clear commitment to produce a White Paper on the future of London's government in the week beginning 23 March? Therefore, may we expect next week the White Paper and a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister, together with another statement on the future of London Transport underground finance? Is it not the case that the modernisation of Britain is going ahead only in rhetorical terms, and that, in practical terms, commuters using London Transport underground have had no improvement in service and only an escalation in fares?
Mrs. Taylor: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be in a position to make a statement about the government of London next week, as promised. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to mention that. As for London underground—unusually, but because of the importance of the issue—my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement tomorrow.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On 24 February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on Iraq during which I asked what the Government intended to do to advance democracy, peace and economic and social progress there. My right hon. Friend said twice that we will do what we can. May we have a debate on how the Iraqi people can be assisted in their plight, as the problem has not gone away?
Mrs. Taylor: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have mentioned the need for follow-up action along those lines. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I cannot promise another debate on Iraq in the near future. However, he will be aware, as he has participated in such debates on previous occasions, that we always have an open three-hour debate on the Adjournment before each recess; he may be able to raise that topic then.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the Highlands and
1428
Islands Convention is meeting on 3 April. Could she arrange for a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry or a full debate in Government time on European Union structural funds—an issue which is important not just to the highlands and islands, but to many others who want to know the Government's approach to negotiation in the next few months?
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of that meeting. We have tried to arrange business in the House to accommodate it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made our position on EU structural funds very clear. Although there have been some concessions, there is still a good deal of negotiation ahead of us. We are willing to contribute to the costs of enlargement, but that must be done on a fair basis, taking account of all the factors. There may be more information available by the time of the meeting to which the hon. Lady refers.
Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the consultation processes on applications for opencast mining, in view of events in my constituency earlier this week, when a parish council met to consider the threefold extension of the Trinity opencast site? I am concerned that there may be similar problems elsewhere. The parish council chairman, who owns part of the site, allowed in only 16 members of the public, was not heard to declare his interest, allowed a vote to be taken in secret, and vacated the chair only just before the vote was taken. We should consider whether there are similar problems throughout the country.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a series of unusual circumstances relating to one application. I shall pass her concerns on to the relevant Ministers. She will know that the consultation period has now been completed and that Ministers are entering further discussions on the issue. I shall make sure that my hon. Friends make further inquiries about the procedures followed in the case that she has raised.
Mr. William Thompson: I note what the Leader of the House has said about the scandalous situation in the Maze. She said that the matter was dealt with in the private notice question at the beginning of the week, and she mentioned that an inquiry is going on. I understand that it has been completed and the report is now with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. Will she review her decision? When that report becomes public, can we have a debate? The situation is serious—indeed, it is a laughing stock in the press and other media, as well as among the ordinary people in the street in the United Kingdom. We should have time to discuss such a scandalous state of affairs in a part of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Taylor: It would be wrong to anticipate the conclusions of any report by promising a debate or saying that one was needed. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Steve McCabe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news today that the Korean car giant Daewoo has invested £160 million in Britain? I understand that the joint investment with Birmingham-based LDV will secure 1,500 jobs and create

1429
2,000 new ones. LDV is a van manufacturing company which almost went out of business because of the neglect of manufacturing under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend consider making Government time available for a debate on the Government's approach to investment in vehicle manufacturing?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be more than delighted with the announcement and the security of jobs in his area. It is a good news story, but, as I have said to other colleagues on other occasions, it is not always possible to find time even to debate good news.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Lady ensure—even given her often expressed views on the difficulty of finding time for a further foreign affairs debate, which I perfectly understand—that the Foreign Secretary has an opportunity to make a statement on how he had to cope with the shockingly petulant and bad-mannered reaction of the Israeli Government to his visit to Israel? Does she agree that the middle east peace process, and the role of Europe and the United Kingdom in it, is of substantial importance to this country's interests and that, at the very least, the Foreign Secretary should have the opportunity of making a statement to the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long-term interest in this matter. Indeed, he was one of those who were very keen to ensure that the Foreign Secretary was active in this regard. The Foreign Secretary makes statements to the House whenever there is anything specific to report. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important for this country that progress should be made in the middle east peace process. I hope that, during the summer, we will find time for a full debate on foreign affairs. When there is anything specific that is important enough to warrant a statement on the Floor of the House, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will keep the House informed of it.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Did I hear the right hon. Lady correctly when she said that the Deputy Prime Minister would make a statement tomorrow on London matters? If that is so, will she use her offices to ensure that all London Members are told about it, because many may not have been present to hear what she said?
Madam Speaker: That is their problem.
Mr. Garnier: It may well be their problem, but if the Leader of the House could assist them, I am sure that they would be most grateful. I always like to be as helpful to the Labour party as possible.
When will the Human Rights Bill be in Committee on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: On the first point, I can confirm that I said that there would be a statement tomorrow. The official Opposition and minority parties have been informed of that, and I shall leave it to them to inform their own London Members.
Madam Speaker: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Taylor: On the second point, I have announced business up to the week before the Easter recess. I do not anticipate the Human Rights Bill coming back to the House this side of Easter.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 March].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    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.]

    Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [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 Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, I must announce Madam Speaker's decision that the 10-minutes rule will apply to Back-Bench speeches throughout the debate.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Welfare reform is at the heart of the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor unveiled to the House on Tuesday. Welfare reform is central to building a better and more successful Britain.
  Under the previous Government, the welfare state was allowed to fall into disrepair, so that it acted as a brake on economic success and a lever for widening social division. The system prevented people from getting into work—writing off millions of people who wanted to work to a dead-end life of poverty and dependence on benefits. It discouraged people who were in work from getting on in their work, by imposing effective tax rates of 80 per cent. or more on people with low incomes who were trying to increase their earnings. The system imposed a cap on their aspirations. Everyone was left to foot the spiralling social security bill, which grew by £45 billion in real terms over 18 years, until it cost more than health and education put together.

  1431
  None of us can ignore the results of that failure when one in five working-age households has no one in work and nearly 4 million children are being brought up in poverty. Faced with that legacy, it is our duty to reform the welfare state. We are determined to make welfare work for Britain, to create a modern welfare state to help rebuild a cohesive society and a strong economy.
  The Budget, delivered after just 10 months in government, is an important step along that road. It marks an entirely new relationship between tax and benefits, and between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security.
  Options for streamlining the tax and benefits systems have been explored by every Government in the past 30 years, but all previous attempts have failed. This Budget marks a turning point, because we are a modern Government determined to break down barriers between Departments, and not to let turf wars get in the way of achieving our objectives.
  We have a clear and modern view of how to reform welfare and tackle poverty. Next week's Green Paper on welfare reform, from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform, will set that out in more detail.
  Welfare reform is a long-term business. It has to deliver a system that is fit for the 21st century, and will last. Although the principles from which we start are 50 years old, they are just as relevant today as they were when Beveridge first set them down: society has a responsibility to help people in genuine need who are unable to look after themselves; individuals have a responsibility to help provide for themselves when they can do so; and work is the best route out of poverty for those who can help themselves.
  The principles remain the same, but the social and economic context has been transformed. The nature of work has changed, with a shift away from full-time manual work towards part-time service sector employment, and a widening pay gap between those at the top and those at the bottom.
  The distribution of work has changed. Despite the fact that the proportion of people in work has remained broadly the same, there has been a growing divide between work-rich and work-poor households. The structure of families has changed. One in three marriages end in divorce, and women's lives have changed dramatically.
  Fifty years ago, when William Beveridge set out his principles for the welfare state, he was applying them to a world in which most women gave up "gainful occupation" when they got married and undertook instead to perform "vital unpaid service".
  "In the next thirty years,"
  he said,
  "housewives and mothers have vital work to do in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race."
  That is not so in the 1990s. Women today are more likely to be mothers and workers than mothers and housewives.
  Nowadays, two thirds of all married mothers go out to work, and whether they work full time or part time, their work is vital to the family income. The days are gone when women were as rare a sight in the workplace as men often are in the kitchen. Britain now depends on women's work as well as men's.
  1432
  The welfare system failed to adapt to those changes, and so has become increasingly outdated. The previous Government's critical mistake—one that the Opposition are no doubt still making to this day—was to fail to recognise that the world had changed and women were changing their lives. Women do not want the Government to tell them not to; they want the Government to back them in the choices that they are making—and that is what we are doing.
  Kali Mountford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give her a job."] That seems to surprise the Opposition. My right hon. Friend has often been a lone voice in the House in her support for child care strategies. Is it not a good thing that at last we have a comprehensive child care strategy that will enable women who want to work to do so?
  Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for her comments. She points out the fact that the Government are changing the agenda in a way that women want—something which the previous Government failed to do.
  We are modernising the system so that it goes with the grain of change—putting Beveridge's principles into practice, but in a modern setting. We are making sure that welfare works for women as well as for men, because women head the poorest families and are the lowest paid, and are also the most likely to have caring responsibilities.
  We are constructing the building blocks for economic success through employment and opportunity for all, by helping people to move into work, by ensuring that work pays, and by providing help to those who cannot work.
  Last year's Budget launched the biggest ever assault on worklessness and poverty, through the new deals for the young and the long-term unemployed, for lone parents and for sick and disabled people who want to work. This year's Budget goes further in helping those who want to move into work to do so, by giving more active support, by taking obstacles to work out of the system, and by making work pay.
  What active support are we giving? We know that in the modern economy skills and qualifications are the key both to getting a job and to getting on in that job. That is why we are investing heavily in helping young unemployed people to improve their skills and education, through the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds.
  For lone mothers, the problem of lack of skills is even greater. Whereas the number of young unemployed people who do not have qualifications is one in five—that is serious enough—half of lone mothers have no qualifications. So today I am building on the work begun by the Select Committee on Education and Employment, for whose work I place my gratitude on the record, by announcing a new initiative to help lone parents to improve their skills and qualifications through in-work training—backed, in its original pilot phase, which will start in eight pilot areas in October, by a £10 million investment made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  We are also investing a further £25 million that is needed to enable us to respond to the demands of lone parents with children under five who, although they have

  1433
  not been invited in to the new deal for lone parents, are coming forward and asking to use our services. The extra investment is being made to meet that demand.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the pilot schemes for the new deal for lone parents have been a success, with only a 6 per cent. return-to-work rate?
  Ms Harman: I think that I would put that question back to the hon. Gentleman, and ask whether he really thinks that we could ever go back to a time when the policy for lone parents was simply to say, "Stay on benefit until your youngest child is 16, and be written off into a life of dependence."
  The pilot schemes have started, and the progress that they are making is encouraging. They are being welcomed by lone parents, and the personal advisers are responding brilliantly to the new challenge. Employers are beginning to change their shift patterns so that they can employ lone parents.
  The full evaluation of the additional work gained by lone parents will be published in due course, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the Tory Government, the number of lone mothers on income support reached more than 1 million, and those mothers were bringing up more than 2 million children on income support.
  As a result of the present Government's approach, and the measures that we are introducing, the number of lone mothers bringing up their children entirely dependent on benefit will start to fall—and I hope that at that stage the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to recognise that ours is a pioneering and long overdue programme.
  Mr. Gibb rose—
  Ms Harman: I shall not give way again, because I must make progress.
  It is a measure of the success of the new deal for lone parents that it is now inconceivable that anyone would seriously say to lone mothers that they should stay on income support until their youngest child is 16. After just 10 months of Labour in Government, that approach is gone for ever.
  It was not only lone mothers whose aspirations to work were ignored by the previous Government; so, too, were the aspirations and capacities of people with health problems or a disability.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Before the Secretary of State moves on from lone parents, may I ask her a question? I welcome the additional cash for child benefit, which lone parents will receive, but does the right hon. Lady accept that there is now an anomaly, in that this year lone parents on income support will get a fiver in family premium, and in 1999 they will get the £2.50 premium on child benefit, but in 1998–99, new lone parents will get neither? Should she not now reverse the cut for one more year, and protect people who become lone parents next year?
  Ms Harman: No, because we are persisting with the principle that we have established—that it is not family formation but household income that should dictate the
  1434
  amount of benefit received. We are going forward on the basis that the amount of benefit paid for children in workless households will depend on their age, not on whether there are one or two parents in the household. Lone parents and married women with children in workless households will move forward together as they get the benefit of our new investment in the children of the poorest families.
  Mr. Phil Hope: As a result of all the tax and benefit changes in the Budget, will not the poorest 20 per cent. be £500 a year better off?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right. This Budget is investing more in opportunities while improving the circumstances of the poorest families with children.
  It was not long ago that the aspirations of lone mothers were written off, as were the aspirations of the long-term sick and disabled. Some people have such serious disabilities or health problems that they will never work, and the Government will always support those people in a life of dignity and independence. However, 2 million people with disabilities do work, and over 1 million more say that they would like to work but are not working.
  That is why we are investing £195 million to identify the best ways of helping disabled people who want to work to find work. We are piloting a new personal adviser service from October, and we will be working with the voluntary and private sectors to test a range of other innovative schemes. That has never been done before. Previously, such people were written off.
  To make sure that welfare works for women as well as men, we are investing £60 million from the windfall tax to enable women whose partners are unemployed to gain access to employment programmes themselves for the first time, so that they can receive the help that they need to get back to work. For the under 25s, childless women who have unemployed partners will no longer be written off. They will be treated in exactly the same way as their spouses.
  It is unbelievable that, in this day and age, these women—under 25 and with no children—should be treated as unemployable by virtue of the fact that they are married to an unemployed man. Women do not view themselves just as dependants of their partners, and this modernising Government will not treat them as such. Women with children whose husbands or partners are unemployed can also choose to join the welfare-to-work programme, but for them—as for lone mothers—the programme will be entirely voluntary.
  In addition, we are helping people to move into work by taking benefit obstacles out of the system. New rules to link periods of benefit entitlement will mean that sick and disabled people and lone parents who want to work will no longer have to worry about any financial risk involved in taking a job which may not work out. Lone parents in receipt of income support before April 1998 will be able to take a job knowing that they will return to the same rate of benefit if it does not work out within three months. People who leave incapacity benefit to take a job will be able to return to benefit at whatever rate they were previously being paid if the job falls through within a year, avoiding the risk of possibly losing as much as £40 a week in benefit.
  We will help disabled people to play a fuller role in their communities and to take a step towards paid work by abolishing the rule limiting voluntary work to 16 hours

  1435
  a week for those on incapacity benefits. As from October, disabled people who want to make a contribution to the community will no longer lose any benefit, however many hours they work on a voluntary basis.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I very much welcome that statement from my right hon. Friend. Many of the disabled people who have come to see me have expressed the need to be able to return to benefit in the way that she has described. One of the barriers preventing the disabled from working is the fact that sometimes they cannot work within the normal patterns that the rest of us can cope with. Will these innovative programmes consider the possibility that disabled people might be able to make a contribution, but in a different way from able-bodied people?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We must recognise that there must be more flexible benefit patterns for people whose health condition might fluctuate, and more flexible working patterns must be available from employers. We mean business about this—we are serious. We are not happy that 1 million people are simply excluded from the jobs they might want to do because they have health problems or a disability. We must be able to respond to their capacities and abilities and not simply preside over a system which continues to pay them but writes them off.
  The next part of our strategy is to make sure that work pays. This Budget helps us take a further major step forward. The introduction of the new working families tax credit—I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Social Security on the issue—together with the national minimum wage, will not only make sure work pays, but will bring greater rewards for work by helping lower and middle-income families with children to keep more of what they earn.
  The system will guarantee a minimum income of at least £180 a week for all families where someone works full time. It will guarantee that no working family pays any income tax at all on earnings below £220 a week. It will put a stop to the penal rates of marginal tax which have meant that some low-paid employees have had to pay back more than a pound for every extra pound earned.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the working families tax credit available to the self-employed? if not, why not? Is that not an irrational and invidious discrimination?
  Ms Harman: The working families tax credit is available for people in employment, and the hon. Gentleman is right to place on the agenda further proposals to help people prosper through work, whether they are employed or self-employed. It is a major step forward, but further developments will have to be considered.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am happy to acknowledge that the Government have responded positively to most of the ideas of the Select Committee in terms of the working families tax credit. However, the biggest barrier to work identified by the Government's research is the difficulty with housing
  1436
  benefit. Responsibility for housing benefit is split with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but it would help if the Secretary of State could say a word about the Government's plans for dealing with it in the future.
  Ms Harman: We are concerned about the way in which housing benefit is operating, as we do not believe it is contributing to housing policy in the way it should. One of its problems is that it does not fit with our commitment to ensure that every part of the benefits system contains no disincentives to work—and, indeed, provides incentives. Together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we are reviewing the interaction of housing policy and housing benefit, and we will bring forward proposals for consultation shortly. We are well aware of the evidence to the Select Committee—and the Committee's report—which suggests that this matter needs further action.
  The new disabled persons tax credit will bring greater rewards from work for people whose earnings are limited by long-term sickness or disability. Their new tax credit will be more generous than the disability working allowance that it replaces, with a lower taper and higher earnings thresholds. We are modernising the system to take account of the aspirations of disabled people in the workplace.
  As part of modernising the system to take account of women's role in the workplace and their responsibilities in the home, the Budget takes a major step forward towards a national child care strategy for Britain—the key elements of which are quality, accessibility and affordability. For the first time, the Budget makes high-quality child care affordable for all families. We are providing low-income families with the cash they need to meet the costs of registered child care through the new child care tax credit. Parents will receive up to £70 a week towards the cost of their child care for one child, and up to £105 a week for two or more.
  All families below an upper earnings cut-off will receive at least 70 per cent. of their child care costs, and changes to benefit rules will ensure that the lowest earners get even more. It will not just be the lowest earners who benefit—although they will benefit the most. A lone parent with two children under 11 may still be eligible for some child care tax credit even if her income reaches £30,000 a year, and a typical lone parent with one child and an income of up to £15,000 a year is still likely to be paid a full 70 per cent. of her child care costs.
  Those changes, together with the announced £300 million investment in out-of-school child care, mark substantial progress in our national child care strategy for Britain. A Green Paper setting out that strategy in full will be published after Easter. I am truly proud of the progress that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have been able to make in delivering that manifesto promise in such a short time. We shall support parents by offering them choice backed up with opportunities, and opportunities backed up with real investment.
  That is important for children, for their parents and for the economy. It is important for children because good child care can give them a head start, offering them educational and social opportunities before they start school, regardless of whether their mother works. It is

  1437
  important for parents because it is what they want—the waiting lists for nurseries, after-school clubs and child minders are endless—as child care helps them to support their families by working, so that they can bring up their children on income from work, not benefits, and thereby break the cycle of joblessness and social exclusion. Child care is important because Britain's economy depends on women's work—as does the welfare of their families.
  What happens in the workplace is also crucial if we are to ensure that people have opportunities to work—change in the workplace must be part of welfare to work. That means ensuring greater access for disabled people and tackling discrimination through our disability rights commission. For lone mothers—indeed, all mothers—it means that we must ensure that employment is family friendly, so that women can balance their responsibilities at home and at work.
  Our changes to the tax and benefit systems—supported by the changes to the national insurance system that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Tuesday—will increase the rewards from work for millions of working people. We shall abolish the entry fee for both employers' and employees' national insurance, cut the cost of employing lower-paid workers by raising to £81 a week the earnings level at which employers start to pay national insurance contributions for their employees, and replace the distorting step rises in national insurance rates with a new unified rate of 12.2 per cent.
  Together, all those changes are crucial in ensuring that the practice of the social security and tax systems meets the real needs of men, women and children today. The principles remain true to those of Beveridge—first, that work is the best route out of poverty for people who are able to work and, secondly, that individuals have a responsibility to help to provide for themselves when they can do so.
  Beveridge's third principle—that society has a responsibility to help people in genuine need who are unable to look after themselves—also remains central. By helping people to provide for themselves when they can, and by minimising and rooting out fraud and abuse, we can better help those in genuine need. We are putting that principle into practice too, which is why we acted to help all pensioners to keep warm during the winter, and provided extra help for the poorest pensioners.
  Mr. Simon Burns: As the right hon. Lady will remember, 40,821 duff cheques were sent out. Is she aware of the problem that is now becoming apparent—that pensioner married couples who are not on income support are receiving two cheques for £20? What will her Department do to rectify that loss to the public purse?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman points out an error of some 40,000 payments in a programme that involved the better part of 10 million payments. The exercise was unprecedented, as the previous Government's approach to winter fuel was to tax it—not merely at 8 per cent., but at 17.5 per cent. We expect to make better progress next year—when we shall again make winter fuel payments—than we were able to do this year. I have acknowledged that there have been problems, but we shall iron them out. What is important is that, for the first time, we gave £20 to
  1438
  all pensioner households and £50 to the poorest pensioner households, in which the pensioners were on income support.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady now deal with the second point of my question? I asked her about the new problem whereby pensioners who are married couples and who are not in receipt of income support are being sent two cheques and twice the amount of money, and not the single cheque of £20? What will her Department do to correct that problem? Many pensioners are not sure whether they should cash the cheques or return one, and they are not receiving clear advice when they ring up the Benefits Agency.
  Ms Harman: Two pensioners who live together should receive two cheques at £10; a pensioner who lives on his or her own should receive £20. Administrative errors are inevitable when payments to 8 million pensioners are made. That is one of the reasons why we invested in a public information campaign, backed by television and newspaper advertising, which the hon. Gentleman has gone to great lengths to criticise. We want people to have the information about their entitlements.
  Mr. Burns: What is the right hon. Lady going to do about the mistake?
  Ms Harman: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He is merely nit-picking. We are making unprecedented payments, which is a big change from the behaviour of the previous Government, who put tax on fuel. He has not decided whether we are paying too little or too much—he is still trying to find his role, and I look forward to the time when he has sorted himself out.
  Last week, I announced nine new pilot schemes to find the best ways in which to get more automatic help to the 1 million pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled.
  In the Budget, we are making an extra £1.2 billion a year available to give more support to children and to direct extra resources to the poorest children. All parents—both in work and out of work—have to bear extra costs and responsibilities in bringing up their children. Child benefit remains the fairest, most efficient and most cost-effective way in which to recognise those costs and responsibilities.
  That is why, from April 1999, the Government will increase the amount of child benefit for the eldest child by £2.50 to around £14 a week. The same increase will be made to the family premium in income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit to ensure that low-income families also gain from the change.
  As the Chancellor said on Tuesday, we can and should do even more on child benefit. If child benefit is increased in future, there is a case for higher-rate taxpayers to pay tax on it—that must be right in principle. We shall bring forward detailed recommendations for reform.
  Some families need more help than others, and the case for additional support for children in poorer families is strong. However, that support needs to be provided on the basis not of family structure—whether there are one or two parents—but of the needs of the children. It is important that we provide better help when families need

  1439
  it most, which, as research has shown, is in the children's early years. I pay tribute to the research work carried out by the Joseph Rowntree foundation, which showed that the adequacy of benefits was a particular problem in relation to children aged up to 11, rather than to those aged 11 to 16.
  That is why we are targeting extra help to the poorest families with younger children—we shall increase the allowance by £2.50 a week for children under the age of 11 in all the income-related benefits. That means that a family on income support with two children under 11 will be £7.50 a week better off.
  The Budget shows that welfare reform is already happening in practice. We have set the direction, by building on principles that claim a direct lineage from the original chief architect of the welfare state. We have set the method, by applying those principles to a modern setting and by working with the grain of change in the wider society. We are making sound progress, delivering the results.
  Next week, we shall publish our welfare reform Green Paper, to take forward the national debate on welfare reform for the 21st century.
  This week's Budget and next week's Green Paper show that we now have a modern Government with a third way to tackle poverty and social exclusion, rejecting the right's view that one can tackle poverty simply by freeing up markets and relying on wealth to trickle down, and rejecting, too, the old left's view that one can tackle poverty simply by raising benefits. Instead, our approach, which is taken forward in the Budget, is to help people who can work to get work, so that they can look after themselves, and to free resources to invest in health and education and get better help to those who cannot work. This Budget has helped with work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: First, I must thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in sending me a letter to outline some of the changes in the Budget. I appreciate that and I shall look at it in the next few days as those changes are implemented.
  Like all Budgets, Tuesday's Budget will take time to bed down. Much of the previous Budget was welcomed at the time, but now, 10 months afterwards, a great deal of it is being rejected by many of those same pundits who welcomed it. This Budget is no different.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made clear in yesterday's debate that Tuesday's Budget amounted to a series of broken pledges. It seemed to have been conducted by a system of smoke and mirrors; there was little detail as the Chancellor glided over some of the more complex changes, preferring to say little and suggest a great deal.
  As the Chancellor kept repeating, everyone supports the idea of getting people off benefit and into work. Every hon. Member is bound to accept that as a key criterion for any Government in reforming welfare. The real question that we must ask is to what extent the Budget and the changes that we have seen so far will produce that effect.
  1440
  For obvious reasons, I shall say nothing about the welfare reforms that are likely to come in the Green Paper—they are likely to be produced next week and we will wait to discuss them—but I find it strange that Tuesday's Budget contains a major change in the tax system, which affects social security, but we have to wait until the Green Paper is published, after the Budget, to find out to what degree those reforms have affected the Chancellor's thinking. No doubt the Minister of State will tell us all when the time comes.
  The real question for the Secretary of State and her right hon. Friends is to what extent they expect unemployment to fall—she suggested that it would. Will the right hon. Lady now commit herself to a figure, a proportion or a percentage by which she envisages unemployment falling as a direct result of all the changes that she is implementing in the new deal? So far, we have had little commitment on that and if the right hon. Lady wants to give me a figure, I am happy to give way and allow her to do so.
  We intend to monitor closely the pilot programmes designed to encourage disabled people back into work. There is much detail to be considered there. I shall wait to find out how that scheme progresses before deciding whether it is successful. Anything that assists disabled people to get back to work or to get more meaningful employment has to be welcomed; the question is to what degree the scheme will work and how it will be targeted. We will wait and see how it develops.
  I shall deal with three or four of the major changes that have taken place.
  Mr. Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I welcome the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has decided to take his seat on the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon—he is obviously back in favour. If the Conservative party ever reached Government again, would they repeal the working families tax credit now that a Labour Government have introduced it to help the poorest families?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is back on his usual form. He has been passed information from someone on the Government Front Bench and been told, "It's your turn to intervene." The only serious question that he has been able to come up with is, "What will you do when you get back into government in five years' time?" I cannot understand why Labour Members, who have been in power only for some 11 months, are so petrified about the Conservatives getting back into power. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question when the Government answer how they will explain to the British public that they have reneged on every pledge that they made before the election. When we get into government next time round we will do what is necessary to put the mess right, but let us get back to national insurance reforms, which are in the Budget, rather than the nonsense in which the hon. Gentleman is engaged.
  The purpose of the change is to reduce the cost of employing low-paid workers. To some degree, the changes will undermine the Government's claim to be encouraging a high-skill economy in which people have high levels of training and there are opportunities for all—the claim covers not only the low paid but those on

  1441
  average and just above average incomes. The Chancellor announced that employers would not pay national insurance contributions on the first £81 of an employee's weekly earnings and above that would pay a single rate of 12.2 per cent. on every pound up to £440.
  The new Labour Government claim as another of their top priorities that they will turn Britain into a high-skill economy. There is a problem here—I hope that the Paymaster General, who I welcome to his position, will deal with it in his reply—as to some degree the change will clash with the pledge.
  Surely by also increasing the national insurance rate, the Chancellor has directly increased the cost of employing workers who have the higher skill levels and those who would move to higher pay with on-the-job training. That could put a question mark over their employment. That fact has been recognised in the past 24 hours by a number of companies, including J. Walter Thompson, which represents an industry that is close to the heart of new Labour—it is a case of spinners in a spin—and which has said that the national insurance
  "changes are going to be a major cost for professional services companies."
  I hope that the Paymaster General will deal with that when he replies.
  That problem is compounded if we take into account the impact of the national minimum wage on the Budget changes. That wage will reduce the number of people earning between £60 and £80 a week by artificially inflating weekly take-home pay. As the Deputy Prime Minister noticed many years ago, that will force more employees up into the 12.2 per cent. band, as the differentials shuffle upwards. It will represent an extra cost to employers and create another barrier to work. I hope that the Paymaster General will give us some figures and some idea of what the Government calculate will be the impact of that change, given the others implemented in the Budget.
  Employers are likely to respond to the change by hiring more part-time workers so that hours worked are restricted and the new earnings totals do not breach the earnings limit. Coopers and Lybrand has predicted that the present bunching of employment at just below £64 a week will shift to £81 a week. Again, perhaps the Paymaster General could tell us what calculations he made when considering that matter and how the Government intend to alleviate that effect.
  Apparently, according to old new Labour, that sort of move would have been regressive in the run-up to the election. In the past 10 months, it has been attacked endlessly, yet implemented, and I would therefore be grateful if the Paymaster General could clear the matter up.
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the previous national insurance system, which meant an entry fee for both employer and employee, was a better system than that proposed by the Government? Would he revert to that system if, by the strangest chance, the country re-elected the Conservatives?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady said "the strangest chance"; perhaps she is a little less concerned than the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). I am not trying to persuade anyone to revert to the previous position.
  1442
  I am simply pointing out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah !"] No, I am legitimately pointing out that a reform that continues what my noble Friend Lord Lawson started as early as 1988, and is seen as natural continuance, has knock-ons. It will have a major knock-on not because of what a Conservative Government would have done but because the major commitment that the Labour Government have made to the national minimum wage makes the whole thing different. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have to answer that question. It is not a question of the simple change, but of the shuffle-up that will take place as a result of the national minimum wage.
  The working families tax credit is the Budget's flagship proposal. The Chancellor's proposal is not new: it has been around since the 1960s and does not necessarily lie along party lines. The idea of integrating tax and benefits has been adopted and opposed at different times by both main parties. Each time it has been proposed, it has been rejected, often with the assistance of Labour Members—and particularly the Secretary of State for Social Security.
  One of why the reasons why the Secretary of State would have rejected the idea in the past is the old issue of wallet versus purse. She may have changed her view, but she was adamant about it before. The argument is well known among Labour Members, some of whom will no doubt rehearse it. When family credit was being debated, the arguments of the Minister for Welfare Reform were largely responsible for the change from a tax credit system to a benefit system.
  The Chancellor says that he has solved the problem by allowing couples to make the decision after discussion and to tick the box. That is surely not a solution, as it simply adds complication, not only in bureaucracy but in the matter of who is to carry the main weight of decision. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us who will decide, in the case of a dispute between husband and wife, whose position will be pre-eminent.
  Will the state take the view that the main breadwinner matters most, or that the wife should prevail? The Government will be in the position of arbiter between the two, perhaps even sitting at the breakfast table to decide who is right. Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer that point. Who will be pre-eminent? I invite her to intervene. There is no answer.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will take note: the Government have launched a supposed solution, but are unwilling to answer a direct question on the main point.
  Kali Mountford: I am somewhat bemused by the hon. Gentleman's assumptions about families. Does he at least agree that one of the problems with family credit is poor take-up? Many families suffer poverty unnecessarily. Does not this solution bring people out of poverty without the stigma of benefits, supported for so many years by the Conservative party?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: There is no stigma. No evidence has been produced for that. In fact, when Martin Taylor was asked directly by the Social Security Committee what stigma there was, he had to admit that there was no evidence. I think that the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is nodding. It is no good trying to build up a straw man as the reason for the change: the supposed problem does not exist. The take-up is more than 80 per cent. in financial terms and 70 per cent. in numbers.

  1443
  Studies conducted for the Department of Social Security show that it is difficult to identify, among the 30 per cent. who do not take up family credit, whether stigma is the reason. In fact, the 30 per cent. contained many people who should not really have been identified as qualifying for the benefit. If the working families tax credit is predicated on the supposition of stigma, it is wrongly based.
  The Secretary of State has not mentioned the experience of Canada and America. Canada has a benefits system that is in many ways close to ours. The WIS—working income supplement—system in Canada has failed and a benefit-based system is being reintroduced. What studies did the Government conduct on that? Perhaps the Paymaster General can answer.
  Interestingly, the Government were even advised by Mr. Mendelson, who wrote the document for Rowntree, that for every $100 spent, only $6 went in the end to the objective of increasing employment. That was one reason why the scheme was abandoned. There was also a huge increase in fraud, and overall costs spiralled.
  If the Government intend that the working families tax credit should shrink the benefits bill, they are clearly listening to the wrong argument, because it is much more likely to increase it. Even by their own admission in the Red Book, it will increase dependency by putting many more people on a 60 per cent. marginal rate. The Government's figures suggest that that will happen to an extra 250,000 people.
  If, as the Minister for Welfare Reform said,
  "Means-tested Benefits, which are progressively withdrawn as income rises, act as a penalty on work and on effort"
  and are to be rejected, someone should explain why. The administrative cost to business will be increased and employers will be supplied with hitherto confidential information about household incomes. As was found in the Canadian experience, employers will know who is being cut in on the subsidy, and that leads to fraud.
  If anything, stigma is increased, because more people know who is receiving the benefit. The experience in Canada and America was that that deterred people from taking it up. The Department's own figures show that the idea of stigma does not hold up. It would be nice to hear from the Paymaster General why all that evidence was chucked out.
  The married couples allowance is perhaps the most devastating of the fault lines. There is a clear shift in Government policy on aspects of the family and the relationship between family and children. In further reducing the married couples allowance, the Government are sending a signal that marriage is not important to them and that they are in essence indifferent to the structure within which children are nurtured and cared for.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who often features in these debates, and certainly in the Social Security Committee, claimed that marriage "doesn't fit any more" in today's society. It is revealing that she should have said that: it shows that new Labour thinks that marriage is in essence an outdated institution. The Budget
  1444
  confirms that and puts into practice what has heretofore been simply a theory. Ruth Lister, a former member of Labour's Commission on Social Justice, congratulated the Government because the Budget
  "moves away from supporting marriage to supporting children and rightly so".
  There is a debate to be had about that.
  The previous policy, of reducing married couples allowance, was mistaken. By the time of the general election, it was changed. The previous Government decided that the policy was wrong and that the best way forward was to have transferable tax allowances to rectify the growing burden of the change in cost to families. We set a clear direction for ourselves.
  The new Government have opened the gap and said that the concept of a married couple bringing up children in a family is no longer any more than a life style choice. The Government also plan to underwrite up to 70 per cent. of child care costs, up to a limit of £100 of eligible costs for families with one child, and £150 for families with two or more children.
  The Chancellor claimed that he was being prudent with a purpose. I believe that the child care scheme is anything but prudent. The Government are attempting to regulate child care. Informal networks currently provide support for children and those informal arrangements will, by necessity, change following this proposal. The state will distort the existing patterns by promoting new ones. Following the change to the married couples allowance, that sends a further stark message to parents. The Chancellor is not just indifferent: he is saying to families where parents choose to stay at home, "You should put your child into care and go out to work—and here is an inducement." In essence, the Chancellor has become a persuader for child care: he is trying to persuade all parents, regardless of their position, to go out to work.
  Financially, the Chancellor has failed to address the implications of the high take-up rate. When state subsidies are offered, experience dictates that they will be taken—and taken with a will. In other words, the Government are offering subsidies for child care and, in so doing, will be both meeting and creating demand. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said yesterday:
  "We might see prices going up very rapidly, with the government simply finding itself subsidising profits and prices".
  It begins to look very much like the issue of housing benefit and the way that that tends to force up prices. I dare say that the Government will deploy the same arguments against it in their review in two years' time in an attempt to introduce a cap.
  In Britain, we have a heady mix of the highest proportion of lone parents on benefit and the highest child care costs in Europe. According to the Daycare Trust, British families pay the highest child care bills in Europe. It follows that the Government are in danger of running up a substantial bill for child care.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall give way in a minute.
  That bill will inevitably be passed on to taxpayers—although the Government do not want to tell them at this stage. The taxpayer will foot the bill. That reasoning is

  1445
  reflected by calculations from the IFS, which claims that the cost will rise as high as £4 billion—not the £1 billion that the Government have allowed for in the Budget.
  The Government's calculations do not add up. Even taking only the current number of children who are likely to take up provision, the cost will rise way past the £1 billion mark. So the IFS's £4 billion figure begins to look very reasonable. In those circumstances, taxpayers would incur the equivalent of an extra 3p in the pound on the basic rate of tax. That is yet another little broken pledge that the Government have quietly hidden away while seeking to increase the burden on the taxpayer.
  Mr. Hope rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have already given way and I shall do so again in a minute.
  The details of how this credit will operate have yet to be fully spelled out. If the Government rely on a scheme in which the costs are reclaimed, the bureaucracy involved will be enormous. Such a system would have to be monitored closely to avoid fraudulent high claims.
  When children are involved, it is not simply a question of life style choices; it is a question of the structure within which children are brought up. It is wrong to view children in competition with marriage in this context. It is wrong to fund a higher level of child benefit by cutting another element in the tax system: the married couples allowance.
  Family structure is very important. That fact is confirmed endlessly by research both here and across the Atlantic. A little publicised British project, the national child development study, showed how the "quite remarkable" difference in family situations of children who had done well by age 23, particularly educationally, despite the worst backgrounds in terms of income and housing, was associated with the fact that almost all had stayed with two original parents. American studies have shown the same thing.
  The study is not a condemnation of the fact that some children are brought up, for whatever reason, in single-parent families, but it is an observation that, where possible, the two-parent family—and, in this case, the family with married parents—provides extra balance and structure that defines a child's upbringing. In this Budget, the Government are moving in the opposite direction: they have said that there is no difference and that therefore it is simply a life style choice.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman began by talking about the choices that families may make. What choices did families have under the previous Government, given that their child care record was the worst in Europe?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I must inform the hon. Lady that this is her Budget and this is her Government. If she does not want to discuss the Budget, that is fine—but I wish she would tell the Chancellor not to bother to produce a Budget every year. The hon. Lady must understand what is in the Budget. In my view, and in the view of many commentators, this is a retrograde step that will produce greater difficulties and lower the quality of child care.
  1446
  It is absurd to suggest that the state should encourage parents to put their children into child care regardless of the family position, but that is what is in this Budget.
  Mr. Hope rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have just given way, so I shall move on.
  A leading liberal academic in the United States, Sarah McLanahan—who is in this country at present and has been feted by new Democrats and by new Labour—has reached exactly the same conclusion. She has spoken at length about the link between the demise in marriage and the demise in civil attitudes. In the United Kingdom, Melanie Philips has written about exactly the same concerns. The point is that the Government have chosen to move in the opposite direction. That is their position, so they must defend it and not pretend that it does not exist.
  This Budget fails to redress the balance and, as a result, the situation will worsen. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in response to the Budget, the Government had a chance to redress the situation. He offered the Government the opportunity to make the tax allowances transferable, but the Government have thrown that away. Therefore, the tax structure still bears down disproportionately on two-parent families, and particularly on married couples bringing up children.
  In Britain, the income tax threshold for a married man with two young children fell from 101.2 per cent. of average male manual earnings to 34.9 per cent. between 1950 and 1993–94. To that extent, the burden has increased on married couples bringing up children and this Budget does nothing to rectify that situation—although it needed attention more than other measures that are in the Budget.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting ideas about the relationship between the state and marriage. Has he reflected on why marriage rates in this country have declined significantly in the past 18 years—arguably partly because of joblessness among young men? Has he also reflected on why, in the same period, the divorce rate in Britain has increased to the point where 40 per cent. of marriages now end in divorce? By the end of the Conservative years, Britain had the distinction—if that is the word that I am seeking, which it is not—of topping the European divorce league.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman always makes an interesting point. The number of marriages producing children has fallen from 81 per cent. to just under 70 per cent., so three quarters of all children will still be brought up by married parents. That is an important factor, although the number has fallen. The hon. Gentleman has supported my argument. I had hoped that this Government would do something about the problem of divorce rates. The experience is by no means unique to Britain—it is even worse in the United States. The problem is not quite so bad in parts of Europe, but that is changing. It is time for Government to act. The point is that the Government should have addressed that issue in the Budget, but they have moved in the opposite direction and are likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem.

  1447
  Families have funded benefits and the expansion of the welfare state through higher tax. The Chancellor has reduced the married couples allowance partly to buy off his Back-Bench critics and partly to redress the changes to lone parent benefit for which he voted in December. It is worth addressing that point. The Prime Minister denied that that would take place. He told the House that the leaked stories that appeared in The Guardian were "wrong", but the stories about child care credit turned out to be very accurate. The articles about redressing the lone parent benefit changes also reflect the final package that appeared in the Budget.
  According to the IFS, the Budget changes do not just redress the balance politically but go some way towards redressing it financially. It claims:
  "many existing single parents with children under the age of 11 will be more than compensated for the cuts in lone parent benefits".
  The measures have a political element that has gone unmentioned. The child benefit increases amount to a cynical move fuelled by political pressure and they are not necessarily part of a rational package of welfare reforms.
  On Tuesday, the Chancellor proclaimed that he had found a new faith in the increases in child benefit. Notwithstanding his desire to tax or means test them, suddenly he discovered this great element. New Labour has never publicly expressed faith in such rises. However, under fierce criticism, the Chancellor suddenly claimed:
  "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."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1107.]
  If this is such a valuable benefit and raising it at the suggested rate is vital to creating a fairer society, why did the Chancellor fail to mention whether the increase will now be index linked and made annually throughout the Parliament?
  Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no further cuts will be made to the married couples allowance, that no cynical device will be used in future and that it will be held at least at its present level?
  New Labour says one thing and does another. This is a spin doctors' Budget. They have enjoyed it from start to finish. They have done their level best to spin and they continue. Labour claims that we should take it at its word, but we can do that only if we look at its words and reverse their meaning. The soundbite and sentence become the weather vane in the opposite.
  New Labour came to power claiming that the tax burden on middle England was too high and that it had no plans to increase taxes. New Labour also claimed that it would encourage savings and security in retirement. How many of my right hon. and hon. Friends remember those words that were thrown at them during the election? New Labour has broken every one of those pledges.
  Both objectives have been undermined by new Labour's economic policy. The Government's own figures in the Red Book reveal that taxes are set to rise and savings are set to fall. That does not reflect the fears and aspirations of working men and women throughout
  1448
  Britain. Instead, it reflects the step-by-step betrayal of the golden economic legacy left to Labour by the previous Government. It is breaking trust with the British people.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No.
  New Labour had an opportunity to redress the severe tax that it imposed on thrift when it taxed pension funds last July. That was a missed opportunity, because no such action was taken. It was warned at the time by the actuaries that that action was likely to lead to greater difficulties in pension funds, but it took no action at all.
  All those opportunities have been thrown out. The Government chose the wrong tax to redress and so highlighted their true instincts—and will now stand condemned. They did not even offer charities a reprieve from the abolition of the ACT dividend tax credit, as had been asked for.
  We can take new Labour at its word only if we reverse its words. Throughout the Budget runs the fault line of sleight of hand—do not trust what we say, trust only what happens after we say it. Labour's motto is: we cannot be trusted.
  Labour failed to cut welfare bills: welfare bills, which it pledged to cut before the election are now set to rise and rise again. It has increased tax when it said that it would cut tax. It has devalued pensions and threatened pension funds in a way not seen for many years. It has lowered investment levels in Britain.
  At the beginning of its term in office, Labour is already breaking promises. I wonder what it will be like when it comes to leave government in four years' time.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I shall try to be brief because I am aware that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  The Budget is based on the long-term decision making that is necessary if we are to prevent a return to the boom and bust years witnessed under the Tory spending spree in the late 1980s. As a result of that, inflation almost doubled in two years, peaking at more than 10 per cent. in 1990. Interest rates also rose to 15 per cent., fuelling large-scale repossessions and homelessness. That spending spree led to the longest recession in the post-war era and unemployment of more than 3 million for the second time in a decade.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that Britain enjoys the kind of economic success capable of delivering long-term prosperity not just for the wealthy, but for the long-term unemployed, young people and lone parents, all of whom were forgotten throughout the 18 years of failed Tory government.
  The Conservatives' golden economic legacy is more a legacy of debt and failure on a massive scale. After 18 years of Conservative government, Britain had the lowest investment among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the lowest job creation and one in five households without a wage earner. Every Tory Budget failed to answer those problems.
  Social security now consumes more than £100 billion, about a seventh of the nation's wealth, yet under the Tories there was a massive rise in social exclusion and crime.

  1449
  The Government inherited a national debt of more than £400 billion, its having doubled in the six years between 1990 and 1996. The public sector borrowing requirement was £23 billion in 1996, yet during the 1980s the Tory Government received billions through the privatisation programme. Oil and gas revenues alone totalled £80 billion, and that at a time when tax revenues rose by 43 per cent.
  That debt equates to more than £26 billion a year in interest payments, or 10p on the basic rate of income tax. The Tories spent more servicing the national debt than they did on education. Under the Conservative Government, the average taxpayer contributed more than £1,000 a year to meet that legacy of debt.
  The Government's commitment to sustainable and sound public finances can be seen in numerous measures undertaken since last May. The tough five-year deficit reduction plan is based on the need to encourage long-term investment, and the granting of operational independence to the Bank of England, which will provide a clear and accountable monetary framework, has already reduced long-term borrowing costs by one third of 1 per cent., which will save taxpayers around £6 billion a year.
  Since the May election, the Government have twice had the opportunity to reduce corporation tax and, on both occasions, they have seized it. First, they reduced it from 33 to 31 per cent., then to 30 per cent., the lowest main rate among any of our major competitors. They also pledged not to raise that level during the remainder of this Parliament. The small business rate has also fallen, from 23 per cent. last May to 20 per cent. The changes to corporation tax will help nearly 2,800 businesses in Coventry, South alone.
  The Tories failed the British people on tax, and that is why they lost so heavily at the election. They had had an 18-year history of deceiving the electorate on taxes. The tax take as a proportion of gross domestic product went up from just over 34 per cent. in 1979 to just under 36 per cent. in 1996. From 1979, the tax burden under the Tory Government was higher in every year bar one.
  Under the Conservatives, so-called tax cuts were nothing more than an underhand shift from direct to indirect tax, from progressive to regressive tax, from taxing the rich to taxing the poor. The changes made by successive Conservative Governments resulted in a shift in the tax burden that penalised the poor. Between 1979 and 1997, the tax burden rose for everyone except those earning more than £64,000 a year.
  The Conservative Government repeatedly broke election pledges on VAT. In 1979, they claimed that they would not increase VAT, but, after the election, in the first Parliament, VAT almost doubled from 8 to 15 per cent. In 1992, they again promised no more increases in VAT. The then Chancellor claimed that there would be no need to increase the scope or rate of VAT, but, by 1993, the Government had extended its scope to include domestic fuel. That was a particularly cruel move, which hit most severely the elderly and the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their income on gas and electricity than do the well-off.
  The Tories were returned to power in 1992 with a commitment to maintain existing tax levels, but they introduced 22 new taxes. The typical family paid an extra £2,000 a year in 1997 compared with 1992. The Tories may criticise the Chancellor's changes to the married
  1450
  couples tax allowance as a hidden tax rise, but, after 1992, the Tories themselves reduced the married couple's allowance, costing the average family £500 a year.
  The Tories criticise the change to mortgage interest relief at source as a hidden tax, but their reductions in mortgage interest tax relief from 25 to 15 per cent. after 1992 cost an extra £600 per year.
  The Tories criticise the increase in road fuel duty as harmful to rural communities, where people are dependent on cars, but it was the Tories who introduced bus deregulation, which greatly reduced rural services, and it was they who raised duties year on year.
  The Tories in opposition still display a hypocritical approach to taxation. The Labour party in government has upheld its commitment to create a tax system that is not only fair but seen to be fair. The poorest 20 per cent. of families with children will gain an average of £500 a year.
  VAT on domestic fuel will be reduced to 5 per cent.—the lowest level possible. In opposition, it was Labour Members who prevented the Tories from increasing it to 17.5 per cent.
  The working families tax credit is an attempt to tackle the unemployment and poverty trap that flourished under the Tories. The tax credit will guarantee that working families earning less than £220 per week will be taken out of income tax liability altogether. It will particularly benefit the 4 million children in Britain who live in households below the poverty line, as will the pledge to increase child benefit by up to £2.50.
  Through the implementation of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities, £3.5 billion was taken from the huge profits that went into lining the pockets of Tory fat cats. That will fund the new deal to tackle social exclusion among the young, long-term unemployed, lone parents and people with disabilities. It will also provide funds for the much needed investment in our schools following the maintenance backlogs that grew under the Tories. The Government have provided a total of £2.3 billion in extra funding for education since the election on 1 May.
  Changes to national insurance will make British workers more competitive, especially low and middle-income earners. The change in national insurance will make thousands of people in Coventry, South better off.
  This is a step on the long road not only to modernise Britain for the years beyond 2000 but to create a fairer and more equitable society.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chancellor has, in general, moved in the right direction in his Budget this year. The problem is that he has not moved far.
  During the debate, other hon. Members have had—and will have—an opportunity to comment on the Budget more broadly, but I shall confine my remarks mainly to my spokesmanship area, which is social security. I shall make just one exception on a constituency matter.
  On the social security proposals, we welcome the Government's efforts to give some of the poorest in our society the opportunity to find paid employment. We have always welcomed that, and welcome the changes in the Budget that will help it. We welcome the Chancellor's attempts to make work pay. We welcome the fact that take-up of working families tax credit is expected to be higher than the take-up of family credit.

  1451
  However, the holes in the Government's proposals are unwelcome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said on Budget day:
  "there is still a suspicion that some of the detail is being shaped by political gimmickry rather than by practical good sense."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1124.]
  In my speech, I hope to highlight the areas where the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have acted, as well as the dangers that we see in the continuing power of soundbite over policy, for the Budget does all too little for the groups of people who cannot work, or who through individual choice do not work.
  I particularly welcome two aspects of the Budget. The first is the long-overdue changes to national insurance contributions. It is undoubtedly helpful, especially to businesses, that the allowances for employee and employer national insurance contributions should be aligned with the allowances for income tax. That is something for which the Liberal Democrats have pressed for some years, and it is all the more welcome for that.
  The second change that I particularly welcome will affect many fewer people, and will not be worth all that much to those whom it does affect. Nevertheless, because it embodies an important principle, it is worth highlighting today. The Chancellor has extended the additional personal allowance to women whose husbands are incapacitated. There is no reason why, in the modern world, husbands who care for their disabled wives should receive such an allowance, while wives with disabled husbands do not.
  The idea that women suffer no personal financial loss by caring for a disabled husband should have been confined to the 19th century rather than to the 20th and 21st. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) agrees with us on this issue. I may have missed something, but so far all I have heard from the Conservatives on that change is a deafening silence. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to tell me whether he supports the Government and the Liberal Democrats on that change, I shall give way, as I am interested to know. [Interruption.] I suspect that he has not yet made up his mind, as he now says from a sedentary position that he will write to me later about it.
  It has taken a long time for the Labour party to accept the Liberal Democrat position. After all, the change was proposed as an amendment in Standing Committee during consideration of the Finance Bill in 1996. On that occasion, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), speaking for the Labour party in opposition, refused to support an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—despite the support that we now appear to have from the Government—which would have had the same effect as the Chancellor's announcement on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman said that Labour
  "would be giving out the wrong signals if we introduced changes in the Finance Bill that assisted spouses of disabled people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 13 February 1996; c. 279–80.]
  Assisting the spouses of disabled people would send "the wrong signals". That is not the way to speak or think of some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. I am glad to see from the reaction of hon. Members on
  1452
  the Government Benches that they tend to agree with us, and not with their spokesman on that occasion. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are delighted that the Labour party has at last seen the error of its ways.
  In contrast, however, there is one other aspect of the Budget on which the Government have, conspicuously, not seen the error of their ways. The abolition of lone parent benefit, due to come into effect in April this year, will mean that payments to current claimants will be frozen, and new claimants will face an immediate cut. What will happen to those who do not want to take paid jobs but who want instead to stay at home to look after their children? Will they face poverty, hunger, no opportunity and no hope? The Liberal Democrats have opposed the cuts in lone parent premium, for we realise that some lone parents want to stay at home to look after their children, but under this Budget, some lone parents do not do paid work, so do not get anything.
  How totally illogical to break the bounds of Conservative tax policy and introduce an entirely new allowance for mothers married to an incapacitated husband, while cutting lone parent benefits purely on the excuse that there was a rigid and unbreakable pledge to stick to Conservative policy. There is no logic behind that. There is no excuse.
  What about pensioners? I may be mistaken, but I do not think I heard the word pass the Chancellor's lips even once during his Budget speech. Labour sings sweet tunes when talking of the need to tackle poverty, but what of the over-80s, who are some of the poorest in our country? Have they been forgotten? Are they unimportant? Are they to be treated merely as having ended their working life? The Liberal Democrats have proposed a £5 premium for the over-80s. It is a targeted policy, well aimed, to help the poorest, including many who are eligible for income support but who, for one reason or another, do not claim it. Pensioners do not work, so in the Budget pensioners do not get anything.
  The stress on welfare in work does, however, have welcome advantages for those fortunate enough to be covered by the Chancellor's plans. First, there will be a £1.4 billion cash injection into the working families tax credit. That is welcome. Secondly, the working families tax credit will have a much reduced taper compared with the present system of family credit. That is welcome, too. Thirdly, there will be a welcome tax credit for child care. On that, I am opposed to the view held by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. That is one of the few Budget measures for which the Chancellor deserves unreserved praise. However, none of these welcome changes is dependent on the introduction of the working families tax credit; on the contrary, the changes could have been combined with the current system of family credit.
  The one advantage that is specific to the working families tax credit is that it is likely to promote a higher take-up among those who qualify than did family credit. In general, a stigma surrounds benefits: people are thought to be failures if they rely on welfare handouts. Liberal Democrats believe that family credit was successful in combating poverty, but acknowledge that some people who may need it have suffered and gone without it because of that stigma.
  We hope that working families tax credit will break that stigma by rewarding work and by assisting those who want to stay in employment, but several disadvantages

  1453
  should be recognised. The devil will be in the detail and in the design of the system. The Chancellor says that couples will have the option of receiving the tax credit through the pay packet or through the Post Office, but we remain unconvinced that that will stop a transfer of resources from the purse to the wallet.
  Family credit is paid direct to the mother; working families tax credit will give couples a choice. There will be little difficulty in a family if the man and the woman have a good relationship, and share and understand each other's needs. Whichever partner is chosen to receive the tax credit, the money will be passed to the partner who will spend it on behalf of the family. However, there is a danger that selfish husbands or fathers who do not want to share or to give the tax credit to their wives will refuse to do so. They will say, "Why give my wife the tax credit? She's received family credit for years." They will think that it is time for them to keep hold of the money through their pay packets, so that they have more to spend down at the pub.
  Sadly, in the families in which it is most important that the non-working partner receives the money to spend on the family's needs, it is least likely that the non-working partner will have a say in the matter. The opportunity for choice, on which the Chancellor is relying, may be more apparent than real where it is most necessary. Nothing could be more damaging to children.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he assuming that if the main breadwinner does not agree, the tax credit will stay in the wage packet instead of going to the non-breadwinner, or does he wish, like me, that the Government would explain the matter?
  Mr. Rendel: I was tending to assume that that may happen. I should be delighted if the Government assured us that a detailed mechanism will be introduced to overcome the problem, although it seems clear from the remarks of the Secretary of State that, so far, they have not found such a mechanism. That worries me.
  There are other anxieties about the working families tax credit. The Chancellor must ensure that this country does not suffer from the high number of frauds that have occurred in the United States, with employees and employers colluding over the amount of working families tax credit that is due. It would be wise for the Government to study carefully the Canadian Government's experiences with working families tax credit before introducing one. I understand that the Canadian scheme has been withdrawn, mainly because it was a disincentive to work for more people than the ones for whom it was an incentive.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies report, published yesterday, takes the Budget as a whole and shows that, although 1.1 million people will have an increased incentive to work despite still suffering from an average marginal tax rate of 71 per cent., 2.8 million people—more than twice as many—will suffer from a decreased incentive to work. The policy has advantages, so that may not be a reason for not going ahead with the policy, but it must be considered, and the Government have not properly dealt with it. If the figures are accurate and the Government do nothing to address the problem, the working families tax credit, which was intended to boost
  1454
  their new deal programme, could become the main cause of its failure. Liberal Democrat Members hope that those disadvantages will disappear as further details emerge. We wait with interest.
  I must add a further warning about the Budget. The Government are right to introduce a tax credit for child care, but the quality of the child care provided must not be compromised. There should be a recognised standard, such as a kite mark, and such provision should be registered by the Government. The future of our nation's children is too important to allow child care provision to be driven by nothing other than market forces.
  On behalf of my Newbury constituents, I want to mention the need for rural public transport to be high on the agenda. The £50 million that the Government have promised is a start, but that is all it is. The Government must ensure that the money is not the end of the matter, and not merely an attempt to appease the countryside marchers; it must be the beginning of much more investment in the infrastructure of rural Britain. I warn the appeasers, if that is what they are, that an appeaser is one who feeds the tiger hoping that it will eat him last.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, said yesterday that the Budget had bypassed Somerset. We in Newbury know all about bypasses, and some are welcome. But the £50 million for rural transport will be spread thinly if that is all that it receives. I hope that I shall not have to echo my hon. Friend's remarks when the money is allocated, and say that the Budget has also bypassed Newbury—that would not be a welcome bypass.
  There are good things in the Budget. Much of it heads in the right direction; indeed, it picks up ideas that have long been part of Liberal Democrat thinking. We welcome that, but where the Chancellor needed to be bold, he was timid, tentative and grudging. Let us hope that the Budget is merely a small first step, and that he will accelerate down that road next year.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned bypasses; my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) would not forgive me if I failed to say that the Bingley bypass should be included in the roads programme next month.
  Before I was elected to the House, I spent 10 years as a welfare rights advice worker. The job gave a great deal of satisfaction, but brought me face to face with an awful lot of misery and pain. Between 1980 and 1986, my case load went through the roof, because I was dealing with the casualties of the previous Government's economic policies: all that they faced was a lifetime on benefit.
  In 1986, that started to change. For the next three or four years, I spent my time telling people that they would be worse off if they worked, which was a tragedy for me, for them and for the nation. That is not sound economic policy.
  Mr. Gibb: Was that the advice that the hon. Gentleman gave?
  Mr. Rooney: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I shall gladly give way. He does not want to intervene, because, as usual, he does not know what he is talking about.

  1455
  The Social Security Act 1988, which introduced family credit and changed many rules, compounded the problems. For example, the children of people on family income supplement were entitled to free school meals, but that entitlement was removed under the new family credit. Before the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gets excited, I point out that, yes, there was a notional adjustment in the value of the benefit, but it went out of the window the week after the benefit was introduced, because no account was taken of it. That was a major cost to people on low incomes who moved from unemployment into work. As a result of the way in which local government finances were handled in the 1980s and early 1990s, the price of school meals went up far in excess of inflation year on year. People also face the cost of child care, especially in school holidays. Lone parents with two or three children have enormous costs during the six-week summer holiday and have no assistance whatever.
  In 1996–97—the last year of the Conservative Government—725,000 people claimed family credit. That was only 70 per cent. of those entitled. For whatever reason, 30 per cent. of the relatively poor families who are entitled to family credit did not claim it: £400 million was not claimed. It is the children who suffer as a consequence. The beauty of the working families tax credit is that there will be a 100 per cent. take-up, because it will be paid automatically. There may be no stigma attached to family credit, but 300,000 people who were entitled to it did not claim it.
  The 725,000 people who received family credit in 1996–97 were getting an average of £57.04 a week. The tragedy is that their average gross wage was £112.81 a week. That is an indictment of the low-wage economy, and shows why we need the national minimum wage that the House voted for last week. Even on that miserable average wage of £112, people were paying £170 a year in tax. They were getting £57 a week from the state in family credit, but they paid £170 a year in tax and a massive £340 in national insurance. That bill will be halved as a result of the changes that the Chancellor has introduced; and quite right, too.
  Why do high earners on the top rate of tax need incentives to go to work, whereas unemployed people do not? Why is a 97 per cent. marginal rate of tax for the unemployed valid, but a 40 per cent. tax rate for higher earners is not? That argument is nonsense. There should be incentives across the board, and it is about time they were directed more at poverty than at affluence.
  The Labour party manifesto made much of our welfare-to-work proposals. In the 10 months since we came to power, that programme has unfolded. Welfare to work has two fundamental principles: one is that all those who can work should work, and the other is that work should pay.
  I am pleased to say that I attended the launch of the new deal for my local authority area on Tuesday morning, when 170 employers turned up. They have signed up to the new deal. Employers and claimants are enthusiastic about it, and everyone will benefit from it. It was a superb event.
  Welfare to work, the new deal and the national minimum wage interlock with the measures taken in the Budget to get people back to work. The aim of those
  1456
  measures is to bring dignity and respect to those families, and to provide them with an income that is commensurate with their family needs and circumstances, rather than the misery pay that they received during the Tory years.
  I shall comment on the Chancellor's tax credit scheme for the disabled. For many years, disabled people in work have received the disability working allowance. The system is an absolute disgrace, because the allowance is claimed by 13,400 people—the vast majority of disabled people do not know about it, and even those who do have difficulties because it is complex, so they do not bother to claim. Under the new deal, there will be £185 million for people with disabilities who want to work. They should be allowed to work, and the money should be available to support them.
  Child benefit has been frozen. The most valuable support that we can give to families with children has always been child benefit. That is why it was introduced in the mid-1970s, when we did away with the old child tax allowances and the family allowance. It is a tribute to the noble Baroness Castle. I hope that the increase in child benefit this year and next year will continue year on year. It will do more than anything else to relieve child poverty. That increase is the most radical aspect of the Budget.
  I welcome the Budget and am very glad to support it.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: Given the time constraints, I shall be selective and shall not go over areas that have been reasonably well discussed already. However, I should just like to say that I have not yet been able to get my mind round some of the complexities of the working families tax credit scheme and of the Martin Taylor report. Many of us have wrestled with these issues for some years, and we recognise that the objectives of the proposals are desirable. However, I have a hunch that they have been put together in haste and may be very complex. There may be a host of snags, not least the difficulties that small businesses will have trying to administer the scheme.
  I should like to ask the Paymaster General about the relationship between the working families tax credit scheme and housing benefit and council tax benefit. How will it work in the round?
  I want to concentrate on rural areas, which have been particularly badly hit by the Government. The rural pensioner has been badly affected by the Budget. We must also consider this year's council tax, because it is part of the tax system and has an impact on rural dwellers. In Norfolk, because of the switch of Government grant from rural to urban areas, the council tax will increase by 17 per cent. this year and will be accompanied by a considerable decline in services.
  The increase in petrol tax will have a particularly adverse effect on rural dwellers, and I am strongly opposed to the Chancellor's proposal. This Budget introduced a 9.2 per cent. increase in petrol tax—6 per cent. in real terms. That increase comes after a hike in petrol taxes last year, when they were doubled. It is equivalent to 1p on income tax.
  The car is often a necessity in rural areas, not least for people on lower incomes who use it to get to work. It is not possible to provide the multiplicity of public transport that can be provided in urban areas. The impact of the

  1457
  increase in rural areas will be severe, particularly on rural pensioners. The £50 million for rural transport schemes is merely a sop and will make little difference compared with the extra costs that will be incurred in rural areas. The Times comments today that for the three quarters of rural areas without a bus service, this is equivalent to little more than a wheel nut for each recipient.
  Given the modern technology used in cars, their impact on the environment is much less than it was five years ago when we began the process of increasing petrol taxes above indexation.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that the Chancellor hardly mentioned pensioners in his Budget speech. The fuel payment given to pensioners this year does not compensate for the increase in council tax and in motoring costs that pensioners will face as a result of the Budget. The rural dweller will be worse off. Yesterday, reference was made to the fact that BP has reduced petrol prices in rural areas. That reduction is because of the current lower oil prices, but they could go up again just as quickly, whereas the imposition of this extra tax is permanent. The measure is a retrograde step.
  Pensioners were squeezed by last year's attacks on pension funds. Many of them suffered the loss of insurance relief on medical schemes. Agriculture and allied trades, including farm machinery companies, face serious problems because of the constant strengthening of the pound and the consequent impact on the green pound. As a result, a considerable number of people in rural areas have been made redundant. I do not think that the Budget has given rural areas a good deal, especially when combined with the council tax. That is the point that I want to stress most.
  May I make a positive point to the Paymaster General about rural areas? I believe that the time has come to consider exempting church repairs and maintenance from value added tax. It has become increasingly difficult for churches, particularly listed churches, to carry out repairs and maintenance. In my constituency, many churches have tried to raise enormous sums, only to find that VAT is charged on top of that.
  I very much welcome the reductions in income tax, but one consequence of those reductions is a reduction in the tax relief gained through covenant payments. That means a reduction in income. The European Parliament recently asked the Commission to improve the fiscal position of charities in relation to VAT, and I support its view. Only a modest measure would be required: I believe that, according to the most recent figures, it would cost about £25 million in tax forgone. My bishop, the bishop of Norwich, has spoken about the subject at length in the other place. I personally think that such a relief would be welcomed by many rural communities, and would be very important to our heritage.
  I have mentioned rural transport. Unfortunately, I do not have time to develop my argument tonight, but I will say that we should bear in mind the additional cost to motorists. Eighty per cent. of the cost of every gallon or litre of petrol will now go in tax, and the cost to industry will continue. However much effort we devote to switching freight from road to rail—which I entirely support—the vast majority of freight will continue to be transported by road. The cost of that will be passed on to
  1458
  the consumer. At this point, I must declare an interest, as a non-executive director of Unigate, which owns a transport company.
  More should be spent on the roads programme. I deeply regret the cuts in that programme, and I believe that the Government will come to regret them as well, not just for reasons of economic competitiveness but because of the impact on travellers everywhere. However much is invested in public transport, in non-metropolitan areas that investment will not displace the need for increased investment in roads. I hope that there will be other occasions for me to develop that theme. I think that soon, for economic, if for no other, reasons, the Government will be forced to find more money for road maintenance, road improvements and bypasses.
  I greatly welcome the Government's reversal on the £50,000 limit for tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans. I am glad that they have responded to pressure—although, of course, we should not be too grateful, because the Government should never have suggested the limit in the first place. However, I am still worried. I note that today the Cabinet were supposed to be discussing compulsory pensions, second pensions, and so forth. I fear that the relationship with pensions has not been thought through sufficiently; I feel that the Government ought to concentrate on long-term savings.
  When I heard what the Chancellor said about the savings scheme, I thought that his announcement about capital gains tax would be very welcome. I have long advocated a tapering system. When I looked at the details, however, I found that non-business assets would be treated much worse than they are under the present indexation system. If they are held for any length of time, and if inflation is higher than 2.5 per cent., there will hardly ever be any benefit in transferring to the proposed new system. That will not encourage long-term savings. Indeed, if inflation is higher than 3.5 per cent., there will never be any benefit. There will no benefit for 10 years, and no benefit thereafter. The Chancellor has missed a great opportunity to encourage long-term savings, but that could be put right by a change in some of the systems.
  I know exactly what the Paymaster General is facing, because it was given away in one of the detailed notes. The tapering system has been heavily constrained by the Inland Revenue, because it does not want to lose any tax revenue. However, if the Government intend to encourage long-term savings they ought to introduce a different tapering system.
  I must end my speech, because of the restriction on time. Let me finally deal with the overall public expenditure position. There is no doubt that the Government have been hugely helped by the economic legacy that has been left to them—tax buoyancy, falling unemployment, the contribution to the European Union, and so forth. Even so, however, they have increased health expenditure by less than the Conservatives have in recent years, and by less than we did throughout our time in government. It is time that Labour Members started to look at the figures, and to realise that. Moreover, the Government propose to devote less to capital expenditure over the next three years than was in our capital expenditure programmes. I do not think that their priorities are right, although I welcome the constraints.
  Above all, I want to make it clear—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome this bold and radical Budget. I think that, in the social sphere, it will be remembered for what it says about employment and the worth of employment, and for what it says about families with children. It certainly enables me, in my Croydon constituency office, to give a better answer than I have been able to give before to mothers—some of them lone mothers—who tell me that they want to resume their careers, but that, because of child care costs, it would be monetary madness for them to do so.
  The new child care credit is a major step forward, and, in some years' time, the use of credits may be seen as a great innovation which could be spread further afield. Perhaps there could be a new carers credit, for example. The provision shows that we can make the tax system more progressive, and make it serve social purposes.
  I do not want to spend my limited time heaping praise on the Front Bench, however. My ministerial colleagues are easily embarrassed. Instead, I shall reflect rather more generally on three aspects of the Budget: work and the family, child benefit, and the future of national insurance.
  I believe that, in retrospect, the 20th century will be seen very much as a century for women, not only in terms of civic and political gains but in terms of social and economic gains. As we approach the end of the century, women's employment patterns—with, admittedly, some significant qualifications—are becoming increasingly more like those of men, and the Budget, in a sense, institutionalises and encourages some of those developments.
  The early decades of the next century, however, must deal with an even more important question. How can we achieve a better balance in the lives of both men and women—both fathers and mothers—between the world of work and the world of family, especially in relation to children? That has policy implications. I would guess that many mothers and fathers would dearly love the opportunity to spend more time at home caring for their children when they are tiny—just a few months or a few years old. New fathers, as well as mothers, will increasingly express that view.
  There are implications for the income support system. We should make it clear that, however important the welfare-to-work policy is, those with children under five have an absolute right to stay at home and look after them. Perhaps we should go even further than the Budget in giving an under-fives income support premium to make that possible.
  For parents in general, we should perhaps consider a parental care credit. The Budget says that those with more than one child can have up to £105 a week as a credit to help with child care costs. That is right, but I think that, given the theme of choice between work and family, we should match the sum with incentives, or at least encouragement, for parents who want to stay at home and look after their children. Sweden is a world leader in terms of parental leave. I welcome the development of a new work ethic in Britain, but we need to encourage the family and child ethic more strongly if we are to get the balance right between the social and economic spheres—between the world of the home and the world of work.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, was right to warn us about issues of quality of child care. There will be a great
  1460
  growth in child care. Some people will view it as a way in which to maximise profits. I do not want child care policy over the next 20 years to be driven by cases of abuse and sheer bad quality.
  In a sense, we think that child care is about adults: the working mother, the working father, the politician, the policy maker. Strangely enough, it should be about the child and the needs of that child. Let us hear more about the child in this debate. Let us talk not just about quantity, but about quality.
  I welcome the child benefit increase. It is a radical move. It is pro-families and a major development. I want to see more of it. I should like, in particular, a discussion on whether we should weight child benefit increases towards the youngest children—those under five; the poorest families tend to have the youngest children because of employment patterns. We should examine that.
  I am pleased that the Treasury has not rushed into taxing child benefit. We should consider that rigorously and cautiously. Whose income do we tax? We say that child benefit is for mothers. Do we tax mothers? What about independent taxation, if we say, "No, we will tax the higher-paid parent"? It is an important issue. How would we do it if people assessed their own tax?
  What about cohabitation? More of our children are being brought up by parents who choose—and have the right to choose—to cohabit rather than to get married. I do not believe that the tax benefit system should discriminate in favour of marriage, but it would be absurd if it ignored cohabitation and discriminated against marriage in taxing child benefit. In terms of equity and justice, I am not sure about saying to higher tax-rated single people and childless couples, "No, we are not going to increase tax on you, but we are for those who have children." That is not a pro-family policy. We should consider it with some caution.
  There are some interesting straws in the wind in terms of what is being done to the lower rates of national insurance. I understand the case for that in terms of work incentives, but does it break the link between what we pay in and draw out, and what are the implications? Is merging the Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue simply a bureaucratic measure, or does it indicate something far more substantive? We need a proper debate about that.
  Some people—the economists and those who look at these matters technically—say that national insurance is now simply another form of income tax. I do not believe that that is right. There is a strong argument for a renaissance in social insurance. Many of the issues that confront modern Britain, such as the costs of long-term care for the frail elderly, can be tackled only through social insurance. They cannot be tackled through private insurance.
  Let us, therefore, have a debate about the future of the national insurance scheme and let us be wary of people who say, "No. It is simply tax. Let us merge it with income tax." Social insurance is more important than that. The age-old principle of contributing to the community chest when in plenty, and drawing out when in need is a thoroughly modern concept for 21st century Britain.
  6.32 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I will not follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) by concentrating entirely on social security issues, but I begin

  1461
  by saying how much I support the principle of getting people into work. The Conservative Government did much to encourage them. I hope that the Government's changes will not be subverted by some of the adverse effects that I expect will come about.
  I should like to concentrate on the child care credit and to ask the Paymaster General to answer some questions it; many questions have arisen in my mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) produced some calculations. Families who earn up to £14,000 would receive child care benefit of approximately £40 a week. On that basis, he suggested a ballpark cost of £4 billion; my calculation is a bit higher.
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women have said that the benefit would extend to families with incomes of £30,000. For those who are on incomes of between £15,000 and £30,000, there will be, again according to my calculation, a £20 a week average benefit for child care, which comes to £1.5 billion, on top of the £4 billion—if that figure is right; as I have said, I think that it is on the low side. Will the Paymaster General give some indication whether those calculations are right? I welcome the fact that it will take two years to introduce that credit, because I suspect that it will take the Treasury two years to calculate it all.
  Because the Government have hyped that benefit, many families expect 70 per cent. of £100 or £150, depending on the number of children they have, somehow to emerge in their pay packets. Most of them do not realise the effect of the 55 per cent. taper and many will be disappointed when they realise how little they will receive. I suspect that they are likely to feel cheated.
  As people are rational, they will organise their affairs in such a way as to maximise the amount of child care credit that they will be able to claim. That will increase the cost yet further. Will the Treasury tell me whether that has been calculated in its estimates? Indeed, child carers will also provide to the sum that is the maximum that they can receive from the tax system. We saw it happen with rest care homes. We will see it happen with child care, too. Has the Treasury examined that?
  This is a small, but crucial point. The credit is not being introduced for two years. One of the reasons for that is that it will take a long time to increase the child care provision. Is the Paymaster General aware that the loan guarantee scheme is not available to people who wish to set up nursery schools providing a curriculum? Department of Trade and Industry rules specifically exempt those who set up schools providing a curriculum. That includes nursery schools. A change there would be one way in which to increase the amount of provision. I hope that he will consider making such a change.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North made many of the points that are crucial in relation to the interrelationship between child benefit and income tax. I will not go any further, other than to say that I support his comments about the disincentive effect of taxing child benefit. It would be absurd to tax what is, in effect, a tax relief.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the effect of the petrol increases. I will not go down that particular line, but I point out that, for many pensioners, the move to public transport, if it comes about, will involve even greater costs
  1462
  than people envisage. For example, those who are a bit dodgy on their pins will need porters in railway stations. They will need conductors on buses. In pedestrianised areas, they will need buggies to get around. All that costs money—additional money. I do not think that most people realise that when they talk about providing extra public transport.
  I consulted businesses in Beckenham about what they wanted from the Budget. Most of them wanted business burdens to be reduced. There are few signs that the Budget will do that. Administrative burdens have gone up. We have made much of the effects of the working families tax credit. The help for small businesses, particularly the new Inland Revenue payroll offer, will send shivers down the spine of most new businesses, I suspect. It comes in the category of, "I'm from the Government. I am here to help." What will be the effect on companies that offer payroll services? In effect, will this be unpaid—and therefore unfair—competition and put those companies out of business?
  I understand that the Chancellor said that he wants to reduce red tape. There was not much evidence of that. I am a member of the Deregulation Committee and I am not impressed by the volume of legislation that is coming through for us to deregulate. I hope that we will see a lot more coming through if the Government truly wish to reduce the burdens on business.
  In my opinion, the big issue that has been entirely glossed over and in which I have taken a long-standing interest is smuggling and bootlegging. Those of us who have been on many long holidays buying wine in France know all about smuggling and bootlegging. We are also learning about the effect of the tobacco tax on smuggling and bootlegging. I notice from the Red Book that, despite the increases in this Budget and the previous Budget, the Treasury is expecting only a small increase in excise this year and that is due to fuel prices. All those painful increases in alcohol and tobacco taxes are having no effect. Meanwhile, the industry of smuggling and bootlegging is expanding exponentially.
  Dave West, who runs the tobacco warehouse at Adinkerke—I thank the Tobacco Alliance for arranging my visit to that warehouse—has a turnover of £107 million on tobacco alone. Since December last year, the amount of cigarettes sold has increased from 5 per cent. of sales to 50 per cent. An increase of 20 per cent. on cigarettes will mean that that percentage will go up. The percentage for handrolling tobacco has not gone down.
  We are seeing the effects of those sales nationally. They are undermining the rule of law and damaging the health of the nation. In Ashford, young drinkers were disrupting the town centre because they had access to cheap French beer. In Guildford, French beer caused youngsters to damage the cathedral precincts. In Beckenham, I have had complaints about a smaller shop selling duty-free alcohol. Sales of handrolling tobacco papers have increased by 63 per cent. since 1990. In Calais, there are 66 warehouses providing cheap tobacco and alcohol.
  The big city gangs are now involved, and there is evidence of firearms being used in the Kent area. Protection rackets are emerging, and the police are investigating links to terrorism.

  1463
  In January 1995, the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury, then in opposition, said:
  "The illegal entry of alcohol cannot be regulated by our health policies or controlled by our legitimate methods of dealing with alcohol consumption."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 65.]
  We have a French alcohol tax, a Belgian tobacco tax and we are not in control of our own excise duty tax.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has used up her time.
  6.43 pm
  Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Budget. It is the first Budget I can remember being described as a Budget for children, a Budget for women and a Budget for poor families. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, not one Budget under John Major treated poor families better than rich families.
  The Conservatives presided over a growth in poverty, particularly child poverty—that is the most shocking. One in three children are being brought up in poverty. What did the Conservatives do? They stood by while child benefit fell from 4.5 per cent. of average earnings to 3 per cent. of average earnings. In response, the Labour Government have put up child benefit by the biggest real increase since 1978. As a result of the Budget, we have given families—some of the poorest families in the country—an extra £500 a year on average. I wish that the Opposition would welcome that because it is one of the most important things that we can do to tackle child poverty.
  It is worth making it clear why the Government can do that and why they can make these changes. We can do so because the Chancellor has already taken action to sort out public finances, which were in a mess at the time of the election. Under John Major, national debt doubled—
  Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady concede that, in the Red Books published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), it was projected that the PSBR would be zero at the turn of the century?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady replies, I remind her that we do not use proper names but refer to hon. Members by their constituencies.
  Yvette Cooper: The PSBR projections of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were remarkably inaccurate every time. Previous Red Books show that, over the past four years, the total PSBR was about £60 billion higher than it should have been according to the previous Government's projections. The projections of the new Labour Government have been surpassed by the tough actions taken by the Chancellor to sort out the problem of public finance. Last year, the public finances were £23 billion in the red. Now, we are
  1464
  looking at only £4 billion and that is because of the tough action taken by the Government. It is worth remembering the position of the Opposition on the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady concede that all the tough but necessary action and tax increases designed to bring down the deficit under the Budgets of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe were opposed by the Labour party? What does she have to say about that?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should look at the report of the Finance Bill Committee last year. His party opposed all the significant measures to sort out the public finances in the previous Budget. That makes my point. Had the Conservatives continued in office, they would have been significantly more in the red than we are today. They opposed the windfall tax and all the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took to cut borrowing. They opposed the changes to advance corporation tax and the changes to sort out the state of the public finances.
  A Conservative Government would not have been able to increase child benefit or to introduce the child care tax credit. They would not have been able to give help to low-income working families. It is not so much that they did not want to, but that they could not afford to because their borrowing would have been considerably higher.
  We now have the chance to make work pay. We no longer need to tolerate the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by far too many people on low incomes. For every extra pound earned by a dinner lady on a salary of £63 a week, more than a pound would be taken away because of the way in which national insurance contributions work. That is ludicrous and it is a good reason for getting rid of the 2 per cent. entry fee for national insurance. It is also a good reason for introducing the working families tax credit. The working families tax credit is not only more generous, but it changes the tapers. It changes the rate at which money is taken away from people. Also, people will no longer find that tax is being taken on one hand while benefits are being given with the other.
  Mr. Gibb: Is not one of the consequences of the working families tax credit the fact that it will extend the dependency culture by reducing the tapers? As a result of the Budget, 400,000 more families in this country will be in receipt of benefit.
  Yvette Cooper: There will be 400,000 more families in receipt of extra help to make them better off, so that they will have a guaranteed minimum income of £180 per week. I think that that is worth while, and I am ashamed that the hon. Gentleman does not.
  The Budget contains other measures—it is not simply about making people better off once they are in work, but about helping them into work. One of the Budget's most significant provisions, which the House should not underestimate, extends the benefits of the new deal to partners of the unemployed.
  As the new deal was being introduced in my constituency, our local youth service was asked to conduct a focus group of some 18 to 25-year-olds who might be eligible to participate in it to discover their attitudes to

  1465
  work, training, education and the Employment Service. The results were fascinating—until one looked at the small print, and discovered that most of the women in those groups, because they were not receiving the jobseeker's allowance, were not eligible to participate in the new deal. The youth service had included them in the group because they were actively seeking work and wanted jobs.
  For too long, the benefit system has trapped women who want to work by denying them access to training, education and help—it has dismissed and ignored them. The Budget's equal treatment of women is an extremely important change.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women said, another significant feature of the Budget is the £10 million for a pilot programme that will provide education and training for lone parents. Although it does not look like much money, it could prove to be a significant factor in raising children out of poverty.
  Skills and qualifications are a greater factor for lone parents in determining whether they work than they are for other people. Statistics show that 87 per cent. of people with degrees are in work, and that 88 per cent. of lone mothers with degrees are in work. At the other end of the skills spectrum, 52 per cent. of people with no qualifications are in work, and 47 per cent. of mothers with no qualifications are in work. However, only 22 per cent. of lone parents with no qualifications are in work.
  Qualification levels are, therefore, immensely important in determining whether lone parents work. Child care—extremely important though it is—is not the only factor in lone parents' ability to work. We must also give women an opportunity to gain the education and skills that they need—not only to get their first job, but to get their next job, and the one after that.
  This morning, the Employment Sub-Committee took evidence from various groups working in child care and with lone mothers. They all agreed that the most important next step in the new deal for lone parents is to improve availability of child care and education.
  The Budget represents an important new deal for women—it is a very important Budget for women. By my calculations—on the basis of calculations in the Red Book—the Budget, on average, will benefit women five times more than it will benefit men. That is not a sexist point—
  Mr. Ruffley: Yes, it is.
  Yvette Cooper: It is a reflection of the fact that women are more likely to be in poverty, and that women are more likely to be looking after children in poverty. Women are the ones who are denied child care and the chance to work, and they are the ones who are lower paid once they are in work. Conservative Members do not realise that fact, which is testament to the fact that, for the past 18 years, they have done so little for women and children in poverty in the United Kingdom.
  The Budget is remedying the inaction of the past 18 years. It is part of Labour's commitment to women, to children and to families in poverty. It is a chance to start turning things round.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Although—as we all know—the Government inherited the strongest economy in a generation, Labour's first Budget, last year, raised taxes. Let us not forget that that Budget raised 17 taxes, or that a typical family is now £800 per year worse off because of that Budget. The increases were imposed despite the Labour party's pledge in the general election campaign that there would be no tax increases.
  Last year's Budget will be remembered as one that shook to the core all those who were saving for their retirement. The raid on company pension funds hit workers, shareholders and consumers alike, and was regarded as a betrayal by the prudent and the responsible. We now learn from the Red Book that, for 1998, the Chancellor forecasts a sharp drop in personal savings. That was hardly surprising after he placed a tax on savings and pensions.
  We all accept that one way in which to control consumer spending is to raise interest rates—which is what the Chancellor and the Bank of England have done. However, the effect of higher interest rates has been to raise the value of the pound. Our exports have become more expensive, and so—as is demonstrated by the fall in manufacturing output for five consecutive months—exporters and manufacturers are heading towards recession.
  As if that were not bad enough, businesses now face new taxes, to the tune of—according to the Confederation of British Industry—£22 billion. Now the Chancellor wants businesses to cope with the administration and arbitration of the new working families tax credit scheme. Businesses have to take over where the Benefits Agency will no longer be responsible.
  In my work with the Small Business Bureau, I have become only too well aware of how worried small businesses are about the future. They prospered under a Conservative Government, but look to the future with some hesitation. Small businesses will judge the Budget's success on whether it enables the Bank of England to maintain current interest rates, or—dare I say it—even to cut them. They expected the Chancellor to unveil measures to satisfy the Bank of England that no more interest rate rises would be necessary.
  On the evidence, has the Chancellor done enough to encourage the Monetary Policy Committee to hold rates? We shall see. For how long will the Chancellor be able to continue shrugging his shoulders and blaming the Bank of England for the difficulties that high interest rates are causing to the wealth-creating sector?
  Businesses employing high-paid workers will suffer also from the reform of national insurance. How will that impact on their productivity and job security?
  The Budget's success in my constituency of Mid-Dorset and North Poole will be judged not only on what it has done to British business, but on how it affects married couples, people living in the rural parts of my constituency and pensioners. Many of the people in those groups were looking forward to the much-talked-about 10p starting tax rate, yet—two Budgets into this Parliament—there is still no sign of it, and no date when it might apply.
  My constituents will be entitled to feel that the Chancellor has let them down. The Labour party will have to learn the difference between being in opposition—

  1467
  when it promised the earth—and the hard world of government, in which it is held to its promises. Indeed, the never-never is a feature of the Chancellor's policies—he is living on tick. He has, for example, introduced an immediate rise in fuel duty, which will not be offset by proposals that are purported to benefit my constituents until autumn 1998 or, in some instances, until next year.
  I welcome, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recognition that the tax and benefit system has disadvantaged those with children—but what has he done to deal with the disadvantages of those who want to stay at home to look after their own children? He has created a huge disincentive for mothers in two-parent families to stay at home, yet he has created an entirely opposite incentive for lone parents.
  The Chancellor—by introducing the 12-week linking period—is undermining benefit cuts to lone parents, maintaining lone parents' benefits at current levels and continuing the same culture of dependency. He has also created an incentive for lone parents to take short-term work, so that they will not lose their entitlement to higher benefit rates. Therefore, the new deal for lone parents is already struggling. Those added incentives will further prejudice lone parents' return to full-time work.
  What has the Chancellor done to encourage stable married life? How does he reconcile a reduction in the married couples allowance with his statement that
  "Families are the bedrock of a stable and healthy society"?—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1106.]
  How can the Chancellor's pledge that the Government will reduce welfare spending be reconciled with the fact that the Budget has increased the cost of welfare in the United Kingdom? He can justify it by tinkering, tapering and sleight-of-hand. The indications are that—because of the Chancellor's reforms—welfare spending will rise by £10 billion over the life of this Parliament.
  Who will pay for that spending? The taxpayer will pay. The fact is that—because of this Budget alone—250,000 families will face higher marginal tax rates. Moreover, they face a third increase in the cost of petrol since May, when Labour won the general election. In rural constituencies such as mine, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), such price increases are crippling.
  As a sweetener, we were promised that £50 million would be spent on rural transport. That equates to £1 per person spread over three years. How can that make a difference to the country? How much of it will Dorset enjoy?
  The huge increase in duty on fuel is Treasury motivated and represents a further tax on the countryside. Has the Chancellor learnt nothing from the strength of feeling demonstrated by the countryside march recently when 250,000 country people filled the streets of London seeking better recognition of their problems?
  How do I answer the pensioners in mid-Dorset who have contacted me in the past few days? They have received no additional help from the Budget, yet they will have to cope with the huge increase in fuel prices. Many of them cannot live without a car, living where they do, and must somehow make their pensions stretch further to cover the increase.
  1468
  It is cold comfort for them that at some stage, £50 million will be spent on community transport projects that have yet to be defined. It is also cold comfort for them that the smallest and cleanest cars will attract a lower rate of road tax. Many of them are still driving old faithfuls—cars that they have had for some time which do not benefit from the latest technology.
  During the election campaign, the Chancellor told pensioners:
  "All Labour's proposals will protect and improve the quality of life of pensioners."
  After 10 months in government, Labour has not fulfilled that promise. Pensioners face increased costs and lower private pensions following the abolition of advance corporation tax. Many of them pay more in council tax, thanks to the extravagance of Labour-controlled local authorities and, in Dorset, the equally damaging Liberal Democrat councils.
  Perhaps media reports are accurate when they tell us that the Prime Minister intervened to soften the blow of some of the Chancellor's proposals—but what did he do? He spoke to the Chancellor—but for whom? Was it for industry, the middle-income taxpayer, the stay-at-home mother and the pensioner? I suggest that it was not.
  The success of the Budget, which in many ways is better than I had expected, hangs on future growth, yet we still have higher interest rates and we are soon to have a minimum wage. I wonder what the impact will be on the golden economic legacy that the Chancellor has inherited and to which many of my hon. Friends have referred.
  The Chancellor should remember that the Budgets that are cheered the loudest are often regretted the longest. I fear that he will live to regret a significant part of the Budget that he presented on Tuesday and that the country will rue the day that it was announced.
  7.1 pm
  Ms Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. A Liberal Democrat Member described the Budget as timid. I disagree. On Tuesday, we witnessed one of the most radical shake-ups of the welfare state, not just in a generation, but perhaps since the war. Just 50 years ago, Beveridge set out to conquer the five evils afflicting our society: want, disease, ignorance, idleness and squalor. Looking back in 50 years' time, we may say that the past 12 months have seen the first real attempt to rebuild the edifices of the welfare state which had gradually been eroded by 18 years of Tory rule.
  In May 1997, we inherited an economy in which one in five families of working age had no one in work, one in three children lived in poverty and inequality was as great as it had been a century earlier. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assumed the mantle of government, he said that the new Labour Government should be judged on its success in narrowing inequality, alleviating poverty and creating a more just society. This Budget is an important step towards doing just that.
  Last July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced the first pillar of reform—the new deal for the unemployed, a £3.5 billion programme to put young and long-term unemployed people back into work. The Budget represents the second pillar of reform to attain

  1469
  those aims—the establishment of the principle that work should pay and the introduction of the new working families tax credit, which is an assault on in-work poverty and a measure for families with children.
  I want to consider the detail of the new working families tax credit, a measure which will ensure that lower and middle-income working families with children keep more of what they earn. It will ensure that no family earning less than £220 a week will pay any tax at all and any family with a full-time worker will be guaranteed a minimum income of £180 a week. It represents a radical change and ensures that the Budget genuinely helps the poor and those with children.
  Not everyone agrees, however. Opponents of the tax credit argued before it was introduced that it would do nothing for the poor. Indeed, only a week ago the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the shadow Chancellor, issued a press release saying,
  "Changing family credit into a Working Families Tax Credit will redistribute income between men and women without altering the household income by a single penny."
  That has definitively been shown to be untrue. The Institute of Fiscal Studies argued that it was
  "a Budget for lower-income families with children…It has been a long time coming, but this is a genuinely redistributive Budget."
  I am delighted to be able to tell my constituents in Bolton, West that a couple earning £200 a week—a typical starter wage for someone moving off unemployment and into work—will be £23 a week better off as a result of the Budget and that, on average, families with children will gain about £250 a year.
  Let me also consider some of the arguments raised by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). His main point was that the working families tax credit would tend to take money out of the purse and put it into the wallet, and that a tax credit would mean that the money would be paid to the working man, whereas a benefit paid to the mother would be more likely to help children. I disagree. I was pleased to note that the Budget did not shift the balance significantly away from the woman, as the shadow Chancellor recently suggested. Indeed, under the new system, families will be able to elect to whom the payment is made—and, of course, it will be more generous.
  The shadow Chancellor argued that a new tax credit could put additional burdens on business. Again, that is not true. Under the new system, the Inland Revenue will merely issue a different tax code to the employee based on family income. That will involve no hassle, no intrusion into privacy and no stigma.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned the experience in the United States and Canada. I am pleased to be able to respond to some of the points that he raised. The experience in Canada, which was discussed in the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, is very different from the experience that we shall have in Britain as a result of the working families tax credit. The report argues that such a scheme was not successful in Canada because the culture there did not value work above unemployment and society did not want to use the system to discriminate in favour of people who wanted to work their way out of poverty and into better career opportunities.
  1470
  In respect of the United States, only yesterday, Jeffrey Liebman, a respected United States public policy expert, wrote in the Financial Times:
  "The working families tax credit combines the best features of the UK's family credit and the United States' Earned Income Tax Credit. In replacing the family credit with the new tax credit, the Government has ensured that the reform will be accomplished without abandoning independent taxation of spouses or the payment of benefit at frequent intervals through the year and without reducing the share of household resources controlled by women."
  The United States has had 23 years of experience with tax-based work credits which shows that such programmes can have important benefits. Recent research there indicates that the earned income tax credit offset almost one third of the rise in inequality that occurred in the United States in the past 20 years. Moreover, the proportion of lone parents who work increased from 73.7 to 82.1 per cent. since 1993, when President Clinton included a large increase in the earned income tax credit in his first Budget.
  I also do not agree that paying money through the tax system will fail to reduce the stigma associated with family credit. The working families tax credit is likely to have important psychological benefits, being resented less by taxpayers and by the recipients, who prefer to have a smaller amount withdrawn from their pay packet than to claim benefit. By reducing the associated feelings of dependency and cynicism, the measure is likely to increase take-up, further alleviating in-work poverty.
  Another drawback of the old family credit system is that it runs together with other means-tested benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit, which taper off quickly as incomes rise, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) pointed out. As a result, some families are trapped in poverty. Some find themselves in the scandalous situation of losing more than a pound in benefit for every extra pound that they earn. The poverty trap is aggravated by the low starting rate of tax, with 45 per cent. of people on family credit paying tax as well.
  In addition to being more generous than the old family credit system, the new working families tax credit means that families will keep more of the money that they earn. People can now earn up to £90 before losing benefit, and then they lose it at a slower rate. The amount of benefit withdrawn from working families as income increases will reduce from 70 per cent. with family credit to 55 per cent. under the new system. Even taking the interaction of the new tax credit with other means-tested benefits into account, once it is in place only 250,000 families will lose more than 70p in the pound for every extra hour worked, compared with almost 750,000 at the moment. That is good for work incentives, encouraging people to work longer or to get better-paid jobs. The working families tax credit will particularly help women, creating opportunities for those who had previously been barred from taking them by the lack of high-quality available child care. The child care tax credit will meet up to 70 per cent. of child care costs, up to a limit of £100 for one child or £150 for two or more.
  Conservative Members have said that this is a political Budget because we are helping single parents and those in poverty. I agree. There is a political motive. We have to attack in-work poverty. We have to get people back into jobs and we have to open up opportunities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has used up her time.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Welfare has dominated the debate so far. I welcome the Chancellor's attempts to attack the poverty and benefit trap that has affected the lives and circumstances of many people. There are many details in the proposals. As some positive action is taken, further anomalies will be created. It is important to watch the detail of how the proposals are formulated to ensure that progress is made on the Chancellor's aims.
  The consequences of raising the entry point for employers' national insurance contributions have been mentioned. I am concerned that the changes could lead to an increase in part-time employment, particularly after the introduction of the national minimum wage. I welcome the increase in child benefit. We await the publication of the Green Paper to find out how the measures announced on Tuesday fit in with the Government's other proposals on welfare.
  I should like to reflect on the effects of the Budget on Scotland and on the people of my large rural constituency. It did not properly address the economic circumstances in Scotland and contained specific measures that will be particularly damaging to our economy. I was disappointed by the continued fixation with the spending plans and targets of the previous Government, despite a dramatically improved revenue position.
  The Government have boxed themselves in through their economic policy since the election. The clear result is a macro-economic approach that damages Scotland's economy. Micro-economic tinkering has been insufficient to remedy the mistakes of 18 years of Conservative Government and one year of new Labour Government.
  The Chancellor should not need me to tell him about the nature of the Scottish economy. However, even with a Scottish Member in the hot seat at the Treasury, policy appears still to be dominated by the prevailing economic conditions in the south-east of England.
  Does the Chancellor not recognise the export-oriented nature of much of Scotland's industry, or the importance of rural industries in the manufacturing sector, both of which have been hit by the dual policy of high interest rates and the strong pound? The Chancellor has awarded control over interest rate policy to a committee—with no Scottish voice or membership—that has increased interest rates five times since the election.
  High interest rates may be necessary to address the overheating of the south-east of England, but they are disastrous for the Scottish economy. Time will tell whether the Chancellor has done enough in the Budget to prevent the Monetary Policy Committee from increasing interest rates further. When the Scottish economy is growing more slowly than the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom, the Chancellor has taken a great risk.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swinney: No. I have only 10 minutes and I want to make progress.
  The folly of high interest rates has been compounded by the decision to proceed with yet another above inflation hike in fuel duties. That is another Conservative
  1472
  policy continued by the Labour Government. It is ironic that the Conservatives should complain about a higher than inflation increase in petrol duty when they presided over similar measures several times during the 1992–97 Parliament.
  The people of rural Scotland will not be easily fooled by the Chancellor's soft words on a review of rural petrol prices. We have heard a lot about that before. Some of the analysis that I have seen from the Western Isles council and the Highland council shows that prices for rural drivers are between 20p and 50p a gallon higher than those for urban drivers. Every time that rural drivers fill up their petrol tanks they may pay £3 or £5 more than those in some other parts of the country. The additional cost of that increase alone is estimated at £60 each a year.
  The reduction of petrol prices in rural areas by BP has already been mentioned. It would be churlish of me not to welcome that. However, the Government must take action to reinforce the decisions of private companies to ensure that essential car users—all rural drivers are essential car users—are properly protected. My hon. Friends and I will vote against the increase. I hope that others will join us.
  The Chancellor has submitted himself to formidable public expenditure constraints, inherited from the previous Government. The straitjacket that he has adopted was mirrored by the language that he used on Tuesday. I suspect that his words brought a smile to one or two of the remaining Thatcherites in the House. He said:
  "A substantial fiscal tightening has been achieved…my budget will lock in this tightening for 1998–99."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1099.]
  The reality of the Budget is spending cuts and poorer services when revenues are rising far beyond even the Chancellor's expectations.
  Some spending rabbits have been pulled out of the hat, including £500 million for transport. On closer examination, the majority of that appears to be for the London underground, which has attracted more than £10 billion of public resources in the past 10 years.
  The Scottish public expenditure totals have been boosted by an extra £70 million for health, education and transport. However, in real terms, public expenditure in Scotland will fall by more than £0100 million next year. As a direct result of the Budget, real terms spending on local government in Scotland will fall by a further £15 million, while industry and enterprise—a critical area when we are trying to motivate the Scottish economy to higher levels of growth—will lose £1.5 million. That is the real story of the Chancellor's spending plans. None of it takes into account the effect of higher than expected inflation on the Chancellor's public expenditure estimates. If we take away the gloss and look through the mirrors that were cleverly presented by the Chancellor, there is a continuing real-terms crisis in the public services on which our public depend.
  The Conservatives' spending targets have been retained by the Labour Government and have failed to address the real crisis in many aspects of our public services. I heard one Conservative Member on Tuesday bemoan the fact that, as a result of the Chancellor's Budgets, individuals will see not their income tax bills but their council tax bills going up. I can only pose the question: who on earth did the new Labour Government learn that little trick from if it was not the Conservatives?

  1473
  The Budget has failed to make a difference for Scotland. The Chancellor had an historic opportunity on Tuesday, with public finances in a much healthier than expected condition. The coffers were fuller, but the Government failed to tackle the genuine public spending crisis. Public debt has been slashed, revenues have soared, the war chest is growing, but the Chancellor still lumbers on with a tightening of public expenditure totals of which the Conservatives would have been proud. People voted for political change at the general election, but I suspect that many of them are wondering when on earth it will come.
  7.21 pm
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: I add my congratulations to those already offered to the Chancellor and the Treasury team. Those of us on the Government Benches who were listening in the Chamber on Tuesday were delighted with all the Budget's good news on its central themes of encouraging and rewarding work, supporting families, women, children and business, and providing more money for education and health. The Conservative party kept waiting for the bad news, but it did not materialise. Despite the desperate attempts of Conservative Members today, they have failed totally to dampen the enthusiasm with which the Budget has been received by people not only in my constituency but in theirs as well.
  That is not, of course, to say that no more can be done. We have talked a lot about welfare reform in this debate, to great effect, but I shall concentrate my remarks on environmental aspects. There, too, there was much good news. I welcome the measures to improve public transport, reduce VAT on some energy-efficiency measures—even if those still apply only, as yet, to a proportion of homes—and the favourable treatment of road fuel gases. I note that further measures relating to aggregates and water pollution are up for consideration. I hope that there will be others, encouraging innovation and environmental technologies in which our country could be a leader.
  I welcome the setting up of the task force under Sir Colin Marshall, with its crucial remit to investigate the use of green taxation aimed at reducing industry's energy consumption. I welcome, too, the inclusion of an assessment of the environmental impact of tax measures in the Red Book, which show how the Budget will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve local air quality. I wonder, however, whether we can go further.
  I should like to reiterate one of the key recommendations of the first report of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member. The report was published a couple of weeks ago. It was our view that the complexities of environmental tax reform require the setting up of a special advisory body to examine the overall impact of green tax proposals. Such bodies, indeed, already exist in different forms in other countries. I hope that the Government will consider that. Obviously, it will be for them to decide on the precise constitution and powers of such a body. My other remarks are related to my constituency, although they have a similar thrust.
  Peterborough is one of the four environment cities in the United Kingdom. Our environment city trust has recently completed an audit of energy consumption across the city. The results will be published shortly. However,
  1474
  I can say to you that, following a discussion with the director, Richard Dean, the audit has revealed that, whereas the potential saving on industry use of lighting is quite minuscule, for combined heat and power it is enormous. We could make, I am told, great energy savings at no cost to business, which is what I hope we all want. I shall be very glad to turn over the evidence to the new task force if so required.
  The trust is also working on a waste audit—a life-style analysis of waste materials in the city. That will provide a factual basis for assessing the impact on business of tax changes and will identify areas where savings in waste management could be made. Through the green business forum, we are also planning a transport audit of the use of different forms of transport. We are waiting only for funding; the sums will be small.
  Only through those and other forms of investigation of particular environmental measures will it be possible for us to make a rational and fair assessment of their impact and, indeed, of their likely success as measured against properly defined targets. I say to you that the overall target—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is using the word "you". Will she try to use correct parliamentary language?
  Mrs. Brinton: Many apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Government's overall target on greenhouse gas emissions is a cut of 20 per cent. by 2010. That is an aim of which we should all be proud. It is an ambitious target, and to many of us involved in environmental matters inside and outside Parliament, it seems that, although an excellent start has been made, time is short and of the essence. Everyone will have to work together very hard to gain acceptance for an organised and concerted approach to environmental tax reform.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: My right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, yesterday and on Tuesday have covered many of the vital areas of the Budget. They have identified our practical concerns about the operation of the working families tax credit—a laudable attempt to deal with a long-standing problem, but one which we believe is fraught with many difficulties.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have drawn attention to the high price that the Government are paying for eliminating the very high marginal deduction rates which some families on low incomes have hitherto suffered. The price that the Government are paying is an increase in the number of families who will suffer marginal deduction rates of 60 per cent. or more. As we all know, an effective tax rate at 60 per cent. is a powerful disincentive to work. The jury must be out on whether the net effect of the Government's quite laudable efforts to remove those very high marginal deduction rates will be positive, overall.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have also drawn attention to the Chancellor's failure to address the central, immediate problem facing the British economy: the very high level of sterling, which is decimating our manufacturing industry. That problem is faced not just by exporters, as the Chancellor suggested in his Budget speech, but by all manufacturers, as they deal with

  1475
  increased import penetration. The Budget statement says that the Government's objective is to see sterling at a competitive rate in the medium term, but I can tell the Paymaster General—other hon. Members who have talked to businesses in their constituencies will also be able to tell him—that, unless something is done in the short term, there will be no manufacturing industry left to benefit from that competitive exchange rate in the medium term.
  Time is short, so I shall address a few specific issues arising from the Chancellor's statement. There is a continued confusion in Government policy over subsidies for employment. The welfare-to-work programme is at the centre of the Government's policy platform, and it is dependent, at least in part, on the principle of paying employers subsidies to employ workers.
  We have also seen in the Budget the introduction of a £75 a week subsidy for the employment of the long-term unemployed. Both those measures are based on the principle that, at the margin, employment is sensitive to the cost of wages and the other costs of employment.
  Yet, at the same time, the Government are telling us that the national minimum wage will not destroy jobs. Essentially, that statement depends on the premise that at the margin employment is not sensitive to wage costs. That is the contradiction at the heart of Government policy.
  If the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is correct, and employment is not sensitive at the margin to wage costs, the Government should stop subsidising jobs now, because that is throwing money away. However, if he is wrong, the Government had better start quantifying the cost of the national minimum wage and its effect on unemployment.
  In introducing his changes to employers' national insurance contributions, the Chancellor said that he would
  "cut the costs of hiring at the wage levels where most new jobs are created."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1103.]
  However, at the same time, the Government, through the national minimum wage, are increasing the cost of hiring at precisely that level. Confusion abounds.
  The changes to employers' national insurance contributions may be neutral overall, but they have significant sectoral and regional impacts. The increased contribution is a payroll tax on all those earning more than about £450 a week. The tax falls initially on the employer—I doubt whether the Chancellor would have dared to raise employee national insurance contributions 2 per cent. above the present ceiling, or to raise income tax rates by 2 per cent.—but, ultimately, the effect of any tax on employment costs must fall on the employee in the medium term, as pay rates come to be negotiated.
  That payroll tax will hit firms employing highly paid workers, such as those in the technology and financial services sectors—professional firms offering the kind of highly paid, highly skilled work that the Government seek to encourage. The tax will also disproportionately affect firms in London and the south-east, where wages are higher than elsewhere, so employees there are more likely to be remunerated at the rate of £450 a week or more. That is another breach of the Prime Minister's promise not to raise taxes on the middle-income earners of middle England.
  1476
  The Chancellor, rightly in my opinion, drew attention to the impact of very high marginal deduction rates, which are effectively high marginal tax rates. He has sought valiantly to address some of those issues through his reforms of tax and national insurance for the lowest paid.
  However, there are other areas of the economy in which very high marginal rates apply, and I shall draw attention to a couple of those. Although, in the short term, the changes in corporation tax will produce a negative effect on the cash flow of the corporate sector overall, they are none the less welcome because of the reductions in rates. I also welcome the Government's decision to exclude from the instalment payment system companies defined as medium sized.
  I am disappointed, however, that that definition includes only companies with profits of up to £1.5 million. The Chancellor wants to encourage growing businesses. He said so in his speech. Yet I submit that what the United Kingdom economy desperately lacks is a large enough sector of prosperous medium-sized companies. We have many small companies and we have world-class large companies, but we have nothing equivalent to the German Mittelstand companies—that great body of medium-sized, often family-owned companies that have contributed so much to the growth and success of the German economy.
  Yet in the United Kingdom, the current corporation tax system presents companies whose profits are between £350,000 and £1.5 million with marginal rates of corporation tax higher than the mainstream rate. If the Chancellor can take the lesson of the disincentive of high marginal rates on board when he is dealing with the benefits and national insurance systems, I hope that he can take on board the same issue when he considers corporate taxes.
  Stamp duty is another subject which has received relatively little attention so far in the debate. In his first Budget, the Chancellor introduced additional steps in stamp duty tiering, and on Tuesday he increased the rates for property selling at more than £250,000, and also for that selling at more than £500,000—[Interruption.]
  The Government Deputy Chief Whip, from his seat on the Front Bench, laughs. He is thinking about houses, and wondering whether I am thinking about my house or my hon. Friends' houses. However, the duty applies not only to houses but to factories, shops and warehouses—business assets and institutional property owned by pension funds. It is an attack on the liquidity of the institutional property sector, and on property and assets held for the benefit of productive business throughout the country.
  We now have a grotesque set of distortions to the operation of the property market. At £250,000, the marginal rate for the additional pound achieved in selling a property is a staggering 250,000 per cent. At £500,000, the marginal rate of tax for the additional pound is 500,000 per cent. That is plain silly; clearly it will spawn a whole avoidance industry, which cannot be what the Chancellor wanted.
  It cannot be good for the country as a whole to develop the stamp duty system as a serious revenue raiser, for which it was not designed. That will have a serious negative effect on the operation of the institutional property market and on the supply of property available to businesses to rent for productive purposes. That, in turn, will increase their costs.

  1477
  Finally, I would like to say a brief word about the so-called green taxes in the Budget, especially those on petrol and landfill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has already used his 10 minutes.
  7.36 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am grateful to be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate today, especially as the Minister on the Front Bench today is my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. On behalf of my constituents, I have made representations to my hon. Friend over the past few months about individual savings accounts and personal equity plans, and when I heard the Budget I was most grateful to find that those representations had borne fruit and that the Government had recognised the problems.
  I have been receiving telephone calls in my constituency office over the past two days from people saying, "At long last, we have a Government who really mean it when they say that something is out for consultation, and who really listen when people make representations." Long may that continue.
  It is typical of the Conservative party that when we listen to representations we are accused of doing U-turns, and when we do not listen we are called stubborn and arrogant with power. That is typical of the way in which Conservatives have addressed the issues over the past 11 months.
  Listening to the debate, not only this afternoon but over the past two days, I have been struck by how detached the Conservative party seems to have become from reality. Conservative Members have obviously been told what to say—presumably by their public relations people, whom I shall not call spin doctors because I know how odious the employment of doctors has been to the Conservatives over the past 18 years. They have been told to refer to their golden legacy. That legacy is as mythical as golden goose eggs.
  Conservatives constantly refer to the high level of the pound without pointing out that it was their failure to increase interest rates before the election that caused the need to increase them after it.
  The Leader of the Opposition began his remarks after the Budget by saying that the Opposition would support some of the tax reforms for business, but, by yesterday, he was saying that he opposed tax reforms for business. Opposition Members have been told to say constantly that this is not a business-friendly Budget, but they cannot offer an explanation for why the stock market is breaking all records.
  I do not want to pick on any individual Opposition Member, but I was struck by the comments of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). He began by telling us that he did not understand the working families tax credit and, because he did not understand it, that it could not work. That was a strange argument. He then talked about the effect of petrol prices on rural communities, but forgot to point out that the escalator to increase petrol prices above the level of inflation was set by the previous Government at 5 per cent.
  Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there is some equivalence between the
  1478
  increases announced by the last Conservative Chancellor and those announced by the current Chancellor. The two increases announced in last July's Budget have taken place over the few months since then, and that is in no way equivalent to what was factored in by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong—will he apologise?
  Dr. Ladyman: I do not accept that I am wrong. The previous Administration introduced the escalator with a great deal of pride and claimed it as some testament to their environmental credibility.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk raised the question of church repairs. He seemed at one point to be calling for higher income tax so that there would be more covenant income, but he failed to point out that rural churches are suffering as a result of the level of VAT on repairs, which was introduced by the Government of which he was a member.
  That is typical of the unreality of the Conservative party in this debate. Opposition Members have failed to mention people, which is what this Budget is all about. It is about people who have ambitions. Even unemployed people and those who have been out of work for a long time have ambitions. They may not be big ambitions, like those of hon. Members, but they are important to them. Someone on a fixed-benefit income is unlikely to be able to achieve those ambitions. This Budget is about getting those people back to work and recreating their ability to fulfil their ambitions.
  I have been impressed by what the Chancellor has done in the Budget and I have tried to put it into some context. Slipping off message for a moment, having spent most of my life working for the Labour party in one form or another, I know that the old debates in the Labour party were about creating work, full employment and fighting unemployment. It is only recently that what some call old Labour started talking about benefits. No one has ever told me that the Jarrow marchers marched for increased benefits—they marched for increased work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reverted to the old traditions of the Labour party to create full employment, and he is to be congratulated. He is not new Labour or old Labour—he is older Labour.
  It is easy for Opposition Members to put down the fact that my right hon. Friend has provided £50 million for rural transport, but it is £50 million more than the Conservative Government ever made available. They closed down bus services with their deregulation policy. The money will go a long way towards helping rural constituencies. It is not the full picture, but it is at least a start.
  Encouraging zero-emission vehicles and clean vehicles is close to my heart, as a company is to build a factory in my constituency where zero-emission vehicles will be produced. The Chancellor has commented on the differential between duties on certain types of clean fuel and petrol. I ask him to look at the possibility that hydrogen—which is needed to drive fuel cell-based vehicles—could be included in that differential. The Chancellor should look also at VAT regulations in respect of investments in taxis and buses where those vehicles are powered by zero-emission engines and clean engines. The Chancellor may be able to encourage investment in clean technology over and above the measures in the Budget.

  1479
  I very much agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on bootlegging. I have a tremendous problem with bootlegging in my constituency. Just last week, I found a young man lying outside the door of my constituency office, vomiting. He could not have been older than 14. I put him in my car and took him home to face the wrath of his parents. He would have been drinking bootlegged beer, which is creating a tremendous social problem in my constituency. The police tell me that it is becoming a major problem. The Chancellor must try to improve security and controls on bootlegging, and he has said that he is willing to consider that. The more he does in that area, the better.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The longer I serve in the House, the more I think we should look carefully at how we introduce Budgets in it. This Budget is particularly complicated and technical, and it is slightly bizarre and daft that the Chancellor has to get involved in so many different issues and, in one great splurge, release his plans—having been in Budget purdah—on an unsuspecting world, which makes it difficult for those of us who follow these things, particularly technical issues such as social security, to cope with them adequately.
  I pay credit to the Government; the Chancellor was wise to make his pre-Budget statement in November. It assisted those of us who are interested in the areas he said he was looking at and it made the work of the Social Security Committee easier. Our third report has direct relevance to this debate and I hope that hon. Members will get a chance to look at the detail of the important matters we investigated.
  The Paymaster General is to wind up the debate. He is a man with influence on budgetary matters. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee should examine whether we should have an annual uprating statement, including a technical amendment of taxes Bill, and then leave some of the other complicated issues—such as working families tax credit—to be dealt with in a more consultative and deliberative way. I welcome what the Government have done in so far as it relates to low-income working families.
  I want to deal with some of the matters that I think require further attention if these reforms are to be implemented successfully. It is important that, in moving to working families credit, we build on the successes of family credit. I remember the difficulties that arose when family credit was introduced in 1986, especially in terms of take-up, but the benefit now has a good record, not only in rates of take-up but in effective administration. In 1996–97—the most recent year for which figures are available—91.9 per cent. of new family credit claims were paid within five days. Moreover, 91.3 per cent. of assessments were accurate. By benefits standards, that is hard to beat. Those hard-won standards ought also to apply to the new working families tax credit.
  I propose that, so that we know clearly what is going on, and because statistics are out of date—it is sometimes two or three years before they are made available—the
  1480
  Government consider setting an annually published target for take-up of working families tax credit. Everyone, including me, assumed that the working families tax credit would automatically have a higher take-up, but—if I understand the fine print—it will have to be applied for. If so, we may be going back to what happened with family credit in 1986, which would be a great shame. I hope that the Government will be alive to that and consider take-up rates as a matter of urgency.
  The Paymaster General is the most appropriate Minister to whom to address these comments and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Social Security will thank me for doing so. The technology with which the Benefits Agency works is obsolete and inadequate to meet the demands that the changes proposed in the Budget will bring. It is no use waiting for the millennium bug—or some other excuse—before renewing the equipment; is now 10 or 12 years out of date and badly needs updating. If we do not take this opportunity to do so, we shall ask the impossible of those Benefits Agency staff who will have to implement the administrative changes and it will be unfair if we then expect them to get the new benefit right first time.
  The Social Security Committee has set itself the task of examining the implementation of the measures proposed in the Budget, especially working families tax credit. The Treasury Committee will, of course, examine them, too, and we shall study with interest its investigations and recommendations after direct examination of Treasury Ministers.
  I think that the adverse effect of the Budget on small employers and the self-employed has been underestimated. I was not convinced that Martin Taylor, who otherwise did a very good job, spent enough time considering that problem in enough detail. We shall have to return to that matter.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security gave me half an assurance that she, in concert with her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, was doing more about housing benefit. I understand the necessity for that. If housing benefit is left as it is, it could, for many of the families that we hope will be assisted, soak up the whole financial benefit derived from working families tax credit.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) that the quality of child care is an essential issue. As a second order question, I think that someone should examine the future on-costs for local authorities of registering child minders and child care facilities.
  We shall also need to consider the wallet versus purse issue. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was not right in very much of what he said, but he was right to draw attention to some of the difficulties in judging to whom the girocheque should go. Giving evidence to the Social Security Committee, Martin Taylor made much of the importance of the psychology of paying the benefit through the wallet rather than the purse. We will all have to be careful and monitor exactly how choices about the payments are made so that we can ensure that the full benefits of these changes are realised.
  On part-time work, I think that a new watershed may be created by the 16-hour qualifying period. Many of my constituents are part-time workers in the knitwear

  1481
  industry. There may be consequences if we create such a huge watershed. We shall also have to watch that situation carefully.
  I believe that the proposal to protect the rights to national insurance benefits for those who earn between £64 and £81 a week will create a three-tier system. First, there will be those who earn less than £64. Secondly, there will be those who earn between £64 and £81, who will receive credits, although I do not know how people who appear on the payroll at £70, for example, will be identified so that they can be credited. Will it be the employer's responsibility to notify the Inland Revenue that they have suddenly come on to the payroll at that rate? Thirdly, there will be those who earn more than £81, who will receive full national insurance benefits. That is another important matter needing careful examination.
  Again, I agree with what the hon. Member for Croydon, North said about the future of child benefit. The Select Committee, on which I serve with the hon. Gentleman, will want to examine that question and contribute to any consultation. I also agree with what he said about the contributory principle—but perhaps we shall learn more about that when the Green Paper is published next week.
  The Budget is welcome in so far as it relates to welfare to work, but I fear that the Government may be ignoring people who are excluded from the world of work, particularly rural low-paid pensioners. I also believe that the Government's macroeconomic stance is creating difficulties for manufacturing industry, especially exporters, who are suffering because of the high value of the pound.
  Some of the points that have been made about disadvantage in rural areas also need further consideration, but I welcome the Budget in so far as it relates to the incentive to get people back to work. However, we must ensure that there are enough jobs, as there is no point trying to get people off benefits and into work if there are no jobs for them to go to.
  7.56 pm
  Kali Mountford: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate on what I believe to be a stonking good Budget which will herald a turning point in our economy. It will restructure the economy and the tax and benefits system, and it will refocus benefits for everyone, especially the poorest in our communities. Moreover, the Budget is non-judgmental; it does not distinguish between people according to the size and shape of their families; nor does it exclude people from work and assume that people who are workless are workshy.
  I represent a largely rural constituency and I must tell the House that the poverty that people in rural communities face is worse than that almost anywhere else. It is unhelpful of Conservative Members not to recognise the benefits to rural communities that the Budget and other measures will bring. My constituents who live in villages are far from urban centres where most of the help resides, including voluntary organisations, the Employment Service and social services. Few of those agencies have outposts in villages. Evidence shows that fewer and fewer resources are available in villages, which are literally crumbling under the strain.
  1482
  What of the poorer people in those communities? People who live in my village—
  Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Kali Mountford: I am sorry, but time is short—although I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is interested in what I am saying.
  People who live next door to me, for example, have great difficulties accessing the resources that are available to people in urban areas because there are so few buses. The village along the road had its bus service cut so dramatically that the residents had to form a bus action group to press for the reintroduction of the rural bus.
  I think that £50 million will go a long way towards helping with that, but let us not forget the £500 million that is being made available for all public transport. Conservative Members have said that that is too little, too late, but I do not remember Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer making such resources available. They took the dogmatic approach that the private sector will reap all—it certainly reaped my bus services. Hon. Members may think that bus services are not important, but for my constituents they are, as they are the access to everything else. For young people who can now get a pass for the bus service and so access the new deal, it could be the turning point in their lives.
  Since September, the number of young unemployed people in my constituency has almost halved, I am pleased to say. Only 150 are left without work. We are already seeing the effects of economic restructuring to enable people to get access to work. There is money for research and development, money to encourage people to invest in the long—and not the short—term and money so that we can have a more stable economy. All of those developments will help small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere to make long-term investments to provide jobs.
  In another debate, I said that the new deal would be an important part of the strategy to encourage small businesses to take on young people so that their businesses can grow. Few young people in my constituency still need the new deal, so I am particularly glad about its extension to other people who need it at least as much, in particular lone parents. The new linking rules for benefits for lone parents and people with disabilities are welcome indeed. They will take away the fear of trying out a job.
  A couple of weeks ago, I met someone at my surgery who had recently found herself a job. She is disabled and had pointed that out during the job interview, but everyone agreed that she would be suitable and she was given a date to start. Sadly, on her first day she was unable to perform her first task because of her disability and her immobility, so it was amicably agreed that she should not even start the job. I was disappointed that the firm took that decision and I hope that we can reverse it in the near future. Knowing that there was no fear of her losing benefits if she tried the job for a time to find out whether it could be redesigned to suit her needs might have helped both her and her employers.
  Sometimes it is difficult for employers to imagine how someone with severe disabilities can fit into the new style of working to which they are being introduced, but, with a little imagination, people can often find ways of fitting

  1483
  the job to the person with the disabilities rather than trying to make that person fit into an old style of working. The change will be a magnificent improvement for people such as my constituent.
  A major step forward is the fact that we are focusing on children instead of the family structure. I have long argued that children are the most important consideration when we make decisions on tax, benefit and work. It is wrong to design child care strategies to suit the needs of parents or employers. I have made many mistakes by encouraging people to take particular styles of child care only to find that they do not suit their families. It is about time that we considered a strategy that suited the child.
  I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggest that, by introducing this child care strategy and help for parents, we would be doing children a great disservice. We have been doing them a great disservice for many years and it is a disgrace that this country has the worst record on child care in Europe.
  To assume that making child care available is doing some disservice to children and to make a moral judgment on families who choose to take up such services says a great deal about our attitude to families. They have made their decisions about partners and whether they will be married. Many people make decisions against their best wishes. Partners die, or leave, and people are often left with complex family structures. Are we to make a moral judgment about such people?
  In spite of those complex family structures, people still need to work because a lifetime on benefits is abhorrent. Are we to say that if people go out to work their children will be less well served than the children of their neighbours who are fortunate enough to have stayed in one marriage and who do not need both partners to work—a rare family these days as less than one third of families are like that? The majority of families probably need access to some child care at some point. Should we tell them that their children will be so ill served by that system that they should not make that choice and that a lifetime in poverty on benefits is preferable? I hope not.
  My children have been in child care at times—I hope that they are in pretty decent child care right now—and I would like to think, or in fact I know, that they are well-rounded and lovely people and have not had any disbenefit from that experience.
  There is plenty of evidence to show that children in child care, especially those who go to nurseries, benefit a great deal. The IQ of some children who have been in child care builds up, although immediately they come out of that constructive environment it often tapers off because the stimulation is no longer available. In those early years, stimulation is good for children and I very much welcome the pilot programme of early excellence centres that will bring together all sorts of child care elements. Working in partnership is a good way forward and will provide the best for our children. I hope that the whole House agrees with me on that.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I think that it was the late fain Macleod who said that the Budgets that were cheered loudest on the day looked the worst six
  1484
  months down the road. Conservative Members believe that this Budget is one such. It is a triumph of style over true substance and the most over-hyped Budget in the history of modern politics. It was distinguished by grandiloquent language. We heard that the Chancellor is the "people's guardian" and talk about this being a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise tax and benefits. Such terms and style of language are ridiculous.
  Mr. Fallon: Perhaps it is time that we changed the people's scriptwriter.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend is right. It is language as ridiculous as a Chancellor who borrows someone else's children for a cheap photo opportunity the weekend before the Budget.
  This Budget set up great expectations; we contend that the people will be disappointed because it fails three tests by which it should be judged. The first relates to the welfare and tax proposals. No doubt, the aim is to increase incentives to work and the number of jobs, and to reduce the welfare budget, but it will fail.
  The second test relates to the delivery of stable macro-economic management; the Budget will fail to do that. It will not be able to sustain the rates of growth that are necessary and desirable for our country.
  The Budget also fails the third test, which is to deliver on new Labour's promise not to increase the tax burden on middle Britain.
  The Labour party is very keen to invoke the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Paul Johnson—not the Conservative commentator, but the deputy director of the IFS—said that Labour's welfare proposals certainly do not represent "a major reforming package".
  The working families tax credit is essentially a rebadging of family credit under the Conservative Administration. But it is much more expensive, as it goes higher up the income scale. We cannot see how it can possibly deliver cuts in total Government expenditure. It may be classified as other than social security spending, but it will result, as night follows day, in a greater liability for the British taxpayer.
  No Labour Member has made any serious attempt to answer the questions about wallet versus purse. We hope that the Minister will answer the questions posed by Conservative Members.
  The child care proposals are of interest to a party—the Conservative party—that introduced a disregard for child care in 1993. We are certainly not against child care in principle, and it is a calumny for Labour Members to suggest that we are. But we have real concerns about the package proposed in the Budget.
  The IFS and Mr. Paul Johnson are also concerned. He says that
  "the long-term costs could run into billions".
  There is no sensible forecast in the Red Book of the ultimate cost of the proposals.
  We are concerned about the nannies and grannies who do valuable care work in the home for no pay. They will not be favoured by the proposals. Money for child care will be claimed for services rendered by registered child carers, but not for work done by volunteers. The Conservative party has an excellent solution to that: the transferable tax allowance. Many of my constituents would have liked that to be in the Budget.

  1485
  The state-registered nature of the child care allowable under the proposals amounts to nothing less than the nationalisation of child care. [Laughter.] Labour Members may scoff, but they must understand that incentives will be provided for those whose children are currently cared for by nannies, grannies or other relatives to buy child care at the state's expense, and that must be an undesirable outcome. The proposals, together with the cut in the married couple's allowance, show that the Budget is not especially a Budget for the family.
  The proposals are meant to provide work incentives and encourage people back into the labour market, but the Labour party has not even begun to deal with the critical question of what is the chief determinant in creating jobs. Mr. Kaletsky in The Times pointed out that the true determinant is economic growth, not packages and tax incentives of the kind set out under the welfare proposals.
  The Budget also fails the test of proper macroeconomic management that delivers stable economic growth, which is the real determinant of jobs. The fact that the Chancellor departed from the long-established convention of opening the Budget statement with a proper detailed analysis of the macroeconomic environment and outlook was telling. He skated over the issue, and the reason is no surprise: he did not dare to address the issues of the high pound and high interest rates.
  Nothing in the Budget does anything to address those two central problems for the real economy. It is no coincidence that the high pound is going even higher. As speculators fear an interest rate rise on the back of the Budget, they are buying sterling and pushing up its value. The Budget has failed in that respect, too.
  Labour Members always ask what we would have done differently, to ensure that the pound and interest rates were not so high. I am happy to tell them. The bad economic management since 1 May has destroyed the golden economic legacy, primarily through the transfer of control of monetary policy to the Governor of the Bank of England. Under a Conservative Administration, there would not have been a Monetary Policy Committee packed with people who do not understand monetary conditions or the real economy.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) is not in her place. She would certainly have joined us in calling for confirmatory hearings for nominees to the Monetary Policy Committee, as then we might have had a bit of common sense on that body. The net result of mismanagement since 1 May and the Budget proposals is that we face a recession. All the serious commentators say that there is a serious risk.
  The Red Book shows us why. Consumer spending is set to fall, with the tax burden rising, the balance of payments surplus turning to deficit and the savings ratio falling. I remind Labour Members to look at page 116 of the Red Book. They will discover—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. David Drew.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) referred to this as a radical Budget, and I am only too happy to concur, except that I would add that it remains within a well-rehearsed set of themes announced on numerous occasions by my
  1486
  right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I want to re-rehearse those themes quickly, to set the context, before coming to the substance of my speech.
  The themes are stability, with low inflation; fiscal rectitude; ending boom and bust; reducing our indebtedness; fairness, the centrepiece of which is the welfare-to-work strategy, with the evolution of a national anti-poverty strategy now locked in place; help for business, with increased transparency and clarity in the way in which we shall offer help, and a taxation structure that adds to the benefits of long-term investment and rewards entrepreneurship as well as giving specific help and advice; and, last, but not by any stretch of the imagination least, a concentration on the rebuilding and, indeed, enhancement of public services.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave us a sense of the excitement of our getting to grips with a proper, integrated national child care strategy. That has been universally welcomed by the child care organisations.
  I want to discuss the implications for child care in rural and semi-rural areas. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) calling the proposals the nationalisation of child care. They are anything but that, because they allow flexibility in rural and semi-rural areas, where there is little competition or even a monopoly of care. Women in particular, and parents in general, need to know that their children are in safe hands. That can be assured only if there is quality child care provision, with genuine investment and appropriate regulation. I am pleased to see that that is a key part of the Government's proposal, from which rural areas stand to gain as much as urban areas.
  I shall restrict my remarks to two of the Opposition's lines of attack. The first concerns their environmental allegations in regard to the petrol tax escalator. I remind the Conservatives that they initiated the petrol tax escalator when they once claimed to have environmental credentials. The Conservatives' torch logo is appropriate, as it sums up how out of touch they are with the environment. Perhaps the colour of that logo should change from blue to brown, as the Conservatives have no credibility left on the environmental front.
  We welcome the fact that the Government are trying to do something about one of the most damaging pollutants and prevent the depletion of the quality of our environment. It is tough, and we must rely on a carrot-and-stick approach. We must talk to our constituents and rationalise: we must explain that they cannot have it both ways. However, I believe that people are genuinely beginning to get the message; they are realising that they will not see an improvement in the environment if they continue to use their cars whenever they want.
  I served on the Committee that examined the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), did his best to filibuster and block that legislation. The Opposition should understand that people want to see those measures put into effect at the earliest opportunity. They are prepared to make sacrifices so long as there is a reward. We can provide that in the form of the carrot, by rebuilding our public services, including our bus and rail services. That will not be easy; the Budget has made a start, but we must go further.

  1487
  The Budget contains other measures that affect the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) talked at considerable length yesterday about the reduction in value added tax on the installation of home insulation materials, so I shall not go over the same ground. The Government have increased landfill tax, and we have pledged to examine other difficult issues. For example, we shall consult about the impact of a carbon tax on business, industry and commerce. We shall consider how we can introduce a sensible environmentally sensitive tax regime that is both fair and comprehensive.
  We must recognise that we are moving inexorably towards some form of green taxation. Although Labour Members welcome that, we do not wish to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an impossible position: we must take the nation with us. However, there is a clear demand for such taxation, as people know that the alternative is worsening health, the depletion of resources and an increase in pollution and associated dangers for them and their children.
  The Opposition's second line of attack stems directly from their petrol tax accusations. It concerns principally the people who live in rural areas, of whom I am one. I am proud to represent the constituency of Stroud. We must appreciate that the rural economy is extremely complex and does not rely simply on the motor car—although that is an important feature of rural life. One must ask why Conservative Members did not argue against all the previous increases in petrol tax. They did not recognise the impact of that tax in terms of poverty, loss of services and the fact that people could not travel to find work.
  We shall address those issues. We must find other means of enabling people to get to work—or, more particularly, we must provide work in rural areas. I am pleased to see that teleworking is a fast-growing industry. There are some dangers in that field in terms of low pay and poor conditions, but people may choose the type of work they do, when to work and when to be with their children. Teleworking provides tremendous opportunities and people do not have to use their cars to travel to work. That is one way of addressing a very difficult problem.
  My remarks have been sparked partly by the speech last night of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—who is near me geographically, if not politically. He launched a full-frontal attack on what he considered to be the Government's failure to assist public services in the county of Gloucestershire. That is total and absolute gall on his part. Although it is only a start, we have begun to turn around education in Gloucestershire this year. All our schools have received a budget increase of between 1 and 2 per cent. That is not a huge amount, but it is better than cut after cut, which head teachers grew used to under the previous Government. They are now much more confident that the present regime understands what the schools want and will finance them properly.
  The hon. Gentleman's attack on health and bed blocking in my authority was also totally unjustified, because we are dealing with problems caused by the previous Conservative Government. It is totally unjust to claim that we do not care about public services. We will rebuild public services and we shall see this country into the next century with the quality services that it deserves.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: There are many elements in the Budget that I welcome warmly. I shall touch on three of them before moving on to what I consider to be an important omission.
  The first measure that I welcome particularly—I have argued for it for many years—is the sensible reform employer national insurance contributions. It has always seemed anomalous that, when employee contributions were more or less sorted out, the previous Conservative Government did nothing about employer contributions and allowed the entry fee and the absurd tiered structure to remain.
  This Government sensibly produced a pre-Budget consultation document, to which the Liberal Democrats responded. In our response, we argue that employer national insurance should be restructured, perhaps with a uniform rate above the lower earnings limit. Except for the fact that the Government have raised the lower earnings limit, they have done precisely as we recommended. We warmly welcome the move, which we regard as a sign of a responsive Government. We are grateful for that.
  Secondly, we welcome the closer alignment between income tax and national insurance contributions, by merging the Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue and aligning thresholds. We wonder whether that presages an eventual integration. I shall be interested to hear from the Paymaster General whether the Government have decided that the contributory principle has a future and that those basically direct taxes will eventually be merged. I hope for a response to that question, but I do not expect one.
  The third element of the Budget that I welcome sincerely is additional money for the poorest children. I welcome very much the provision of extra money on the rates of child premiums for income support, for children under 11. It is sensible that that measure focuses on younger children who have the greatest need. However, I part company with the Chancellor on one point. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1107.]
  The evidence is clear that one-parent families on income support are much poorer than two-parent families on income support. When measured by all the yardsticks of deprivation—such as durables, debt and all the things that affect quality of life—lone parents on income support are poorer than two-parent families on income support, and therefore require extra, rather than the same, help. We welcome additional money for all poor families on income support, but, on the Chancellor's own argument that support should be on the basis of the identified needs of children, lone parents continue to have a case for additional money.
  As I said in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, it is regrettable that, in 1998–99, we have the anomaly that new lone parents will face the cut that was so controversial, whereas in 1999 all families with children will, essentially, get the money back.
  It is a particular misfortune to become a lone parent in 1998–99 and to have to get by for a year without that £5 of family premium. It would cost the Government

  1489
  relatively little, even at this stage, to defer that cut. One element of that cut is still before the other place, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to defer it. Then we shall really believe that they are concerned about all poor children in poor families.
  I welcome much of the Budget, but there is one important omission, which is housing costs. The words "rent" and "housing costs" do not appear in the Budget. Yet an important table on page 36 of the Government's first consultation document issued last July, "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System", lists the aspects which, according to research commissioned by the Department of Social Security, are barriers to people leaving benefit. The cost of child care is on the list, but in sixth position. After wage worries, second and third on the list come fears about losing help with council tax and with housing costs—mortgages and rents. That has been clearly identified by DSS research as stopping people on benefit moving off benefit into work. Regrettably, there was nothing in the Budget for that cause.
  The working families tax credit with extra cash will help to some extent, but as soon as a person with a mortgage of £100 a week, which is not implausible, works 16 hours a week, he will have to find all that money from his net pay, quite apart from child care and all the other costs. That is a huge disincentive, which the Government have not even shown signs of reviewing.
  The Government are reviewing housing benefit, which we welcome. During the past 10 years, rents have shot up hugely more than inflation and, like mortgages, rents are a huge burden on the low-paid. I should like to see—I speak in a personal capacity—social rents, and private rents for that matter, brought down. That is a slightly old-fashioned notion, but, as most people in the local authority and social rent sector are on low incomes, cutting rents would be a well-targeted universal subsidy. Universal subsidies are not as popular as they were, but, from a welfare-to-work point of view, it is much more effective to give people lower rents and enable them to obtain work, than for them to have high rents that they cannot afford when they take jobs.
  To summarise, there are many welcome things in the Budget, but one important omission is the treatment of housing costs—rents and mortgages. It is regrettable that the matter was not considered in the round. The Budget measures on welfare to work—the working families tax credit, and so on—were not integrated with housing. The minimum wage will help, as will lower starting rates of tax or a higher allowance, the tax credits and the national insurance reforms, but everything should be taken together. Let us bring in housing costs. Let us not suffer from departmentalitis, whereby, because a matter comes under another Department, it is considered separately six months later. Let us include housing and have a comprehensive response to the problems of the low-paid. I shall then be able to welcome the Budget even more whole-heartedly than I already do.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I, too, welcome the Budget, particularly its emphasis on making work pay, the steps that it has taken to reform the appalling anomalies within the welfare state that we have inherited, its support for families and its new help with child care, the new
  1490
  investment for public services, particularly schools and hospitals, and the various measures that will support small businesses and job creation.
  Those measures will be welcomed by my constituents in Bury. For too many years, thousands of them have suffered from chronic levels of low pay, from too little full-time work and too much part-time work, and from the absence of child care. The increase in child benefit will be appreciated by the 27,000 families in my constituency, particularly as one in nine are lone-parent families.
  My local authority in Bury has one of the lowest levels of per capita funding for children in primary and secondary schools of any local authority in Britain. Therefore, the new investment in schools will be particularly welcome. Equally, our hospital has one of the lowest levels of per capita funding of any hospital trust in Britain. The new money for reducing waiting lists will be significant.
  The Budget is in marked contrast to the successive Budgets of the Tory years, which served simply to reinforce inequality, progressively to disfranchise more and more families and young people, and to exclude increasing numbers of people from mainstream society. I am proud that my Government, through the Budget and the new deal, are starting to rebuild hope for the next generation, whereas the previous generation saw nothing but exclusion and the progressive eradication of its opportunities.
  The significant changes to national insurance, the introduction of the working families tax credit and the tax credits for child care will help to transform the lives of many of my constituents, particularly women who are struggling to combine work and child care, or women who have been excluded from the labour market for too many years simply because of the limited availability of child care.
  Within my general welcome for the Budget, I wish to raise one or two specific points, which I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Paymaster General could mention when he replies.
  First, I have to agree with one or two Conservative Members about the unfortunate absence of any reference to pensioners, either in the Chancellor's speech on Tuesday or in the Budget report. We understand and welcome the important help with fuel costs that was given to pensioners before Christmas, and we know that the pensions review will be published in the first half of this year. Clearly, this is not the time to make major changes to the pension system. Nevertheless, it would have given some hope, confidence and comfort to the nation's pensioners had there been some reference to them, even a simple one to the forthcoming review, in Tuesday's speech or in the Budget report.
  With regard to lone-parent families, I understand the Government's point about separating out the issue of need and the issue of family structure, saying that need, not family structure, should be the basis of public support. I have tried hard to agree with that, but I simply cannot accept that the needs of a two-earner family paying the higher rate of income tax are equal to those of a lone-parent family. I cannot believe that the difficulties of bringing up and caring for children are the same for two parents as for one. I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the previous changes in the Social

  1491
  Security Bill last December. Most lone parents will be pleased with the measures announced in the Budget, but, in line with the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I appeal to the Government to keep under review the question of need and lone-parent families.
  Similarly, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has flagged up the future status of child benefit in terms of taxation. But, again, I simply cannot justify that the child benefit received by two-earner families, paying the highest rate of income tax, should not be subject to tax, yet the lone-parent benefit was taken away last December. I hope that if it is finally decided that child benefit should be subject to taxation, the revenue from that taxation will be earmarked for further help for the poorest families in Britain, many of whom will be lone-parent families.
  Another important technical point concerns the merger of the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. That is one of the most profoundly important measures in the Budget because of the changes that it flags up to the future financing of the welfare state. I hope that there will be a lively debate on the continuation of the contributory principle under a merged bureaucracy. I also hope that, whatever happens to the contributory principle, it concentrates our collective mind on the harmonisation of tax and national insurance rates and thresholds and, in particular, flags up the enormous anomaly of the national insurance threshold. I appeal to hon. Members to ask themselves how they can justify the fact that, above £22,000—or thereabouts—a year, one stops paying national insurance? That is one of the most regressive features of our tax system, and, sooner or later, a Government will have to address it.
  My major point concerns environmental taxation, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) have already spoken. I add my voice in support of the green tax measures in the Budget, particularly the increase in landfill tax, the cut in VAT on energy-saving materials and the various changes to road fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. Those measures are important and positive, but are comparatively limited in terms of their effect on greenhouse gases or traffic reduction.
  To meet our Kyoto targets, there is scope for other measures, such as taxing employers' car parking spaces; urban road pricing; heavier taxation on dirty and fuel-inefficient vehicles, and taxing out-of-town retail parking spaces. I look forward to the forthcoming White Paper on the integrated transport strategy, which will, I am sure, deal with some of those points.
  I particularly welcome the Chancellor's decision to investigate industrial and commercial energy taxation. It is critical that we carry industry and commerce with us in moving towards green taxation, and to demonstrate the value of green taxes, not only the cost savings to business, but the potential for growth in energy efficiency and environmental technologies. I look forward to other developments such as, for example, water pollution charges, following the recent Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper.
  1492
  Not only does green taxation help to conserve the natural resources on which our future health and prosperity depend, but, in the main, green taxes are cheap and easy to collect. They are difficult to avoid and serve to legitimise the whole concept of taxation. That legitimisation is sorely needed following the disastrous record of the previous Government in encouraging tax evasion and introducing taxes that were widely considered unfair and inefficient.
  Most important, as we have seen already, green taxes enable the Government to cut taxes in other areas, most notably labour and wealth creation. That is already happening under our Government. It started to happen under the previous Government, and it is happening across Europe. It needs to be extended further as part of a general policy of shifting the burden of taxation away from goods and processes that are intrinsically good and towards those that are intrinsically bad.
  I welcome the achievements on green taxation so far, but there is much further to go. I draw the House's attention to two documents published recently. The report of the Environmental Audit Select Committee contains a wealth of evidence from different sources on the state of green taxation. It rehearses most of the arguments in favour of green taxation. I hope that, over the next few months, the Government will take careful note of it when framing the 1999 Budget. I urge all hon. Members who have an interest in this issue to give their support to early-day motion 1108, which relates to the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Time is up.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am profoundly grateful to be able to speak while our Whips have vanished from the scene, as—perhaps unusually for an Opposition Member—I think that some aspects of the Budget are admirable. It is an immensely tough Budget in terms of the fiscal balance that it establishes. In fact, it outdoes most Conservative Chancellors in that respect. Other aspects that should be welcomed include the general principle of transferring from one form of benefit to a tax credit.
  Alas, I do not think that the welcome for the Budget can be unreserved, as the transfer of taxation to the corporate sector, which will be discussed on Monday, will, I think—only time will tell—turn out to have been grossly misjudged and will contribute to what is already a far more severe recession in the manufacturing sector than the Treasury's models recognise. Throughout the past 25 years, the Treasury's models have been notoriously inaccurate in these respects.
  I shall concentrate on a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) began to elaborate. The Budget has a most important effect—one that I very much doubt that the Government intended. I am delighted to be able to speak about this in the presence of the Paymaster General, because, presumably, he was the Minister responsible for the most welcome U-turn. I presume that he was responsible for ensuring that individual savings accounts would not involve a retrospective breach of the trust of those who had engaged in tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans. If the Government

  1493
  were able to make that welcome U-turn, perhaps, under the Paymaster General's inspiration, they will be able in subsequent legislation—or even in the next few days, if one is to indulge in one's wildest dreams—to alter their position on the matter to which my hon. Friend referred.
  I am speaking of something that is far more important to the children—at whom in great part, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred, the Budget is aimed—than the money involved in the child care tax credit. Many issues were raised about the practicalities of the child care tax credit. The jury is out on that. We shall see what happens to mothers, to registrations, and whether it is used as a mechanism for simply increasing family income. If that happens, the predictions of the Institute for Fiscal Studies may come true, and there may be a £3 billion or £4 billion cost, as opposed to the £1 billion asserted by the Treasury.
  Be that as it may, I regret to say that the child care tax credit is just a matter of money. How could I possibly say that anything is just a matter of money in relation to a Budget? This Budget intends to have—and does have—profound social effects. It is intended to create incentives, one of which I warmly welcome—the incentive for people to work. If the Chancellor were asked for his proudest achievement of the Budget, he would presumably tell us that it was to create a greater incentive to work. That admits immediately that the Budget's main point is its social effects and the effects on social incentives. If that is the case, it is not the money with which we should be most concerned but the social effect.
  Anybody on the Conservative Benches has to admit that, until the last day of the previous Administration, the Conservative Government—much more out of oversight than intention—gradually tilted the balance, I regret to say, against marriage. Many of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, preached against this throughout the time of the previous Government and regret it. However, that is not a reason for the present Government to repeat and amplify the mistake that we made. Any hon. Member who has children will agree that the sad truth is that the most important thing—above money and poverty—for children is how they live in their family.
  I do not wish to moralise about this. It is a dreadful error for politicians to moralise. Perhaps we on the Conservative Benches stand convicted from time to time of having moralised too much. If the Chancellor genuinely believes—I think that he does—that his Budget is intended to achieve social effects, he must believe that it is right for the tax system to be viewed from the point of view of the social effects that it is likely to have. That means that the Government have to make a conscious choice about the society that they are trying to tilt towards through the tax system. If that is the case, it is undeniable that the Budget quite specifically militates against marriage.
  It is no part of my purpose to argue in religious or moral terms for the institution of marriage. My argument is a practical one. It is about children. There is ample evidence—I do not think that the Secretary of State for Social Security would deny this, as her Department has evidenced this in its own work, and the Select Committee has reiterated it over many years—that, by and large, children prosper more when marriages stick together. It has been shown over many decades that although the
  1494
  divorce rate is alarmingly high, marriage is a better means of keeping parents together than any known human institution.
  A Budget that starts from a series of mistakes made by a previous Government—perhaps from mistakes made over the previous 100 years—allied to social trends that have gradually undermined marriage, and that unnecessarily amplifies those mistakes for a small gain of roughly £1 billion by reducing the married allowance, and further amplifies them by making it easier for people to enter partnerships and still enjoy reasonable incomes for their children, unconsciously and unintentionally does gross damage to the structure of our society. If I am right that that is not what the Government intend, it can be easily remedied at little cost. If I am wrong, however, and that is part of the Government's intention, they should say so—and 30 million, 40 million or 50 million would howl them down.
  There has been a tremendous reaction against ideas that were prevalent in the 1950s and 1960 that suggested that there was no difference between partnerships that stuck together and those that did not—hence, between partnership and marriage. That is a dated idea, because the modern view—the Labour party much prides itself on speaking about modernity—is that marriage is a glue that sticks society together, holds families together and helps children.
  The Minister should admit either that the effect to which I have referred is not what the Government intended and that they will reverse it, or that it is what they intended and try to make an argument for what most hon. Members, even in this thinly populated Chamber, would find difficult to defend.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: All hon. Members would agree that the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about marriage and children were sincere. Having spent 10 years in social work, I agree that children prosper if families remain together. It is regrettable when parents split up because it has a detrimental effect, but for families on low incomes the pressures and strains of having insufficient resources to pay their way add to discord between couples and ultimately may lead to a marriage or relationship breaking up.
  One of the positive measures in the Budget is the working families tax credit, which provides child care support for families.
  I wish to focus on three areas—the main welfare to work and social security measures and two related issues. In my 10 years in community and social work, I endeavoured to assist people living in poverty and disadvantage to achieve change. Indeed, that is why I entered politics and joined the Labour party. I welcome and applaud the Budget. It provides essential solutions to tackling deprivation, and it will enhance the lives and opportunities of many people and families.
  The new deal was introduced last July. Its proposals have been met with considerable enthusiasm in my constituency, especially among employers and young people. We recently launched the Medway towns new deal in the House, at which I was pleased to see the chairman of Gillingham football club. The Budget's proposals are the next crucial step after the new deal in

  1495
  helping to tackle poverty. The key test for the Labour Government is to turn back the tide of poverty that has crept over the country in the past 18 years.
  Being on benefit should not mean that someone must live in poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) referred to pensioners, many of whom live in poverty. That is particularly true of those who served in the war, who now have only a couple of ha'pennies to rub together. That is an indictment of us all. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterate that not everyone will be able to work and take advantage of the Budget's proposals. People with disabilities should not feel guilty about being on benefit; they should be secure in the knowledge that we value them as equals.
  Being trapped on benefit is a real existence for many people, and in my previous work I saw the manifestations of that, which were eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). In constituencies such as mine, in which unemployment is about 5 per cent., there are pockets of unemployment where the rate is twice as high, and that has applied for far too long. As economic prospects improve for the majority, little seems to change for such people.
  I recently attended a business breakfast, at which we were again launching the new deal. An employer said, "To tackle deprivation, surely all we must ensure is that the economy continues to improve." That is right, but if everyone is to benefit, especially those communities about which I am speaking, the necessary structures must be put in place, which is what the Budget aims to do.
  It is not simple to get people back to work: a number of measures must be used. Shaming people and telling them to get on their bikes, which we heard many years ago, will not work. That only alienates people and defeats the desired objective.
  We must also have a change of culture. It is hardly surprising that young people from the second or third generations of a family that has not experienced work have little aspiration other than the dole queue. I recently travelled to London on the train and spoke to two 18-year-olds from my area who had no expectation other than benefit. Indeed, they were surprised that I felt that they should be looking for an alternative life style. Perversely, they argued, albeit wrongly, that they were better off on benefits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North eloquently stated that, tragically, many families are better off on benefit. The communities on the estate where those 18-year-olds live have been increasingly excluded and deprived. Many parents on such estates feel that they have not been able to offer themselves as a role model because they have been unable to work. I do not condemn them, but we must provide opportunities for parents so that as their children grow up they see that the aspiration to, and expectation of, work are the norm and do not say when they are 18, "We're better off on benefit."
  The Budget's tax and benefit proposals will enormously assist low-income families and those on benefits and will effect the change in culture that I have described and provide opportunities.
  The current family credit system has many faults, and there is a stigma attached to it. People have to fill in reams of paper when applying for it, and there is an
  1496
  unsatisfactory take-up rate. People generally prefer not to be in receipt of welfare benefits. The Chancellor's proposals will give more cash help to 400,000 families and will break the benefits link, as the credit can be paid through a wage. That is a far more dignified way of assisting low-income families. I look forward to hearing whether it will be paid through the purse or the wallet.
  Child minders and nurseries were part of my responsibilities when I worked in social services. There are many unregistered, and therefore illegal, child minders. They do not necessarily have a wanton desire to flout the law and put children at risk: they are neighbours and friends, particularly in poorer communities, who act together to support one another. There is a massive shortage of good-quality child care. The working families tax credit, coupled with the improved child benefit, will allow parents to work and will be an income and a regenerator for poorer communities, because money spent on child care will remain within those communities. I welcome the debate on who should receive child benefit and who should be taxed on it.
  Another 50,000 child minders are required. That would put further pressure on local authorities' registration and inspection units.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I shall take a different approach from other hon. Members, although my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the matter that I shall raise. The Budget is very unfriendly to those who live outside urban Britain. It is an attack on the countryside, and shows Labour's lack of understanding of rural issues and rural problems. My argument has nothing to do with country sports: it is about the people who live and work in rural Britain.
  Britain's hard-hit farmers were left stunned by a Budget that offered them little or no comfort. I declare an interest as a farmer. The Budget did nothing to tackle the overall impact of the strong pound on agriculture and although the Chancellor acknowledged the problem, he did nothing to address it.
  The deputy president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Tim Bennett, said:
  "Agriculture continues to be one of the worst hit industries affected by the strength of sterling. It will bring little comfort to many struggling family farms whose incomes have been cut by a half on average last year."
  Farmers remain seriously concerned about the strength of sterling, which is forcing up their costs and drawing in cheap imports, with catastrophic effects on market prices.
  Farmers can draw little comfort from the Red Book. Under "Changes from previous plans" in the section on the public finances, it shows that spending by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was down £140 million in 1997–98, and is down £50 million for 1998–99. Apart from the special circumstance in the Department for Education and Employment, they are among the largest reductions in spending plans.
  Hon. Members may think that the changes to capital gains tax have little to do with farming. The retirement relief on capital gains tax is to be phased out over five years from 6 April 1999. That is bad news for anyone who is contemplating retirement from farming after April 1999, as it is for the disposal of any smaller business.

  1497
  The Chancellor has chosen not to synchronise the withdrawal of retirement relief with his reductions in the rate of capital gains tax.
  The proposed changes will ultimately result in people being unable to retire because they will have to use their money differently. That is contrary to intentions announced in the House by the Minister of Agriculture, who is seeking European Union support for an early-retirement scheme. He is asking Brussels for money for early retirement, yet he is allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove one of the most advantageous early-retirement schemes available to farmers. Farmers who want to retire are not helped by the increases in stamp duty. It is not only large farms that are worth £250,000 or £500,000; they and smaller farms will now be affected by the 3 per cent. rate of stamp duty.
  Farming, market gardening, forestry and timber production have been excluded from the new enterprise investment scheme and from the venture capital scheme.
  The Chancellor announced with some glee that he was reducing the mainstream rate of corporation tax to 20 per cent. Most farmers do not run their farms as corporate bodies. Farmers are individuals, so their businesses will not benefit from the reduction, and they will still pay the 23 per cent. rate of income tax.
  Labour Members have suggested that the increase in petrol tax is in line with increases introduced by the previous Government. We have had two increases in petrol duty in just 10 months, whereas the previous Government did not increase petrol tax twice a year.
  Drivers in rural areas—mothers who take their children to school and those who drive to work out of necessity rather than by choice—will suffer immediately as a result of the increase in petrol prices.
  The deputy president of the NFU said:
  "Farmers will be heartened to hear the Chancellor acknowledge the need of rural communities—particularly with the announcement of a £50 million fund for rural transport—but they will be waiting to see that acknowledgement translated into tangible benefits."
  Britain's rural parishes will have to bid for cash from this £50 million fund, which seems ridiculously small if it is to have a sensible effect. The Times suggested:
  "If the three quarters of rural communities without any bus service at all share Gordon Brown's promised £50 million investment in rural transport they will end up with little more than a wheel nut each."
  I contend that £50 million is not much spread across the country.
  Let us take a typical couple with two children and a mortgage, living in one of the shire counties of rural Britain. Such a couple will be about £1,000 worse off as a result of the measures introduced by the Government in two Budgets. There are the increases in petrol duty, which I have already mentioned; there are the increases in mortgage interest rates, which, as we know, result from high interest rates that led to a rise in the value of sterling; and, of course, there are the increases in council tax, which in my county amount to a minimum of 12 per cent. in any district year on year. That represents an 11 per cent. decline in the disposable income of the typical couple whom I have cited.
  The Government have demonstrated their insensitivity to the needs of rural Britain. They have hit rural industry, especially agriculture. In the first year of the current
  1498
  Administration, agriculture has become £2 billion worse off, and the Budget has done nothing to redress that. In fact, in many of our rural industries and communities, it has made the position much worse.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: There is more to the Budget than meets the eye in regard to tax increases, and significantly less than meets the eye in regard to the Government's stated objectives. First, let me say something about the handwritten contract with the people that the Labour leader drafted with his very own hand during the election campaign. The first clause of that contract said that a Labour Government would spend the money that had been used to deal with the cost of economic and social failure on education. In other words, Labour would reform the welfare state, and would use the resulting savings to boost education.
  Let us see how Labour is doing in that regard. At the end of February, the Minister for Welfare Reform appeared before the Select Committee on Social Security. When asked how much he expected to be saved from the social security budget during the lifetime of the current Parliament, he said that he wished
  "to slow the rate of increase in social security spending."
  There were no plans to reduce spending, no plans to make savings and no plans to plough cash from social security into education. That was a clear breach of the first clause of Labour's so-called contract with the people.
  The objective of halting the rate of increase in social security spending had already been achieved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), but it is clear from the Budget that even that objective has now been abandoned. According to the Red Book, the working families tax credit will cost £420 million more than family credit in its first six months of operation, and £1.3 billion in its first full year. On top of that there is the increased child benefit and child-care tax credit, involving a total cost of £1.2 billion a year. There will be no savings in the social security budget under the present Government. There is a breach of the first clause of the contract with the people, and there is a gaping hole in Labour's tax and spending plans.
  Let us cast our minds back to the economic package that Labour presented to the electorate. Apart from the windfall tax, Labour's spending programme involved no requirement to raise taxes; all its promises of increased spending on education and health could be funded by existing budgets—through efficiencies and, most significantly, savings in the social security budget. The Labour party said—and still says—that it would reduce the dependency culture, and would get people off welfare.
  Let us consider the Government's objective, which will again demonstrate that there is less in the Budget than meets the eye. The introduction of the working families tax credit is clearly well intentioned, but family credit has been a very successful benefit. There has been an 82 per cent. take-up rate on the basis of expenditure. It clearly helps not only low-income couples but single parents to go to work. We have yet to be told why family credit needed to be replaced, other than the fact that it was introduced by the Conservatives.
  The problem with the working families tax credits and childcare tax credits is the enormous increase in the number of people eligible for the benefit higher up

  1499
  the income scale. There has always been a big problem with changing tapering rates: as incomes rise, people begin to lose benefit. Inevitably, in any benefit system, coming off benefit will involve high withdrawal rates. The difficulty is that making withdrawal rates less steep will mean extending the tapers higher up the income scale, making more people eligible for benefit.
  The purpose of lowering tapering rates is to provide more incentives to get people off benefits and into work. As a result, others are often given increased incentives to reduce work and claim benefits. That is precisely what the Government admit would be a consequence of the working families tax credit and the reduced taper of 55 per cent. The notorious table 3.3 in the Red Book points out that 250,000 more people will face withdrawal rates of 60 per cent. or more as a result of the Budget. The second objective—to reduce the dependency culture—has clearly not been met.
  When the childcare tax credit is included, the increased dependency culture becomes worse. It is clear that the availability of the new benefit goes right off the income scale. A family earning £22,000 a year with one child will be able to claim the credit. That income is just above the national average. How can we reduce dependency if we give new income-related benefits to households on above-average income?
  The position is worse still. A family with two children will be able to claim the benefit with an income of up to £30,000 a year, significantly higher than the average income. It is absurd to claim, as the Government do, that the benefit will cost only £1 billion a year. That figure is clearly nonsense, as even a quick glance at the examples in the separate book on the working families tax credit will show.
  Example four is of a family earning £23,400, who will be able to claim £45 a week child care tax credit. That is more than £2,300 a year and most claimants will be able to receive more. Clearly, £1 billion is an underestimate. The Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees. It estimates that the cost will be some £4 billion if everyone who is entitled to the credit takes it up.
  Much of the Budget is about putting right some of the many catastrophic and ill-thought-through measures in the Government's first Budget last July. The hubris with which the dynamic new Chancellor launched his July Budget has been matched only by the humiliation that the Government, and the Paymaster General in particular, have faced since that Budget. A host of new measures have been required to put matters right.
  Ending the repayment of tax credits led to the abolition of foreign income dividends, which meant having to abolish advance corporation tax and to introduce a new method of paying corporation tax which, even with the changes, still places an enormous cash flow burden on British industry over the next four years. Those measures combined will cost companies £20 billion over that time—money which would otherwise have been available for investment.
  Labour was elected on the clear understanding that it had no plans to increase tax. There is an abundance of quotes to prove that. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all".
  1500
  In August 1996, he told the Daily Express:
  "Our proposals do not involve raising taxes".
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said before the election—to the authoritative source of GMTV on 8 April 1997:
  "There is no black hole for the Labour Party because we have got no public spending commitments that require extra taxes".
  Ministers are trying retrospectively to rewrite that commitment. They say that they promised not to raise only the basic and higher rates of income tax. Just like a dishonest salesman pointing to the fine print of a contract, they say that the British electorate should have known that they would raise taxes and that the commitment was to do just with the rates, but my understanding was that there was a commitment not to raise tax and that the specific commitment on rates underlined that more general agreement and commitment. It did not narrow that general commitment. Why would people feel safe to vote Labour, with its track record of tax and spend, if they thought that the only commitment was not to raise rates and that Labour was free to implement a range of other tax increases, which would, in the same way, reduce take-home pay and spending power?
  This Budget is the Government's second tax-raising Budget. As well as enormous tax hikes on business, income tax rises accompany the erosion of the married couples allowance, and there are enormous expenditure tax rises in the cost of petrol. The Government have now outrageously promised to raise taxes on child benefit.
  The Budget has increased tax, spending and the dependency culture. By doing so, it has breached Labour's commitment not to increase tax, not to increase spending and to reduce the dependency culture. The Government's honeymoon enabled them to get away with the tax hikes in their previous Budget. It will not do so this time.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I declare the interests that are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
  For the second day running, more people have been ready to attack the Budget than the Government have been able to marshal to defend it. The real test of the Budget is not the headlines that the Government have managed to engineer this week or the hype that preceded it, but whether unemployment falls as a result.
  Rebadging family benefits, relaunching child care initiatives and rejigging national insurance contributions are all meaningless unless more people are working and fewer people are claiming benefit as a result. I hope that the Paymaster General will accept that. I challenge him to produce the figures from the Treasury—the estimated falls in unemployment as a result of the Budget for the coming financial year, next year and the first full year of the working families tax credit. If he cannot produce those figures tonight, that will tell us a story. It is no use having a Budget entitled "Making Work Pay" if there is no more work in the first place. Whether or not this Budget makes work pay is highly questionable. What is certain is that it does not make more work possible.
  By contrast, our Budgets did just that. A whole series of Budgets, including those in which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor),

  1501
  the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, played such a notable part, helped to produce more work. They gave us the best record of job creation in Europe and brought about a flourishing new and small business sector.
  The Government have already reversed that trend. Right from the start they have hammered job creation. They have put on business a huge new burden of corporation tax and have levied the new windfall tax. They have attacked pension funds and discouraged long-term investment. This Budget has added yet more taxes on business.
  The changes in national insurance contributions will hit high-skill companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) elegantly said, the increases in stamp duty will damage businesses involved in commercial property or asset sales. There are other tax hits, notably on the insurance industry, and the full impact of others is only just coming to light. Next year, business will face the impact of the national minimum wage on wage differentials right up the pay scale. It will also face the first new costs of the social chapter legislation.
  All that is worsened by the Government's callous disregard for the effect of the high pound on industry. Indeed, they encouraged the current level of sterling. By taxing pensions and hitting savings, the Government have fuelled consumption and brought about a two-speed economy. They would have done better to have genuinely acknowledged the pain now being felt right across British manufacturing industry. We did not hear much concern from the Chancellor on Tuesday. Indeed, in the section on risk assessment in the Red Book we find the chilling idea that, if the Government are wrong in some of their forecasts
  "monetary policy would probably be behind the game."
  This is not a game for manufacturing industry.
  I warn the Government now that the Budget will further unbalance the economy and may well push manufacturing industry into recession. If it does so, it will be a recession entirely of the Government's making. It will be the Brown recession. We have a Budget that puts up taxes, puts up the cost of business and fudges welfare reform.
  I should like now to deal with some of the detailed points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I begin with a glaring omission from the Budget statement and, indeed, from the Red Book which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—in an extremely elegant and well-argued speech—picked out: there is nothing in the Budget for pensioners. In the entire Red Book, only six lines are addressed to pensioners, and three of those simply repeat the announcement made in the pre-Budget report. Pensioners are the forgotten people in the Budget.
  We should also not forget that pensioners use petrol, and that pensioners will be paying more in fuel tax. Pensioners pay council tax, and they will now be paying more council tax. Pensioners have been ignored in the Budget.
  Pension schemes seem to have been further disregarded by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has wisely left the Chamber. He was present, last week, at a dinner at which the chairman of the Association of Actuaries said:
  "Significantly, employers' confidence in the stability of the pensions tax regime has been dented. I must warn the Government that further tax changes which are made without consultation will
  1502
  do even greater damage to the confidence and willingness of employers to provide pension schemes—particularly small employers."
  So pensioners have been damaged by the Budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) touched on the savings issue, which was not simply an example of the Government bungling yet another scheme—although Ministers have had, of course, to back down on their retrospective and penal attempt to restrict to £50,000 the savings of those who have scrimped and saved for 10 years now. We can note other features of the Government's handling of the matter.
  First, we have had no apology from the Government, in withdrawing that proposal, for the damage that they have done to confidence in public and national schemes.
  Secondly, we still have a new lower limit. Although it is true that the limit is not £50,000, will the Paymaster General confirm that the current annual limit of £10,800, taking personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts together, will be reduced to £5,000?
  Above all, we know from the bungling of the savings scheme Labour's true instinct. Labour did want to tax those who have worked hard and saved hard. Today, I should like the Paymaster General to tell the House what type of assurance he can give—on even his own individual savings account scheme—that the Government will not come back again, in a few years, to penalise exactly that type of tax-free exemption.
  It is becoming apparent in the technical press that the changes to capital gains tax have not been universally welcomed. Given low inflation, many people would have been better off under indexation than they will be under the new lower rate.
  Perhaps the Paymaster General will address himself to some of the problems—if I can call them that—that are emerging with his 30-day rule. The Government suggest that any capital gain will have to be made over 30 days rather than overnight. How will that apply—City advisers are asking—to married couples? What if the husband sells shares and the wife purchases them within 30 days? Will they still lose their exemption?
  Will the various packages that are being mooted in the City allowing people to hedge against market movement in those 30 days be allowed or not?
  I now turn to the working families tax credit, a proposal that was admirably dissected by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) last night. Like the Institute of Fiscal Studies, we reserve judgment on whether it will be an incentive or a disincentive. As one of my hon. Friends said, the jury is still out on that question.
  Perhaps the Paymaster General will clear up the shambolic performance of the Financial Secretary last night and clarify two or three key points. First, will women have a veto? If he does nothing else tonight, I hope that the Paymaster General will answer that specific question. It is no use saying that it is a matter for the partners to elect. We want to know whether, if the man is the main earner, the woman will have a veto. If she does, will the Government help to publicise it and make it clear so that women know where they stand?
  Mr. Rendel: On that point, if the woman has a veto, what will it do to her marital relations if she tries to use it?
  Mr. Fallon: Absolutely. That is the tangle that the Government are getting into. It is something that we need to know.

  1503
  Secondly, perhaps the Paymaster General could answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). if the working families tax credit is such a good idea, why are the self-employed exempt from it? Why does it not apply to them? The Secretary of State for Social Security was asked that six hours ago and she could not answer it because the Treasury has not told her yet. That is the Muppet show to which the Department of Social Security has been reduced. Not only is the Secretary of State unable to give us the answer, but she cannot express a view on whether or not it is right to extend the tax credit to those who are self-employed.
  Thirdly—and this is a trickier question so perhaps the Paymaster General will be able to get his mind around it—how will the working families tax credit be classified in terms of expenditure? Let me quote from the Red Book:
  "The net cost of WFTC is split between 'accounting adjustments' in GGE, and 'other receipts and accounting adjustments' in GGR…whether or not any or part of WFTC should score in the Control Total has not been decided."
  Perhaps the Paymaster General can assist us on that point.
  While we are on the subject of the Red Book, perhaps the Paymaster General can enlighten us on another matter. What has happened to the privatisation programme, which appears to have come to a grinding halt? Under the Conservative Government it was running at around £4 billion a year. In the current financial year, it brought in £2 billion from sales that we arranged. For 1998–99, it is forecast to raise £0 billion. We now learn from the Red Book that
  "The Government has not announced any specific sales for 1998–99 or subsequent years."
  Is privatisation now off the agenda? What has happened to the sale of London Underground or the immediate review of the Post Office that was promised? What has happened to the "National Asset Register" that was launched in a great fanfare last November? Under the previous Government, asset sales were running at £3 billion or £4 billion a year. Why are they now forecast to come to an end?
  Finally, perhaps I can turn to the much trailed code for fiscal stability. You will share my concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the document entitled "Budget 98" was published the day before the Budget, and, worse still, was publicly launched in the newspapers. Let us be very clear. Only a Labour Government would need a code for fiscal stability, given the mess that we inherited in 1979. The code presented on Monday fails the test of seriousness required of any code.
  The code is not in the "Budget 98" publication. There will merely be two clauses in the Finance Bill requiring the Chancellor to publish a code by next December. He has taken the power to modify the code if the Treasury requires that. The code is supposed to be binding on the Government, but they are allowed to modify it. The code will be limited to the relationship between taxation and
  1504
  expenditure; it will not cap taxation. It will not and cannot stop this Government continuing to increase the overall burden of taxation.
  Yvette Cooper: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government doubled the national debt? Is that what he means by fiscal stability under the Conservatives?
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Lady knows that the national debt tends to rise in times of recession. We had it on track to descend without the additional tax increases that the Government have introduced.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No. I want to leave the Paymaster General plenty of time to grapple with my questions.
  As we have the pleasure of the Paymaster General's company, perhaps we could subject the Budget to the Robinson test. At the Labour party conference last October, the Chancellor said:
  "A Labour Chancellor will not permit tax reliefs to millionaires in offshore tax havens."
  There was not much about offshore trusts in the July Budget. There is not much about them in the Red Book. We did not hear a great deal about them on Tuesday.
  Back in December, in an article that described him as a "deeply hurt Robinson", the Paymaster General said:
  "Indeed, I could show you internal Treasury documents to show that I have been working against my own financial interests on this policy. You will be pleasantly surprised."
  We doubted it then and we certainly doubt it now. The only changes proposed to offshore trusts affect those set up before March 1991 and those to be set up by non-domiciled settlers. Will the Paymaster General confirm that, after the changes, he will still be entitled to tax-free income from the dividends on the shares that are held offshore in a trust on his behalf? The man who wanted to cap everybody else's tax-free savings at £50,000 and who is now to limit them to £5,000 a year will still be entitled to keep his millions offshore, tax free.
  The Budget fails the Robinson test. Indeed, it fails every test. It puts taxes up; it pushes industry further into recession; and it postpones serious welfare reform in a muddle of rebadging, brochures and public relations. The Budget fails the country and the Government in the intentions that they set before the electorate. For those reasons, we shall oppose it on Monday night.
  9.38 pm
  The Paymaster General(Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): One point on which I can respond positively to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is that the ultimate test of this and all our Budgets—and all the measures that we intend progressively to introduce in a great programme of reform that Conservatives signally failed to undertake during their 18 years in office—will be the management of the economy and the stability that we are setting out to achieve. I therefore say right at the beginning of this winding-up speech that everything we have done since we took office in May has been done with achieving that stability in mind, very precisely to avoid all the errors of previous Governments—both Labour and Tory—that took

  1505
  the economy and the country through the inevitable cycle of stop-go and all that meant to individuals and companies caught up in it.
  Such a cycle is the most damaging thing for small companies, to which many Conservative Members have paid tribute. It is the most damaging thing for families. It is the most damaging thing to the economy of the nation. That is why, on the very day we took office, the Bank of England was granted operational independence. That is why we set in hand a series of changes that, so far from being piecemeal, were successive parts of an overall plan to take the emphasis away from paying dividends in the corporate sector to investment and long-termism. That is why we abolished tax credits.
  That is why the second, logically following Budget—unlike what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) seems to think, the Budget was part of an overall plan—neatly dovetailed to accommodate what practically can be done. I shall come to some of the practical problems in which Conservative Members are seeking refuge. As they realise that the principles of reform, progressive reorganisation and welfare and the incentives to work are things with which they must agree, they seek to take refuge in a series of pettifogging details that we shall have plenty of time to sort out over the next 18 months before the changes are introduced.
  In the context of long-termism, we turn to savings. We know the Conservative party's appalling record through the 1980s, when the country had the misfortune to have it in office. We had a negative saving ratio for five years on the trot in the mid to late 1980s.
  Mr. Ruffley: What about what is in the Red Book?
  Mr. Robinson: There is a long way to go before it becomes negative. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the forecasts are there, they are Conservative forecasts and they are in the Red Book. I am very well aware of them. Has he the slightest idea of the difference between the projection and the negative rate that the Conservative Government achieved for five successive years in the 1980s? They are not at all comparable.
  Let us talk about the individual savings accounts programme and what has been said about it. The new savings plan has been widely welcomed by every product-producing institution in the City of London. It has been welcomed by the Association of British Travel Agents, by Marks and Spencer and by areas of the retail industry that are intending to introduce the cash ISA to reach the half of the population that did not save at all and was untouched by the Conservative Government's PEPs and TESSAs.
  Conservatives complain when we publish a document on which we have decided to consult; the next moment they say that the results of consultation are not what they expected. We know what consultation meant when they were in government: it meant that they had made their minds up, would not listen to reason and would not respond to the points that were put to them. That, of course, is why in the end they suffered ignominious defeat at the hands of the electorate in May. We have listened; we are a Government who consult. That surely is another factor that emerges from the way in which we are approaching the whole budgetary process.
  1506
  Let us take, for example, the industrial energy arrangements on which Sir Colin Marshall has agreed to lead an investigation for the Government. We have not rushed in with detailed, absolute proposals. On the contrary, we are proposing to consult and to listen to what is said in that consultation process. So it was with ISAs.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the confusion and uncertainty over the future of PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs has permanently damaged the saving ethic of the middle classes?
  Mr. Robinson: That is the most ridiculous thing that has been said from the Conservative Benches all evening. The savings plan has been welcomed; we are confident that it will be a great success. I have had nothing but a welcome for the new proposals and a determination to see them fully taken up.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked what we can say about the proposals for the new ISA in respect of the amounts and the duration of the tax relief arrangements. I can give him an assurance of the sort that has not been given by a Government before. He knows that it was an open secret in financial circles that the Tories themselves were planning a cap on the exponential growth of both TESSAs and PEPs, especially PEPs.
  We are the first Government to have given a commitment covering 10 years, and that commitment puts in place the certainty that the savings community needs. Yes, we shall review the arrangements after seven years, but the commitment to 10 years is absolute. Yes, those savings will continue to enjoy at least the present levels of tax relief. Again, this is the first time that any Government have given that undertaking, and we do it precisely to avoid the sort of uncertainty that underlay PEPs and TESSAs. Conservative Members know that that is true.
  Yes, we have said that the amounts that we envisage for the 10 years will remain as they are, and will not be reduced, although they may be reviewed. We have made that clear. Indeed, in the latter stages of the consultation—[Interruption.] They will not be reduced. If the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) does not understand what I am saying, I am sorry for him. It is a bit late in the evening, and we understand.
  In the consultation period, it was put to us that to get the cash element of the new ISA, which was so important to us, off the ground, an increase in the first year, directed towards that cash element, would be welcome. We therefore made an increase for the first year—from £5,000 to £7,000—in the latter stages of the consultation, and it has all been extremely well received.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked what we were doing about privatisation. I can tell him this: we shall not have any more of the rip-offs that the Conservative party allowed and we shall not have any more fat-cat millionaires—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like you."] We shall not. As Conservative Members have understood, the whole capital gains tax structure is geared towards those who undertake to make their business assets work hard to increase their capital gain. That is precisely the aim.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robinson: I shall—not that the hon. Gentleman has been heard much in the debate, but as it is him, I shall give way in a moment.

  1507
  There will be a statement tomorrow on the London underground and I advise hon. Members to attend. It will be most instructive for them to see what progress we are making, especially in avoiding the sort of traps that the Conservatives fell into. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks should take note of the arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will unveil.
  A review of the Post Office, too, will shortly be announced, and the hon. Gentleman will see that we are also making progress there—progress on a balanced set of relationships between the public and the private, which avoids the Conservatives' mistakes.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way to me, despite the fact that I have not been able to participate in the debate as much as I would have liked. He will not be allowed to get away with the assertion that the taxpayer did not get due value for money out of rail privatisation. The assets did not achieve a better market value because investors were put off by the Labour party's threats to take the assets back into national ownership.
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will probably regret that intervention on reflection, but I am pleased that he made it because it enables me to clarify one point of distinction about rail privatisation that is worth making. I think that the Conservatives, slow and painful though the process was, came to learn the error of their ways in some respects, and their treatment of Railtrack avoided some of the worst aspects of their earlier privatisations. However, that did not stop the Tory Government making a hopeless mess of the rolling stock companies. Because of the definition that we used, ROSCOs were not drawn into the windfall tax, but there is every reason for thinking that they should have been. Even the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) cannot feel terribly proud of them, even on commercial terms, let alone in terms of the national interest.
  We are pressed for time and I shall make progress as quickly as I can. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that there was nothing in the Red Book about the code for fiscal stability, which is an important element in our approach to the economy. Our approach is totally different from that of the Conservatives; it is long term and principled, unlike the short-termism that characterised the Conservative Government.
  That short-termism led to our taking office with accelerating interest rates, because action was not taken—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: What?
  Mr. Robinson: Absolutely. Where has the hon. Gentleman been for the past four years? He must have been living somewhere else. It is an acknowledged fact that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer refused, for purely electoral, party political reasons, to increase interest rates when he should have done, and that inflation
  1508
  was accelerating, which is why, on our second or third day in government, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to take steps.
  Mr. Fallon: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Mr. Robinson: I shall be delighted to give way in a moment. I should point out to Opposition Members—as they fight each other to clamber to the Dispatch Box—that the code for fiscal stability was published in November. If it escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—who probably did not hold his present position on the Opposition Front Bench then—I shall arrange for him to receive a copy.
  Mr. Fallon: If the Paymaster General is now happy with the level of interest rates, is he equally happy with the high value of sterling?
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental question. Conservative Members may not like it, but they must realise that they got into a mess and produced the two biggest recessions in this country's economic management since the war. We have to go for stability—stability is vital to big and small businesses. Our exporters are having a tough time, but other countries have come through these periods. If we were to give in to short-term pressures at this stage—when we could go for long-term sustained stability and growth—we would be making precisely the same mistake as the Tories. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) must behave himself.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have to say that I had not noticed the hon. Gentleman misbehaving. He was probably behaving normally.
  Mr. Fallon: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman must sit down. I have answered his question. If he does not understand it by now, he never will, and he is in for a long period of having to learn about economic management. The sooner he learns—for his own sake—the better. The Government are committed to a long-term stable economy that will avoid the stop-go policies that damaged so many businesses, put so many people into negative equity and broke so many hearts. Shadow spokesmen must learn; there is no short cut on this, and we intend to see it through.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have taken part in what has been a good debate. On the whole, it has been well attended. That is still the case. There has been a tendency for Conservative Members—with one notable exception—to say that the problem is that the detail of the administrative arrangements has yet to be put in place. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made a series of points on that matter and would not pretend to offer him a detailed answer

  1509
  tonight. If he reflects, he will agree that a major change of this kind is bound to impose a great strain on the administration of the affairs to which it relates. We cannot pretend that it will not cause problems, but the question each of us must answer is whether the reforms are principled and going in the right direction. Are they intended to get many people out of dependency and into work? Should they provide that incentive?
  The Budget is essentially about children, mothers and families, and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made a remarkable speech in that context. The family credit system was worked through a number of great teething difficulties and if our priorities and principles are right, the same will occur with these reforms. The support that we can expect from both sides of the House will be welcome.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset spoke in the absence of Whips—they are present now. He was right to have the courage to say that he welcomed the Budget. He said that it was going in the right direction and that it was based on correct principles, even though he had doubts as to whether, in a certain respect—essentially the question of married couples and the institution of marriage—we had got it wrong. We thought about that long and hard. If circumstances have changed in a way he does not approve of, I understand, but Governments must deal with the reality of any given situation, and it was against that background that we took our decision.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) have detailed personal experience of the problems associated with the less well-off in society. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North instanced the perverse effects of the Conservative reforms on school meals and on child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford spoke about two 18-year-olds whom he met on a train, both of whom had come to the conclusion that work did not make any sense for them and that they were better off on benefits. If that is the attitude—I think that that culture has been inculcated among far too many youngsters and the less well off—it is clear that we must do something about it.
  To that end, we are proposing, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, to introduce the working families tax credit, which is, I think, largely the reason for the fairly positive endorsement of the Budget by Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who speaks for the Liberal party on these matters, made a good contribution.
  We also heard from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who speaks with the authority of the chairmanship of the Social Security Committee. We pay tribute to that Committee's work and I take this opportunity to thank Martin Taylor for the excellent service that he rendered the House in writing the initial report. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) posed particular questions to which I shall ensure he receives answers—as I shall for all hon. Members who have raised points of detail on which they would like us to reply.
  The Liberal Democrat attitude shows both an attention to detail and a breadth of view. That was demonstrated when the hon. Member for Newbury said that he was particularly pleased that the personal allowance would be granted to women who are caring for disabled husbands.
  1510
  That change did not attract much attention, but it exemplifies the Budget's bias in favour of children, women and families, which marks a wholly new departure in social welfare reform as we move from a dependency culture to a system under which people are paid to work. People who want to work will have that opportunity and we want to ensure that the motivation for that is properly rewarded.
  Mr. Ruffley: Conservative Members have consistently asked about the wallet versus purse argument in respect of working families tax credit, which is a big issue for many of our constituents. What is the Government's response to the basic criticism of their proposal?
  Mr. Robinson: As the Conservative party continued to make child benefit payable to the mother, it clearly endorsed the policy that we have embedded into every measure that the Chancellor unveiled on Tuesday—we want the maximum amount to go to the children, who are at the centre, through the mother, so that families benefit. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we go into the details of how the tax credit will work and how we can achieve our objectives, that will be absolutely at the forefront of our concern. [Interruption.] Time is pressing, and the points made by a number of other hon. Members need replies—if I can find time, despite the sedentary interjections of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I shall be pleased to answer them.
  I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said about deregulation. I ask her to reflect on the thought that what she proposed might entail much paperwork, as I fear is often the case at the centre of Government. Deregulation units do not always achieve exactly what they set out to do.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robinson: I really cannot—it is too late now. No doubt there will be other occasions on which we can discuss the matter, as well as the hon. Lady's personal experience in the exponentially growing business of smuggling—hers is a particular sphere of experience, but it was interesting to hear about.
  In the last moments of this debate, I must mention the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—all new Labour women Members of Parliament who paid tribute to the fact that we have got this about right. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford said that the Budget would benefit women five times more than men. I am not sure whether that appears in our briefing, but if not, well done; I am pleased to use the statistic in my contribution to the debate.
  We inherited a situation caused by the Conservatives, who doubled the national debt. We were in a cyclical deficit and a structural deficit and had accelerating interest rates—all because of their failure to act. In the interim, we have acted. We have set in place an economic and social reform framework that will stand this country in good stead and I commend it to the House.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Prison Health Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  10 pm
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to have the opportunity in this short Adjournment debate to raise the problems of the prison health service. I recognise that it is not a popular subject for debate and would not be so even if it were not held at 10 o'clock on a Thursday evening. Prisoners are not a favourite cause, and their welfare is not at the forefront of most people's minds. However, the strength of the House can be measured by the way in which it deals with unpopular subjects. Similarly, the health of our society can be gauged by the way in which it deals with those who have offended against its laws.
  For that reason, my first premise is that we ought to expect for prisoners the same standards of health care that we expect for ourselves. Their punishment is to serve their sentence. They have not been sentenced to be deprived of adequate health care. Yet it is clear that the present system that operates within our prisons fails to deliver the standard of care that we ought to expect and is fatally flawed. That is recognised by prisoners and by many of the staff who work in the service, and it was recognised most of all by the chief inspector of prisons in his report, "Patient or Prisoner", which was published in 1996. That report ought to be commended not only to hon. Members, but to anyone interested in the Prison Service. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be looking into its conclusions carefully and considering how to take them forward.
  From that document and from every other source, it is clear that the prison health service fails on three counts. It fails to provide proper health care for prisoners and an adequate career path for staff, and it also fails to meet the needs of society.
  The two major problems that we have to deal with in our prisons are addictive behaviour and mental health. If a prisoner goes into prison addicted to drugs and comes out addicted or goes in with mental health problems that are not dealt with in prison, that prisoner is much more likely to reoffend, and we must bear that in mind.
  Instead, we should be creating a system that ensures that those problems do not occur, as far as possible, and are tackled in prison. We must also ensure that staff working in the system—we have to admit that they are working in difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions—are adequately trained and properly managed. While the dedication of many of those staff is not at issue, the real problem with the prison health service is that it lacks proper central direction and is not clear about its aims and objectives.
  In some areas, we have no idea what is happening. In a written answer, the Minister said:
  "The aims and objectives of the prison health care service are set out in centrally published Health Care Standards".
  That is right and commendable, but the answer goes on to say that, while many institutions observe those standards,
  "statistics are not available centrally about the proportion that do this."—[Official Report, 20 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 518.]
  Responsibility for health care in prisons is left to the governor, who is not obliged to follow any particular model of care. No patients charter is applicable in prison
  1512
  to ensure minimum standards. I do not seek to apportion blame for the situation. To be honest, the system has persisted regardless of which party has been in power.
  The Prison Service and the national health service have established a joint working group to consider the way forward in prison health care, but it is amazing that we cannot even say which establishments follow the central aims of the Prison Service in that regard.
  Another cause for concern is the lack of suitably qualified staff in our prisons. I learned from a written answer in November that there were 14 prison establishments with vacancies for either full-time or part-time medical officers. That is bad enough in itself, but the situation regarding the qualifications of staff in our prisons and the training that they are offered is even worse.
  As anyone who has ever visited a health care centre in a prison knows, the staff work with very difficult patients who are demanding and can be violent, so it is essential that they have adequate training and are properly managed, yet medical officers get only a two-week induction course in prison health care, and many prisons still do not have health care managers as recommended in the chief inspector's report.
  Data are not collected centrally, but the Minister told me in a written answer that
  "data from 122 establishments indicate that…34 per cent. of health care managers"—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 653.]
  are registered nurses. We do not know how many nurses or other health care staff are undertaking national vocational qualifications or other courses in health care management. I fail to see how the prison health service can function properly with a lack of NHS-trained managers. The fact that we do not even have adequate data is extremely worrying.
  The lack of qualified staff to deal with mental health care and addiction is apparent. Because mental health problems are so widespread, it is important to have staff who can cope with them; yet of 197 doctors employed in the Prison Service, only 21 are members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists or hold a diploma in psychiatric medicine.
  The training of other staff in dealing with mentally disordered offenders is very patchy, and only 21 per cent. of all health care officers and nursing grades employed in prisons are registered mental nurses. Under those conditions, the service cannot be expected to cope with the number of prisoners with mental health problems.
  There are further grounds for concern about how we deal with mentally disordered offenders. The Mental Health Act 1983 does not apply in prisons, so the code of practice on seclusion does not apply either. The guidelines are issued for guidance to prison doctors, but they are not bound by them. I suggest that that is yet another example of the standards of health care that we expect outside prisons not applying within them.
  There is also a real problem with the transfer of prisoners to psychiatric institutions. It is true that, once the warrant is issued, those transfers take place very quickly. However, I have talked to prison staff who have made it clear that it sometimes takes a long time to reach that stage. It is often difficult to get doctors to assess prisoners and find proper placements for them. At one time,

  1513
  the Prison Service estimated that 2,000 prisoners should be transferred to NHS psychiatric care, but could find places for only about 700. The situation was so bad that the chief inspector recommended the establishment of new units for day care centres and 24-hour nursing. However, there has been little progress towards those objectives.
  We all recognise that there is a widespread problem with drug abuse in our prisons, yet only 25 per cent. of doctors who work in prisons are trained to deal with addictive behaviour. While I welcome the research carried out in our prisons into drug treatment programmes and the assessments of the impact of mandatory drug testing on the patterns of drug abuse, much remains to be done. Risley in my constituency is in the process of establishing a drugs treatment centre. The officers involved in that project are very enthusiastic about it. They recognise that, while prisoners are rightly punished for drug use in prison, we are not tackling the real problem unless we do something to break the cycle of drug dependency.
  Unfortunately, initiatives such as that are few and far between. The same is true in other areas of prison life. For instance, it is clear from the chief inspector's report that care for young offenders is very patchy. There are also serious problems with the care of pregnant women in prison. The Royal College of Midwives' guidelines for prisoners, on pregnancy and childbirth, have yet to be implemented in many establishments.
  A further concern is general health promotion and health education in prisons. Some basic awareness training in the area of HIV and AIDS is provided—usually in the first weeks of imprisonment—but much more must be done to educate prisoners about healthy life style choices, treatment and how to prevent ill health. I was heartened to meet recently some nurses from Winchester and to hear what they are doing. They are working in a wing of the prison rather than in a health care centre, so that they are available for appointments with prisoners and can answer questions about any aspect of health care.
  Such initiatives point the way forward. However, the real problem with the current system is that it depends on individual staff and governors to take action. We need consistency and co-operation throughout the service, so that standards can be improved and best practice can spread. That is what we are trying to achieve in the national health service, and we should try to achieve it in prisons as well.
  I accept that the problems facing the prison health service cannot be put right overnight. However, we must face the fact that health care for prisoners is below the standard of that received by the ordinary population, in terms of both quality of care and access to services. The question is how we should move forward. We must recognise that recruiting more qualified staff is the key to progress. As things stand, there is little incentive for doctors or nurses to work in prisons. There is no real career path, and there are fewer promotion prospects than there are outside.
  We also have to be honest and say that prison staff face real ethical dilemmas concerning privacy, confidentiality and the exercise of their clinical judgment; and whether they might appear in conflict with the prison authority.
  There is no continuity of planning between the NHS and the Prison Service, and there are no common standards for health care. That is why it is vital in the long
  1514
  term that the prison health service is integrated into the NHS. Such a move would have major benefits for the quality of patient care and for the training and professional development of staff.
  I also recognise that that is not so easy to achieve. Major resource implications should be recognised. The prison population is a significantly higher user of the health service than people of the equivalent age and sex elsewhere. In addition, as I hope I have pointed out, prisoners have hidden health care needs that are not being met and which will increase costs.
  It is clear, too, that other issues will have to be tackled, such as the lines of managerial accountability and the relationship between primary and specialist care, which is probably needed more in prisons than outside.
  In that situation, it is not easy to move forward, but I hope that the Government will accept that doing nothing is not an option. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, she will consider some of the ways in which we could progress. If we cannot arrive at the point that we would wish immediately, I hope that the Government will at least consider some pilot projects from which we could learn, and move on from there.
  There are many possibilities. For example, prisons could be linked with local trusts. We could consider linking prisons with psychiatric care outside, perhaps a regional secure unit. Such a system might provide easier transfers and better opportunities for research and staff development.
  But whatever we do, we must ensure that qualified staff are attracted into our prisons and that we tackle the major health care problems. There are opportunities as well as problems. For example, there are opportunities to consider multi-disciplinary health care within our prisons, involving nurses much more in health care.
  If we do not do something, the service will continue to fail to meet the needs of those in prison and of society. I hope that, in the end, we shall be able to tackle the problem. It is not an easy one and it is not a popular cause, but it must be tackled urgently. I hope that my hon. Friend will suggest some ways in which we might go forward and tell us her thinking on these issues.
  10.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on her good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on her choice of subject. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House on the subject of the prison health care service and how the Government see its future.
  My hon. Friend has taken an active interest in the matter during the past year, particularly through her various written questions on the subject, which I welcome. It is an important subject, in which many hon. Members have a keen interest.
  The Prison Service, in its statement of purpose, has the duty of imprisoning those sent to prison by the courts, and also owes a duty of care to the people in its custody. It must also prepare them for release.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend recognised that the provision of health care is an important dimension of that duty. However, I do not want the House to be under any illusions about the difficulties involved in that task, or the challenges that it presents to staff.

  1515
  Perhaps I could give some statistics as a background. In the last financial year, 1996–97, about 200,000 prisoners passed through the prison system. The average daily population rose from 53,740 at the end of March 1996 to 59,161 at the end of March 1997. The most recent figure is slightly over 65,000. During that period, the prison health care service handled more than 2 million health-related consultations with inmates. Around 190,000 of these were with visiting NHS consultants providing treatment and care in a variety of specialisms: psychiatry, dentistry, optometry, radiography, and so on.
  On 37,000 occasions, prisoners were sent to NHS hospitals as out-patients or in-patients. That represents a good deal of work. Prisons are closed and secure institutions, and, as my hon. Friend recognised, many of the things that are simple and straightforward in the community take on a more complicated character in prison.
  My hon. Friend also recognised that, as a group, prisoners are not typical of the general population. That is perhaps obvious, but it is particularly true in health terms. The prison population is predominantly young and male, with a higher incidence of mental disorder and a higher propensity to suicide. They are more likely to smoke—80 per cent. of prisoners do—and to have a drug-taking habit.
  By contrast, the equivalent male age group in the community at large tends to make comparatively few demands on health services. All these factors, coupled with the facts and necessary consequences of custody—security, control of medication, particular care for the vulnerable, depressed or suicidal and mentally disordered—make providing health care in prisons a challenge both to health care professionals and to uniformed staff.
  An Institute of Psychiatry survey showed that around 38 per cent. of sentenced prisoners suffer some form of mental disorder, although it is important to recognise that, within that figure, we also include those who have some degree of substance misuse or addiction.
  A similar survey completed in 1993–94 found that the incidence of mental disorder in the remand population was much higher, at around 66 per cent. In terms of the current population, that translates to around 20,000 sentenced prisoners and 8,300 remand prisoners having some kind of mental disorder: psychosis, neurosis, personality disorder, substance misuse or addiction.
  I am glad that random mandatory drug testing appears to be having an impact on drug misuse. The figures available for this year show that 21 per cent. of tests are proving positive—against 24 per cent. last year. The great majority of positive results are for cannabis, but 4 per cent. prove positive for opiates. The fact remains that some prisoners continue to take part in risky behaviour—taking drugs and sharing needles.
  We are in the relatively fortunate position that the human immune deficiency virus is not prevalent in our prisons, but we know from experience in other countries that prisons could readily become reservoirs of communicable diseases—HIV, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis and others. Therefore, we cannot afford to be complacent. Unless care and precautions are taken,
  1516
  there is potential for a serious threat to prisoners' health, the health of their families, prison staff and, ultimately, the wider community.
  Improving the effectiveness of the health care that prisoners receive makes obvious sense: a large number of prisoners spend relatively short periods in custody, during which time effective health care and the prevention of disease can make a positive impact when they return to their home community.
  I should underline that good work is being done in response to those challenges. In my visits to various prisons, I have seen the commitment and dedication of prison staff and those who provide health care in prisons. Indeed, they have managed well against the pressures of a rising population, which makes special demands. None the less, many tasks are being taken forward, and there are plans for the future. I hope that I shall be able to refer to these briefly.
  The Prison Service is pressing forward with work to develop prisons as places where the promotion of health measures as well as treatment of health problems can take place so that we can encourage prisoners to adopt healthier life styles. An internal awards scheme, which was run for the first time last year, has shown early positive results, with 20 prisons receiving some form of commendation.
  A range of pilot drug treatment and counselling programmes has begun. About £6 million was spent in centrally funded projects in the current year, and about as much again was spent by prisons from local budgets. My hon. Friend referred to that work, and the Government want to increase the number of voluntary testing units, at which people in our prisons can live and be supported in a drug-free environment. About 4,000 places are currently available, and the Under-Secretary and I have visited operational schemes.
  Plans are in hand to increase the number of therapeutic community places, similar to those available at Grendon prison, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I visited recently. A range of research suggests that Grendon-type therapy courses have beneficial effects in terms of psychological change and reoffending behaviour.
  The number of prisoners transferred to NHS hospitals for in-patient treatment for mental disorder has increased significantly in the 1990s. It is difficult to cope with demand; there has been a fivefold increase in transfers since 1986. The NHS is playing its part in expanding facilities—a growing number of services in prison are provided by NHS specialists.
  A range of training is in place or being developed to improve the skills and knowledge of health care staff and prison doctors. I agree with my hon. Friend that the central collection of statistics could be strengthened to make the position clearer, and the Government are keen to address the patchiness and variability of provision.
  Training in dealing with communicable diseases is being stepped up, and prisons are required to have multidisciplinary teams to manage HIV and AIDS treatment. Their training is being extended to other communicable diseases. I have visited good induction schemes for prisoners in which HIV and AIDS awareness plays an important part. The schemes are imaginatively delivered in some prisons via video programmes, which effectively communicate the message to prisoners.

  1517
  Historically, health care in prison has been the responsibility of the Prison Service, and has been organised outside the NHS. Ultimately, accountability rests with the Home Secretary, alongside that for prisons and the management of prisoners. In practice, as statistics show, the NHS has been drawn into providing some health care, particularly of a specialist nature. Indeed, the pattern of provision is quite varied. The majority of primary care is provided by directly employed staff, but, increasingly, NHS or private sector health care providers play a complementary role.
  The pattern of organisation and provision reflects in part an attempt by prisons to meet local needs, but is also in large measure the result of history, and inadequately co-ordinated development. There are good examples, which might serve as models that could be applied more generally, but also rather poor ones.
  My hon. Friend referred to the thematic review undertaken by the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, who highlighted his anxieties about prison health care in the report, "Patient or Prisoner?" He recommended that responsibility and, ultimately, the budget for the delivery of prisoner health care should move to the NHS. We have not yet reached a view about
  1518
  whether that is the right way forward—it would raise a range of organisation, management and resource issues for the Prison Service and the NHS—but the working group to which my hon. Friend referred, involving the Home Office, the Prison Service and the Department of Health, is important in that respect. I have received an interim briefing from it, and look forward to receiving its recommendations in the near future.
  The group's remit is to consider jointly the future organisation and delivery of health care to prisoners. The objectives are to secure improvements in meeting the health needs of prisoners, to tackle the problems and weaknesses in standards, and to deal with the isolation of health care staff. I agree with my hon. Friend that prison health care staff must feel part of a career structure, and must not be isolated from other health care providers and professionals. Prison health responsibility should be seen not as a career cul-de-sac, but as an important part of career development.
  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.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ashford Great Park
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate he has made of the current annual loss to the income stream resulting from the Ashford Great Park development project. [35147]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners, like any investment organisation, have a spread of investments. At any one time there are many alternatives available. It is

  £

  1995–96 (actual)

  1996–97 (actual)

  1997–98 (spend to date)

  1997–98 (estimate)

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  304,632

  448,931

  429,396

  460,000

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  506,000

  296,000

  225,000

  258,000

  Royal Parks Agency

  771,986

  819,551

  356,644

  581,000

  Non-departmental public bodies

  20,136,168

  33,970,571

  35,015,744

  n/a

  n/a = Not applicable

  Consultants contribute to the Department's output and efficiency by bringing in specialist skills and improving the Department's effectiveness.

  BBC
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) the public and (b) commercial broadcasters about the scale and cost of the BBC's promotion of (i) BBC channel services and its corporate image and (ii) the licence fee; and if he will make a statement. [34113]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from three members of the public and from the Commercial Radio Companies Association about the BBC's promotion of its public service programmes. He has received a number of representations from members of the public about the BBC's promotion of the licence fee, but our records do not provide an exact figure. No representations on this subject have been received from commercial broadcasters.

  The Government believe that the BBC should be allowed restricted use of free airtime to promote the licence fee and its public service programmes, provided such promotion meets the requirements of fair competition. The use of such airtime informs licence fee payers of the range and type of public services available, assisting them to get full value from the licence fee.
  668
  not realistic to put a hypothetical income stream on individual investments on the premise that they might have performed differently or different investments might have been preferred.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if he will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26626]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: My Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies use consultants for a wide variety of tasks. The available expenditure information is given in the following table:

  Elgin Marbles
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the retention of the Elgin Marbles in the United Kingdom; [34024]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the repatriation of antiquities from UK national museums and galleries to their country of origin; [34022]

  (3) if the Government will make it their policy not to allow the Elgin Marbles to leave the custody of the British Museum. [34023]

  Mr. Fisher
  It is for the Government's policy that the Parthenon sculptures should remain in the British Museum. More generally, the retention or disposal of objects in our national museums and galleries is a matter for the trustees of those institutions. However, the trustees can only dispose of objects within the scope of their statutory powers, and in many cases those powers limit trustees' discretion to the dispersal of articles which have become useless by reason of damage or are otherwise unsuitable for retention in the collection. The Government have no powers to intervene and no plans to change the law.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations the Government have received regarding the Elgin Marbles. [34025]

  Mr. Fisher
  I regularly receive representations about the Parthenon sculptures. Most of these are from individual members of the public either directly or via their Member of Parliament.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32714]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: No parliamentary question tabled to this Department since 1 May 1997 has taken more than eight weeks to answer.

TREASURY

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of GNP the construction industry represents in each OECD and EU country. [34243]

  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 Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 12 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the construction industry.The ONS only publishes data relating to the United Kingdom.Usually, construction is not measured as a percentage of Gross National Product (GNP), this is due to data being unavailable relating to net property income from abroad of the construction industry. The usual convention estimates construction as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).International data is published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). GDP by type of activity, including construction, is published in; National Accounts Detailed Tables Volume II 1997 edition. The most recent published data on an OECD basis for the UK relates to the year 1994. For example, in 1994 construction, at current prices, was measured at £31,035 million, this represented 4.67% of GDP.More recent estimates of UK construction and GDP are available from the United Kingdom National Account (Blue Book 1997). However, this set of data contains revisions to previous estimates and will not be fully consistent with the UK estimates published by OECD. In 1996 construction, at current prices, was measured at £33,746 million, representing 4.55% of GDP.Copies of both publications are available in the House of Commons library.

  Taxation (Qualified Majority Voting)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is Government policy not to concede taxation matters to qualified majority voting in the EU. [34171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: Decisions on tax are subject to Unanimity.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the estimated gross domestic product per head for(a) each United Kingdom nation, (b) each English region and (c) the UK, expressed in current prices, for (i) 1970, (ii)1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) the last two years for which figures are available. [34877]
  670
  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 Tom Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 19 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on gross domestic product (GDP) per head for the countries and regions of the United Kingdom.
  The available information is given in the attached table. With effect from April 1997, Government Office Regions (GORs) replaced Standard Statistical Regions (SSRs) as the primary classification for the presentation of statistics for the regions of England. GDP data are available from 1984 for GORs and from 1971 for SSRs. Data have been provided on both bases in the table.

  Gross domestic product: United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and regions of England

  £per head

  1971

  1979

  1989

  1995

  1996

  United Kingdom

  886

  3,052

  7,702

  10,376

  10,944

  United Kingdom less Continental Shelf

  886

  2,955

  7.585

  10,199

  10,711

  England

  905

  3,019

  7,755

  10,352

  10,897

  Wales

  767

  2,517

  6.582

  8,501

  8,899

  Scotland

  831

  2,802

  7,113

  10,224

  10,614

  Northern Ireland

  688

  2,334

  5,832

  8,423

  8,700

  Government Office Regions of England

  North East

  —

  —

  6,468

  8,683

  9,026

  North West (GOR) and Merseyside

  —

  —

  7,045

  9,277

  9,735

  North West (GOR)

  —

  —

  7,376

  9,737

  10,246

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  5,812

  7,513

  7,767

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  814

  2,749

  6,962

  9,300

  9,585

  East Midlands

  803

  2,842

  7,449

  9,791

  10,096

  West Midlands

  912

  2,844

  7,009

  9,567

  10,015

  Eastern

  —

  —

  8,412

  10,974

  11,655

  London

  1,091

  3,791

  9,440

  12,490

  13,210

  South East (GOR)

  —

  —

  8,437

  11,369

  12,263

  South West

  779

  2,693

  7,170

  9,792

  10,143

  Standard Statistical Regions of England

  North

  811

  2,694

  6,754

  8,995

  9,354

  North West (SSR)

  871

  2,847

  6,960

  9,172

  9,631

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  814

  2,749

  6,962

  9,300

  9,585

  East Midlands

  803

  2,842

  7,449

  9,791

  10,096

  West Midlands

  912

  2,844

  7,009

  9.567

  10,015

  East Anglia

  845

  2,786

  7,694

  10,258

  10,689

  South East (SSR)

  1,018

  3,425

  8,908

  11,821

  12,641

  Rest of South East

  961

  3,175

  8,568

  11,395

  12,277

  London

  1,091

  3,791

  9,440

  12,490

  13,210

  South West

  779

  2,693

  7.170

  9,792

  10,143

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to recast GDP to take account of environmental factors. [35318]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on GDP.

  671
  The ONS is maintaining an active programme of work on calculating a 'satellite' environmental account. Techniques of environmental valuation are used by officials to assist in informing policy making. There are no current plans to use environmental valuation techniques to recast GDP. GDP is calculated by an internationally agreed procedure set out in the System of National Accounts (SNA68), SNA93 from September 1998, and subsequently in the European Union's European System of National Accounts (ESA93), ESA95 from September 1998.
  For further information the ONS published "The pilot UK environmental accounts" in Economic Trends in August 1996 and an article "Environmental Accounts—valuing the depletion of oil and gas reserves" published in April 1996. Copies of Economic Trends are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Smuggling
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set Customs and Excise to assess their success rate in confiscating smuggled or bootlegged tobacco and alcohol; and if he will report their success in achieving these targets to Parliament annually. [34800]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For 1997–98 Customs planned to make detections of cross Channel smuggled excise goods worth £36.7 million in revenue. Results for the first 10 months (up to 31 January 1998) are £40.6 million.

  Customs publicise their achievements against plans in their Annual Report, copies of which are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Independent Financial Advisers
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to review the independence of independent financial advisers; and if he will make a statement. [35100]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. That is a matter for the regulators.

  Continence Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 743, concerning continence products, what factors led the VAT Tribunal in July 1996 to rule that such products should be zero rated. [34889]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: The factors which the Tribunal took into account were the precise terms of the individual contracts, and the arrangements under which the supplies actually took place. Based on that examination, the Tribunal decided that VAT relief applied in some cases, but not in others.

  Court of Auditors Report
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position was taken by Her Majesty's Government during the Council of Ministers' discussion of the Court of Auditors' report on 9 March; what conclusions were reached by the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [34821]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 319.
  672
  As representative of the UK, I additionally noted the unacceptably high level of errors reported in the Statement of Assurance, called on the Commission to work with Member States to improve performance, and welcomed the work already undertaken to improve financial control of the Structural Funds.

  Environmental Audit Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to respond to the Pre-Budget report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1997–98, HC 547. [35027]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]The Environmental Audit Committee's report on the implications of the Pre-Budget Report on environmental protection and sustainable development was published on 10 March. I expect to respond to the report within 2 months of that date.

  Budget (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of the environmental impact of his Budget. [35033]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The Financial Statement and Budget Report includes an environmental assessment of the Budget measures which will have a significant effect on the environment. The Government are committed, more generally, to ensuring that policy appraisal includes an assessment of the environmental impacts.

  VAT (Historic and Religious Buildings)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was his response to the request by the General Synod to lower the rate of VAT on repairs to historic and religious buildings. [35060]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The Chancellor has received no direct communication from the General Synod to lower the rate of VAT on repairs to historic and religious buildings, although he is aware that a resolution was passed by the Synod.

  A relief of the kind envisaged is not possible under European law.

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends that the Resource Accounts to be produced by Government will include an evaluation of the present value of United Kingdom state pension liabilities; and when he intends that these accounts will first be published. [34697]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 718–19.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his proposals for the design of the banknotes for the proposed European single currency. [34791]
  673
  Mrs. Liddell
  The EMI is responsible for supervising the technical preparations of euro banknotes, in accordance with Article 109f(3) of the Treaty. The initial designs for euro banknotes were unveiled at the European Council in Dublin in December 1996. Final decisions on the technical specifications of euro banknotes will be taken by the ECB once it is established.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of British businesses which account to six places of decimals; [35217]

  (2) if British companies dealing with European companies which are using the euro will be required to change their accounting systems to use the triangulation method and six places of decimals. [35220]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 309. Businesses accounting in euro do not need to follow the triangulation method, which only concerns the conversion from one national currency unit of a country participating in the single currency to the national currency unit of another such country. There is no requirement to account in euro to six significant figures.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what regulations there will be, after the exchange rates of the euro-participating currencies are locked in May, to prevent different prices, spreads or commissions in dealings in these currencies [35219]

  (2) what decisions (a) have been taken and (b) remain to be taken on the permitted or recommended spread or commission once the European currency rates of euro countries are locked in May. [35218]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Bilateral conversion rates between currencies of countries participating in the single currency will form the basis for the conversion rates between national currencies and the euro, in accordance with Article 1091(4) of the Treaty on 1 January 1999. These bilateral rates will be announced on 3 May 1998. There will be no regulations on spreads or commissions covering the period from 3 May 1998 to the start of stage three.

  Conversions from the euro unit to the national currency units of participating countries from 1 January 1999 and vice versa will be required to use the special conversion rate in accordance with council regulation (EC) No. 1103/97 of 17 June 1997.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government plan to legislate to abolish the ecu. [35216]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No. The ecu, as referred to in Article 109g of the EC Treaty and defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 3320/94 of 22 December 1994, will become the single currency on 1 January 1999, in accordance with Article 1091(4) of the EC Treaty, and will be called the euro. Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 which will be applicable in all member states, including the United Kingdom, provides confirmation that references to the Ecu in contracts and other legal instruments, including legislation, will be presumed to refer to the euro.
  674
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government plan an Act of Parliament to legalise(a) the euro as a foreign currency and (b) the compulsory conversion of other European currency contracts into euros. [35215]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is a rule of the conflict of laws, applied by courts in the various jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, that a foreign currency has the status accorded to it by the law governing that currency. Courts in the United Kingdom will therefore recognise the status that the euro will have under EC law, including Council Regulation 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 which confirms that references in contracts to national currencies replaced by the euro will be interpreted to refer to the euro. Domestic legislation will not be required in the United Kingdom.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the Government's borrowing programme in 1998–99. [35689]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have today published the 1998–99 Debt Management Report. This sets out the Government's debt management policy, reviews the Government's borrowing programme in 1997–98, and gives details of the Government's borrowing programme in 1998–99, including remits for the Debt Management Office and National Savings. This is the first remit for the UK Debt Management Office, which takes on responsibility for debt management from 1 April 1998, following the decision to transfer Government debt management responsibilities from the Bank of England to the Treasury. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 3 February on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Harradine; [35311]

  (2) when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 2 February on behalf of Ms Chetwood; [35326]

  (3) when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 2 February on behalf of Mr. Sandercock. [35319]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Interim replies have been sent today, and I will respond in more detail to the right hon. Member shortly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her policy towards the funding of police training in Indonesia. [35046]

  Clare Short
  We are not funding any such training, and have no intention to do so.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates she has made of the impact of sanctions on(a) child mortality and (b) child malnourishment in Iraq since 1990. [34958]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government are not in a position to make reliable estimates of the impact of sanctions on Iraq. However, we take seriously disturbing reports from international humanitarian organisations suggesting that the people of Iraq are suffering deprivation and hardship.

  The issue is complex, given the many influences that bear upon the well-being of the population, of which sanctions are one. Numerous attempts have been made, e.g., under the auspices of the UN, to estimate the impact of sanctions on Iraq, but the findings are open to differences of interpretation. In addition, there are practical difficulties. UK missions to Iraq attempt to monitor the situation, but are currently restricted to the north of the country. We do not have independent access to Baghdad-controlled Iraq.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received from British theme park owners on the Millennium Dome project. [29864]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have received representations from various organisations from the leisure industry, including theme park operators. The New Millennium Experience Company and I will continue to seek advice, as and when necessary, from a range of experts in this field.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he plans to provide the full details of the contents of the Millennium Experience. [31202]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On 24 February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presented an outline of the Dome's contents and details of seven zones. The New Millennium Experience Company will announce details of the remaining exhibits in due course.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what assessment he has made of the risk of terrorist attacks on the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. [33993]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company have had discussions with the relevant bodies and agencies to ensure that security measures taken during construction and operation minimise this risk.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many works of art he estimates will be exhibited in the Millennium Dome. [34787]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is currently considering its policy and strategy on displaying works of art within the Dome. It is therefore too early to say how many such works might be exhibited.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what(a) the BAA, (b) the Corporation of London,
  676
  (c) Tesco, (d) British Telecom, (e) BSkyB, (f) Manpower, (g) British Airways and (h) Camelot will receive in return for their sponsorship of the New Millennium Experience. [32231]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 59. Details of specific sponsorship arrangements between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and individual companies are subject to ongoing negotiations and contractual arrangements.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many bids he received for the staffing contract for the Millennium Experience; whether the contract was advertised in the Journal of the European Communities; and what the criteria were for a successful bid. [33835]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) have not placed any advertisements for the supply of operational staff at this stage.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the new games which will be included in the Millennium Experience, indicating in each case(a) the expenditure by the New Millennium Experience Company on their development, (b) the rights acquired by the Company, and (c) the individuals, organisations or companies with which the Company has been associated. [34860]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) have not taken any final decisions about the inclusion or otherwise of new games within the individual exhibits.

PRIME MINISTER

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his Department(a) has spent since 1 May and (b) is planning to spend on focus groups. [34969]

  The Prime Minister
  For the purpose of this answer, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 763–65.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Freemasons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he has taken to encourage disclosure by freemasons in the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [33790]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service, in conjunction with other interested parties, will
  677
  now be taking forward implementation of the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Attorney-General what initiatives have been taken to reduce delays within the Crown Prosecution Service. [33781]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government are determined to tackle delays across the criminal justice system and have in hand a range of measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill. The Crown Prosecution Service is fully involved with the development of these measures which will reduce delay.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, (Mr. Simpson) on 27 February 1998,Official Report, column 394, if he will review the convention that advice given by Law Officers is not disclosed outside Government. [33789]

  The Attorney-General
  The convention was considered during the preparation of the White Paper on Freedom of Information. The conclusion in the White Paper is that legal advice to Government from any source should not be covered by the proposed legislation. The Government believe that it is appropriate to continue to observe the convention.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Department for International Development concerning the provision of aid to Kosovo. [34857]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I understand that officials from the Department for International Development (DFID) will be meeting with representatives of those British charities which are already active in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia today. The meeting will enable DFID officials to assess the current situation in Kosovo and its people's needs. I am further informed that the Department for International Development is currently funding Oxfam's work in providing a centre for disabled children and health education for rural women in Kosovo.

  Ethical Investment
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice on ethical issues is available from his Department to individuals, organisations and companies considering trade or investment projects in(a) Algeria, (b) North Korea, (c) Burma, (d) Indonesia, (e) Libya, (f) Colombia, (g) Syria, (h) Iraq, (i) Saudi Arabia and (j) China. [35043]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department, together with the DTI, provides advice on all aspects of doing business overseas, including relevant export controls and any commitments made by HMG regarding the application of 678
  the controls to the particular country concerned. This Department is ready to offer advice on ethical issues, and regularly provides advice on the political situation in particular markets, to companies considering or involved in trade overseas. This Department works with DTI and DfID to encourage all British companies to set the highest ethical standards in their overseas activities.

  EU Accession
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the completion date of the accession negotiations relating to applicant countries for the EU; and if he will make a statement. [35098]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Luxembourg European Council established a framework which will allow Cyprus and the ten applicant countries of Central Europe to join the EU as soon as they are ready. We shall launch accession negotiations with six of these countries on 31 March. The speed of each applicant's progress will depend on its preparations for membership. So it would be misleading to set any deadlines for the completion of accession negotiations.

  China and Tibet
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the matters in respect of Tibet which he raised with the Chinese Ambassador at their last meeting; and if he will make a statement. [35314]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not discuss Tibet when he last met the Chinese Ambassador on 9 January. When he met Chinese leaders in Beijing on 19–20 January, he discussed the forthcoming EU Troika Ambassador's visit to Tibet, raised certain individual cases of concern and urged the Chinese authorities to enter into dialogue with the Tibetan people.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are in place to monitor Chinese adherence to treaties and agreements signed which have human rights considerations. [35315]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Amongst the United Nations human rights treaties, China has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and the Convention against Torture (CAT). States parties are required to submit periodic reports to the respective treaty monitoring bodies of the UN in respect of all of these. These monitoring bodies are responsible for examining states' adherence to their commitments under the treaties.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors he takes into account before deciding to what extent constructive engagement is likely to be bring about an improvement to the human rights situation in(a) China and (b) Tibet. [35316]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since the resumption of the EU-China dialogue in October 1997, China has taken some positive steps towards closer cooperation with the UN's human
  679
  rights mechanisms. In addition the EU and China have agreed a programme of assistance designed to improve China's human rights performance in concrete ways. We believe this approach is the best way to bring about real improvements in China, including Tibet.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since I May 1997. [35276]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO has responsibility for 7 Non Departmental Public Bodies: Marshall Aid Commemorative Committee (MACC), Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), Commonwealth Institute (CI), British Council (BC)', Britain Russia Centre (BRC)2, British Association for Central and Eastern Europe (BACEE)12, Great Britain China Centre—this has no public appointments.
  1The Secretary of State approves nominations rather than makes appointments to these bodies. He has the power only to veto a nomination.2These three bodies do not fall within the provisions of the OCPA guidance on appointments.

  Argentina
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any new exceptions to the arms embargo on Argentina. [35500]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have recently granted an exception to the embargo relating to the sale of spare parts for the Argentine icebreaker, the Almirante Irizar. This represents an exception but not a change to the embargo.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will continue to impose an arms embargo on Afghanistan in line with the EU' s Common Position of 17 December 1996. [35501]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain committed to the EU arms embargo against Afghanistan which the UK interprets as covering all goods and technology entered on Part III to schedule 1 to the Export of Goods Order 1994, as amended.

  Following consultation with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence for the export of mine clearance equipment for use by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance
  680
  to Afghanistan in its demining operations. The grant of this licence is for humanitarian purposes, and is consistent with the purpose of the embargo.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 19 January 1998, forwarded to him from the Home Office on 4 February, on behalf of Mr. Johnson. [35324]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 17 March.

  Partners in Europe
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors determined which contact points were listed in the Partners in Europe pamphlet, "Resources and Contacts". [32963]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department asked the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges to provide details of contact points for the organisations which can provide schools with information and advice; and funding for developing European partnerships and projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Persistent Young Offenders
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects to halve the time from arrest to sentencing for persistent young offenders; what monitoring of timings is undertaken; what representations he has received concerning the definition of persistent young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [34683]

  Mr. Michael
  Halving the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders is our top law and order priority, and we intend to achieve this objective as soon as possible. We have already encouraged all youth justice agencies to take action within the current statutory framework to tackle unnecessary delays, including establishing fast track arrangements for persistent young offenders.

  Ministers from all the relevant Departments joined my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to promote this initiative and it is clear that real efforts are being made at a local level to respond. In addition, the Crime and Disorder Bill, currently before Parliament, includes a range of important measures to streamline the system, improve case management and provide for statutory time limits.

  Since coming to office, the Government have carried out a survey of persistent young offenders dealt with by the youth justice system in 1996. That survey indicated that in 1996 the average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. The Government are committed to halving that figure to

  681
  71 days. To monitor progress towards that pledge, we are ensuring that systems are put in place to produce regular data on the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders. During this month, we are contacting youth justice agencies to find out what progress has been made locally to tackle delays and to establish fast tracking arrangements for persistent young offenders.

  In response to the consultation paper "Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System" we received 48 representations concerning the Government's proposed definition of persistent young offenders. Nine respondents welcomed the definition of persistent young offender. 25 respondents suggested that a range of different definitions of persistent young offender should be used, or that there should be no standard definition at all. Others commented more generally on the proposed definition. The definition is intended primarily for monitoring purposes, and is not intended to exclude others from being fast tracked. Local areas may use their discretion in deciding which additional cases to fast track, including spree offenders and others.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent the sale of tobacco to those aged under 16 years. [34620]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are keen to protect children from the dangers of smoking. A White Paper on tobacco control will be published later this year by the Department of Health, setting out a comprehensive strategy to tackle smoking, particularly among young people.

  It is illegal to sell tobacco to a person under the age of 16, whether or not he or she appears to be so. The Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 places the responsibility on the retailer to take steps to ensure that the individual is aged 16 or over before the sale is made. If in doubt, the retailer should ask for identification. Guidelines were issued to local authorities in 1992 on the application of the Act, including particular types of enforcement activity. Local authority enforcement of the Act is the responsibility of local trading standards officers.

  We are monitoring the effectiveness of the Act. In 1996 (the latest year for which figures are available) there were 140 prosecutions of individuals and companies, 119 of which resulted in findings of guilt.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern the placing of CCTV cameras on private property such that passage along a public footpath is monitored. [35317]

  Mr. Michael
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for the installation, alteration or replacement of closed circuit television (CCTV)682
  cameras on shops, flats, houses and other buildings, subject to specified limits on size and numbers. Planning applications are required for development proposals above the limits specified in the Order. Listed building consent may also be required for the installation of a CCTV camera on a listed building.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow those asylum applicants whose claims have remained undecided for 10 years or more to remain in the UK exceptionally. [35714]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Whilst each asylum claim is considered on its individual merits, it has been a long-standing practice (since the early 1990s) to consider the grant of exceptional leave, on account of the length of stay here, in those asylum cases where a decision had not been taken seven years after the application was made. There are criteria for considering such cases and the grant of exceptional leave is not an automatic outcome. We will publish the relevant guidance to caseworkers shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Rape
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law in relation to rape. [33788]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government keep the law on rape under review to ensure that it is effective in punishing and deterring crime and is fair to victims.

  A wide ranging inter-departmental review of the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system is currently being conducted. Amongst other things, this review is looking at ways to prevent unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining victims in rape and other serious sexual offence cases, curbs on cross-examining victims about their previous sexual history and the more widespread use of the power to hear similar fact trials together as well as other measures to assist vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including victims of rape. The review is nearing completion and we will be considering its recommendations very carefully.

  In addition, the Home Office has commissioned a research study to discover what factors influence whether or not a recorded rape leads to a conviction and whether such factors have changed since a similar study of 1985 cases. This arises from concern that despite a significant increase in the number of reported rapes, the proportion of convictions have declined. The final report of this study will be available later this year. The Government will consider whether changes to the law are required in the light of these research findings.

  Anti-drugs Campaigns
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 514, for what reasons it was never intended that the Teesside University Criminology Department's research on anti-drugs campaigns should be published. [35289]
  683
  Mr. George Howarth
  The research was commissioned to inform the development of local prevention activities of the then Newcastle Drug Prevention Team and other local agencies and the report includes the account of interviews which the research team carried out on a confidential basis. I shall, however, write to my hon. Friend with a summary of the report's recommendations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated on the extent to which anti-drug campaigns lead to(a) increased and (b) decreased levels of drug use. [35290]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Emerging evidence from work done by the Home Office Drug Prevention Initiative suggests that information can play an important part in drugs prevention when it is tailored to a specific local audience and linked with other ventures.

  The Department of Health contracted the Health Education Authority to carry out a national publicity campaign between 1995 and 1998 to raise awareness of the risks associated with drug misuse. This includes provision for evaluation which should be available towards the end of this year.

  Mrs. Beatrice Day
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision following the adjudicator's recommendation in the case of Mrs. Beatrice Day of 24 Garlick Rea, Brixham; and if he will make a statement. [34959]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A decision was made on 17 February 1998. I am now having it reviewed in the light of the hon. Member's representations and will write to him in due course when representations on this matter have been given full and proper consideration.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North in respect of his letter of 16 February regarding a constituent. [35134]

  Ms Quin
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 16 March 1998.

SCOTLAND

  National Year of Reading
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates that the first payments of £1,000 for the purchase of books under the National Year of Reading will be made to schools in Scotland. [32798]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The policy to which the right hon. Member refers relates to schools in England only. I have made separate arrangements reflecting the circumstances that exist in Scotland. On 8 March I announced that grants totalling £400,000 were being made available to education authorities as part of the Early Intervention Initiative. This
  684
  will enable the purchase of additional reading materials to help reading in primary schools and boost their supply of books in the approach to the National Year of Reading.

  Electoral Arrangements
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reports that he has received from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland arising from the third statutory review of electoral arrangements for local council areas; and when he expects to receive reports for the remaining areas. [34233]

  Mr. Macdonald
  To date the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has submitted reports on two council areas, namely Angus and East Lothian. We expect it to submit reports for all other authorities within the next few months.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of split-ticket voting in the election for a Scottish Parliament under the provisions of the Scotland Bill on the objectives of Government policy as set out in the White Paper, Scotland's Parliament (Cm 3658); [34582]

  (2) what measures he is taking to prevent or discourage split-ticket voting in the elections for the Scottish Parliament in 1999. [34583]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: It will be for the electorate to decide how they wish to use their votes in the elections to the Scottish Parliament and it would be pointless to speculate on whether voters may cast their votes for different parties. Ultimately, it is for the political parties to persuade voters to cast both their votes for the same party.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35125]

  Mr. Dewar
  The main events planned for April and May are a reception in Edinburgh Castle on 3 April for key overseas delegates attending the Royal College of Nursing International Research Conference in Edinburgh; a reception in Bute House on 7 April to mark the 10th Edinburgh International Science Festival; a reception in Stirling Castle on 16 April for delegates attending a Scottish Office and Department for Education and Employment conference on EU Language Learning; and a reception in Edinburgh Castle on 13 May for delegates attending the Annual Meeting of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. The total cost of these events is estimated at £7,000. It is not, however, possible to provide a comprehensive estimate of total expenditure on hospitality as some events will not be finalised until nearer the time.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase public access to Forestry Commission land; and if he will make a statement on the future of the moratorium on large-scale sales of Forestry Commission land. [35835]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We have made it clear that we are determined to increase public access to the countryside, including woodlands. As Britain's largest landholder, and as the country's largest single provider of outdoor recreation, the Forestry Commission has an important role to play in this; one of its key objectives is the development of opportunities for woodland recreation.

  We are still considering the Commission's future activities as part of its Comprehensive Spending Review. Nevertheless, we have agreed that in the coming year the Commission should offer to buy suitable areas of land where it can provide additional public access and recreation facilities, especially in the National Forest, the Community Forests and the Central Scotland Forest. In addition, we wish to ensure that as many of the Commission's woods as possible are open to the public, and so the Commission will also offer to buy out freeholds where the leases currently restrict access to its existing woods.

  The Forestry Commission, like any large landowner, needs to be able both to buy and to sell land in order to manage its estate efficiently and effectively, and to carry out its activities within its budgetary provision.

  For the coming year, therefore, while the moratorium on large scale sales of forest land will stay in place, the Commission will be able to sell a small amount of land which is surplus to its requirements. This will include agricultural land, unplantable land, and relatively small and isolated blocks of forest land which do not make a significant contribution to the Commission's objectives. Areas of forest land which are important for public access will not be sold unless an access agreement is in place. The Commission will also be prepared to sell areas for development where this is in the public interest.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the expenditure incurred by the former Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council after severe weather in early 1996, and for Moray Council as a result of flooding in July 1997; and if he will make a statement. [35836]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I am glad to announce that Dumfries and Galloway Council is eligible for a payment of £136,553 under the Bellwin Scheme. The Scheme was triggered twice in 1996, firstly for severe weather in late December 1995 and early January 1996 for the whole of Scotland, and again in February 1996 for heavy snowfalls in the Dumfries and Galloway region alone. The Council's costs were in clearing main roads of snow to keep key communications open and in decanting motorists to temporary shelter.

  I am also pleased to announce that we have decided that Moray Council is eligible for a payment of £623,206 under the Bellwin Scheme. The Scheme was triggered in July 1997 for severe flooding in the Moray area. For the most
  686
  part this payment will reimburse the council for the costs of providing alternative accommodation for evacuees made homeless by the flooding and for addressing the immediate effects of flood damage to roadways, footpaths and bridges.

  Both Councils' claims have been subject to detailed scrutiny.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce waiting lists in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [35529]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Tuesday 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 1112, that additional funds would be allocated to the National Health Service including £44.5 million in Scotland specifically aimed at tackling the problem of waiting lists.

  We shall be allocating £20 million of that money at the beginning of April to Health Boards in Scotland with a request that they should draw up comprehensive plans for tackling waiting lists. The initial priority will be to tackle the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment, but I shall also expect them to look at out-patient referrals.

  In order to push forward this work, I shall be appointing a Support Force under the Chairmanship of Mr. Tom Divers, General Manager, Lanarkshire Health Board and including as members Mr. Douglas Harper, Medical Director, Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust; Mrs. Lesley Summerhill, Director of Nursing, Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust; Dr. Erik Jespersen, General Practitioner, Oban; and Mr. Dermot McKeown, Consultant Anaesthetist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust. The Support Force will be asked to review the plans to be submitted by Health Boards, to pursue particular problem areas, to monitor the progress of Health Boards and Trusts towards reducing waiting lists and to identify and disseminate good practice in managing waiting lists wherever possible.

  Of the remaining resources, £4.5 million will be retained as moneys to be paid to Trusts which perform well and achieve their targets quickly and efficiently. The money would be available for purchases of equipment and other facilities in line with strategic requirements for the Trust.

  The remaining £20 million will be used to fund particular initiatives or resolve particular problems identified by the Support Force which require additional funding, and to influence more strategic change in service delivery to achieve long-term reductions in waiting lists.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Wood Recycling
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what programmes his Department has initiated since 1 May 1997 to explore the opportunities for wood recycling and to broaden the use of wood as a recyclable raw material. [33887]
  687
  Angela Eagle
  The Government are keen to see an increase in the amount of waste which is recycled, and are exploring measures to increase collection of recyclable materials and to stimulate and develop the market for recycled goods generally. The Construction Directorate of my Department invests around £4.4 million in a programme of research and innovation aimed at improving the environmental performance of the construction industry and the industry's contribution to sustainable development. One of the initiatives in this area is directed at increasing the usage of renewable materials (mainly timber) in construction. As part of the programme my Department has recently started to fund a project in collaboration with industry which aims to encourage the adoption of best practice in wood residue management by the UK timber industry.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assumptions the Government have made in their calculations concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases about the growth in air traffic during the next 20 years; and if it is Government policy that other industry sectors shall have to make disproportionate reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions to accommodate the projected increase in air traffic. [34129]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Air traffic is forecast to grow at around 5–6 per cent. per year between 1996 and 2015. The amount of fuel used is expected to increase by about 3–4 per cent.

  The Government are developing a balanced package of measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. They expect all sectors, including aviation, to play their part in meeting their climate change targets.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential for date-related problems with the Global Positioning Satellite(a) during 1999 and (b) at the turn of the century; how they are being resolved; and if he will make a statement. [34508]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a US military system, date-related problems with it are primarily a matter for the US Department of Defense. The US GPS Joint Program Office has issued advice about 1999 (known as the GPS End of Week (EOW) rollover issue) and Year 2000 date-related issues. The US maintains that there are no problems with the system but the timing mechanism within GPS satellites may cause a problem with some older generation GPS civil receivers. Although manufacturers are aware of the problems and have taken, or are taking, action to remedy them, users are recommended to check with the manufacturer of the equipment that they own or use.

  In the UK, as precautionary measures, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Marine Safety Agency (MSA—as from 1 April 1998 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency) are planning to issue advice to the aviation and maritime communities. The CAA is planning to publish an Airworthiness Notice specifically on
  688
  the 1999 EOW rollover issue and is considering the dissemination of further advice on the Year 2000 issue. The MSA is planning to publish a Marine Guidance Note on issues relating to the Year 2000 and this will include advice about both GPS date-related issues.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's evaluation of the Bristol scheme for allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes. [34248]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Transport Research Laboratory undertook a short video survey of the Bristol scheme for the then Department of Transport in 1996. This was of course early in the life of the project. The report of this survey was not published at the time, but I have now asked the Laboratory to make it available. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake a fully monitored experiment to assess the advantages of allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes. [34247]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  If a local traffic authority were to come forward with a proposal for such an experiment, my Department would be interested in assisting with the monitoring.

  Driving Hours
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what factors he will take into account when assessing the advantages of extending the use of tachographs to(a) drivers and (b) vehicles other than those already covered by regulations; [34334]

  (2) if he will assess the advantages of tightening the regulations to limit the number of hours per day that a professional courier may drive a vehicle. [34333]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall be considering the practical and legal implications of bringing some or all of the types of vehicle operation currently subject to the United Kingdom national rules on drivers' hours within the scope of the European Union rules. Such a change would require primary legislation and we would consult operators and their employees before making it. Any change would need to strike a reasonable balance between road safety and operational flexibility. Subject to the outcome of any consultation, it is unlikely that we would extend the requirement to fit tachographs to vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes.

  There is also the possibility that European Union proposals to extend limits on working time to the road transport sector will apply to vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes. The aim will be to ensure that workers are protected against adverse effects on their health and safety caused by working excessively long hours, inadequate rest or disruptive working patterns. We expect an initial proposal on working time in road transport from the European Commission later this year.
  689
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the size of the smallest vehicles that are presently required to use tachographs; [34331]

  (2) what regulations presently limit the number of hours per day that a professional courier may drive a vehicle, other than those covered by tachograph regulations. [34332]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The European Union regulations which require the fitting and use of tachographs apply to most vehicles used for the carriage of goods where the maximum permissible gross weight of the vehicle, including any trailer, exceeds 3.5 tonnes. Separate UK national legislation contained in Part VI of the Transport Act 1968, as amended, applies to those categories of goods vehicle which are exempt from the European Union regulations but it does not require the fitting of tachographs.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what penalties apply to employers who require employees to drive small vehicles for an unreasonably long period of time in a 24 hour period. [34335]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Part VI of the Transport Act 1968, as amended, details the infringements and penalties that can be incurred on conviction for a drivers' hours related offence. Where it can be proven that an employer caused or permitted an employee to break the drivers' hours rules, that employer is liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (level 4).

  Rural Railway Stations
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of rural railway stations that closed(a) nationally and (b) in Shropshire for each year between 1979 and 1997. [34270]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We do not have station closure statistics broken down into rural and non-rural categories. However, the table gives the total number of railway stations closed between 1979 and 1997.

  Year

  Stations closed (nationally)

  Stations closed (Shropshire)

  1979

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  1981

  6

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  16

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  1985

  7

  1

  1986

  7

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  1988

  2

  —

  1989

  9

  —

  1990

  2

  —

  1991

  3

  —

  1992

  3

  —

  1993

  2

  —

  1994

  3

  —

  1995

  5

  —

  1996

  1

  —

  1997

  1

  —

  Drax Power Station
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with the Environment Agency regarding emissions from the National Power Drax Power Station; and if he will make a statement. [34242]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has advised my officials that the flue gas desulphurisation ("FGD") equipment at Drax is currently out of action following the discovery of cracks in the FGD fans. As a consequence, National Power has applied to the Environment Agency for variation of its Integrated Pollution Control authorisation to increase the limit on the power station's sulphur dioxide emissions. The Agency is considering the application and has advised my officials that there will be a public consultation upon it, commencing with a public meeting on 19 March.

  Train Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what undertakings he has received from First Group concerning their future intentions for North Western train services in Lancashire. [34462]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the offer by First Group PLC to buy out the other shareholders of Great Western Holdings Ltd, the Franchising Director has secured a package of passenger benefits and investments which include, for the North Western Trains network: £1 million to be spent on additional passenger benefits, following consultation with the local Passenger Transport Executives, passengers' representatives and other interested bodies as to what the money should be spent on; CCTV cameras to be fitted to the 70 new trains North Western Trains are providing as part of their franchise commitments; and £100,000 to be spent on providing wheelchair access at core stations by the time that the new trains are introduced.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the contributions made by each of the train operating companies to British Transport Police in each of the last two years and their required level of contribution; and if he will make a statement. [34755]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The payments required from the train operating companies for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 to the British Railways Board for the provision of services by the British Transport Police are provided in the table. In 1996–97 the required payments were received. No arrears are expected for 1997–98.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  LTS Rail

  0.8

  0.8

  Connex South Eastern

  3.7

  3.8

  Connex South Central

  3.0

  3.0

  Thameslink

  1.3

  1.3

  South West Trains

  4.0

  4.1

  Great North Eastern Railway

  2.1

  2.2

  Virgin West Coast

  2.6

  2.6

  691

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Midland Mainline

  0.7

  0.7

  Great Western

  1.7

  1.7

  Virgin Cross Country

  2.2

  2.2

  Regional Railways North East

  4.2

  4.2

  Merseyrail Electrics

  1.9

  1.9

  Scotrail

  4.8

  4.9

  Central Trains

  4.0

  4.0

  South Wales and West Railway

  2.6

  2.6

  Cardiff Railway

  0.4

  0.4

  Gatwick Express

  0.3

  0.3

  Anglia Railways

  0.8

  0.8

  Thames Trains

  1.6

  1.6

  Chiltern Railway

  0.6

  0.6

  Silverlink Trains

  1.3

  1.4

  West Anglia and Great Northern

  2.3

  2.4

  Great Eastern

  1.5

  1.6

  North Western Trains

  3.5

  3.6

  Eurostar

  1.1

  1.2

  Red Star Parcels

  0.1

  0.1

  English Welsh and Scottish

  0.3

  0.3

  Heathrow Express

  0.0

  0.1

  Total

  53.4

  54.4

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will remove the presumption in favour of granting planning applications which is currently enjoyed by applicants to local planning authorities. [34760]

  Mr. Caborn
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, 'General Policy and Principles', explains that'Owners of land and property properly expect to be able to use or develop their land as they judge best unless the consequences for the environment or the community would be unacceptable.'

  The Planning system seeks to strike the right balance between the interests of those wishing to undertake development and the wider community through the 'plan led' system. Under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications must be decided in accordance with development plans produced by local authorities, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We have no proposals to change this presumption in favour of the development plan.

  Sustainable Development Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the work to date of his Department's Sustainable Development Unit. [34990]

  Angela Eagle
  The Sustainable Development Unit was set up within ETR in July 1997. It provides advice on sustainable development matters to all parts of DETR and to other Departments. It provides support for the network of Green Ministers and is the focal point for Government contact with the Environmental Audit Committee. It has taken the lead in the consultation, launched on 4 February, which will lead to a new sustainable development strategy; in producing, jointly with the Local Government Association and the Local Government Management Board, the guidance "Sustainable Local Communities for the 21st century", published on 14 January; in preparing Policy Guidance on Environmental Appraisal, to be 692
  published very shortly; in responding to the third annual report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development (published on 18 December) and the second annual report of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development published on 23 February; and in negotiating for the UK on the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

  Public Carriage Office
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria, with reference to advertising experience, are applied to the appointment of Public Carriage Office employees. [34947]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The appointment of Public Carriage Office staff is an administrative matter for the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to whom the Secretary of State's London taxi licensing function has been delegated.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what appeals process is available on decisions taken by the Public Carriage Office not to allow advertisements on licensed taxi vehicles. [34946]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Public Carriage Office will review any decisions when requested to do so by the advertiser or advertising agency concerned.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Public Carriage Office's policy on licensed taxi advertising in London; and if he will review this policy. [34945]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Public Carriage Office consider applications for advertisements against the criteria set out in their publication "Advertising On Licensed London Taxis. Consolidated Guidelines". I have no plans to review the matter.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the impact of wage levels in the bus industry in London on the provision of bus services; and if he will make a statement. [34948]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The provision of bus services in London is the responsibility of London Transport.

  Child Pedestrian Deaths
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the growth rate of traffic on child pedestrian death rates. [34040]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: The death rate for children aged 0–15 has gone down by 66 per cent. between 1981–1985 and 1996. Over the same period the volume of traffic on the road has increased by 38 per cent. Although children are now walking less, there appears to have been an overall reduction in the rate of child pedestrian accidents in that period.

  South West Water
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contributions have been or are being made by his Department towards(a) the water authority responsibilities of the Council of the Isles of Scilly and (b) the operation of South West Water. [34792]

  Angela Eagle
  The Water Industry Act 1991 provides for the Secretary of State to pay grant to water and sewerage undertakers, in certain limited circumstances, in respect of the provision of their services. In 1997–98 grants totalling £196,963 have been made to South West Water to help safeguard their water supplies and sewerage services and to help defray the expenses of providing first time water and sewerage services in rural areas. The Department does not make contributions to the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but does make available Supplementary Credit Approvals enabling them to finance capital expenditure on their water and sewerage functions. The Department has issued an Approval of £41,500 in the current financial year.

  Bus Routes (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of bus routes in Shropshire for each year since 1979. [34869]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not collect this information in the form requested.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Muffin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department plans to spend on focus groups. [34978]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not make a forward plan for focus groups. Focus groups are commissioned within the Department to research specific issues as the need arises.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the number of miles of hedgerow removed by farmers since the enactment of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. [34938]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. We are considering, in consultation with representatives of local government, what information should be collected centrally in relation to the operation of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

  A survey of hedgerow stock will be undertaken this year as part of the Countryside Survey 2000. This will provide a basis for analysing changes which have occurred since the last comparable survey, which covered the years 1990 to 1993.

  British Rail Land
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of rail projects that have been affected by the sale of British Rail land since 1 May. [35029]
  694
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: While a number of promoters of schemes have lobbied the Department in respect of planned rail projects using surplus land that British Rail has put up for sale, we are not aware of any case in which a firm proposal has been prevented solely by the sale of that land.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of capital receipts is anticipated in 1997–98 from the sale of land held by British Rail; what was the estimated level of receipts in respect of 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [35030]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: The level of capital receipts anticipated in 1997–98 from the sale of land held by British Rail is £75 million. The estimated budget at the beginning of the year was £78 million.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) Railtrack, (b) English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and (c) train operating companies in respect of his decision to continue to dispose of land held by British Rail. [35026]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: A number of representations have been received at both Ministerial and official level from Railtrack and from English, Welsh and Scottish Railways (EWS) in respect of the decision to continue to dispose of land held by British Rail. EWS have confirmed that they accept the principle that British Rail land and property should be offered on the open market, and Railtrack are working closely with British Rail to identify individual sites which may be relevant for their future development of the network.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to generate a level of income from sales of British Rail land commensurate with the plans established before May 1997. [35271]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Yes. The receipts from the disposal of BR Land are part of the expenditure programme of the previous administration, to which the Government are committed.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responses he has received to his discussion paper on the Single Regeneration Budget; what impact they will have on regeneration policy and possible changes to the structure of the Single Regeneration Budget; and if he will make a statement. [35091]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received around 150 comments on the discussion paper "Regeneration Programmes—the Way Forward" from public, private and voluntary groups. This paper was published following the launch of the Comprehensive Spending Review of Regeneration and the comments are being considered alongside the spending review to inform the future development of regeneration policy and programmes.

  North Wales Main Line
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on plans for improvement of the North Wales main line. [34317]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: Virgin Trains has completed a study into the viability of electrification of the Crewe-Chester route. The findings are currently being reviewed and Virgin will submit a report to the Franchising Director by the end of March. To provide better connections with fast ferries at Holyhead, Virgin's Summer 1998 timetable will include re-timed North Wales services.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Civil Aviation Authority is taking following reports on incidents involving electronic equipment interfering with flight equipment. [34751]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The Civil Aviation Authority requires all aircraft systems and equipment to have a high degree of immunity from interference. In the reported cases of possible interference from 'passenger carry on electronic devices' (PEDs) it has not been possible to reproduce or substantiate the reported effects. While these incidents are more of a nuisance than a hazard, they are taken seriously by CAA. The CAA has consequently issued specific information and instructions to aircraft operators regarding the use of mobile phones and PEDs in Aeronautical Information Circulars and a Notice to Air Operator Certificate Holders. However, it remains the responsibility of the aircraft operator to ensure that any equipment carried on or stowed in the aircraft cannot impair the airworthiness of the aircraft.

  In addition, the CAA has initiated research through the Defence Evaluation Research Agency's Electro Magnetic Compatibility Club. This research is comparing the levels and frequencies of the signals produced by PEDs with aircraft systems and the equipment interference immunity and susceptibility standards with the aim of establishing whether any coupling to aircraft systems could occur. While the research is not yet complete, the indications are that PEDs cannot interfere with flight safety and management systems but there may be a theoretical possibility of indirect coupling to VHF radio equipment.

  Coastguard Stations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 643–45, on coastguard stations, for what reasons watch levels at (i) Aberdeen and (ii) Stornoway coastguard stations have been persistently below assessed levels; and what measures he has put in place to address the problem. [34753]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The watch levels set out in "Focus for Change" are suggested and are not therefore prescriptive. Watch complements which fall below the suggested levels through staff vacancies and unplanned absences are allowed to prevail subject to operational risk assessment by local management. Risk assessment are kept under review and contingency arrangements are in place at
  696
  co-ordination centres should the need arise to increase watch levels. Both stations have been in the process of recruiting staff. At Aberdeen new Coastguard Watch Assistants (CWAs) are currently being trained; at Stornoway two serving CWAs have been selected for promotion to Watch Officer and the resultant CWA posts will be filled through local recruitment. These measures will address vacancy issues at these stations.

  Computer System (Swanwick)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the reports produced following internal audits of the Swanwick NERC computer system since the start of the project; [34733]

  (2) if he will place in the Library details of the outstanding 5 per cent. of bugs that cannot be rectified in the new en-route centre computer system at Swanwick. [34732]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: No. A number of internal audits of the NERC software systems have been undertaken by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) and by the prime contractors developing the Air Traffic Management systems. Those reports contain information that is commercially sensitive, and therefore it would not be appropriate to place copies in the Library.

  NATS are confident that there are no bugs within the NERC software systems that cannot be rectified. There is no question of NATS management bringing the new centre into operation until they have full confidence in the safety and integrity of the Air Traffic Management systems.

  Counterfeit Aircraft Parts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions UK-registered aircraft have been found to contain counterfeit parts in each of the last five years; and if he will list the airlines involved. [34752]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: None.

  Visual Information (Public Transport)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a requirement in law to provide visual information inside and outside buses, tubes and coaches to assist deaf people travelling; and for what reasons he is proposing a voluntary code. [34840]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: We will shortly be publishing the draft Disability Discrimination Act Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations which will require all new trains, including those used on the London Underground, to be fitted with internal and external visual information systems.

  We are still consulting on our proposals for Buses and Coaches but, subject to the views expressed in response to the consultation I propose that the draft regulations for

  697
  PSVs should require all new buses and coaches used on scheduled services to be fitted with internal and external visual information systems.

  Agencies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) location of, (b) maintenance costs of, (c) number of staff employed at and (d) salary bill for the

  Organisation

  Location

  Maintenance costs (£000)

  Number of staff employed

  Salary bill (£000)

  Driving Standards Agency

  Stanley House, 56 Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5GU

  89

  184

  3,782

  DVLA

  Longview Road, Swansea SA6 7JL

  1,945

  2,518

  38,500

  Highways Agency

  St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London SE 1 0TE

  86

  24

  1,089

  Coastguard Agency

  Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton S015 1EG

  98

  63

  2,177

  Marine Safety Agency

  Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton SO15 1EG

  Maintained by the Coastguard Agency

  148

  4,454

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1 Eastgate Office Centre, Bristol BS5 6XX

  10

  57

  1,498

  OPRAF

  Goldings House, 2 Hays Lane, London SE1 2HB

  19

  124

  4,294

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST

  152

  91

  2,996

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Berkeley House, Croydon Street, Bristol BS5 0DA

  223

  235

  5,248

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are(a) the number of staff employed by, (b) the salary bill for and (c) the administrative costs of each traffic area office in (i) London, (ii) the South East of England and (iii) Scotland. [34778]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: In the current financial year the average number of staff employed is 44 at the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area Office (which includes the London area) and 37 at the Scottish Traffic Area Office. From outturn figures available it is estimated that the salary bill and administrative costs of these offices this financial year will be as follows:

  £

  Area office

  Salary bill

  Administrative costs

  South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic

  730,100

  325,420

  Scottish Traffic

  662,000

  302,409

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the publication of the six working papers referred to in 698
  headquarters of (i) the Driving Standards Agency, (ii) the DVLA, (iii) the Highways Agency, (iv) the Coastguard Agency, (v) the Marine Safety Agency, (vi) the Vehicle Certification Agency, (vii) OPRAF, (viii) the Office of the Rail Regulator and (ix) the Vehicle Inspectorate. [34780]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The details for the respective headquarters are set out in the table. The figures relate to the 1996–97 financial year.

  the publication National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997, has been delayed; and when they will be published. [35304]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Publication of the six working papers has been delayed, the team responsible for their preparation having been redeployed temporarily to assist in the current review of transport policy, the outcome of which will be published in the White Paper.

  I understand that four of the six working papers will be available by the end of March, and that the remaining two will be available at end April at the latest.

  BSE
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has evaluated into the presence of the BSE prion in water samples. [33770]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is responsible for the regulation of waste disposal in England and Wales. Last year the Environment Agency published a number of quantitative assessments of the risks to public health from BSE via environmental pathways. This included the risk of the infective agent being ingested via drinking water. It was concluded that the risk to human health was very low, negligible compared to other risks in daily life. The reports, which were published on 25 June 1997 incorporated expert advice from the Government's independent advisory committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), were
  699
  commissioned by the Agency and undertaken by Det Norse Veritas (DNV), an independent specialist risk assessment consultancy.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to public funds to date of the Terminal 5 Inquiry. [35307]

  Mr. Caborn
  The estimated cost to date of the Terminal 5 Inquiry to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, including its agencies, is £8 million. It is estimated that the local authorities involved in the Inquiry have spent about £7 million so far.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to visit the headquarters of the Planning Inspectorate. [35308]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will be visiting the Planning Inspectorate on Wednesday 17 June 1998.

  Planning Gain
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards planning
  gain. [35306]

  Mr. Caborn
  The policy on planning gain is set out in DOE Circular 1/97. This states that, where appropriate, local planning authorities may seek to enter into planning obligations with a developer regarding the use of the land concerned or other land or buildings, provided all the policy tests are met.

  In accordance with the Modernising Planning initiative I announced in January, seminars will be held shortly with a number of stakeholders in the planning system to encourage debate on the current use of planning obligations.

  Planning (call-ins)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many call-ins he is currently considering. [35305]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are currently 31 call-ins under consideration following receipt of the Inspector's report in each case.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the names of the local authorities to be included in the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1998-99; and if he will make a statement. [35690]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today announcing the names of the twenty three authorities which will be able to proceed, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, with proposals to carry out 28 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in 1998/99. The programme will involve over 700
  85,000 dwellings in large scale voluntary transfers, generating capital receipts of over £482 million. Sixteen of the transfers will be supported by Estates Renewal Challenge Funding.

  This reflects the Government's commitment to a continuing programme of transfers as a means of generating private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing.

  The authorities who have successfully gained a place on the programme, together with the intended recipient RSL, are as follows:

  (a) disposals by Allerdale Borough Council of not more than 3,899 dwelling-houses to Derwent and Solway Housing Association and not more than 1,002 dwelling-houses on the Salterbeck estate to Impact Housing Association;

  (b) a disposal by Bath and North East Somerset Council of not more than 10,200 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (c) a disposal by Birmingham City Council of not more than 2,643 dwelling-houses on the Central Area estate to a registered social landlord;

  (d) a disposal by Bradford City Council of not more than 598 dwelling-houses on the Thorpe Edge estate to a registered social landlord;

  (e) a disposal by East Lindsey District Council of not more than 5,179 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (f) a disposal by London Borough of Greenwich of not more than 1,246 dwelling-houses on the Charlton Triangle estate to a registered social landlord;

  (g) disposals by London Borough of Hackney of not more than 1,157 dwelling-houses on the Morningside estate to Sanctuary Housing, not more than 661 dwelling-houses on the Haggerston estate to Metropolitan Housing Trust and Community Housing Association and not more than 1,000 dwelling-houses on the Upper Clapton estate to Clapton Community Consortium;

  (h) a disposal by London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham of not more than 703 dwelling-houses on the Old Oak estate to Family Housing Association;

  (i) a disposal by London Borough of Lambeth of not more than 681 dwellings on the Lansdowne Green estate to South London Family Housing Association;

  (j) disposals by Liverpool City Council of not more than 800 dwelling-houses on the Pinehurst estate to CDS Housing;

  (k) disposals by Manchester City Council of not more than 1,272 dwelling-houses on the Darnhill estate to Guiness Trust and not more than 6,900 dwelling-houses on the East
  Wythenshawe estate to Willow Part Trust;

  (l) a disposal by Rother District Council of not more than 3,180 dwelling-houses to Rother Homes, a subsidiary of South London Family Housing Association;

  (m) a disposal by St. Helens Borough Council of not more than 789 dwelling-houses on the Wargrave estate to Wargrave Community Housing Association;

  (n) a disposal by South Hams District Council of not more than 3,212 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (o) a disposal by South Somerset District Council of not more than 9,133 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (p) a disposal by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 904 dwelling-houses on the West Ashton estate to West Ashton Pioneer Homes;

  (q) a disposal by Tewkesbury Borough Council of not more than 3,105 dwelling-houses to Severn Vale Housing Society;

  (r) a disposal by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets of not more than 2,887 dwelling-houses on the Poplar estates to Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association;

  701
  and not more than 2,322 dwelling-houses on the Cityside estates to Cityside Housing and Regeneration Community Association;

  (s) a disposal by West Devon Borough Council of not more than 1,439 dwelling-houses to West Devon Homes;

  (t) a disposal by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 1,108 dwelling-houses of the Leasowe estate to Leasowe Community Homes, a subsidiary of Liver Housing Association;

  (u) a disposal by Wokingham Borough Council of not more than 3,101 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (v) a disposal by Worthing Borough Council of not more than 2,579 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord;

  (w) a disposal by Wrekin District Council of not more than 13,495 dwelling-houses to a registered social landlord.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for a replacement for City Challenge. [35310]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government will be considering in the light of the Regeneration Comprehensive Spending Review and the consultation on their paper 'Regeneration—the Way Forward', issued in November 1997, how to take forward the development of regeneration policy. In practice, the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Challenge Fund has already carried forward the principles of City Challenge. The results of the fourth round of the SRB Challenge Fund are expected to be announced shortly.

  Local Government Settlement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from local councils concerning the last local government settlement. [35309]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department received 406 written representations within the deadline for responses. 1, and other Ministers at the Department, also met delegations from 95 local authorities and one special interest group during the consultation period. We then met the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government.

HEALTH

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons are suffering from relapsing-remitting MS in each health authority area in England; and what number and percentage have been prescribed beta interferon for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [34460]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of people suffering from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis is not available. Information available is for in-patient treatment and is shown in the table and is based on finished consultant episodes, which represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants. It is possible that a patient has more than one episode.
  702
  Information on the number of people receiving treatment with beta-interferon is not available. 806 prescriptions for the medicine were dispensed by community pharmacists in England during 1996, the latest whole year for which data are available. This does not include prescriptions prescribed and also dispensed in hospitals.

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined; completed episodes by primary diagnosis (ICD-10 code "G35": Multiple Sclerosis) and DHA of treatment

  NHS hospitals in England, 1995/96

  DHA of treatment

  FCEs

  All Northumberland

  10

  A 16 Sunderland

  142

  A30 North Durham

  84

  A31 South Durham

  34

  A32 Tees

  226

  A33 Gateshead and South Tyneside

  32

  A34 North Cumbria

  155

  A35 Newcastle and North Tyneside

  443

  B11 East Riding

  264

  B16 Grimsby and Scunthorpe

  58

  B2I North Yorkshire

  195

  B31 Bradford

  130

  B51 West Yorkshire

  59

  B61 Leeds Health Authority

  232

  B7I Wakefield Health Care

  206

  COl North Derbyshire

  65

  CO2 South Derbyshire

  146

  CO3 Leicestershire

  134

  C08 Nottingham

  170

  C09 Barnsley

  183

  CIO Doncaster

  64

  C II Rotherham

  71

  C12 Sheffield

  460

  C14 North Nottinghamshire

  60

  CI5 Lincolnshire

  300

  DOI Cambridge

  244

  DOS North West Anglia

  53

  DI2 Suffolk

  113

  D13 East Norfolk

  111

  DI4 Bedfordshire

  35

  E05 NW Hertfordshire

  27

  E06 SW Hertfordshire

  22

  E07 Barnet

  30

  E09 Hillingdon

  19

  El8 East and North Hertfordshire

  175

  El9 Brent and Harrow

  51

  E20 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  142

  E21 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  63

  F31 North Essex

  170

  F32 South Essex

  35

  F33 Barking and Havering

  89

  F34 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  48

  F35 East London and The City

  86

  F36 New River

  106

  F37 Camden and Islington

  119

  G12 Bromley

  13

  G21 East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  113

  G22 East Kent

  84

  G23 West Kent

  163

  G24 Bexley and Greenwich

  64

  G26 South East London

  174

  H09 Croydon

  13

  H17 Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  214

  H19 Kingston and Richmond

  7

  H20 West Surrey

  290

  H2I East Surrey

  53

  H22 West Sussex

  297

  JI0 Dorset HA

  283

  J21 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  129

  J22 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  208

  703

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined; completed episodes by primary diagnosis (1CD-10 code "G35": Multiple Sclerosis) and DHA of treatment

  NHS hospitals in England, 1995/96

  DHA of treatment

  FCEs

  J25 North and Mid Hampshire

  40

  J30 Wiltshire

  57

  J41 Isle of Wight

  25

  K13 Berkshire

  195

  K24 Buckinghamshire

  254

  K33 Northamptonshire

  157

  K41 Oxfordshire

  364

  L10 Bristol and District

  270

  L21 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  375

  L35 Exeter and North Devon

  228

  L36 Plymouth and Torbay

  107

  L40 Gloucestershire

  146

  L51 Somerset

  59

  MO2 Herefordshire

  38

  M04 Worcester and District

  61

  M05 Shropshire

  77

  M07 North Staffordshire

  171

  M 17 Coventry

  127

  M 18 Dudley

  20

  M19 Sandwell

  8

  M20 Solihull

  9

  M21 Walsall

  15

  M22 Wolverhampton

  86

  M25 South Birmingham

  422

  M26 North Worcestershire

  12

  M27 South Staffordshire

  127

  M28 Warwickshire

  54

  M29 North Birmingham

  161

  N17 North Cheshire

  28

  N18 South Cheshire

  43

  N21 Liverpool

  215

  N31 St. Helens and Knowsley

  21

  N43 Sefton

  27

  N51 Wirral

  48

  P16 Stockport Health

  14

  P20 North West Lancashire

  243

  P21 East Lancashire

  39

  P22 South Lancashire

  16

  P23 Wigan and Bolton

  37

  P24 Bury and Rochdale

  22

  P25 West Pennine

  29

  P26 Manchester Health

  845

  P27 Salford and Trafford

  201

  P28 Morecambe Bay

  31

  Total

  13,290

  Note:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Sports Injuries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of persons injured in the last 12 months as a result of pursuing a hazardous sport; and what was the cost to the NHS. [34458]

  Ms Jowell
  Estimates from the leisure accident database, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, suggest that there were 801,499 sporting injuries in 1996. The estimate was based on a sample of 18 hospitals in the United Kingdom. However, it is not possible to distinguish those resulting from "hazardous" sports from others. No estimate has been made of the cost of sporting accidents to the NHS. Accidents, generally, cost the National Health Service around £1.2 billion per annum.

  Mental Health Act
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. [34625]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 676.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when representatives from the Police, HM Customs and Excise and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and Ministers from his Department last met to discuss the issue of tobacco imported from Belgium and illegally resold in the United Kingdom. [34702]

  Ms Jowell
  There have been no such meetings.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last discussed with his EU counterparts the issue of health warnings on cigarettes sold in other EU member states being printed in English as well as the other major European languages; and what plans he has to raise it at the next such meeting. [34698]

  Ms Jowell
  No discussion of this issue has taken place. There are no plans to raise it at the next meeting of European Union health ministers.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of NHS prescriptions issued are exempt from any charge to the patient; [34750]

  (2) what has been the income from prescription charges in each year since 1979; [34749]

  (3) what would have been the annual increase in prescription charges each year since 1979 if they had been increased in line with inflation; what the proposed increase for the current year on that basis would be; and what the proposed new charge would be. [34748]

  Mr. Milburn
  The annual income from prescription charges, and the charge if it had been increased in line with inflation in each year from 1979 is in the table. In 1996–97, 86 per cent. of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors' in England were free of charge.

  Financial year

  Total income from prescription charges (£ million)

  Prescription charge if increased in line with inflation2

  0.20

  1979–80

  38.646

  0.23

  1980–81

  70.753

  0.27

  1981–82

  86.620

  0.30

  1982–83

  102.792

  0.32

  1983–84

  110.044

  0.33

  1984–85

  120.748

  0.35

  1985–86

  127.756

  0.37

  1986–87

  147.884

  0.38

  1987–88

  157.540

  0.40

  1988–89

  176.928

  0.43

  1989–90

  189.342

  0.46

  1990–91

  205.892

  0.50

  1991–92

  215.215

  0.53

  705

  Financial year

  Total income from Prescription charge prescription charges (£ million)

  Prescription charge if increased in line with inflation2

  1992–93

  242.041

  0.55

  1993–94

  265.279

  0.57

  1994–95

  287.155

  0.58

  1995–96

  298.746

  0.60

  1996–97

  295.680

  0.62

  1997–98

  0.64

  1998–99

  0.66

  1 The analysis is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. Items dispensed by dispensing doctors and personal administration prescriptions are not included in the sample. (Dispensing doctor prescriptions are not analysed into exempt, non exempt, or other categories; personally administered items are free of charge). Items dispensed to holders of prepayment certificates are not counted as free in this calculation.

  2GDP deflators have been used.

  Medical Specialists
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995, to permit experienced and qualified doctors with Irish specialist qualifications to gain access to the Specialist Register. [34942]

  Mr. Milburn
  Extending the transitional provisions in Article 12 of the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 to doctors holding qualifications awarded in the Irish Republic would be difficult to justify as it would amount to discrimination against European Economic Area (EEA) nationals holding other EEA qualifications.

  The effect of extending the transitional provisions in the Order to include all EEA qualifications would be to allow a large number of doctors holding EEA qualifications which do not meet the requirements of the European Commission Medical Directive (93/16/EEC) to gain access to specialist practice in the United Kingdom. This would represent a significant inroad into the principles upon which the Order was drafted, and could potentially compromise the standard of clinical practice in the UK.

  General Practitioners (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of GPs in Shropshire for each year since 1979. [34868]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of unrestricted principals

  Shropshire

  1996

  239

  1995

  234

  1994

  218

  1993

  219

  1992

  222

  1991

  220

  1990

  216

  1989

  205

  1988

  203

  1987

  202

  1986

  195

  706

  Year

  Number of unrestricted principals

  1985

  185

  1984

  184

  1983

  185

  Salop

  1982

  178

  1981

  176

  1980

  173

  1979

  170

  Note:

  Pre 1983 data refer to Salop.

  Source:

  General Medical Services Statistics, Department of Health. October Census, I October 1979 to 1 October 1996.

  Netherton Park Assessment Centre
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the management of Netherton Park Assessment Centre in Northumberland. [35067]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. It is, in the first instance, a matter for Northumberland County Council to decide what action they propose to take in the light of complaints they have received about the management of the Centre. We will monitor the position carefully.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on revising guidance on the control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospitals. [35146]

  Ms Jowell
  Clinical guidelines on the management of patients affected by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, published in 1990 and commended by the Department to the National Health Service in 1994, have recently been revised by the professional working group that originally produced them. It is expected that the final version of the revised guidelines will be published in the Journal of Hospital Infection in the next few months. The Department will then consider whether they should subsequently be issued to the NHS as Department of Health guidance.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the first results from the pilot system of national surveillance from the 40 hospitals taking part on the control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; [35144]

  (2) when the reporting of (a) bloodstream infections and (b) wound infections of patients suffering from methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus was introduced; and whether he will make a statement. [35145]

  Ms Jowell
  The Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme (NINSS) is a new national surveillance system for hospital acquired infection. It is based at the Public Health Laboratory Service. NINSS will consist of a number of modules, each relating to a particular type of infection and/or group of patients.
  707
  Data from the hospitals are collected using a standard methodology and are collated and analysed by the Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Unit. Each hospital is given information about its own results together with anonymised aggregate data from the other participating hospitals. Individual results remain confidential to the particular hospital but once sufficient data have been accumulated to permit meaningful interpretation, the aggregated data will be published.

  Two modules—blood stream infection and wound infections following certain surgical procedures—have so far been developed. These were successfully piloted in 1996–97 by 16 hospitals for bloodstream infections and by 34 hospitals for surgical site infection. Initial data have been fed back to these hospitals. Over 100 hospitals have now taken part in these surveillance schemes.

  Data collected by NINSS include information about the causative organism of infection (where this has been isolated by the hospital's own laboratory) and its sensitivity or resistance to different types of antibiotics, including, in the case of staphylococcus aureus, sensitivity to methicillin.

  Neuroleptic Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for the latest year for which figures are available, how many NHS prescriptions have been made(a) to all people and (b) to people aged over 60 years for each of the following neuroleptic drugs (1) chloropromaine (largactil)

  NDPBs: Non judicial appointments

  a1

  b

  c

  d

  e2

  f

  g

  Executive

  Legal Aid Board

  15

  2

  —

  2

  1

  12

  —

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board (now inactive)

  5–9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Advisory

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  8

  1

  —

  —

  1

  4

  3

  County Court Rule Committee

  11

  3

  —

  —

  3

  8

  1

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  10

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  9

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  —

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  9

  1

  —

  —

  2

  7

  —

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  ACs on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  559

  14

  4

  19

  —

  506

  39

  ACs on Justices of the Peace in England (exc. the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  1,042

  4

  21

  102

  —

  899

  139

  Judicial Studies Board

  318

  1

  1

  1

  —

  12

  5

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  16

  —

  1

  —

  —

  11

  5

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  17

  3

  4

  —

  —

  14

  1

  Council on Tribunals

  22

  1

  —

  5

  —

  17

  4

  Law Commission

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Honorary Investment Advisory Committee

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Advisory Board on Family Law

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  412

  —

  Civil Justice Council

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Northern Ireland:

  ACs on JPs in Northern Ireland

  56

  2

  —

  —

  —

  54

  —

  AC on Juvenile Court Lay Panel

  11

  —

  —

  1

  1

  10

  2

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  ACs on GCITs

  16

  —

  —

  —

  6

  10

  6

  1Many of the NDPBs do not have a specific number of places. The figure given is the number normally looked for.

  2Not on contracts, generally interpreted as not re-appointed.

  3This does not include the members of the various committees of the Board, who are not appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

  4The appointment of one of whom is suspended until 30 October 1998.

  708
  (2) thioridazine (melleril), (3) haloperidol (seranace, haldol, dozic), (4) promazine (sparine), (5) flupenthixol (depixol, fluanxol), (6) olanzapine (zyprexa), (7) pericyazine (neulactil), (8) risperidone (risperdol), (9) sulpiride (dolmatil, sulpitil), (10) trifluoperazine (stelazine) and (11) clozapine (clozaril); and if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of prescribing each of them. [33902]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35273]

  Mr Hoon
  The following is a table showing the requested information.

  Law Commission
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the results of the quinquennial review of the Law Commission. [35693]

  Mr. Hoon
  A review was begun during the first part of 1997, and was completed, following the General Election, in July of that year. It concluded that a managed programme of law reform remained an essential part of a modern democracy's responsibilities and that the Law Commission remained a vital part of that process.

  In the course of the review the need for a number of changes of approach to the initiation and management of law reform projects was identified.

  An action plan based on the review's conclusions, agreed between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Commission and approved by the Lord Chancellor in December last, is now in large part complete. The action plan has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Chancellor's Department what decisions he has reached on the unimplemented Law Commission reports within the responsibility of his Department. [35694]

  Mr. Hoon
  As previously indicated, the Government intend to bring forward legislation on "Delegation by Individual Trustees" (Law Com No 220) and the first part of "Restitution for Mistake of Law: Ultra Vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments Law" (Corn No 227) when time permits. It will also bring forward legislation on "Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties" (Law Com No 242), again when time permits. The Government's Green Paper on mental incapacity includes proposals in "Mental Incapacity" (Law Com No 231); the consultation period ends on 31 March.

  The Government have decided not to implement "Transfer of Land—the Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants" (Law Corn No 127), but will ask the Law Commission to consider, in the context of its other priorities, how future developments in property law might affect the recommendations in this report. The Government have also decided not to implement the remaining part of "Overreaching: Beneficiaries in Occupation" (Law Com No 188), or "Land Mortgages" (Law Corn No 204), as these proposals have not been supported sufficiently widely. However, we will invite the Law Commission to reconsider their proposals in "Law Com No 204" after they have finished their current work on land registration.

  Decisions on other reports will, where possible, be reached by Easter and will be announced. All Law Commission reports, even though some remain unimplemented, play a valuable role in the clarification and development of the law. The Government are most grateful to the Law Commission for the extensive contribution it makes to producing a modern and effective legal framework for England and Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with its value, concluded by her Department and its agencies for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–2001 and (e) 2001–2002. [32012]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Information of these types of contracts is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The above information does not include contracts let by the Department's Executive Agencies, and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from Michael Osborne to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of The Insolvency Service Executive Agency to your question regarding information promotional, marketing and opinion survey contracts tabled on 26 February.
  I can advise you that The Insolvency Service has concluded no such contracts for the period 1997–2002.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply, in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), to your question about expenditure on information contracts.
  Expenditure on information contracts in the financial year 1997–98 has so far amounted to £51,980.00.
  This figure is made up of the following three contracts:
  B & B Press, to the value of £49,030, for the design and printing of information leaflets for Industrial Tribunal users;
  Unicorn Press, to the value of £1,605, for customer information leaflets eg, Introduction to the Industrial Tribunals; and
  Trafford Print, to the value of £1345, for the printing of Citizen Charter Statements for the Industrial Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and EAT Appeal leaflets.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:

  CONTRACTS FOR INFORMATION, PROMOTIONAL. MARKETING AND OPINION SURVEYS
  Margaret Beckett, President of the Board of Trade, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about contracts let by the Radiocommunications Agency for information, promotional, marketing and opinion surveys.
  2. The Agency has let two contracts. The first with MORI Ltd for a series of customer satisfaction surveys (01/1 1/94–30/03/98) valued at £151,400, and the second with Meeting Deadlines Ltd for a series of regional seminars and road shows (01/01/97–31/12/99) valued at £164,660.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contracts.

  711
  For 1997/98, the value of contracts of an information, promotional, marketing or opinion survey nature amounts to £323k to date. Major contributors to this total are:

  Central Office of Information; £107k

  Golley Slater £97k

  Zenith Media £21k

  Martin Hopkins £13k

  Research & Marketing £12k

  The remaining £73k is accounted for by small contracts with 27 different organisations.
  There is no firm forward commitment to such contracts by Companies House for the years 1998/99 et seq.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contracts.
  NWML currently has no plans to enter into any contract of this kind in the years in question.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mr. Eric Forth, dated March 1998:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on official business, I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade on information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contracts.
  The contracts concluded by the Patent Office for the years 1997/98 to 2001/01 are:

  i. a media relations contract with Peter Prowse Associates. This contract comes to an end in March 1998 and has in this financial year cost £65,000;

  ii. a contract with Advance Multimedia Ltd for support of our marketing operations. This contract comes to an end in May 1998 and has in this financial year cost £95,000;

  iii. a contract with Nimtech Ltd for the organisation of workshops and seminars on intellectual property rights. This contract comes to an end in May 1998 and has in this financial year cost £70,000;

  iv. a contract with Mid Wales Litho Ltd for the printing and supply of promotional literature. This contract, which runs until April 2000, has cost £150,000 in this financial year and is expected to cost £175,000 in the years 1998–1999–2000.

  The media relations contract is currently being retendered. The contracts with Nimtech Ltd and Advance Multimedia Ltd are to be retendered as a single contract later in the year.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the number and percentage of civil servants in her Department, at each grade including and above higher executive officer who(a) attended university and (b) attended either Oxford or Cambridge University. [33074]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: I have asked Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to reply to my hon. Friend separately.

  For the headquarters area of the Department, excluding Agencies and the Government Offices, accurate data are not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  712
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  From the information retained on staff in the radio-communications Agency, the estimated number and percentage who attended university is as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  HEO

  9

  21

  HTTO/HPTO

  34

  48

  SEO

  2

  12

  STTO/SPTO

  18

  48

  Grade 7 and equivalent

  13

  42

  Grade 6 and equivalent

  4

  80

  Senior Civil Service

  5

  71

  Of the above staff, one Grade 7 equivalent and one Senior Civil Servant attended Cambridge University and one Senior Civil Servant attended Oxford University.
  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the number of civil servants who attended university.
  Companies House personnel records show that 52 staff, at all levels, attended university, of which one attended Cambridge. This is approximately 5% of total staff numbers.
  Records are not maintained by grades and to identify those in former grades HEO and above could only be undertaken at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The number of ETS Civil Servants at each DTI Band at HEO equivalent or above who (a) attended university and (b) attended Oxford or Cambridge is shown below:

  Band B HEO Level: 2(6.3%) out of 32

  Band C SEO+G7: 7(50%) out of 14

  SCS: 1(100%) out of 1

  Band B and C: Nil out of 36

  SCS: 1(100%) out of 1.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff at each grade at and above Higher Executive Officer in The Insolvency Service who have (a) attended university, and (b) attended either Oxford or Cambridge University.
  I regret that the information held by The Service on its staff is not maintained in a form which would provide the details you have asked for except at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about the number of Patent Office staff at HEO (B3) level and above who attended university and attended either Oxford or Cambridge University. The information relates to grades that fall within the Office's grading structure (B3-D1) and excludes staff in the Senior Civil Service and its analogues.

  713
  Staff who attended university:

  B3: 12 (21%)

  C1: 24 (56%)

  C2: 124 (94%)

  D1: 2 (67%)

  Staff gaining degrees at Oxford or Cambridge University:

  B3: 1 (2%)

  C1: 2 (5%)

  C2: 10 (8%).

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the numbers of civil servants at each grade including and above higher executive officer who have attended university.
  The information is not easily available in the form requested and could only be retrieved at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the number of civil servants in her Department, at each grade, who received their schooling in the independent school sector. [33075]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: I have asked the Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to reply to my hon. Friend separately.

  For the headquarters area of the Department, excluding Agencies and the Government Offices, the information requested is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  From the information retained on staff in the Radio-communications Agency, it is not possible to identify how many received their schooling in the independent school sector.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the number of civil servants who received schooling in the independent school sector.
  No information on schooling is maintained on Companies House personnel database and to derive this information otherwise could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question of 4 March 1998 to the President of the Board of Trade concerning Civil Servants who were educated in the Independent School sector.
  ETS could obtain this information only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff in the Insolvency Service who received their schooling in the independent school sector.
  I regret that the information held by the Service on its staff is not maintained in a form which would provide the details you have asked for except at disproportionate cost.
  714
  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about the number of Patent Office staff that received their schooling in the independent school sector. I am sorry to inform you that the information is not readily available.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the numbers of civil servants who received schooling in the independent school sector.
  The information is not easily available in the form requested and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate for each of the last five years, the number and percentage of new civil servants in her Department who attended Oxford or Cambridge University, broken down into the number of entrants joining the Department from(a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, (b) the fast stream and (c) the private sector. [33076]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The table shows the estimated number of new civil servants in DTI headquarters who attended Oxford or Cambridge university through regular or fast stream entry procedures. Statistics on those with previous private sector experience are not readily available (there would be a disproportionate cost in producing the information).

  of which

  Stream

  Number of new civil servants

  Number and percentage attending Oxford/Cambridge

  non fast stream

  fast

  1993

  91

  11 (12%)

  4

  7

  1994

  54

  7 (13%)

  0

  7

  1995

  65

  10 (15%)

  1

  9

  1996

  56

  10 (18%)

  1

  9

  1997

  34

  9 (26%)

  1

  8

  Total

  300

  47 (16%)

  7

  40

  I have asked the Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies to reply to my hon. Friend separately.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  From the information retained on staff in the Radiocommunications Agency, there are no staff who fall into these categories.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the number of new civil servants who attended Oxford or Cambridge University joining the Department from a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, b) the fast stream or c) the private sector.
  In response, over the last five years only one person having attended Cambridge University has joined Companies House. The individual concerned was from the private sector.
  715
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about estimating the number and percentage of new staff in The Insolvency Service who attended Oxford or Cambridge University and joined The Service from (a) the regular Civil Service entrance procedure, (b) the fast stream and (c) the private sector.
  I regret that the information held by The Service on its staff is not maintained in a form which would provide the details you have asked for except at disproportionate cost. I should explain, however, that all new entrants to The Service are recruited on merit in fair and open competition in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. The Service does not directly recruit staff for the fast stream.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  In the absence of the Comptroller General on official business,
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the recent recruitment of graduates from Oxford and Cambridge Universities. You asked for an estimate over the last five years of the number and percentage of new civil servants who attended Oxford or Cambridge University broken down into the number of entrants joining the Patent Office from a) the regular civil service entrance procedure, b) the fast stream and c) the private sector.
  Over the past five years we have recruited from Oxford or Cambridge the following numbers:

  1996: 3(14%)

  1997: 2(4%)

  All were recruited through regular civil service procedures.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about an estimate for each of the last five years, of the number and percentage of new civil servants in the Agency who attended Oxford or Cambridge University.
  The information is not easily available in the form requested and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Martin Wilson to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated March 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply, in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), to your question about new civil servants who obtained degrees from Oxford or Cambridge.
  ETS was established as an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry on I April 1997. Since that date we recruited 63 staff to permanent posts in administrative grades in the Agency. All staff were recruited in line with Office of Public Service principles of openness, fairness and on the basis of merit. None was recruited to a post requiring a university degree. We are not aware of any new recruits who attended Oxford or Cambridge Universities. There would be a disproportionate cost in researching this information in full.
  Previous to our establishment as an Agency, recruitment was under the authority of the Department and we do not have separate records for that period.

  Compact Discs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the retail price of compact discs. [34492]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department has received 7 complaints about the retail price of compact discs since 1 May 1997.
  716
  These have been forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading who is responsible for considering allegations of abuse of monopoly position, anti-competitive behaviour and restrictive trade practices. The Director General can act if he considers that a particular price is the result of anti-competitive practices.

  Cars
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action she intends to take to remove trade barriers which prevent United Kingdom car buyers purchasing right-hand drive cars elsewhere in the European Union. [34771]

  (2) what action she is taking to require car manufacturers to make available new right-hand drive cars to United Kingdom citizens elsewhere in the European Union; [34772]

  (3)if she will use the UK's presidency of the European Union to ensure that new car buyers from the UK are given the right to buy a car in any country within the Union. [34773]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: I am determined to ensure that there are not such barriers to UK consumers. EC competition law prohibits manufacturers from restricting the freedom of consumers to obtain new right-hand drive cars from whichever authorised dealer they choose within the European Community.

  In January the European Commission, which enforces EC competition law, fined Volkswagen ecu 102 million (about £67 million) for prohibiting its dealers in Italy from selling cars to buyers from Germany and Austria. DTI officials are currently discussing with the Commission what the implications of this case are for UK consumers wishing to buy right-hand drive cars elsewhere in the European Community.

  Kenyan Security Units
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what training has been provided for Kenyan security units in(a) internal control and (b) internal security by the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [28840]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department for International Development fund one training project for police officers which aims to improve management skills and human rights awareness of senior officers. They intend to evaluate the impact of this project. No other assistance for the police is currently planned. No training in riot control has been provided to the Kenyan police or armed forces by the British Government.

  We have expressed our concern over the excessive use of force by Kenyan police in dispersing crowds taking part in protests last year.

  The only military training that we offer the Kenyan Armed Forces is focused on raising professional standards for tasks such as peace keeping duties throughout Africa.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997.[35277]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers of(a) places and (b) vacancies on the Boards of the Non-Departmental Bodies sponsored by this Department are as follows:

  NDPB

  Places (a)

  Current vacancies(b)

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT)

  13

  0

  Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

  18

  0

  Education Assets Board (EAB)

  11

  0

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB)

  18

  0

  Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)

  15

  2

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  15

  0

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

  14

  0

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  15

  0

  Investors in People (UK) (IiPUK)

  15

  1

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA formerly known as NCET)

  6

  0

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

  14

  0

  Remploy

  12

  2

  Student Loans Company (SLC)

  7

  3

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  11

  0

  The total number of (c) resignations from the Boards of these bodies since I May 1997 is 3. The total number of (d) retirements from the Boards of these bodies since 1 May 1997 is 8. The total number of (d) members of the Boards of these bodies who have not been re-appointed since I May 1997 is 19 (some of these were not eligible for further re-appointment under the guidance issued by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA)). The total number of (e) Board members of these bodies who have remained in post since 1 May 1997 is
  718
  128. The total number of (g) appointments of these bodies since 1 May 1997 is 63, of which 15 have been re-appointments.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 23 January on behalf of Mr. Lee. [35325]

  Dr. Howells
  A letter was dispatched to the right hon. Member on 17 March.

  School Achievement Targets
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for what reasons, in setting achievement targets for primary and secondary schools, he uses data based on pupils' eligibility for, or take-up of, free school meals; [35330]

  (2) what reasons, in setting achievement targets for primary and secondary schools, he does not use data based on pupils' prior achievement. [35331]

  Mr. Byers
  It is for schools themselves, rather than for the Secretary of State, to set achievement targets. In doing so they will draw on relevant data, including socio-economic characteristics of their intake and the prior attainment of their pupils. School targets should take account of the 1997 benchmark information and other comparative data set out in the Performance and Assessment reports recently provided to each school. School targets should also take account of the national targets for English and Mathematics at age 11.

  Coventry Intermediate Labour Market Company
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from the Coventry Intermediate Labour Market Company. [34181]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any representations from Coventry Intermediate Labour Market Company.

  New Deal
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the New Deal personal advisers to be trained by April 1998 will be recruited(a) from within the Employment Service and (b) externally. [32292]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Derek Foster, dated 19 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the recruitment and training of New Deal Personal Advisers. This is an operational issue which falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  The Employment Service has recruited, through internal means, almost 2,000 New Deal Personal Advisers who will be fully trained by April 1998. We have not ourselves recruited externally.

  719
  However, we will in all cases be working with partner organisations in the delivery of the Gateway, all of whom will be deploying their own staff on these programmes.
  Within the Employment Service, New Deal Personal Advisers have been carefully selected from amongst the most experienced members of our current advisory teams. All of them either hold an NVQ III in guidance or will be working towards this qualification.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many undergraduate students are in receipt of the maximum maintenance grants. [33800]

  Dr. Howells
  In academic year 1995–96, the latest year for which information is available, 350,000 mandatory award holders from England and Wales received a full maintenance grant.

  Further Education
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education places he expects to be offered to participants in the Government's New Deal schemes following his decision to make available extra money to allow further education colleges to recruit students in the New Deal group above their targets. [33579]

  Dr. Howells
  The £6.05 million made available by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may benefit up to 12,000 unemployed people in England who might otherwise be unable to access further education.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has in respect of the balance of funding between employers and the public purse in respect of further education provided through franchised arrangements with partnership organisations; [33577]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of increasing to 50 per cent. the contribution made by partnership organisations to franchised schemes managed by further education colleges on the subject availability of those schemes and the number of places provided on them. [33578]

  Dr. Howells
  We are seeking a fairer balance between state and employer contributions to the cost of employer-led provision in further education, against the principle that employers should be meeting at least half the cost. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) to make arrangements to secure next year an extra £20 million in employer contributions. In response, for 1998–99, the FEFC has decided to reduce by one third the rate of funding available for college provision delivered for an employer, normally on the employer's premises, either by direct or collaborative provision, in the expectation that colleges will seek a greater contribution from employers. There will still be significant public funding for such provision. We have had no evidence that this change will have an impact on subject availability.
  720
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what allowance he has made in the annual funding of further education colleges to accommodate the 500,000 extra students planned to enter further education by 2002. [33576]

  Dr. Howells
  We are taking forward our plans to expand further education opportunities in the context of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the financial surplus or deficit of further education institutions in England at the end of the current academic year; and what were the figures for(a) 1995, (b) 1992 and (c) 1987. [33583]

  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council's current estimate of the expected net deficit of the further education sector this academic year (1997–98) is £3 million.

  The net deficit incurred by the further education sector in 1994–95 was £93 million. It is not possible to give figures for 1992 and 1987 on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total number of staff who left further education colleges during 1996–97 through(a) redundancy, (b) retirement and (c) premature retirement within categories (i) teaching staff, (ii) support staff and (iii) management staff. [33606]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the number of redundancies in further education colleges is not available. The number of retirements during financial year 1996–97 from further education colleges is set out in the table.

  Type of retirement

  Total

  Age

  460

  Infirmity

  710

  Premature

  3,630

  Total

  4,800

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  These figures are produced from the Teachers' Pension Scheme: they include some management staff, but no support staff.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Cost Allowance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 16 March 1998, Official Report, column 433, if she will list the total amount paid out in office costs allowances for 1992–93 to hon. Members who retired at the 1992 Dissolution or were defeated at the 1992 General Election, indicating the average sum per hon. Member. [35224]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No—the information available is not held in a form that would permit provision of the details relating to defeated and retiring Members only.
  721
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 16 March 1998, Official Report, column 433, on office costs allowances for 1997–98, if she will list the total amount paid out to hon. Members who retired at the 1997 Dissolution or were defeated at the 1997 General Election, indicating the average sum per hon. Member. [35225]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  During 1997–98 the total amount of Office Costs Allowance paid out to those Members who left the House at the last Election was £2,923,827.48. Because of the cash accounting requirements this figure includes amounts relating to the previous allowance year. The average sum paid to each hon. and right hon. Member was £11,602.49.

DEFENCE

  NATO Enlargement
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the leading estimates of the costs of NATO enlargement. [35688]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper prepared by the Ministry of Defence which describes various previous studies of the costs of NATO enlargement and explains why all NATO countries accept the official NATO assessment as a realistic estimate.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the results of his Department's investigation of the incident in which suspected Iraqi CW agent was found in Kuwait after the end of the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [35687]

  Dr. Reid
  I am today making public the results of a joint UK-US review of what has become known as the "Sabahiyah" incident, in which a large tank of liquid, initially thought to contain Iraqi mustard agent, was found in Kuwait after the end of the Gulf conflict. The review has concluded that the tank did not contain chemical warfare agent, but rather inhibited red fuming nitric acid to fuel Iraqi Silkworm anti-ship missiles.

  This is the first of three reviews of events during the Gulf conflict which we pledged to carry out last July. Preparation of the case narrative, which is also being published today in the US, has involved close and detailed cooperation between the MOD and the US Department of Defense. A copy of the case narrative will be placed in the Library of the House.

  US Visiting Forces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998, Official Report, column 490, how many of his Department's personnel are based at (i) Abbey Wood, (ii) RAF Alconbury, Molesworth and Upwood, (iii) RAF Bentley Priory, (iv) Boscombe Down, (v) RAF Bracknell, (vi) RAF Brampton, (vii) RAF Brize Norton, (viii) RAF Coltishall, (ix) RAF Cranwell,722
  (x) RAF Croughton, (xi) RAF Digby, (xii) RAF Daws Hill, Hythe and West Ruislip, (xiii) Eastcote, (xiv) RAF Fairford, (xv) RAF Farnborough, (xvi) RAF Fylingdales, (xvii) RAF High Wycombe, (xviii) RAF Honnington, (xix) RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell, (xx) RAF Leuchars, (xxi) Landwater, (xxii) RAF Lyneham, (xxiii) RAF Morham, (xxiv) RAF Menwith Hill, (xxv) RAF Mildenhall, (xxvi) RAF Oakhanger, (xxvii) RAF Spadeadam, (xxviii) RAF Uxbridge, (xxix) RAF Valley, (xxx) RAF Waddington, (xxxi) Waterbeach, (xxxii) RAF Wittering, (xxxiii) RAF Wyton, (xxxiv) Ipswich and (xxxv) London. [33574]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The numbers of MoD Personnel based at the requested locations are given in the table. Data are at 1 February 1998.

  All MoD personnel within London and other selected locations as at 1 February 1998

  Number

  Abbey Wood

  4,324

  RAF Alconbury, Molesworth and Upwood

  32

  RAF Bentley Priority1

  440

  RAF Boscombe Down

  907

  RAF Bracknell

  351

  RAF Brampton

  1,520

  RAF Brize Norton

  3,497

  RAF Coltishall

  1,571

  RAF Cranwell

  2,048

  RAF Croughton

  13

  RAF Digby

  892

  RAF Daws Hill, Hythe and West Ruislip

  174

  Eastcote1

  8

  RAF Fairford

  11

  RAF Farnborough

  1,734

  RAF Fylingdales

  155

  RAF High Wycombe

  2,041

  RAF Honnington

  1,389

  RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell

  50

  RAF Leuchars

  1,656

  Landwater1

  RAF Lyneham

  2,874

  RAF Marham

  2,000

  RAF Menwith Hill

  25

  RAF Mildenhall

  37

  RAF Oakhanger

  218

  RAF Spadeadam

  124

  RAF Uxbridge1

  794

  RAF Valley

  516

  RAF Waddington

  2,487

  Waterbeach

  181

  RAF Wittering

  1,776

  RAF Wyton

  2,522

  Ipswich

  1,330

  London

  17,139

  Total

  54,836

  1Personnel within these areas, although within London, are not counted within the London total, to avoid double counting.

  2Further to my answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), 2 March 1998, Official Report, column 490, I regret that Landwater was erroneously typed as Loudwater.

  Green Transport Co-ordinator
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he appointed a Green Transport co-ordinator; and on what date the appointment took effect. [32476]
  723
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: We have not appointed a Green Transport co-ordinator. The formulation of Green Transport Plans will be co-ordinated by my Department's environmental committee and their proposals submitted to me as the Department's Green Minister.

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the annual quarry returns for each of the past five years relating to organisations, licensed or unlicensed, which have been permitted to take birds and animals at Salisbury Plain Army Field Training Centre. [34849]

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

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the clubs and organisations, civilian and military, which are licensed to use(a) Schedule 3 land and (b) other land at Salisbury Plain Army Field Training Centre. [34851]

  Dr. Reid
  The civilian and military clubs and organisations licensed to use land at Salisbury Plain Training Area are as follows:

  Licensee

  Purpose of licence

  (a) Schedule III Land

  Yearly licences for occasional use—1997/98

  Salisbury and District Gun Club

  Clay Pigeon Shooting

  Castledown School

  Cross Country Runs

  Flying Druids Model Aircraft Club

  Model Aircraft Flying

  Southern Pointer Club

  Dog Training

  Newport/Bailey (Model Aircraft Club

  Model Aircraft Flying)

  Licences to exercise sporting rights—1997/98

  Avon Vale Hunt

  Fox Hunting

  West Wiltshire Hunt

  Fox Hunting

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  Fox Hunting

  The Services Dry Fly Fishing Association

  Fishing

  The Durrington Shoot

  Game Shooting

  Licences for single events—1997/98

  SPC Promotions

  Mountain Biking (x 3 events)

  Netheravon Parish Council

  Sponsored Walk

  Wiltshire Wildlife Trust

  Sponsored Walk

  English Heritage

  Battle Re-enactment

  Bourne Valley Riding School

  Riding Competition

  Tedworth Hunt

  Hunter Trials

  Frome and District Pistol Club

  Field Firing

  RSA Hot Air Balloon Club

  Balloon Meeting

  Aardvark Clear Mine Ltd

  Equipment Demonstration

  Southern Counties Off Roaders

  Motorised Navigation

  Sarum Orienteering Club

  Orienteering

  RA Saddle Club

  Equestrian Events

  (b) Other SPTA land

  Yearly licences for occasional use—1997/98

  Wilts Shooting Centre (Tunnel Rifle and Pistol Club)

  Use of Shooting Ranges

  Boscombe Down Rifle and Pistol Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Salisbury Vintage Rifle and Pistol Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Tidworth Garrison Gun Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Frome and District Pistol Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  North Wilts Rifle and Pistol Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Avon and Wilts Shooting Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  Warwickshire Firearms Club

  Use of Firing Ranges

  724

  Licensee

  Purpose of licence

  Licences for single events 1997/98

  Southern Counties Off Roaders

  Safari (x 2 events)

  All Wheel Drive Club

  Promotional Day (x 4 events)

  Cranston Brig DA

  Car Parking

  Chrysler Jeep Imports UK

  Vehicle Demonstration

  Imperial Cancer Research Fund

  Use of Assault Course

  All Wheel Drive Club

  Southern Hill Rally

  SETRA

  Motor Cycle Event (x 2 events)

  RSA Hot Air Balloon Club

  Balloon Meeting

  Aardvark Clear Mine Ltd

  Equipment Demonstration

  Southern Counties Off Roaders

  Motorised Navigation

  Sarum Orienteering Club

  Orienteering

  RA Saddle Club

  Equestrian Events

  Joint Service Publications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of Joint Service Publication No. 362. [34850]

  Mr. Spellar
  A copy of JSP 362 Defence Lands Handbook will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to publish a White Paper on Smart Procurement before the end of March; and if he will make a statement. [35199]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Smart Procurement initiative is part of the Strategic Defence Review. I envisage publishing the Review White Paper in the first part of this year.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will have destroyed all HB876 anti-personnel mines within two years of signing the Ottawa Treaty. [34848]

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

  Trident
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development and deployment of a lower-yield variant of the Trident warhead for the sub-strategic role. [35198]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK has some flexibility in the choice of yield for the warheads on its Trident missiles.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance her Department gave to the delegation of Sinn Fein representatives at the ministerial meeting on 5 November 1997 concerning the protection of individuals who have become vulnerable
  725
  following the loss or theft of personal files held by the security forces; and what steps have been taken (a) to assess the number of individuals currently at risk, (b) to provide greater access to information for individuals at risk and (c) to prevent breaches of security in the future. [32809]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]: I met a delegation from Sinn Fein on 5 November, following which I wrote to Mr. Adams. It would not be appropriate to disclose the details of either the discussion or my subsequent letter. However, my hon. Friend may wish to consider making contact with Mr. Adams personally.

  In answer to part (c) of his question I can advise my hon. Friend that instructions have been issued to the RUC by way of a Code Regulation.

  Institute of Public Health
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led to the all-Ireland Institute of Public Health being sited in Dublin; how many jobs are being funded there from UK public funds; at what annual cost; and if she will make a statement. [34616]

  Mr. Worthington
  The key factor influencing the initial location of the Institute of Public Health in Ireland was the opportunity to work in close proximity to the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland which will provide suitable accommodation and essential support for the new body. It is anticipated that the Institute will have seven staff and that the contribution to core funding from UK public funds will be approximately £100,000 per annum.

  The Institute will be required to demonstrate that its activities in support of existing public health bodies benefit people throughout both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The location of the Institute in the long-term will be guided by the needs of the body in carrying out its work programme effectively.

  Sex Abuse
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will increase funding for the counselling of sex abuse survivors; and if she will make a statement on the waiting times presently experienced for such counselling at the Nexus Institute. [34617]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Department of Health and Social Services does not allocate funds to Health and Social Services Boards specifically for the purposes of counselling victims of sexual abuse. The amounts to be committed for such purposes are matters for the Boards to decide within the context of their overall resource allocations and their priorities for the provision of services within their areas.

  The lengths of the waiting lists for counselling by the NEXUS Institute are a matter of concern to the Department. However, a new counsellor training programme was launched by NEXUS in 1997 and it is hoped that this will have a significant impact later this year in reducing the waiting lists.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the papers on restorative justice that have been the subject of discussion in the talks process. [35691]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have arranged for "Restorative Justice and a Partnership against Crime", based on Government papers tabled for the multi-party talks, to be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation his Department has made of the impact of the current levels of the green pound on farms incomes. [33762]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government recognise the impact of currency movements on agriculture, but it is difficult to assess these effects precisely. UK farmers receive a substantial degree of protection from the impact of currency movements on their receipts under the CAP through the EU agrimonetary system.

  Welsh Livestock Industry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received from farming representatives in Wales about the crisis in the Welsh livestock industry. [33772]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend met hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies as recently as 19 February to discuss the state of the livestock sector in the Principality.

  Sheep Prices
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is prepared to take to alleviate the fall in prices for sheep in the United Kingdom. [33774]

  Mr. Rooker
  Government action in this sector is constrained by the rules of the CAP regime for sheepmeat. In recognition of the depressed state of the sheepmeat market, I recently instructed my officials to ask the Commission to open tenders for Private Storage Aid in the UK. The Commission responded promptly to our request, fixing a flat-rate Private Storage Aid of 1,400 ecu per tonne for a maximum of 3,000 tonnes of sheepmeat to be placed into storage in the Republic of Ireland and the UK.

  Farmers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of farmers who will leave agricultural production in the next five years. [33775]

  Mr. Morley
  I have not made such an estimate. The numbers of farmers leaving agricultural production will depend on the decisions they take in the light of economic circumstances.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on enforcement of the regulations banning the sale of beef on the bone. [33778]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government believe that the Regulations are enforceable in accordance with existing food safety and consumer protection enforcement procedures.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on lifting the export ban on British Beef. [33779]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) earlier today.

  Urban Farms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department gives to urban farms. [33758]

  Mr. Morley
  Urban farms have a role based more on education than production. The Department gives no specific support to farms simply because they are situated in an urban area.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met organic farming groups to discuss the future of organic farming. [33777]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend last met individuals concerned with organic farming on 9 February. I met the Board of the UK Register of Organic Food Standards today.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with the selective cull of cattle; and if he will make a statement. [35686]

  Mr. Rooker
  In Great Britain, we have contacted all the herds in which BSE cases were born and sought to identify animals which were exposed to the same feed as these cases. Where these animals have been sold off the farm of origin, we have tried to trace and locate them. Not surprisingly, given the age of the animals, we have found that about 156,000 animals have already been slaughtered, including those taken under the Over Thirty Months Scheme. But under the selective cull we have identified and slaughtered about 66,000 animals to date. A further 10,000 animals have been traced but not yet slaughtered, including a number for which the owner has the option to offer them but has not so far done so.

  In addition, in Northern Ireland all the 1,461 animals to be taken under the cull have been slaughtered. As a result, the total to date for the United Kingdom is over 67,000. All these animals attract the special rates of compensation payable under this scheme.
  728
  It is now estimated that the total number slaughtered under the selective cull will be about 80,000-85,000. We are determined to finish the cull as quickly as we can and are continuing to treat it as a high priority. The last stages will focus on tracing animals which have moved from their natal herd. This is a time-consuming and difficult task, made more difficult by the lack of the computerised cattle tracing system which we are now developing. Progress on the cull will inevitably become slower, as increasingly often it is single animals that have to be tracked down. However we expect to complete the whole work by the autumn.

  The selective cull has been an enormous task. Farmers themselves have made a substantial contribution. It has been an unwelcome and for many a distressing task. We are grateful for their co-operation and their recognition that this has been an essential step in fulfilling the Florence preconditions.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many counties in the South West of England he has visited since 1 May 1997. [32064]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have not visited the South West. However, my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, the Parliamentary Secretary, has specific responsibility for the MAFF South West region and he has visited Devon twice and Cornwall once since 1 May 1997. He hopes to visit both again in the forthcoming months. In addition, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has made the same number of visits to Devon and Cornwall since 1 May 1997.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings have been requested with his Department's Ministers by(a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members; and how many meetings have been granted in each category. [31298]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I and my colleagues receive many requests for meetings from individual, and groups of, hon. Members, about numerous issues, many of which cut across party boundaries. To seek to identify those requests on the basis of party allegiance would be misleading and would serve no useful purpose. However, I can confirm that I and my Ministerial team have held meetings with hon. Members from both the Government and the majority of Opposition parties, including the Conservative Party.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the individual estimates his Department has made of the financial and personnel impact of relocating Norwich-based scientific staff of the Central Science Laboratory to York. [33985]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]: No decision has been taken regarding the future location of the Norwich-based staff of the Central Science Laboratory. In considering this matter, current best estimates indicate that the relocation costs involved would be £2.8m and efficiency savings resulting from the move

  729
  would amount to £1.5m per annum. Eligible staff would then be offered a full relocation package in accordance with Civil Service rules and assistance would be provided for non-mobile staff not relocating.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department held with(a) the Engineering Council and (b) the Institution of Agricultural Engineers prior to the publication of the White Paper on the Food Standards Agency (Cm 3830); and if he will make a statement. [35039]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department held no discussions with either organisation prior to the publication of the White Paper 'The Food Standards Agency:A Force for Change'. The Engineering Council has, however, commented on the White Paper on behalf of the engineering profession (including the Institution of Agricultural Engineers). Their views will be carefully considered, along with all other responses to this consultation.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into anthrax, separately identifying that relating to Gruinard Island. [33773]

  Mr. Rooker
  Research funded by the Department and published last year evaluated the public health risks from pigs killed following an outbreak of anthrax infection. The Department has also gained information on decontamination of land following the successful project carried out by the Ministry of Defence on Gruinard Island.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much agrimonetary compensation was paid to beef farmers between 1979 and 1997. [33765]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  None.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his objectives for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. [33757]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are pursuing a wide-ranging agenda of improvements to the Common Fisheries Policy. Our priorities include making the CFP a more effective instrument for conservation, improving community wide enforcement and introducing a greater regional dimension into decision-making.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make better use of his Department's assets in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 November 1997 by generating receipts from commercial activity and developing relationships with the private sector to bring in necessary skills and expertise. [35135]
  730
  Mr. Rooker
  The guidelines to which my hon. Friend refers puts the onus on Departments to maximise the value they secure from the assets they retain. The Executive Agencies of the Ministry undertake commercial activities where appropriate, and along with the rest of the Department will continue to seek new possible opportunities in the market. The operating, commercial and legal aspects will require careful consideration, along with the need to ensure that the independence of those undertaking regulatory functions is not compromised.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to dispose of surplus assets of his Department in accordance with guidelines set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 November 1997. [35136]

  Mr. Morley
  In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, over the next three years my Department aims to dispose of as many as possible of those assets in the National Asset Register which are or will be identified as surplus.

WALES

  Local Government
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish his proposals for modernising local government in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [35834]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the first two consultation papers in a series inviting views on the options for modernising local government in Wales.

  The first paper sets the broad policy in the context of Wales and the Assembly. The second, on local democracy and community leadership, makes proposals for developing new ways in which councils can listen to their local communities and involve them in their decisions for devising new ways of working, for strengthening councils' roles as community leaders and for modernising local electoral arrangements.

  Later papers in the series will deal with best value, aspects of the local government finance system and a new ethical framework for local government.

  Responses to the consultation exercise will be drawn on to prepare a White Paper on Local Government in Wales, which will be published in the summer.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the comparative costs of the bids for accommodating the National Assembly for Wales. [33892]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have already placed a brief summary of the local authority bids for accommodating the National Assembly for Wales in the Library of the House. Once negotiations for the site of the Assembly are complete I intend to place a brief summary of the remaining bids in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to celebrate the millennium in Wales; and at what estimated cost. [34509]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The celebrations of the Millennium in Wales, as for other parts of the UK, will be co-ordinated by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). My Department will work closely with NMEC and in particular with the office which they intend to open in Cardiff within the next month. The amount of lottery funding to be devoted to the celebrations in Wales will be announced soon: this will be supplemented by the sponsorship funding which NMEC intends to raise.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35122]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  It is not possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of events and meetings will not be finalised until nearer the time.

  However, while there are currently no major events planned for April and May, I do plan to host a meeting of the Central Local Partnership on Wednesday 8 April at the Cabinet Office.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to small schools in rural areas. [34871]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 655.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all rural communities in Wales obtain the benefit of high-quality telecommunication services including ISDN. [34801]

  Mr. Hain
  The provision of telecommunications is a matter for the infrastructure companies. However, the wider provision of ISDN and digital services to rural communities should become a practical and cost-effective reality in the relatively near future through the use of radio fixed access technology and the roll-out of more comprehensive digital mobile networks. In addition, support from the European Regional Development Fund is being made available to assist the development of advanced services in parts of rural Wales. I will continue to press for Wales to benefit from high grade telecommunications links.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35283]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My department does not gather centrally precise data on the number of seats and vacancies on non-departmental public bodies since many of them have some flexibility in the total number of members. Neither does it hold central data on whether members have retired, resigned or not been reappointed. Information on the public appointments which I make in Wales is collated and published quarterly. The December edition, a copy of which is in the library of the House, shows that 622 of those currently serving on public bodies were appointed before 1 May 1997 and the remaining 90 were appointed subsequently.

  Tram Scheme (Llandudno)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which signatories authorised the bid by Conwy County Borough Council for Government funding for its proposed tram scheme in Llandudno; [34841]

  (2) how much funding his Department has made available for Conwy County Borough Council's proposed tram scheme in Llandudno; and if he will make a statement; [34842]

  (3) what measures he has taken to ensure that the Government grant to Conwy County Borough Council for the purpose of establishing a tram scheme in Llandudno has not been allocated to another local authority scheme; [34843]

  (4) if he will establish which organisations have made a financial contribution towards the proposed tram scheme in Llandudno; and if he will make a statement; [34844]

  (5) under which Government scheme his Department supported the proposed Conwy County Borough Council bid for a tram scheme in Llandudno. [34845]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 550.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, columns 459–60, if he will estimate the cost to WHCSA reserves of the void office space at Crickhowell House. [35336]
  733
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The cost of WHCSA reserves of empty space at Crickhowell House, including rent, reduced and other associated costs, is estimated at £1,005,000 per year.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the defects period pertaining to his lease of Crickhowell House remains in operation; and if he will make a statement. [35338]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The defects liability period expires on 31 March 1998. Discussions are taking place with the landlord regarding an extension.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, columns 459–60, if privity of contract applies to his lease and to sub-leases of Crickhowell House; and if he will make a statement. [35339]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Secretary of State for Wales being party to the lease, I am presently advised that I would retain privity of contract in the event of the leases for Crickhowell House being assigned or sub-let.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grades of civil servants have been responsible for negotiating the potential sites or buildings for the National Assembly for Wales; and if the same civil servants were responsible for negotiating the lease of Crickhowell House. [35335]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  A range of civil servants, from Permanent Secretary to junior management grades, have been involved in the siting of the Assembly. One of these officials had some involvement in the process of acquisition of Crickhowell House, but not in the direct lease negotiations.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, columns 459–60, what payments have been made by Associated British Ports to Cardiff Bay Development Corporation under the development agreement; if he will give the dates of such payments; and if he will make a statement on future payments under the development agreement for which Associated British Ports would be liable. [35337]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Payment details are an operational matter for the Corporation and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Name of Non-departmental public body (NDPB)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  (g)

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions (CACWP)

  1no set number

  3

  4

  2n/a

  3n/a

  18

  1

  Chief Adjudication Officer

  1

  none

  none

  none

  none

  1

  none

  Child Support Disability, Medical & Social Security Appeal & Vaccine Damage Tribunals

  4no set number

  5n/a

  6311

  83

  7n/a

  7,255

  170

  734
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what allowance he has made in setting the budget of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation for the(a) present year and (b) 1998–99, of expected income from Associated British Ports under the development agreement. [35334]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Total estimated income receipts from various sources included in the budget for 1997–98 was around £13 million. The budget figure for 1998–99 has yet to be agreed. Details of receipts from Associated British Ports under the development agreement with the Corporation are operational matters for the Corporation and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what authority rental guarantees were given by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to Associated British Ports for the Scott Harbour office development; and what is the maximum public financial liability under such guarantees. [35328]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Scott Harbour rental agreement with a maximum financial liability of £1.4 million was approved by the Department and the Treasury in May 1995. This liability does not extend beyond the lifetime of the Corporation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Bodies
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the bodies within the responsibility of her Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33563]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: There are three bodies who are required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. These are the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, the Pensions Compensation Board and Social Security Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish(a) the number of places on each of her Department's non-departmental public bodies,(b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since I May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35286]

  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table using the headings(a) to(g) as set out in the question.
  735

  Name of Non-departmental public body (NDPB)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  (g)

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (DLAAB)

  8no set number

  9n/a

  none

  1

  2

  17

  2

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee (IIAC)

  10no set number

  none

  none

  none

  11n/a

  15

  172

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA)

  12no set number

  13none

  none

  none

  none

  6

  3

  Pensions Compensation Board

  3

  none

  none

  none

  none

  3

  none

  Pensions Ombudsman

  1

  none

  none

  none

  none

  1

  none

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  14

  1

  none

  none

  none

  13

  172

  War Pensions Committees (WPCs)

  858

  56

  48

  14n/a

  15n/a

  759

  54

  Women's National Commission (WNC)16

  52

  none

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Legislation requires that CACWP should comprise of not less than 12 War Pensions Committee Chairmen and 1 war disabled pensioner. Currently there are 22 Members excluding ex-officio members and a Departmental official.

  2There is no distinction between members of CACWP who have retired or resigned as members are generally over retirement age. One Member has died since 1 May 1997.

  3Members of CACWP have no formal contracts.

  4There are no prescribed maximum or optimum numbers of Tribunal Chairmen and Members. Numbers are maintained at levels which are considered appropriate in view of current and predicted work-loads and sitting-patterns.

  5There are currently no significant shortages of Tribunal Chairmen and Members.

  6Figures at (c) and (d) have been compiled by interrogating a number of separate databases which are not identically configured. It is not possible to distinguish if some Tribunal Chairmen and Members have resigned or retired.

  7Members of the Tribunals are not employed under contracts of employment. They are appointed for set periods, at the expiry of which are considered for re-appointment. Figures of those re-appointed since 1 May 1997 are not readily available.

  8Legislation requires that DLAAB should comprise 1 Chairman and between 11 and 20 Members. Currently there is 1 Chairman and 18 Members.

  9 As DLAAB do not have a set number of places members are not recruited for a particular vacancy.

  10 Legislation does not provide for an exact number of IIAC places, it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide how many members are appointed. Currently there are 15 Members.

  11Members of IIAC do not have formal contracts.

  12Legislation requires that OPRA should comprise I Chairman and not less than 1 Chairman and 6 Members. Currently there is I Chairman and 8 Members.

  13It is not proposed to recruit above the current OPRA membership of 9.

  14 There is no distinction between members of WPCs who have retired or resigned as members are generally over retirement age. The information given at (c) does not take account of any deaths.

  15Members of WPCs have no formal contracts.

  16The WNC has 50 member organisations, each of which is represented by a senior woman, who is nominated by the organisation which they represent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no responsibility for appointing member organisations or their representatives. As changes in representative are determined by the individual member organisations no records are held by this Department.

  17Reappointments.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date the Contributions Agency decided not to pursue arrears of national insurance contributions on allowances paid to Crown employees serving overseas from 1975; and if this decision was approved by Ministers; [35058]

  (2) on what date advice was received by her Department that arrears of national insurance contributions on allowances of Crown employees serving overseas should be waived; and by what means this decision has been implemented; [35196]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the number of cases and departments involved in respect of the waiving of arrears of national insurance contributions relating to allowances of Crown employees. [35197]

  Mr. Denham
  Regulations (SI 1997/820) came into force on 6 April 1997, amending regulations 19(1) (payments to be disregarded) of the Contributions 736
  Regulations 1979 by adding a new disregard in respect of allowances which are not taxable income by virtue of Section 319 of the Income and Taxes Act 1988 and similar allowances paid to those in the service of Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the British Council.

  In a written answer to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), 18 March 1997, Official Report, column 572, the previous Government announced their decision to make this and other changes. This brought the treatment of overseas allowances for crown servants under national insurance legislation into line with their tax treatment, which had remained unchanged since 1943, and into line with the understanding of the legislation the Government had held previously. Ministers of the day decided that the Contributions Agency should not pursue arrears.

  From the information available from the Departments concerned it is not possible to establish the number of cases involved. In the course of assisting the National

  737
  Audit Office with its Report on the National Insurance Fund Account 1996–97 (HC 465) the Department, from the information available to it about the amounts paid in the form of these allowances, estimated that arrears of £530 million had not been collected over the period since 1975. The large majority of such payments had been made to service personnel and members of the foreign service by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The collection of arrears would have involved a considerable administrative cost and produced no additional Government revenue.

  Pensions
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the estimated cost to public funds in each of the financial years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–2001 and (d) 2001–2002 if contracted-out salary-related pension scheme and contracted-out money purchase pension schemes had been compensated for the abolition of the dividend tax credit at the same rate as appropriate personal pensions. [34696]

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

  No estimates have been carried out for the tax year 1998–99 as the rebates could not be altered before April 1999.

  Additional estimated amount of revenue forgone from the national insurance fund should the rebate in respect of contracted out salary-related schemes be adjusted to take account of the changes to tax credits on advance corporation tax

  Year

  £million

  1999–2000

  225

  2000–2001

  250

  2001–2002

  250

  Note:

  This assumes an annual real rate of investment return in excess of earnings of 2 per cent., the same as that used for calculating the rebate levels for appropriate personal pensions from April 1999.

  Additional estimated amount of revenue forgone from the national insurance fund should the recently announced rebates in respect of contracted out money purchase schemes be adjusted to take account of the changes to tax credits on advance corporation tax

  Year

  £million

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–2001

  5

  2001–2002

  5

  Note:

  This assumes an annual real rate of investment return in excess of earnings of 2 per cent.

  No estimates have been carried out for the tax year 1998–99 as the rebates could not be altered before April 1999.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to reply to the three questions tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford for named day answer on 2 March on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [35226]
  738
  Mr. Field
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer on Thursday 19 March 1998.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when she expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 22 December 1997 on behalf of Mrs. Baldock; [35322]

  (2) when she expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 19 January on behalf of Mrs. Ebbage; [35320]

  (3) when she expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 26 January on behalf of Mrs. Brooks; [35323]

  (4) when she expects to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 21 January on behalf of Mrs. Lindgren. [35321]

  Ms Harman
  Replies were sent to the right hon. Member's letters on behalf of Mrs. Baldock, Mrs. Brooks and Mrs. Lindgren on 16 March 1998. A reply to the right hon. Member's letter on behalf of Mrs. Ebbage was sent on 18 March 1998.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the 431 lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal between 23 October and 30 November 1997 are now in receipt of income support and have no earnings; [33349]

  (2) how many of the 151 lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal between 1 and 31 December 1997 are now in receipt of income support and have no earnings; [33350]

  (3) how many of the 98 lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal between 1 and 31 January are now in receipt of income support and have no earnings. [33351]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: It is not possible to use the data from the New Deal for Lone Parents to draw conclusions about the lone parents' exit rate from employment because the data sample is small, and provides only a snapshot of lone parents in short-term work. It is also not possible to draw comparisons between the exit rates of these lone parents and that of different groups in society based on this information. However, analysis and comparison of exit rates will be made when the New Deal for Lone Parents is evaluated by the independent Social and Community Planning Research, which will report in 1999.

  The number of lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents between 23 October and 30 November 1997 was 391. Of that number, 66 have reclaimed Income Support and have no earnings.

  The number of lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents between 1 and 31 December 1997 was 141. Of that number, 19 have reclaimed Income Support and have no earnings.
  739
  The number of lone parents who gained employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents between 1 and 31 January 1998 was 228. Of that number, 26 have reclaimed Income Support and have no earnings.
  Note:
  The discrepancy between the figures quoted in the hon. Member's question results from a change in the method of counting: up to 31 December 1997 results on the New Deal for Lone Parents were obtained clerically, but from 1 January 1998, results on the New Deal for Lone Parents have been obtained directly from the Lone Parent Adviser (LPA) Database. Due to certain anomalies in the clerical records it is not possible to reconcile the numbers obtained clerically with the number obtained through the LPA system. The source of the figure quoted in the last question is not clear.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of people aged over 60 years received income support by each Benefit Agency district for the latest year for which figures are available. [35200]

  Mr. Field
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of(a) fraud, (b) customer error and (c) departmental error have been identified by the Benefit Integrity Project; of those cases in which fraud is suspected how many have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service; and what estimate her Department has made of the number in which there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. [35109]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance are entitled to it. While it is right to check that 740
  people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, 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 my hon. Friend.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 18 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many cases of (a) fraud; (b) customer error and (c) departmental error have been identified by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP); of those cases in which fraud is suspected, how many have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service; and what estimate her Department has made of the number in which there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The BIP aims to ensure that those people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance are entitled to it and are receiving the correct amount. While the Project has, broadly, sustained the estimated level of incorrectness, it has not sustained the level of fraud estimated by the Benefit Review.
  The information is not available in the format requested. As at 31 January 1998, the BIP had identified 157 cases in which fraud was suspected, of which 49 have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service for further investigation. These investigations are still ongoing. In the remaining 108 cases, fraud staff in the Disability Benefits Directorate decided that there was no realistic prospect of determining whether fraud had occurred and the files were closed without further action.
  Information in respect of customer and Departmental error is not routinely available.
  A monthly report covering a range of statistics can be found in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

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

River Thames: Commuter Transport
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce a River Thames commuter transit system which would serve both banks of the river.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, on 16th March the Deputy Prime Minister announced the outcome of a tendering exercise to provide river services to the Millennium Experience Dome at Greenwich, and continuing legacy services thereafter linking a large number of central London piers on both banks of the river. He also announced the award by the Millennium Commission of a grant to help fund the building of new piers and the refurbishment of others. Together these developments constitute an investment of some £21 million in river transport for the capital.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her helpful reply. I congratulate the Government on their work. Essentially, this is development from Westminster seaward to Greenwich. There is also a very substantial growth in population in the west and south west areas of London. Do the Government have any plans for developing the service there? Are the Government prepared to use any of the £500 million announced in the Budget for the purposes of developing a service there?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. We are aware of the large new developments to which he has referred upstream along the Thames—for example, at Battersea. Noble Lords may be interested to know that one of the Thames 2000 river service operators has expressed an interest in serving piers further upstream than Millbank. The key to viable upstream services is the provision of good quality piers. Developers are encouraged to include them in new riverside developments. We are pleased therefore to see that plans for a number of new developments including the Vauxhall Effra site, Battersea power station, Lots Road and the renovation of Battersea Park all include proposals for new piers. New Labour, new piers! As to the £500 million for public transport announced in the Budget, the allocation of the extra money will be detailed by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister very shortly.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, leaving aside the question of good quality piers, of which there are quite a number, the real problem—I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe—is not so much serving the banks of the river but people? Is not the difficulty that as a novel mode of transport for London—it is sad that it should be so described in this day and age—it must recognise the needs of the travelling public? Does the Minister agree that part of the problem is that people have never considered commuting by river boat because that is not what they have in mind when they look for houses? They go by rail, bus or tube. Does the Minister agree that there must be a very comprehensive package of subsidiary transport links to connect the major centres of residential population to the new piers that are to be built? Does the noble Baroness agree that both those matters are essential if this is to become an effective development? Can the Minister inform the House what is being done to encourage that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government believe that it is important that the infrastructure is in place to support river services and that in the planning of new developments of the kind to which the noble Lord has referred, including new housing developments, the potential for river transport is fully explored. As part of the Thames 2000 initiative, London Transport has formed a new subsidiary, London River Services, to manage piers and co-ordinate and promote river services in the capital. I believe that that is important because it will help to integrate river transport into the rest of London's transport system. For example, one small but important matter is that for the first time piers will be marked on Underground and bus maps so that people can see how they can be integrated.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while my noble friend is discussing this matter with her colleagues in government, will she ask them to bear in mind that there is an excellent pier at Putney?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is suggested to me that there are two excellent piers at Putney. This one could run and run. I shall certainly take on board my noble friend's comment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on the radio I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that he considered a very important feature to be an integrated ticketing system whereby people would be able to use any form of transport and move from bus to tube to river. Can the Minister inform the House when that is likely to happen and what action is being taken upon it? Coming as I do from Sydney, where harbour transport is used by commuters every day, may I ask the noble Baroness to comment on the fact that in this country weather is a problem? Is special provision being made to take account of the bad times of the year when river transport may be difficult?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, experience over the years has shown that it is not as simple as some would

813
wish it to be to ensure that commuter services are effectively and reliably provided on the Thames. I return to the issue of infrastructure. That is why we believe it is important also to ensure that the available services are adaptable to the needs of commuters. As to the integration of ticketing and co-ordination with other modes, we believe that the creation of London River Services as a wholly-owned subsidiary of London Transport to promote river services will ensure that it becomes part of the strategy for London. Obviously, the creation of the Greater London Authority will provide a possibility for concentrating on the role that the river can play.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I welcome the Thames 2000 initiative, but is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for the Thames River Bus proving unreliable was the amount of damage caused to those boats from rubbish in the Thames? In addition to the money being spent on new quays and piers, has the Minister any plans to spend money on cleaning the River Thames?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware that there was concern that the craft used by River Bus had difficulties, including those to which the noble Lord referred, but the Thames is one of the cleanest metropolitan rivers in the world. Its quality is improving the whole time. In creating the new services, it is important that we profit from the lessons learnt by River Bus. The problems that it encountered related not just to water quality but also to access to piers, the need to have craft designed specifically for use on the Thames and the need for strong business plans underpinned by considerable investment. We believe that this initiative will cover those areas.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister made an announcement on Monday, I think, that £21 million was to be spent on this project. My reading of it was that £6 million of that will come from the lottery and £6 million from the operators of the new boats. Will she say from where the balance of £9 million will come?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I think that I should look at the component parts of this: £6.8 million of Millennium Commission grant has matched funding. That relates obviously to the infrastructure, the refurbishment of two piers and the building of two new ones. I cannot for the moment account for the missing £5 million. I assure the noble Lord that I shall find out.

International Peace Police: Proposal
3.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will examine the possibility that the time is ripe for the establishment of an international peace police under the jurisdiction of the United Nations with duties to include the verification and
814
enforcement of the conventions banning chemical and biological weapons and the observance of agreements relating to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government see no need for a police force of that nature under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The verification of compliance with existing treaties and conventions on weapons of mass destruction should be carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant treaty or convention.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind what the situation would be in any country—for example, this one—if there were no police force to ensure that the law is observed as a matter of course, and nothing between the population as a whole and the military? So long as the present position remains, and enforcement is exclusively the task of the military, is not the danger always present—as has been seen recently in the Gulf—of a war developing, possibly even ending in a third world war? What are the methods to which she referred just now which are currently in place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that it is difficult to see how such a peace police will be set up. It is hard to see what its remit would be, and reaching agreement on the issues would be difficult and consuming of time and effort. The Chemical Weapons Convention is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in the Hague; the Biological Weapons Convention is administered by review conferences of the states parties which take place every four or five years. The Chemical Weapons Convention is bound by inspectors who go into various countries. We are not happy with the inspections under the Biological Weapons Convention, which is why the UK is using the presidency to try to ensure that verification procedures on biological weapons comparable to those for chemical weapons are in place.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seems to fit neatly within the ethical framework that the Foreign Secretary has set out for British foreign policy? On that subject, will she inform the House what are the improvements that the Government have detected in the human rights record of China that have led them not to support the UN resolution on human rights in China this year as their predecessors did?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government will take lessons from anyone over questions of ethics. The best approach to my noble friend's Question is to strengthen the existing regimes in order to fill in the gaps, as I indicated we are seeking to do in our presidency.

815
As regards China, the noble Lord really must read his Hansard. The other evening I was able to tell his noble friend Lord Moynihan of eight separate improvements which have been made in China since October last year when we began the dialogue process.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps we may return closer to the Question. Will the Minister accept that there are severe problems in obtaining properly qualified inspectors to search for biological and chemical weapons? The experience of Iraq shows that too many inspectors came from too few countries. Do the Government have any plans to assist other countries in training inspectors for such international duties in order to spread the burden more widely?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I do not accept that too few nationalities were involved in the inspections in Iraq. Of the 44 inspectors who were regularly used to inspect sites in Iraq, 17—I repeat, 17—different nations were represented.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is not national sovereignty becoming bad for our health? Has my noble friend noticed the next Question on the Order Paper? As with every year which passes there is fresh evidence that nuclear and biological weapons are falling into irresponsible hands, is it not now urgent that we should work for a global convention making them unlawful in any hands and committing the whole international community to enforcing that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will not be surprised to know that I have indeed noticed the next Question on the Order Paper as it is for me to answer!
The United Kingdom Government believe in universal adherence to and compliance with both the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. As I said, we have detected shortcomings in the second convention, which is why we are eagerly pursuing improvements to it. As to the longer term, suggestions about examining these issues will be considered appropriately by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept that some of us are puzzled by the Question? If such an international peace force is to be armed, it would be a new procedure and departure which would place armed forces under the direct jurisdiction of the United Nations. If the force is not to be armed, is there anything that it can do that is not already done through the sanctions of the Security Council, the administration of the various treaties and, more importantly, the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lord Jenkins, Her Majesty's Government find it difficult to see the argument to institute the kind of peace police which he suggests. The idea of such a force to verify compliance with international treaties and conventions has not, so far as
816
we know, ever been raised through the United Nations. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, indicated, we do not believe that it would be practical. We believe that it would duplicate arrangements under existing weapons of mass destruction treaties and for that reason we are unable to support my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can the Government see any advantage in controlling chemical and biological weapons in those countries which are susceptible to control and doing nothing in those countries which are not susceptible to control?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the difficulty is that it is only possible for us to have inspections in the countries which have already signed in particular the Chemical Weapons Convention. The noble Lord is right in saying that all our efforts should be bent upon encouraging other countries to sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which we believe is a fairly solid convention with good verification procedures. However, we need to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and then to encourage all countries to sign up to it.

Iraq: Weapons Exports
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports that Saddam Hussein has exported chemical and biological weapons, and experts and materials for the establishment of plants for the manufacture of such weapons, to foreign countries, including Sudan and Libya.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are concerned about reports that Iraq has exported weapons of mass destruction, materials and expertise to other countries. We are monitoring the situation closely, hut to date we have no evidence to substantiate these claims. Nor has the United Nations Special Commission reported any evidence of such transfers since the Gulf War conflict and the imposition of sanctions in 1991.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. It is encouraging to know that the Government take these reports seriously and will be monitoring the situation. As Sudan is currently subject to United Nations sanctions for its record on terrorism and human rights, will the Government consider raising concerns generated by recent reports, particularly that of the US Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, with the Security Council to discuss the possibility of some action?
Is the Minister aware of the urgency of the situation, because the government of Sudan have already used weapons of indiscriminate destruction against their own people—weapons deemed to have been made in Iraq? I have seen cluster bombs dropped on playing fields where children are playing and I fear that that

817
government will not be inhibited in using any weapons at their disposal unless deterred by the international community.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of questions. Of course we view with concern any reports which allege the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. We have indeed studied the paper to which the noble Baroness referred in great detail and against all other sources. However, the noble Baroness should know that we are unable to corroborate many of the details. Moreover, we know that some of the claims made in the paper are untrue. The United States Administration have said the same. The White House response is:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq has exported weapons of mass destruction technology to other countries since the Gulf War".
The defence intelligence staff in the MoD have similarly written a critique which does not support the report's findings. But of course this is an issue on which we should be extremely vigilant.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that UNSCOM has the power to investigate collaboration between Iraq and other states in the development of prohibited weapons and in the transfer of technological capacity from Iraq to those states? Will the Government therefore consider requesting Mr. Richard Butler to carry out a thorough study of all the allegations which have been made and to report back to the Security Council as soon as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the remit of UNSCOM is specific to Iraq. That begs two questions. First, it begs the question of whether Iraq has exported weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, it begs the question about whether there are weapons of mass destruction in other countries in the area.
Iraq has admitted to a number of joint ventures with other countries in the missile area prior to the Gulf War. However, UNSCOM has not reported any evidence of the transfer of technology, materials or know-how since then and since sanctions were imposed. However, it is worth remembering that Iraq sought to shelter war planes in Iran during the Gulf War. None of those planes was subsequently returned. Whether in the light of that experience Iraq would want to risk losing a major part of its weapons of mass destruction arsenal by entrusting it to a neighbour is a pretty moot point.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Saddam Hussein's military strategy of delivering weapons of mass destruction is a serious threat to the American strategy, which is based on sheer size and high technology? Does she further agree that it is most important for Britain now to work in close partnership with our American colleagues to ensure that we can fend off this evil dictator in the best way possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree with what the noble Lord said about the evil and destructive force of weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the Minister has accepted the evidence of my noble friend Lady Cox that weapons of mass destruction have been used by the Sudanese Government against sections of their own people. If they were not provided by Iraq, are we to understand that the Minister believes that the Sudan itself is capable of the manufacture and delivery of such weapons, in which case we have another major threat to think about?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Sudan has chemical plants as part of its industrial infrastructure which could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. But we have no evidence from any source to corroborate claims that Sudan has attempted to acquire, either indigenously or through procurement, any form of weapons of mass destruction.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister accept at the very least that there is a mass of substantial allegations of a regular supply of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons and know-how to the Sudan with, incidentally, the co-operation of Iran, which is an extremely anxious issue? Will the Minister accept that that is a threat to all the African nations bordering on the Sudan, given the fact that the Khartoum Government have already threatened the Ugandans with a chemical attack?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Iraq had admitted to concealment mechanisms which UNSCOM is continuing to investigate. We do not rule out the possibility that the gaps in Iraq's disclosure may indeed be attributable to the transfer out of Iraq of weapons with a mass destruction capability. However, I have told your Lordships' House that, while that is a possibility of which Her Majesty's Government are fully aware, we do not have credible evidence to support that view.
If I were to provide further details, I am afraid that I should have to draw on material collected by the intelligence agencies. Of course, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on that.

Mis-sold Personal Pensions: Compensation
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to accelerate the programme of compensation to victims of the mis-selling of personal pensions, and to prevent any mis-selling of the proposed stakeholder pension.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Financial Services Authority is taking action to ensure

819
that everyone who has been mis-sold a personal pension since the Financial Services Act came into force will have access to a review which will determine whether they have suffered a redressable loss.
Last week my honourable friend the Economic Secretary answered a question in another place giving data on the progress made by the 41 firms with most cases to review. The figures show that some 65 per cent. of all priority cases have now been dealt with.
The Economic Secretary also gave her support to the FSA's approach to dealing with the remaining cases, which are grouped into Phase 2 of this exercise. All cases must be fairly and quickly dealt with.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I congratulate the Government on the efficiency and energy with which the Economic Secretary has pursued this matter. Does the Minister agree with me that it is very alarming to read the situation in Phase 2 which is outlined in the Financial Services Authority's recent statement? That shows that something like 1.8 million smaller investors may have suffered detriment to the tune of some £6.5 billion. Therefore would he not agree that that scandalous situation shows that the profit-making private pension insurance companies are not to be trusted to provide the same security in retirement as the state insurance schemes? What steps are the Government taking to prevent the proposed stakeholder pension falling into their hands?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Economic Secretary will be very grateful for my noble friend's first remarks. As regards the second phase, my noble friend quotes the figures quite correctly. Of course, the second phase is not concerned with smaller investors but with younger investors—those who have more than 15 years to go before retirement. Priority was rightly given to those closer to retirement in Phase 1 of the investigation.
As regards avoiding that problem in the future, my noble friend's remarks will of course be taken into account. We are determined that the stakeholder pension should not suffer from the same mis-selling problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister realise that I very much agree with him on the question of mis-selling? I hope it will be put right because it has greatly damaged the legitimate private personal pension interests which many people in this country will need to have if they are to have pension provision in their old age. Does the Minister recall that I had exactly the same problem when I had to put through the Pensions Act because of the behaviour of Mr. Robert Maxwell, who was, I think, an ex-colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle?
Does the Minister, like me, find it rather odd that the Economic Secretary should be the person who is throwing stones on the issue of mis-selling private pensions when she had such a close relationship with Mr. Robert Maxwell in her previous existence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has managed to make two "McCarthyite" accusations of guilt by association in the course of one short question. I congratulate him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in considering measures to prevent that happening again, will the Government look again at the proposals of the Goode Report? Will they ensure also that trustees of occupational pension schemes representing the employees and pensioners cannot in future be removed by the employer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course those matters will be considered in the very comprehensive review of pension provision which will start this summer. But the issue of trustees is somewhat removed from the original Question.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is the Minister aware that I never had a close association with Robert Maxwell, and perhaps not as close an association as some Members opposite have had with other tycoons?

Business
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on schools funding.
Also, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 9th April, and return on Monday, 20th April. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 9th April.

Petroleum Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Audit Commission Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
("Publication of telephone conversations
OFFENCE OF PUBLISHING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who publishes, or causes to be published, a telephone conversation made by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in a case where—

(a) the recording of the conversation did not contravene the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and all parties to the telephone conversation in question have given their consent to publication;

(b) one of the parties to the conversation is a journalist and the conversation was undertaken as part of his professional investigations;

(c) the conversation was recorded by the employer of one of the parties to the conversation ("the employee") as part of a routine procedure for recording telephone conversations within the workplace provided that—

(i) the employee has been made aware in writing of this procedure, and

(ii) publication is necessary for or in connection with the conduct of disciplinary proceedings;

(d) the conversation was conducted between persons acting on behalf of a firm and one of its clients and the recording was undertaken to provide evidence of a commercial transaction; or

(e) it can he shown that publication of the conversation is in the public interest.

(3) A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both;

(b) on conviction On indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine, or to both.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Monson. I should explain that this is a substantially revised version of the amendment which I moved in Committee, but that it retains the same objective: namely, the creation of a new criminal offence, the publication of the transcript of a clandestinely monitored telephone conversation. It is already illegal to make such interceptions, save under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in carefully defined circumstances, but it is not at present illegal to publish the transcript. Thus, the amendment is designed to close a loophole in existing legislation.
Replying to the debate on 13th February, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that my proposal covered a wide area and gave rise to a number of matters which the Government were already considering in the context of EC Directive No. 97/66/EC of 15th December 1997 and that he thought it would be premature for me to press my amendment, which he invited me to withdraw meanwhile. I agreed to do this and said that I would study the directive, reserving the right to present it again on Report, which I now do in revised form.
There is no conflict between this amendment and the EC directive; rather the two texts are complementary and mutually supportive. In particular,
822
Article 5 of the directive states the intention to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of telecommunications, which is also my main objective. There is a similar provision in Article 8 of the European human rights convention. The problem that the Government have with the directive is that it covers all telecommunications, whereas our own law, the Interception of Telecommunications Act 1985, is less extensive in its coverage, applying only to telecommunications which pass through the public networks. Privatisation and the advance of technology mean that a substantial sector is thus left uncovered. Therefore, amendment of the 1985 Act will he required before we can implement the directive, and we know that a review of that Act is already in progress.
Meanwhile, the Government have exercised their right to derogate from implementation of the directive until October 2000, in respect of Article 5, as is permitted by the text of the directive. I cite these matters simply to illustrate that I can see no impediment in the directive to the passage of my amendment, as I rather think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, implied when he spoke on the earlier occasion. That was, I suggest, something of a red herring, although I understand his wish not to complicate other matters which require consideration as a result of the directive. However, I submit that my amendment would not be in conflict with the directive. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for drawing my attention to the directive, and more particularly for his kindness in arranging a meeting at the Home Office on Monday morning when we were able to discuss the question in more detail. As a result, I have endeavoured to meet the objections and difficulties mentioned at that meeting in the substantially revised version of the amendment which is before the House today. I shall speak as briefly as I can to those changes.
Subsection (2)(b) of my earlier draft contained a provision that if a journalist wished to question a person in public life about some alleged malpractice, and for the greater accuracy of his report wanted to record the conversation, he should first make known his intention. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, told me that he thought that provision would hinder legitimate investigative journalism, as the person approached would surely terminate the conversation abruptly if he heard that a recording was to be made. To meet this objection, which does have some force, I have much shortened the subsection so as to remove the proviso regarding recording altogether: the exemption now covers all conversations by journalists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will find this satisfactory. I am not particularly happy with a law which places journalists in a privileged position in relation to other citizens, but I cannot think of another way of meeting the noble Lord's objection.
For the greater certainty of knowledge, I should add that there is a clause in the voluntary code of practice, number 8, which covers the matter. It says:
"Journalists must not obtain or publish material obtained by using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private telephone conversations".
In parenthesis, I do not suppose that that clause need necessarily apply to transcripts of on-the-record telephone conversations, although that is not made clear in the code. My intention is to give legal effect to clause 8 of the code, which I have just quoted. Indeed, the code, my amendment and the EC directive share a common objective. If we agree to adopt the amendment, we shall be able to transpose that passage of the code into statute law and to facilitate implementation of the EC directive at the same time.
Some noble Lords may feel that matters are better left as they are, on the basis of a voluntary code. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, spoke eloquently on those lines in a recent debate. I should add that I informed the noble Lord yesterday of my intention to refer to his intervention this afternoon. However, I do not see that as being the route we ought to follow. I say that because an editor may more readily overlook the effect of a code, which he can always argue about at length afterwards; but he cannot so readily ignore the force of the law.
As I suggested in my earlier speech, this is an area where temptations are strong, where technology is constantly advancing and making interceptions easier. I submit that safeguards are needed to strengthen the resolve to remove malpractice as far as possible. After all, we are talking about a fundamental matter; namely, the right of the citizen to enjoy privacy of personal communication. We should be proud of that right and exert ourselves to protect it. I doubt whether that right would be fully protected by the code, which does not, I think, enjoy the confidence placed by the public in statute law.
There are some other changes which I shall mention more briefly. Subsection (2)(c) is followed by a new paragraph (d) to make it clear that records of telephone conversations in a City dealing room may, if necessary, be used to verify details of a particular financial transaction. It was my intention that that should be covered by way of the original wording, but the matter is now set out more clearly in this version of the amendment.
A final change is the omission of the former subsection (2)(d), which was designed to authorise the Director of Public Prosecutions to make use of these recordings in criminal proceedings if he thought it desirable. It has been pointed out to me that this practice is precluded by the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, so I have excised it from the amendment. No doubt the matter can be examined in more detail in the review of that Act which is now in progress. Indeed, there may perhaps be a case for lifting the total ban in certain cases so as to make use of intercepted material in particularly serious criminal cases.
I hope that the amendment in its revised form will be acceptable to the Government. The only aspect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which I have not attempted to cover relates to the doubts that he expressed
824
about the word "publishes", which is to be found in line I of my amendment. As I understand it, in legal terminology this word has far-reaching effect, meaning:
"Communication to another, or others, by whatever means".
However, I hope that noble Lords will not be put off course by worries of that kind. What I am seeking to outlaw in this amendment is the violation of the principle of privacy of communication, which is a fundamental right.
Not having a written constitution, we have to take specific steps of this kind to achieve an objective which most other countries enjoy in a basic constitutional document. The principle already features prominently in international texts, some of which I have mentioned. We need this provision in our domestic law. It must he an anomaly that it is illegal to make a clandestine recording of a telephone conversation, but legal to publish it. That is the situation at present.
I am not interested in regulation of the press, nor do I favour it; but I am interested in the rights of the citizen. However, to meet any possible objection on that score, I have included a new subsection (2)(e) which would permit publication when it can be shown to be in the public interest. Thus, it would be for the courts of this country to determine whether or not an editor's decision to publish an illegal document was justified in the public interest.
I have gone a long way to meet the difficulties expressed to me by Ministers. I hope that this revised version will allay the problems which they foresaw. Should the Government still dislike it—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, indicated to me that he thought it unlikely the Government could accept the amendment—I can conclude only that they wish to avoid the risk of ruffling feathers in Fleet Street, Wapping and other places of that kind. If that is their calculation, I put it to them that they will not be able to rely on goodwill from that quarter. I put it to the House that the sounder judgment is to regard this as a matter of principle, as I have tried to express it this afternoon. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will take that view and join me in the Lobby if that proves necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, with his usual skill my noble friend Lord Bridges has taken what was already a worthwhile and desirable Committee stage amendment and made it even better. I am happy to support it. I am only sorry that more noble Lords did not add their names to it given that surely almost all of us in the Chamber must support its basic objectives. As I said in Committee, a generation or so ago those who eavesdropped, peered through keyholes or steamed open and read other people's letters were considered beyond the pale. Anyone who profited financially from such reprehensible activities was considered the lowest form of human life. Sadly the old decencies are vanishing which is why we need an amendment such as this, even though it covers only one aspect of invasion of privacy. I hope your Lordships will support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although we should always be reluctant to create new criminal offences I consider

825
that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made out a strong case for this one. Surely, confidentiality of telephone conversations is essential for various reasons—I put family reasons first—including various professional reasons. For example, a doctor having already examined a patient may feel it necessary to telephone him instead of visiting him. Surely that telephone conversation should be confidential. I should have thought that in the legal profession it is highly desirable that conversations between solicitor and client should be protected in this way, and sometimes—this does not often happen because barristers act through solicitors—even conversations that barristers may have either with solicitors or even occasionally with a lay client deserve confidentiality. I am not a businessman but there are eminent businessmen on your Lordships' Benches. There must be many occasions when it is in the public interest as well as the private interest that business conversations should be protected. There is no other way that I know of protecting them. Lest anyone thinks that we are going too far in applying the principle of protecting privacy, I would say that this is a limited step in that direction but a highly necessary one.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to deliberations on the Crime and Disorder Bill as I gather he is to respond to this amendment. We see him for the first time on what I now reckon to be the eighth day of the passage of this Bill through the House. I hope that he enjoys the experience in part.
I did not speak on this amendment in Committee but I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said on that occasion and I certainly studied with some care the response of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the Government. I have considerable sympathy with the ideas behind the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I am totally opposed to the idea that secretly recorded telephone conversations should be published by the newspapers or other outlets. I believe that people have a right to confidentiality. I think that most people are agreed on that. I am sure that the Government will also be the first to say that they too agree that in the main such conversations should not be published.
However, as the Government explained on the third or fourth day in Committee, this matter will, I understand, be partially dealt with by, I believe, the 1995 data protection directive and also by the Data Protection Bill currently proceeding through this House. There are difficult matters here which relate on one side to questions of privacy and on the other to matters concerning both public interest and press freedom. At this stage I want to listen carefully to the Government's response on how they see these matters being dealt with by the directive and by the Data Protection Act when it finally reaches the statute book. I hope that they can give convincing reasons as to why an amendment of this kind is not the appropriate way forward. I shall listen carefully to what the Government have to say before making up my mind on how I wish to proceed, and how
826
those on these Benches who take advice from me wish to proceed, once the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has decided what to do about his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for coming to the Home Office early on Monday morning to discuss the matter with my noble friend Lord Williams and myself, and for the care that he has taken in his revision of the amendment to take account of some of the things we pointed out to him at that time. I assure him that we listened carefully to what he had to say too. As I have already indicated to him informally that we shall not be able to accept the amendment, I hope the House will forgive me if I give my reasons in some detail.
The core of the amendment is contained in the proposed new subsection (2) and in the provisions for exceptions to the offence of publishing or causing to be published a telephone conversation. The proposed new subsection (2)(a) refers to contravention of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. This is technically deficient because there is currently no offence of recording a conversation made over a public telecommunications system provided one or more parties consents to the recordings, under Section 1(2)(b) of the Interception of Communications Act. There is no offence at all as regards recording on a private network.
The proposed new subsection (2)(b) refers to a situation where one of the parties is a journalist and the conversation is part of his investigations. The noble Lord reminded us that his Committee stage version of the amendment would have required the journalist to make clear to his interlocutor that the conversation was being recorded or conducted with a view to publication. We pointed out that that would make investigative journalism virtually impossible. The noble Lord recognised that point. This version is a step towards protecting investigative journalism but it does not protect a journalist who is listening in to a conversation between two other parties without their knowledge or consent and who would not be caught by the industry code of practice provided he could show that he was acting in the public interest.
The proposed new subsection (2)(c) refers to conversations recorded by an employer of one of the parties,
"as part of a routine procedure for recording telephone conversations within the workplace".
Anyone who listens to commercial radio and the advertising of financial services on it will know that it is a common occurrence for someone to say that conversations may be recorded for the protection of the public. The provision in this subsection goes further than the EC telecoms data protection directive which allows legally authorised recording of communications in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication. The amendment would prohibit an employer using recorded material as evidence of a commercial transaction. I remind the House that court proceedings would constitute publication.

827
The fourth part of subsection (2) refers to when the conversation is between a firm and its clients and the recording is made to provide evidence of a commercial transaction. It replaces paragraph (d) which was contrary to Section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act which expressly prohibits the use of any intercept evidence gathered under an IOCA warrant in any court. No exception is made for the Director of Public Prosecutions or anyone else. The new subsection attempts to accommodate acceptable practices in the financial services sector. But since we do not have a legal framework for recording, that is undesirable.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) would not amount to implementation of the Telecoms Data Protection Directive. We would therefore have to legislate again by October 2000. We would need to establish a legal framework for the recording and publication of communications on public and private networks. This requires time for careful consideration and consultation. The proposed amendment would outlaw acceptable recording and publication practices by omission rather than intent.
I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, recognised, that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, raises complex issues of privacy, public interest and press freedom. The noble Lord made it clear that his principal objective is to mark limits of acceptable press behaviour. We believe in a free press. We need to be very careful to balance properly the right to privacy with the right of freedom of expression. As we have said many times, we prefer effective self-regulation of the press to any statutory control or a law of privacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, acknowledged, his proposed amendment would be one step towards statutory control.
The newspaper industry code of practice, on the basis of which the Press Complaints Commission resolves complaints, already requires that,
"Journalists Oust not obtain or publish material obtained using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private telephone conversations unless it can he demonstrated that this is in the public interest".
The Government are committed to self-regulation and expect the press to keep to both the letter and the spirit of the code.
As I have said, another difficulty is that the amendment cuts across our implementation of Article 5 of the EC Telecoms Data Protection Directive. As my noble friend Lord Williams said in Committee, we must implement this article by October 2000. The article requires member states to ensure via national regulation the confidentiality of communications and in particular to prohibit the listening, tapping, storage and other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications by people other than the users without the consent of the users except when legally authorised.
Accepted recording practices are not explicitly covered by UK law at present. There is no UK legislation for recording on private telephone networks. It will be necessary, as part of implementing Article 5 of the directive, to establish a framework for recording tapping of communications whether on
828
the private or public network. So we need to consult widely and to work closely with the relevant industries to ensure that we get the legislative framework right.
I believe that our approach to this is properly expressed in the light of the Data Protection Bill and the Human Rights Bill. We have to be very clear about the precise policy intended. Our fundamental objection to the amendment is that it would undermine our support for press self-regulation. I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, sought to impute motives to the Government in supporting press regulation. We are not doing so in fear of the disapproval of Fleet Street or Wapping, or in search of their support. We are doing so because we believe that that is right in a free society. The amendment would be a statutory milestone too far. I do not dismiss the concerns of the noble Lord. The Government take the matter very seriously but we do not feel that the amendment is the right way to tackle the problem. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for having given a considered reply. I emphasise again that I do not seek to move a step towards regulation of the press. This is a milestone to indicate an area where not just the press but no one should stray. I believe that it is necessary to do that. I regard it as a matter of principle. I am sure that the many problems which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, foresaw if we accept the amendment could be sorted out by careful consideration and production of a further amendment at Third Reading if the Government wish to do so.
However, this is a matter of principle for me and I seek the opinion of the House.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55: Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hereford, Bp.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hooson, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hylton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Braybrooke, L.

Lane, L.

Bridges, L. [Teller.]

Leathers, V.

Brightman, L.

Leigh, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chorley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Dearing, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V

Dowding, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Exmouth, V.

Moyne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nathan, L.

Haddington, E.

Northbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

O'Cathain, B.

829

Palmer, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Swansea, L.

Rees, L.

Swinfen, L.

Tenby, V.

Renton, L.

Walpole, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Warnock, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wharton, B.

Sandwich, E.

Wilberforce, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dubs, L.

Nelson, E.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Stallard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 27 [Abolition of rebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax]:
4.14 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert—
("() Where a child aged 10 or over is accused of an offence, it shall he a defence for him to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not know his action was seriously wrong.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord McNally, who is unwell, I rise to move this amendment.
On this occasion we return to the subject of doli incapax, or, as Clause 27 of the Bill slightly more comprehensively puts it,
"The rebuttable presumption of criminal law that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence".
I accept, as do my noble friends on these Benches, that the present rule is, as it stands, unjustified. It should not be necessary for the prosecution to have to prove as part of its case that a 13 year-old child, who may by that time be a professional burglar, as some are, knows that breaking into someone else's house and stealing cash and jewellery is wrong. However, we seek not to abolish the rule, but to modify it.
Children develop a concept of right and wrong very early. You learn at a very young age that it is wrong to throw your porridge on the floor if you do not want to eat it. You learn that it is wrong to grab your little sister's favourite toy and make her cry. But what does not come until much later is the concept of criminality; namely, the difference between doing things which are naughty and for which you will be punished (it is to be hoped) by a parent, and doing things which are seriously wrong and liable to punishment by a court. I certainly do not believe that all children understand the concept of criminality by the age of 10.
By current international standards, 10 is a very low age for criminal responsibility. Most other European countries have an age of criminal responsibility of at least, at the lowest, 12; and of the significant European countries, ignoring one or two mini-states such as Malta, only the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Switzerland have an age of responsibility of less than 12. I am of course aware that the age of responsibility in Scotland is eight, which is not something of which I approve. However, I also recognise that Scotland has the highly respected system of children's panels, which draws some of the sting from a very low age of criminal responsibility.
If we are to retain an age of criminal responsibility as low as 10, what is needed is an intermediate stage. We should not jump straight from no criminal responsibility at the age of nine to full responsibility at the age of 10. We need to protect 10 or 11 year-olds who do not understand that what they are doing is seriously wrong. We should do so by allowing the defence to raise and prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the child in question did not have the capacity to understand that what he or she was doing was seriously wrong.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, opposed this amendment because, as he said,
"we need to deal with intervention, rehabilitation and beginning to assist the child".—[Official Report, 12/2/98; col. 1324.]
But if the defence of lack of understanding succeeds, it does not, and should not, mean that the child walks out of the court and nothing is done about its behaviour. What it should mean is that the child should be dealt with by a care order or a supervision order made by a family proceedings court, and that that child should not be treated as a criminal. The noble Lord also said that the more warped the child's moral standards, the easier it would be to raise the defence of lack of capacity,

831
quoting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who was himself quoting from an article written many years ago by Professor Glanville Williams.
However, I do not believe that that is the case. A child with warped moral standards is likely to come from a family which is itself in trouble with the law. Whatever its understanding of right and wrong, it is certain that a child with that background is likely to understand the concept of criminality earlier than most children. The child this amendment seeks to protect is not the child with warped moral standards; it is the slow child, the silly child, the child who tags along with older children on what he thinks is a prank but what is in fact something much more serious. It is for that reason that I believe this amendment would improve the Bill as regards the protection of children of 10 and 11 years old who will not be adequately protected if the existing law of doli incapax is removed and nothing put in its place. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and hope that the Minister will not lightly dismiss the concerns of many who practise at the criminal bar about the abolition of this rule. I believe that most people accept that the application of the rule is unsatisfactory and has in the past led to youngsters who should have been prosecuted not being prosecuted. We all accept that reform is necessary, but the present rule provides a safeguard. I am concerned that if all we do is to abolish it we shall, in a classic manner, be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The present rule works as a safeguard against the conviction of a child who genuinely does not know that what he or she has done is seriously wrong. It offends me—and, I suspect, other noble Lords—that someone in that position should be the subject of a criminal conviction in our courts, particularly given the age with which we are concerned of up to 13.
The present rule works as a safeguard in two ways. First, when the prosecuting authorities have to decide whether or not to proceed, someone has to look at the evidence and consider whether the child did or did not have the necessary knowledge and whether that could be proved by the Crown. If it is decided that there is evidence and the case goes ahead, there is a second stage at which the safeguard applies during the trial when the defence can raise the issue, call evidence and obtain a "not guilty" verdict if the Crown are unable to establish that the child did know. To abolish that rule without any replacement would seem to me to remove all safeguards. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell us what safeguards there will be if he does not accept the amendment.
The amendment leaves a means by which the defence, if they are able to put convincing evidence before the court, can ensure that such a conviction does not take place. Not all defendants, particularly those in the age bracket of 10 to 13, are streetwise, educated young
832
criminals. A wide variety of people come before our courts. It is sometimes said—perhaps not seriously, but one has only to look at the list outside the Old Bailey to see how true it is—that a court list consists of a judge with an English name trying people with foreign names. It is not just people who are slow-witted or backward at that age; our courts are, unhappily, also full of people who have been in this country for a very limited time. For example, in the past year or so I am aware of a case where a child from Somalia, who had recently come here as a refugee, had known nothing but civil war and had received no formal education, was tried for rape. There are also cases of youngsters who have recently come from the backstreets of Kingston, Jamaica, who find themselves before our courts. Those children cannot be judged by the standards of a child who has been through our English education system and grown up in our society.
I hope the Minister will accept that the conviction of a child who genuinely does not know that his actions are wrong cannot be morally justified. I know that he is sympathetic on all matters concerned with juvenile offenders and that his aim would be to ensure that someone in this position received assistance. I hope that if this rule is to go, as is intended by this legislation, and nothing is to replace it, we can at the very least be assured that those in the Crown Prosecution Service who decide whether or not to bring these prosecutions will continue to look rigorously at every case involving a child of this age to see whether it is really in the interests of justice that the full procedure of the criminal law should apply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I speak with deference and considerable respect, but on this occasion I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has got it quite right. The noble Baroness has vast experience in this sphere. In this day and age this presumption makes no sense when squared against the annals of the kinds of serious criminal conduct committed by those who are of the age where the presumption applies. The concern, as put by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is understood: if the child did not know that what he was doing was seriously wrong, he ought not to stand trial. However, I am not sure that that is the right way of dealing with this issue. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has to say about it.
The reason I am not sure is that most crimes involve a relevant element of intention which has to be proved by the Crown beyond all reasonable doubt. If for some reason—and some examples have been given—the child really did not know that what he was doing was seriously wrong, it is open to the court or the jury to conclude that he had not, beyond all reasonable doubt, that intention. Even if it is shown that the child had that intention, the circumstances, the fact that it is a child and all other factors will be taken into account in mitigation. Courts are very reluctant to deal harshly with children.

833
It seems to me that the clause as it stands is a sensible and brave contribution relevant to the needs of reducing crime committed by these very people, often in gangs and with severe ruthlessness. As presently advised, I shall oppose the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear the reply.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I too am inclined to oppose the amendment and to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. If a child of 10 or 11 really does not know that a serious offence is wrong, it is important that that child should learn that it is wrong. To unconditionally discharge the child will not help him. It is much better that the courts should take the necessary action to ensure that the child is taken into care or given some other help so that he can learn that what he has done is wrong before he commits a more serious offence. For example, in the case of taking away and driving a car, the child should know that it is wrong before he does it again and kills someone.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others, I need no convincing that my noble friend the Minister is on the side of enlightenment, compassion and concern in the administration of justice. He must therefore find this part of the Bill very difficult to defend.
This issue is a good illustration of the way in which law is often drafted by decent, responsible people who have had the benefit of a good education and a good family background and cannot conceive of the reality of the background from which some of the people who end up in court have come. As a constituency Member of the other place—which I was for 13 years—in the course of my casework I repeatedly came up against the most disturbing and horrific family situations in which it would have been quite amazing if a young person had reached the age of 10, 11, 12 or 13 with any clear sense of what was right and wrong. It is in that sense that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is standing for decency in the law in saying that we must accept and face that reality and make sure that the position of young people coming from such a background is properly defended.
The other observation which I must make in this context—some of those who share my anxieties about this part of the Bill may not endorse my argument—is that there is a deeper issue which concerns me in regard to this part of the Bill. In the context of a rather materialistic society, I hope that we are not moving into an over-punitive approach towards the administration of justice. It seems to me that the biggest challenge—we will no doubt return to this argument on other elements of the Bill—in the administration of justice is always rehabilitation; that is, how we win the offender back to full constructive citizenship. That should be our primary concern in a civilised society.
What worries me is not what the intention was in the drafting of the Bill, but that the effect of this part of it plays to a social attitude which wants to pile all the blame onto the shoulders of the young child who is in court; that it fails to accept the collective social responsibility for the situation in which the child finds itself. The child may come from an environment of
834
appalling schools, appalling housing; media which plays to sensationalism and violence and parents who had no chance to develop their sense of responsible parenthood in their education, upbringing and environment.
If one takes into account all those wider challenges of the reality of the age in which we are living, this part of the Bill is not right. I hope therefore that the Minister—for whom I have tremendous respect, not only politically, but personally—will find a way when responding to say that, even if he cannot accept Amendment No. 81 today, he will look at the case that is being made; take it away and talk to his colleagues to see how at a later stage of the Bill he can come back and meet the genuine and widespread anxieties of this House.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, F.W. Maitland, who is perhaps still our greatest ever legal historian, once wrote an article under the title, The Early History of Malice Aforethought. But Amendment No. 81 is concerned rather with the pre-history of malice aforethought. Malice aforethought—mens rea—as far back as criminal records go, has been just about the central constituent idea of criminal responsibility. But that guilty intent is made up of several elements. It is made up of rote learning, of knowledge and imagination. One cannot necessarily assume that all parts of those constituent elements are necessarily acquired at the same moment, which is why the phrase, the "pre-history" of malice aforethought is relevant.
We can take, for example, children who pull the wings off butterflies; I have known such children among my school contemporaries. They know perfectly well that what they do is wrong in the sense that they know that mummy will be cross; but they do not have any conception at all of the sort of pain and horror that they may be creating.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said rightly that a child in that situation must be helped to learn. That is the centre of the point. But in moving the amendment my noble friend Lord Goodhart said that there is nothing about the carrying of this amendment which would in any way impede that process. Indeed, it may help it, for the full panoply of the criminal law is not necessarily the best way to help a child to learn.
I will take one single case, though it is not in any sense a criminal case, which perhaps pinpoints that mixture of fantasy and reality which these intermediate stages of childhood may involve. I am told—though I do not answer for the truth of it—that the youngest child ever to give birth was a Peruvian girl aged nine. She was offered the baby to hold and pushed it away and asked for her doll. It is that mixture of reality and fantasy which I should like to see protected by this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, one should bear in mind what a narrow subject we are dealing with. We are dealing with the question of the abolition of an out-of-date presumption and the sole question is: should the presumption be tempered so that part of it remains?

835
What is being overlooked by some is that we are not concerned with retributive punishment; that will not be applied in the cases with which we are dealing because the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 44(1), provides that,
"Every court in dealing with a child or young person … shall have regard to the welfare of the child or young person".
That is why in Committee I submitted that there was wisdom in what Professor Glanville Williams said in 1954, that the presumption was out of date:
"It saves the child not from prison, transportation or the gallows, but from the probation officer, the foster-parent or the approved school. The paradoxical result is that, the more warped the child's moral standards, the safer he is from the correctional treatment of the criminal law".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, on re-reading what was said at Committee stage and listening to your Lordships today, it occurs to me that there is a general consensus on all sides of the House. Regardless of whether those who have spoken are for or against the amendment, everybody accepts that where a child of the ages about which we are talking has not developed a moral sense and does not appreciate that what he or she is doing is seriously wrong, then the proper way of dealing with the child is rehabilitation, redemption and so forth.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that we are dealing with an out-of-date presumption. We are actually dealing with an out-of-date system for dealing with offenders of this age. If one goes to Scotland—reference has been made to the age of responsibility in Scotland being as low as eight—the Youth Panel system deals with young children in an entirely different way. It just so happens that in the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 there was a division about the way in which young children should be treated. In Scotland the Youth Panel was implemented; in England and Wales, due to the intervention of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society which at that time made strong representations, the old system of a judicial process of proving a charge and of punishment was maintained for ourselves.
In Scotland, if a child is brought before the Youth Panel, that child will be dealt with by the justices, the magistrates and the members of the panel altogether. The child will be present, as will the parents, while the evidence is gone into; while the mitigating circumstances are discussed; while the reports are read. But, more particularly, the child is there while the members of the Youth Panel discuss among themselves and with the parents, in the presence of the child, what is the best way of bringing about redemption and rehabilitation. What we are urging from these Benches in later amendments is that we should seriously consider adopting that kind of regime in England and Wales. However, until we get there, and while we are still using the system we have at the present time, which I suggest is an out-of-date system, the amendment put forward by my noble friend has a great deal of validity.
It offends us, when we are considering the proving of a criminal offence and the punishment for that offence—which is the way in which things are framed at the
836
moment—for a child to be castigated as a criminal at the age of 10 when the premise of my noble friend's amendment is that the child does not fully appreciate or understand what it has done. Until we change the system in England and Wales, the amendment proposed by my noble friend has a great deal of validity, and I am very happy to support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there does not seem to be any disagreement that the ancient presumption is in need of reform. Therefore, the question seems to be: should it be reversed or should it be abolished? When we were deciding how best to proceed we considered whether reversal or abolition was the better course. We put it out to consultation. I respectfully remind your Lordships of what I said earlier. Of those who responded to the consultative paper Tackling Youth Crime, 111 out of the 180 who expressed a view said that abolition was appropriate.
I have listened with care to the argument. Perhaps I may respond in particular to one or two distinct aspects. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with great respect, is quite right. We are not talking about a retributive system. I echo, again respectfully, what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. What one is looking for here is intervention which ought to be able to offer not retribution but rehabilitation, help and support. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we must not look to an over-punitive regime. What we have done in dealing with children over the past years is to leave intervention and the opportunity for informed, structured rehabilitation far too long. One needs to make a careful distinction between, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, intervention with a criminal prosecution and what one does if guilt is proved.
No one wants to be over-punitive of small children but one has to bear in mind that some small children do extraordinary harm. We have to bear in mind the legitimate and reasonable concerns of victims. Quite often it is notoriously, though sadly, true that the victims of young criminals are vulnerable people such as old people living alone. They are also entitled to a reasonable regard for their rights and freedoms just as one has to have a proper and tender regard for young children. We believe that we have the balance right here.
I go a little further, if I may, and repeat and adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. What one wants here is early intervention; not early savage punishment but early assistance. It does a child no favours to let it drift on without knowing, particularly in a modern sophisticated society, that if it commits criminal acts there will be a sanction. It may well he a sanction by way of intervention and rehabilitation, not punishment, but that a sanction is required upon these occasions we believe is beyond doubt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for whose opinions I always have great respect and regard, put the illustration of a young man from Somalia who had committed rape. There was therefore a victim of a gross offence. I have to say that in respect of that illustration I was not myself satisfied at all about the validity of her point. She asked specific questions. Your Lordships will

837
have seen that sitting next to me is the Solicitor-General, with his responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service. I am happy to give the indication which the noble Baroness wanted.
Before a child appears in court accused of a criminal offence there will be several stages. At each stage a decision will have to be made about whether a criminal charge is appropriate. The first is the police, who will decide whether to charge or caution the child. If they decide to charge, the case will go to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide whether to prosecute. In making that decision—I take the noble Baroness's phrase and adopt it—of course the Crown Prosecution Service will continue to look rigorously at all the circumstances. It will, of course, decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. It will also continue to bear in mind whether or not it is in the public interest for a prosecution to be brought. The public interest, I respectfully repeat, does not limit itself only to the public interest in the welfare of a prospective defendant child. In making those decisions the Crown Prosecution Service will consider the welfare of the child because the courts are required to do so under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Those safeguards will continue, but we believe that is the proper way forward.
I also ought to tell your Lordships, as a matter of courtesy and, I hope, convenience, that the Government intend to introduce at Third Reading an amendment to the existing provisions relating to inferences which may be drawn from the refusal of a defendant to give evidence or answer questions in court. The provision applies at the moment only to those aged 14 or older. Our proposed amendment would extend the provision to all those who are over the age of criminal responsibility. That deviates from the point here but I thought it appropriate that I should mention it so that those of your Lordships who may have an interest in that area will have ample opportunity and notice.
I have listened to the submissions. I realise that there is not unanimity and that those who have anxiously held views about child welfare may come to different conclusions, as perhaps has the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the one hand, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the other. I hope your Lordships will think I have given due regard to the propositions that have been put, but I regret that we cannot accept the amendment. I further say to my noble friend Lord Judd that I cannot say that I will reconsider it with an open mind because we have come to our conclusion.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and I am particularly grateful for the contributions from the other side of the House of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am grateful that the Minister recognises that help and not retribution is the aim when one is dealing with young children who have committed acts that in the case of an adult would clearly be criminal. The case is simply: what is the right place for that help; should it be the criminal court or the family proceedings court?
838
I certainly believe that for a child who does not understand what he has done is seriously wrong, the appropriate place for that help is the family proceedings court.
I have taken note of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said at the end of his speech about the proposal to allow inferences to be drawn from the silence of children under the age of 14. On this occasion I shall say only that that causes me very considerable concern. But that is a matter for another time. I regard this amendment as a matter of importance and of principle and I therefore think it necessary to take the opinion of the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Methuen, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kennet, L.

Tope, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dubs, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Barnett, L.

Elton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brightman, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Burnham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hardie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chorley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hoyle, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Davidson, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

839

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Renton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Montague of Oxford, L

Swinfen, L.

Nelson, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Tenby, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Nome, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northbourne, L.

Warnock, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Palmer, L.

Wharton, B.

Patten, L.

Whitty, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
("Abolition of death penalty
ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR TREASON AND PIRACY, ETC
.—(1) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814 (form of sentence in case of high treason), for the words "such person shall he hanged by the neck until such person he dead", there shall be substituted the words "such person shall he liable to imprisonment for life".
(2) In section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1703, the words "pains of death, and" shall cease to have effect.
(3) The Treason Act 1790 and the Treason Act 1795 are hereby repealed.
(4) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 (punishment of piracy when murder is attempted), for the words "and being convicted thereof shall suffer death" there shall he substituted the words "and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life".
(5) The Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931 is hereby repealed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recollect that an amendment in terms similar to this one was debated in Committee. I am deeply grateful to those of your Lordships who have encouraged and supported me both inside and outside the Chamber. Your Lordships may be relieved to learn that I do not propose to repeat today all that I said in Committee. But lest some few of your Lordships were not present on that occasion, or have not had an opportunity of reading the report, may I indicate briefly what the amendment seeks and does not seek to do.
What it seeks to do is to remove finally from the statute book the last remnants of capital punishment in time of peace, that is, for certain offences of piracy and treason. I hope that I have now rectified the omissions in the draft which I presented in Committee. I am deeply grateful to all those who have assisted with the research,
840
particularly to Amnesty International and to the officials of the Public Bill Office. We have trawled through the statutes in force and I think we have reached all the parts which my former researches did not reach. Even if there is some provision lurking unsuspected and undiscovered, I hope that your Lordships will not think that that precludes the House from taking a clear decision of principle today.
I turn now to what the amendment does not seek to do. First, it does not seek to revolutionise our customary way of life. The last execution for piracy was in 1830, and capital punishment for treason was last executed in 1947. So we have subdued piracy and frustrated treason for 50 years without resorting to the gallows. As some of your Lordships pointed out in Committee, capital punishment for arson in a royal dockyard was abolished unnoticed and unlamented in 1971 and was not followed by a spate of incendiarism in naval dockyards. The last execution in this country was for murder, and that provision was abolished in 1965, so I do not claim that the amendment will prevent the tumbrels from rolling.
My reasons for the proposal are twofold. First, I believe that it is a criterion by which history will judge our civilisation. As we perceive the ending of the blood feud and of whipping through the streets, so I believe will future generations perceive the ending of capital punishment in this country and its replacement by more civilised and more effective methods of law enforcement. Indeed, the Treason Act 1814, one of the provisions which it is proposed to repeal, was itself a civilising measure: it substituted hanging for disembowelling.
My second reason for moving the amendment is that I believe that it will encourage those countries which still retain capital punishment to think again and it will add credibility to our own Government's endeavours to bring that about. Knowing that the Government have reservations about ratifying the sixth protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and the protocol to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, I propose to leave that debate for another occasion. It is no part of this amendment and I do not propose to pursue it today although I give no undertakings as to my future conduct. My dispute with the Government on that issue is not because they are less than enthusiastic to see the death penalty abolished everywhere. They have played a leading role and strongly supported the final declaration of the summit of the Council of Europe last year which called for its universal abolition.
The amendment does not seek to amend the substantive law. Certainly, the law of treason is in need of revision; much of it still rests on the Treason Act 1351. In consequence, it would be treason to slay my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but only if he is in his place executing his office. Anyone who imagines the need to slay him need only wait until he is going to the theatre when they need have no concern for the law of treason. Happily, as we all know, my noble and learned friend's safety does not rest on the Treason Act 1351. The Law Commission published a paper on

841
the subject in 1977 but owing to what I believe were more the vicissitudes of parliamentary time than the merits of the argument the matter was never pursued.
None of that is relevant to the amendment. I mention it only because when I introduced a similar amendment in another place on 17th December 1990, I was met with the argument that the Law Commission was reviewing the whole law of treason and that it would be better to await the outcome. When next morning I telephoned the chairman of the Law Commission, he said that it was the first he had heard of it. Lest it be suggested that realistic amendment of the penalty should await a review of the substantive law, I merely observe that if it were to be suggested that because the law of treason is a complete muddle anyone convicted under it should for that reason be hanged, I would find the argument difficult to follow.
When the proposal in the amendment is made there are sometimes those who say that we should not act precipitately and that the matter requires more thought. Presumably, that is a way of saying that although no one can think of an argument against it, perhaps if we leave it long enough someone may come up with one. We have been reflecting on this since 1990.
The amendment does not seek to abolish the death penalty for certain offences against military law in time of war. That is not because I believe that our national safety depends upon shooting soldiers for cowardice, but because I recognise that the arguments are different. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that it might be arguable that we should exempt from the amendment treason (even by civilians) in time of war. As the noble Lord would expect, I naturally reflected carefully on that. I finally decided against it because I believe that although it is arguable that in wartime troops in battle should be more afraid of their officers than they are of the enemy, I am not sure that civilians are best motivated in that way. I hope that the noble Lord will not press me on that.
Perhaps I may be permitted one final explanation. It may be wondered why I propose to substitute for the death penalty a mandatory life sentence since I have never concealed my support for those among your Lordships who argue for the abolition of that form of sentence. I do so only because that was the alternative to the death penalty that was adopted in the case of murder and it would avoid the charge of inconsistency. I simply say that I reserve that subject for a future debate.
This is one of those suggestions which are scarcely still controversial but for which there is never an appropriate moment to lay them to rest. I submit that there will be no better time than now. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave full and at times entertaining accounts of the historical origins of the statutes on piracy and treason. They had no difficulty in persuading the Committee that the death penalty
842
provisions were wholly obsolete and should he repealed. We heard a résumé of the argument from the noble and learned Lord just now.
My only reason for intervening today, having heard the previous debate but not spoken in it, is that I sensed in Committee an assumption, particularly noticeable in the latter part of the debate, that with the spread internationally of more civilised standards, if one can use that expression, the death penalty was in decline. As a convinced abolitionist, I wish that it were so, but, unhappily, much of the evidence points in the opposite direction.
The statistics compiled annually by Amnesty International, the most reliable source, show that in recent years, although there has been a welcome reduction in the total number of countries in which people are sentenced to death, the use made of capital punishment is on the increase and in some instances, such as the years 1995–96, sharply so. In 1995 at least 4,165 prisoners were sentenced to death, and 2,931 were executed. In 1996 7,107 prisoners were sentenced to death, and 5,139 were executed. It is true that some of the increases arose in countries with which we would not care to compare ourselves, but others are closer to home. In the United States of America, after a 10-year moratorium which ended in 1976, a substantial majority of states have reinstated capital punishment in state law, even states like New York and New Jersey which are regarded by some as traditional homes of civil liberties. In federal law there is now a long list of offences, some 40 or 50, punishable by the death penalty. In a number of cases the liability applies even where no victim has died as a result of the criminal act.
Because of the long drawn-out procedures for appeal against conviction and post-conviction review prisoners who are sentenced to death can spend anything up to 10 years on death row, and in a few cases even longer. As a result, at the moment there are over 3,000 prisoners on death row in the United States. In the state of California alone the number is between 400 and 500. There is an incoming tide from America.
Why do I raise that this afternoon in relation to this particular amendment which is so much narrower in scope? I raise it because in recent years so many ideas about penal policy—in my opinion, not all of them beneficent—have crossed the Atlantic in an easterly direction. For an example we need look no further than the introduction last year of mandatory sentences of imprisonment in the Crime (Sentences) Act.
The motivation for the use of the death penalty in the United States is now primarily retributive. It is the anger, fear and popular resentment caused by the extent of violent crime that has led to the re-emergence of what is fundamentally vengeance in penal policy. This is an ominous development of profound significance. Protective walls need to be built up in this country and elsewhere in Europe to make sure that there is no erosion of the principle that capital punishment has no place in the laws of a truly civilised country.
I return to the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for going somewhat wider than the amendment which would effect a very modest change.

843
We would be doing away with no more than historical relics of no practical significance. That would enable us to concentrate on strengthening what matters: our contemporary system of criminal justice, without resorting to the inhuman practices of the past.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I make a very brief contribution to the debate on Amendment No. 82. I register my support for it rather than enter into the intricacies of the argument. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer has moved the amendment in such an eloquent fashion that I cannot match it. Therefore, I have decided to say very little.
I believe that the case is very simple. The principle is whether the state should be empowered to take the life of an individual and to do so irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. I do not believe that the state should ever have that power, and that is why I want the residual powers that exist in English law to be repealed. Existing science demonstrates that the death penalty is not the deterrent that has been used in political arguments for so many years. In the other place on numerous occasions attempts have been made to reintroduce capital punishment and those attempts have been defeated. I believe that that underlines the principle that capital punishment does not work in practice. The principle is itself so significant that a civilised country should not have recourse to such behaviour. The role of the state is to ensure that a convicted criminal is not in a position to harm individuals. I believe that there is here a "harm" test. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to take the appropriate action, which means imprisonment. Imprisonment in that way works. One can thereby ensure that the public is not harmed in any way.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer went into the detail. It is not appropriate for me to go into the new clause and the way in which it deals with such matters as piracy and treason. The present law is utterly irrelevant. The failure of the courts to invoke it demonstrates that legislation introduced in the nineteenth century is not relevant to modern British society.
Before I sit down I should like to make one other point. I do not speak as a Catholic or as someone who has supported the anti-abortion campaign. This amendment would repeal The Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931. I am pleased that it does so because I am repelled by the idea that a baby in the womb, which may be well developed, can be put to death by the state against the will of the mother for a crime committed by her. I find that quite unacceptable. I hope that this afternoon there is no division on this amendment and that it will be carried.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am about to introduce a somewhat discordant note. I find difficulty with this amendment. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me briefly to explain the difficulty. I have no problem whatever about the repeal of the expectant mothers Act under subsection (5). This is a Bill to
844
reform our domestic criminal law and it is wholly appropriate that this particular enactment should be repealed.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham has done the House a signal service by deploying the international perspective of this affair which goes beyond the ordinary confines of a domestic criminal reform Bill. It was a most useful and objective exposition, and I say so with respect to my noble friend.
I have problems with subsection (4). Piracy, in public international law, is an offence. It is not just a matter of domestic law. The subsection provides:
"punishment of piracy when murder is attempted … and being convicted thereof shall suffer death".
My Lords, why not? That is the form generally in international affairs. What is wrong with it? Noble Lords will say no doubt, "This is wrong with that proposition; that is wrong with the proposition. What you are saying about international law is all nonsense. It is not that at all". So be it, but is this the time, is this the place, to entertain a discussion of that order? I respectfully suggest that it is not, and that this is not the Bill in which it should be dealt with.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me—I am most grateful to him. I trust that he appreciates that there is no intention in this amendment to change international law. This is to change our domestic law about what happens to someone who falls within the jurisdiction of the English and Scottish courts.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I fully understand what I am talking about; but I am grateful to him nonetheless. I did not intend so to imply. I just want to deal with treason. I do not know, but I think that the last person who was hanged in the Tower was a stool pigeon at Colditz. That was for treason. I am not going to mention his name. What he did was treason. Those of us who were there were delighted to hear the result.
What happens in war? What happens in a prison camp? What is treason? How should it be dealt with? Is that a matter that we should start to discuss here? There are many ways in which this can be dealt with, but there is the international concept of treason. How is treason dealt with generally throughout the world? Usually by the death penalty. To me the death penalty is abhorrent. I spent a lot of useless time in your Lordships' House seeking to oppose the mandatory sentence for murder which was in exchange for the death penalty for murder. I oppose generally in our domestic law any form of re-imposition of the death penalty for murder, but I sincerely suggest that this amendment is not the way to deal with treason or piracy.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it always grieves me to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I am grieving rather a lot, I am afraid. He said that this is the form in international affairs. That is something that strikes me deeply. One may be conscious, as I am, of the executions that take place publicly in China, where

845
the family is charged for the price of the bullet. Those executions are carried out for offences which do not necessarily involve murder. They may involve all sorts of different types of commercial offences. When that is the standard of international affairs that is put before us, I cannot accept it.
Just before Christmas I received a letter from someone whose address was "c/o Death Row" in a prison in Jamaica. I am happy to say that I have received a subsequent letter with the address, "c/o Local Remand Centre", because the appeal was successful. That brings it home that when we are looking at the international dimension, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, far too many executions are carried out. Human life is taken on the flimsiest of evidence.
I come to our domestic legislation. Surely we must all have at the forefront of our minds the principle of respect for human life. We must bear in mind at all times that today, with the advances that we have had in scientific knowledge, it is not possible to be as confident as people appeared to be in the past of the guilt of a particular defendant. People who have been executed within our own jurisdiction in the past, may very well have been wrongly executed.
If that is the principle, what is the practicality? The practicality is that we are dealing with historic offences, historic punishments, which, as the noble Lord said, have no relevance to the circumstances of today. If therefore these provisions have no practicality, then the principle has to remain. I do not know what the Minister's attitude on this amendment will be, but I hope that we do not have to face a whipped vote on a matter of this sort in relation to this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to remind your Lordships that we are members of the Council of Europe. As members of the Council of Europe, we signed Resolution 10/97 which calls upon all parliaments in the world, which have not yet done so, to abolish the death penalty for all crimes before the end of this Millennium. That resolution was passed in 1996.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Windlesham, spoke forcefully about the increase in capital punishment in America. The Council of Europe now has 40 member countries. To be a member of the Council of Europe one has to abolish the death penalty. That is a force for good. Every noble Lord who has spoken has referred to the irrelevance of these provisions for the death penalty.
During the last plenary session of the Council of Europe, which I attended, that had some relevance in an obscure way. A resolution was moved by a British Member of Parliament which called for the expulsion of the Ukraine from the Council of Europe because it was continuing to execute people. I was not alone in being ribbed by other members of the Council of Europe about the vestiges of the death penalty that we still have on our statute book. It undermined the argument that we were deploying to have the Ukraine expelled from the
846
Council of Europe. I support the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend. I shall support it if he chooses to press it to a Division.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I have been thinking about the death penalty for many years. I have been going back and forth over it. I have finally come to the conclusion that it is wrong. Let us ensure that when a person is convicted of murder, vile or not so vile, horrible or not so horrible—most murder is vile and horrible, no matter how it is done, by a man or woman—he realises the wrongness of his deed by knowing that he will be in prison not just for a little twinkle time but for a reasonably long time. We must ensure that we have a Prison Service which can provide constructive and positive creative activity. One cannot force that upon a person, but we must ensure that it exists so that he will be unable to say, "While I was in prison I had nothing to do".
I know that it is horrible for someone to have to impose the death penalty. I recall that my father often had to do so during his different governorships. He was known to be a strong man, but there was a soft side to him and it was shown at such times. The family knew that when my father had to carry out the ghastly act of signing a death warrant it hurt him. He hated having to do it, but it was the law of the land. I know that deep down he wished he need not.
Let us ensure that those who commit such vile crimes do not believe that they can afterwards say, "It's all right, society does not really bother about it. People are just sorry for us and a feeble excuse will be made about why we did it". We must provide such people with the opportunity for creative activity while in prison so that they have no chance of saying, "We were not helped to return to normal, or as normal as anybody can be". I am pleased that I have at last reached that decision.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, people at meetings sometimes ask unexpected questions. I remember when I was an undergraduate the late Hugh Dalton, addressing a meeting, being asked what was the best degree for politics. He replied, "A second, because the first-class mind is too conscious of the possibility of error". I make no comment on what is the best degree for politics, but I should like my judicial system to be run, as I believe it is, by first-class minds. The possibility of error is the centre of the whole argument against the death penalty. I will not run through the possibility of error in cases of murder—it is not relevant to the amendment—but in cases of treason, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Archer, pointed out, it is redoubled because the law is such a mess.
The noble and learned Lord made only one comment with which I disagree. Do not denigrate the 1352 statute—or the 1351 statute, as it is in lawyers' dating. Every attempt to improve upon it has made confusion worse confounded. The trouble with treason is that it is a charge used to say, "I am very angry". People are often angry about issues of doubtful value. Therefore, the death penalty for treason is more likely to lead to error even than the death penalty for murder. The noble

847
Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked why it should be considered in this House. I say that because of all the places in which it has been debated over the centuries more sense has been spoken about it in this House than in almost all the rest put together.
I have one other point which is of particular relevance to the Opposition Front Bench. I have heard Members of it say many times in this Chamber that murder is literally the most heinous crime. Whether one accepts that argument or not, if one believes that, then it makes only sense that no crime should have a more severe punishment. If one believes that, there is some incongruity about punishing either treason or piracy more severely than murder.
Finally, one must consider the effect of any punishment on those who inflict it as well as on those upon whom it is inflicted. When I was an undergraduate, the piece of information which finally converted me to supporting abolition of the death penalty came from the late Gerald Gardiner. I learnt that the number of people who applied for the post of public hangman was 500 a week. That is really conclusive.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have congratulated my noble and learned friend Lord Archer on the steadfast lead he has given on this issue. I wish to put forward one argument in addition to those already convincingly deployed. It seems to me that if we base our position in respect of capital punishment on principle, principle must be absolute and not relative. Therefore, the more testing the circumstances in which we are considering a punishment, the more important it is to stand by the principle. In some ways, the more extreme the provocation, the greater the danger, the more important it is to stand firm. The moment one shows that one's principle can be qualified one throws into a position of jeopardy the application of the principle across the board.
Reference has been made—and it is important—to the fact that the number of executions in the world is increasing and that the tide of public opinion in the international community is not convincingly going in our direction. In such a situation it is not impossible that arguments could begin to be deployed that if the death penalty is retained in certain circumstances it is not illogical in terms of principle to apply it in other directions, too. So far as I am concerned, that is the most clinching argument in support of what is put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven for intervening in this important debate having missed the first 14 minutes of it. I invite your Lordships to consider what the effect of the amendment could be in time of war. We would have our own men and women fighting against the enemy and sacrificing their lives. At home, one of our own citizens might act as a traitor, going so far as to kill the sovereign, or place a bomb under 10 Downing Street. That would amount to an act favourable to the enemy—an act of treason. If the amendment were carried, while people were
848
sacrificing their lives to defend their country, such a man clearly being guilty of treason would simply be imprisoned. That is not right.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House why such an act would favour the enemy? Would it not make our people even more angry with the enemy?
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a ridiculous proposition.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords. I wish to reply to my noble friend Lord Renton. I use the phrase "noble friend" not only in its political sense but in its most personal sense. Bombs have been directed at 10 Downing Street and there was an attempt in Brighton to blow up Her Majesty's Government. We deemed it extremely stupid to charge those rebels—and that is exactly what they were—with treason because we knew that, if we charged them with treason, they would be open to the death penalty. Therefore, we took a political decision—and in my view, a wise political decision—to charge them only with conspiracy to cause explosions.
I believe that we are too grown up and too civilised a state to use the death penalty any more. I use one further analogy. Until 1948, Members of your Lordships' House who were charged with a felony were charged in front of the whole of your Lordships' House. That was removed by a Conservative amendment to the 1948 Criminal Justice Act, with the exception of treason. One commits treason if one has carnal knowledge of the sovereign, if female, or the wife of the heir to the throne. It seems to me to be terribly stupid to have a system whereby, if Major Hewitt had been a Member of your Lordships' House, he could have been charged with treason, of which he was undoubtedly guilty, dragged in front of your Lordships' House and then hanged. I admit that I am reducing that to the realms of the ridiculous but we should not have on our statute books the right to hang people for a ridiculous offence. I hope that this amendment will he accepted.
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the point which my noble friend has raised would be dealt with better by redefining treason and confining it to matters which seriously threaten the security of our country.
Lord Annan: My Lords, redefining treason is well known over the centuries. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that this House had debated the issue of capital punishment better than any other institution. It is certainly true that over the centuries, since 1351, more Members of your Lordships' House than of any other institution have been executed. That is because the nature of treason was redefined time and again during the Tudor and Stuart periods.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I too wish to add my voice and extend my congratulations to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer on introducing this amendment. If he pushes it to a vote, I shall certainly support him.

849
I recall that I first became an abolitionist when I was a teenager. It was not popular to be so then because capital punishment was being practised in this country. But this debate this evening is not about whether or not this country has capital punishment. That debate has taken place; a decision has already been taken; and no longer do we practise capital punishment for murder. It is a question of establishing consistency in terms of capital punishment for piracy and treason.
It is totally inconsistent. I have always believed that, if we condemn people for committing murder, society can take no pride in committing the same offence in the form of what I have always considered to be state murder. I support this amendment and hope that the House will accept it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the merits of the amendment have been debated extensively and the overwhelming consensus of those who have spoken so far is that plainly there is an anomaly in our legal system. We are dealing with ancient, outmoded, archaic statute law. The question we need to consider now is whether we should promote a dialogue with another place to see whether both Houses are agreed that the time has come to remove those anomalies from our statute book.
It seems to me that it is peculiarly appropriate for this House to initiate that dialogue. We live in an age of statute law. some would say too much statute law. Some would say that we need a stronger common law for the age of statutes. But the problem for a legislature in an age of statutes is how on earth one gets rid of antiquated, archaic, dead laws which lie on the statute book and continue to disfigure it. It seems to me to be peculiarly within the province of the upper House, this House, with its expertise and Membership, to initiate a dialogue with the democratically elected other place so that if it is felt that the majorities that were formed in 1703, 1795, 1814 and 1837 no longer represent the majorities that would be formed in Parliament today, the other place can agree with this House to remove that disfiguring legislation from the statute book.
I should be surprised if another place were to take the view that contemporary majorities, legislative or otherwise, would be at all of the same spirit as in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. For that reason, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on continuing with this initiative. I very much hope that the sometimes gloomy expressions on the Front Bench do not indicate that we shall hear from them anything other than wholehearted support for the amendment. I hope that the Government as a whole will feel able to give a lead on the issue, based as it is on reform and conscience. It seems to me to be an admirable issue for leadership from the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may speak relatively briefly from these Benches. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, reminded us, this is the second occasion on which we have addressed these matters. We covered the subject at a slightly later hour—I believe it was after dinner—on the third or fourth day in Committee. As I remember that debate, it ran somewhat
850
wider than the amendment itself. We covered such subjects as the right of Peers to be hanged with a silken cord and the Ferrers case involving the forebear of my noble friend, who is sadly not with us on this occasion.
As I say, I speak from these Benches but I am giving my personal view. I stress that on these Benches, as I imagine is the case on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, this is a matter of conscience and should we have a vote, we shall be voting without the guidance and assistance of the party Whips.
As in Committee, I start by stressing my personal opposition to the death penalty and to its use. That is based partly on the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall; that is, a degree of repugnance towards such a penalty as the cold-blooded killing of offenders by a modern civilised state following the judicial process.
Secondly, I am opposed to it for the simple practical reason that there could be many occasions—and I dare say the lawyers would agree with me on this—when achieving a conviction could be considerably more difficult if certain members of the jury thought that that conviction was likely to lead to a death penalty. For that simple reason, I believe that the death penalty is unwelcome.
However, as regards the timing and place of the amendment, I do not share the same views as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and his supporters. Again, as I made clear in Committee, I do not believe it is appropriate that the final vestiges of capital punishment—and I appreciate that they are vestigial remnants; as my noble friend Lord Windlesham put it. mere historic relics—should disappear following a debate, albeit a fairly lengthy debate in this House on what is a relatively quiet Thursday afternoon and without that much notice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, looks around and seems to imply that it is a relatively full House. He will appreciate that I have seen a much better attended House to discuss important subjects.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I was in fact doing a random count. I have much more frequently seen an emptier House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have now been in this House, more or less to the day, for some 20 years and I have seen the House both full and empty on many occasions. However, on important subjects—and I am sure we would all agree that capital punishment is a most important subject—one would expect to see the Chamber considerably fuller than it is at present. Indeed, one would expect an amendment such as the one moved by the noble and learned Lord to have been flagged up in press reports and to have a degree of coverage that it has not received.
Obviously I shall not vote against the noble and learned Lord should he wish to press the matter to a Division. However, I would prefer him not to press the amendment on this occasion. Indeed, it might be more appropriate for him to return to the matter on Third Reading when we can repeat the debate in a fuller House showing greater interest. I believe that something which has not really come to the attention of—dare I say it?—that many noble Lords should not, on an occasion such as this, be pressed to a vote.

851
As I made clear, I am not opposed to the amendment; my opposition is to the timing of it and the fact that it is being introduced as a Back-Bench amendment on such a Bill at this stage. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will carefully consider whether it might be more appropriate for him to try to generate a greater degree of interest in his amendment and return to the matter on Third Reading.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and, indeed, to all contributors to the debate. As has been said, capital punishment for murder was abolished as long ago as 1965; but, equally, the death penalty still remains as a valid—that is, capable of being used—though unused sentence for the offences which have been specified.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer rightly made perfectly clear that the amendment would not affect the position on Armed Forces legislation. The Government do not believe that the abolition of the death penalty for these obscure offences is a priority because we have other priorities; namely, to improve the criminal justice system and take forward our various manifesto commitments in the field. The offences are very archaic and, indeed, are rarely prosecuted.
However, although it is not a priority, it is an important matter of principle; namely, should those who commit these particular offences be executed for those crimes? Like our predecessors, we believe that questions relating to the availability of the death penalty are matters for individual Members of the House to decide on a free vote, according to conscience.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, our position internationally is quite clear. Parliament has consistently voted against the death penalty. We supported the Final Declaration of the Second Council of Europe Summit as recently as 11th October 1997. We have always believed that these are matters for a free vote. The consequences of the amendment have been sufficiently spelt out to enable me not to repeat them.
I am advised that the amendment would substitute a maximum of life imprisonment, not a mandatory life sentence. I believe I should stress that fact, although it may not affect the principle. In view of the fact that the most serious examples of these offences are murder and, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, indicated, cover other actions such as violating female members of the Royal Family whether or not they consent, we believe that a discretionary life sentence is appropriate.
As I said, it is a matter for a free vote. I cannot advise noble Lords on what view to take on the amendment. However, according to tradition, I am entitled to give my personal view while standing here and I do so. Indeed, I made clear my view when the amendment was discussed in Committee. However, noble Lords were present at that stage and I respectfully, gently dissent from the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this matter has not been sufficiently covered. There are those who choose to attend and speak and that is their choice. Alternatively, there are those who choose to absent themselves and that is their choice. I do not believe that the matter has been sprung unwittingly on an unknowing House. That is my personal observation.
852
As I said, I am entitled to give my view. I have always opposed the death penalty. If my noble and learned friend Lord Archer calls for a Division, I shall vote with him to abolish these offences—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: However, there is a relatively minor point with which I shall deal shortly. If my noble friend's amendment is carried, we shall of course need to ascertain whether any further consequential amendments are required to attend to ancient legislation. If that proves to be the case, and if my noble friend's amendment is carried, we shall aim to bring such amendments forward on Third Reading.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, especially those who supported my amendment. I am also most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. The speech he has just made from the Government Front Bench was indeed a delight to hear. I hope that we will hear many more speeches of that kind.
It is very tempting at this stage to try to address some of the issues that have been ventilated during the course of the debate. However, discarding the habits of a lifetime, I propose to resist that temptation. I would be a faint heart indeed if, with so much encouragement, I did not offer your Lordships the opportunity of taking a decision. I propose, therefore, to test the opinion of the House.
5.55 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 82 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 31. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
RAPE OFFENCES
(".— (1) In section 1 (rape of woman or man) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 ("the 1956 Act"), for paragraph (b) of subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) at the time he does not have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is consenting to sexual intercourse."
(2) Subsection (2) of section 1 (meaning of "rape" etc.) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act") shall cease to have effect.

853
(3) Section 2 (restrictions on evidence at trials for rape, etc.) of the 1976 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "a rape offence" there shall he substituted the words "an offence listed in the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and triable on indictment"; and

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(4) If leave is given under subsection (1) above, evidence may he adduced and the person charged may be questioned in cross-examination at the trial to show that he has committed, been convicted of or been charged with any offence listed in the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956."
(4) In subsection (1) of section 4 (anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases) of the 1976 Act, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(c) after a person is accused of a rape offence, no matters likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person so accused shall, unless that person is convicted of the offences, be—

(i) published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public, or

(ii) included in a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been deprived of the opportunity of voting on Amendment No. 82 but I express the pleasure of these Benches that it was accepted. Amendment No. 83 that we now discuss involves some important changes to the procedure in trials for serious sex offences, particularly rape. I should make it clear at this point that I do not intend to press this amendment to a vote because I believe that it would be wrong to do so on an issue of this importance which has not been raised until the Report stage. In any event I understand that the Government are conducting their own review of the matters covered by this amendment.
This amendment was not raised earlier because at the time of the Committee stage of this Bill the issues covered by the amendment were still a matter of internal debate within my party. That debate was resolved by a substantial majority of the party at its Spring conference last weekend. I am therefore anxious to raise these issues as soon as possible for discussion even if not for a vote. The amendment has three purposes. The first purpose is to remove the defence of mistaken belief in consent where that belief is not reasonable. That is covered by the proposed new subsections (1) and (2) of Amendment No. 83.
In the great majority of cases there are one of two defences to rape, either, "It was not me" or, "She consented". If the defence is, that she consented, the prosecution has to prove that the woman did not consent. That obligation rightly rests on the prosecution and is not affected in any way by this amendment. The defendant then has another string to his bow. He can say, "I thought she consented" even if she did not. The state of the defendant's belief is solely within his own knowledge and is difficult to disprove. Of course the rapist who springs out on a strange woman is not likely to be believed if he raises that defence, but it is much more difficult to be satisfied that the defendant is lying where some consensual sexual intimacy has occurred before the rape takes place. For example, I refer to the case of a young man who picks up a girl in a pub and takes her outside.
If one believed that mistaken belief in consent should be a defence, even where that belief is not reasonable, then the law should not be changed even if it provides a loophole by which the guilty can often escape. But I do not believe that unreasonable belief should be a defence. If a man wants sex with a woman, or indeed with another man—rape applies to an assault on either sex—he should not go ahead unless he knows that the other person has agreed to it. If he does not have her consent, or if he does not have reasonable grounds for believing that he has her consent, he should bear criminal responsibility for his action. Genuine belief in consent which is not reasonable may be a ground for mitigating the sentence but I believe that it is not a ground for escaping conviction.
The proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment deals with another matter; namely, the cross-examination of an alleged victim on her sexual history. This is, of course, something that is now permitted—except so far as sexual history between the defendant and the complainant is concerned—only with the leave of the judge. I think it was originally contemplated that that leave would be given only in exceptional circumstances. However, it is quite widely given, no doubt because judges are worried that if they refuse it that may be a ground for appeal. First, we say that the leave of a judge which is currently required only in rape offences should be extended to other serious sex offences. I apologise that there is a misprint in the amendment. I do not think that is my fault. The phrase "liable on indictment" in the amendment should of course be "triable on indictment".
Secondly—this is a change—the proposed new subsection (3) seeks to put the defendant's sexual history in issue where leave is given to cross-examine the complainant on her sexual history. There is, of course, a general principle that where the character of the prosecution witness is attacked, the defendant puts his own character in issue in evidence. This measure gives effect to a similar principle. Where the defence raises an issue as to the sexual behaviour of the woman, we believe he should not be exempt from being cross-examined and evidence being given as to his own sexual record.
Thirdly, the proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment seeks to extend to the defendant the anonymity which is given at present to the victim. This excludes a right to identify them in the press or in the broadcasting media unless and until convicted of the crime. We believe that is only fair and that the right to anonymity should apply both to the complainant and to the victim while the trial is proceeding. At our Spring conference the party also endorsed restrictions on cross-examination by a defendant in person, similar to those proposed in Amendment No. 84 which we shall therefore support. There is great and justified concern about the law and procedure in rape trials. We believe that amendments on the lines of those numbered 83 and 84 would do much to relieve that concern.
For the reasons given, I shall not press Amendment No. 83. However, I hope to see its contents reappear in due course in government legislation. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. The point of the first section of the amendment is the reversal of burden of proof where the defendant claims that the alleged victim consented. This is a very limited scope. The burden of proof still rests on the prosecution to prove that intercourse took place and that the victim did not consent. There is no change in that. The change in the burden of proof only arises when the man says, "I believe she consented".
Part of the problem that is being addressed in the amendment arises from the Morgan case, of which some of your Lordships may have heard. In the Morgan case, the victim's husband assured four of his military colleagues that his wife loved kinky sex, the rougher the better, and to take no notice of anything she said. The wife objected, to put it no higher. Because of what the husband had told them, the men concerned, the accused, took no notice. It was found on the existing law that they had a good ground for what they did.
Where a man claims that the woman consented, as my noble friend said, it is difficult to see into his mind. You cannot take his bare, unsupported word that he believed the woman consented. People have been known to believe most extraordinary things against the weight of the evidence. I think that it is quite fair to ask the man who says that, "Why did you believe that she consented?", and quite fair to require him to prove the contention he makes. That is as far as that goes.
The provision is in line with other areas of the law. Where a man is accused of intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, and he says that he believed she was over the age of consent, he has to show that he had good reason for believing that she was over the age of consent. The burden of proof similarly rests on him. Your Lordships may agree that it is quite right that the law is as it is in that respect.
Where a man is charged with bigamy, and where his defence is that he did not know he was committing bigamy, he did not know that the woman had a previous husband alive, in that case, similarly, I understand that the burden of proof rests on him. Your Lordships may agree that it is right that that is so.
The second part of the amendment applies only where the woman's previous sexual history is also put in issue. It is an amendment based on the principle of the level playing field. While I personally would prefer not to have the previous sexual history of either party taken in evidence, unless it was the sexual history of those two parties with each other, if it is to be taken in evidence at all there is a strong case for arguing that that should be on the basis of the level playing field.
The third plank of the amendment introduces anonymity not only for the woman but also the man. Again it is a level playing field amendment. Where you face a charge of this kind, the mere publicity is itself a severe penalty. You are recognised on buses. Your relations find out about the case from finding your face
856
pictured on paper used to wrap kippers. These penalties are severe. The recognition may continue for years. It is a severe handicap to normal human relations. It is the contention of the amendment that that punishment should not be inflicted on those who are found innocent. If you are innocent you should not be punished. I think that that is only justice.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I may be entirely in error but it seems to me that the amendment overlooks Section 1(2) of the 1976 Act. It provides as follows:
"It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed".
I should have thought that that makes perfectly good sense. One has the subjective test in relation to the knowledge and appreciation of the accused; and then one has drawn to the attention of members of the jury that in considering whether they believe his proposition that the woman consented to the sexual intercourse, reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which they are to have regard. I should have thought that that was a satisfactory situation. It was the result of a committee set up especially to consider this matter, presided over by a highly experienced lady judge, Mrs. Justice Heilbron.
In regard to the second part, the same committee provided in Section 2(2) the prohibition on the cross-examination with regard to previous sexual history. But it provided a let-out in these terms:
"The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of the defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would he unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked".
It is only when the judge is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant that leave is given. And it would be unfair to the defendant if it went to the very core of his defence to bring out the material about the complainant's sexual history in particular with regard to him. The judge says to himself, "Is this necessary for the defence? If it is, then I will make a special order". Why on earth should that then result in an exception to one of the principal rules of criminal law, that an accused's character is not put before the jury? It can only be done on the basis that the defendant himself has so attacked the complainant that the exception applies, that when you attack the character of a prosecution witness then, for the sake of the level playing field, your own character is put before the jury.
But the defendant has ex hypothesi obtained the consent of the judge in order to put his defence forward. He is not allowed to put the defence forward on the basis of just going essentially to credibility. For instance, it might be said, "It is my defence that this woman and I have lived together for 10 years and that she is highly sexed," and whatever other characteristics she may have, "and this is what happened in truth and

857
in fact". It penalises a defendant on the basis that if he puts forward this defence, then his sexual history can go in: evidence can be adduced that he has been convicted or charged with any offence listed in the second schedule.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that the position under Section 2(1) of the 1976 Act is that, in fact, leave is only needed when the sexual history that is sought to be brought in evidence is the sexual history of the woman's relationships with other men? So our amendment would not apply to a defendant who simply seeks to raise as an issue, as he is entitled to do without leave, the sexual history between himself and the complainant.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the actual provision of Section 2(1) reads as follows:
"If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall he adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant".
Lord Goodhart: That is correct—
"with a person other than that defendant".
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the permission to ask those questions, which can be achieved only on a separate application to the judge, is granted only if it would be unfair to the defendant to refuse to allow him to ask those questions. The unfairness could only be unfairness if the refusal meant that he could not properly put before the court his full defence.
So the proposition in this amendment is: "If you are going to be allowed to put forward your true defence, then you are going to have the entirety of your sexual character put in evidence, and everybody knows that, if that occurs, the inevitable result will be that you will be convicted". It would therefore mean that the accused would be inhibited from making the application which Parliament thought he would be perfectly entitled to make with the special leave of the judge. The consequences of getting that leave and taking advantage of it would be to let in—to his profound prejudice—the sexual activities which are covered by the amendment.
That is very unfair. There are many exceptions, rightly made, in regard to sexual offences, but to carry still further a special exception which can only do harm to the defendant seems to me to be going too far.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, these amendments are a valiant attempt to deal with a number of difficult problems in the law on rape. The proposed new clause deals with various different aspects of the law, including the definition of consent which goes right to the heart of the law on rape. It is a question of immense significance. I do not think it is appropriate to be dealt with in a quickly tabled amendment this late in the course of the Bill.
Subsections (1) and (2) on the definition of consent seemed to be intended to make it easier to prove a charge
858
of rape. The Government have been concerned for some considerable time at the low success rate in prosecutions for rape. We are taking action in relation to that and I shall turn to that in a moment. While I understand why the noble Lords opposite have proposed these changes, they do not provide a better way forward.
The offence of rape is committed where a man has sexual intercourse with another man or woman; and at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it. The effect of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, is that a man cannot be convicted of rape at present where he believes, even mistakenly, that the other is consenting, because if he had such a belief he cannot have intended to commit rape or have been reckless as to whether consent was given.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, Section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 permits the jury to have regard to whether or not the grounds for his belief were reasonable, but only on the issue as to whether he believed that there was consent or was reckless as to whether or not there was consent.
The effect of what is proposed would be that, instead of the jury being asked about the accused's state of mind, it would be for the jury themselves to ask: "At the relevant time, did the defendant have reasonable grounds for believing that the person was consenting to sexual intercourse?" If he did not have reasonable grounds, then assume the other elements, and if in particular the commission of the sexual intercourse was proved, he would be guilty of rape.
This proposal is not simply a change to the burden of proof, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, but would mark a fundamental change in the law on rape. At present a man can be convicted only if he has intercourse knowing or being reckless as to whether the alleged victim consented. The proposal would allow the jury to say subsequently that such a person did not have reasonable grounds for any actual belief that he had, and was therefore guilty.
I could not recommend such a change, well-intentioned though it is. Later this year the Government will have available the report of a major research study into the attrition rate in rape cases; namely, the difference between the number of complaints that are made of rape and at the end the number of convictions. The Government must first identify the specific problems of why rape cases fail, then attempt to deal with them rather than the approach adopted by the noble Lords' amendment to change the law fundamentally without the benefit of that detailed research and without consultation on this most controversial of subjects.
Turning to the other effects of the amendment, subsection 3(a) extends the restriction on cross-examination on a victim's previous sexual history, currently limited to rape, to other serious sexual offences, while the effect of subsection 3(b) is to allow in evidence, during a rape or sexual offence trial, details of a defendant's previous convictions or any charges—whether or not they resulted in conviction—previously laid against him for rape or sexual offences.

859
As this House is aware, to take forward our manifesto commitment to provide greater protection to victims in rape and other serious sexual offences cases, we established in June last year an interdepartmental review of the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system. One of the important issues that group is examining is the law in respect of the cross-examination of victims about their previous sexual history in rape and serious sexual offence cases. The group is due to report to Ministers shortly; it has had its last meeting. One should wait for that report before proceeding on a change of the sort identified by those opposite.
The law governing the admission of evidence of previous convictions in criminal proceedings applies to all criminal offences and not just offences of rape. Therefore, it is important that this issue is considered in the wider context. Such a review is currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. This is recognised as an exceptionally complicated area of the law and I believe it is important that before we embark on any reform in this area the law is subjected to rigorous examination. We shall of course give further consideration to changes in both these areas in the light of the work of the Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses Review and the work of the Law Commission.
On subsection (4) of the amendment, relating to the anonymity of a defendant, I appreciate the concerns of those who have suffered from being identified as an alleged rapist. Society attaches a stigma to those accused of such an awful crime. I also recognise that those accused of such crimes once had anonymity. But that anonymity was removed. Why? First, because in a system of justice in which openness is a fundamental principle, defendants are generally named, even in the case of murder and other reprehensible crimes. Why should defendants in rape cases receive special protection?
Secondly, anonymity for the complainant is designed not only to protect victims from hurtful publicity for their sake but to encourage them to report crimes of rape to ensure that rapists do not escape prosecution. Such an argument does not apply to the accused where the arguments are about preventing personal hurt and embarrassment rather than improving justice.
Thirdly, an argument advanced for giving the complainant anonymity is that he should be treated on an equal basis to the victim. I do not believe that that is right. A defendant's equality lies with other accused persons and it is an acquittal which will give him public vindication.
Fourthly, anonymity might help to ease the pain suffered by defendants in rape cases, but even without all the publicity some defendants will doubtless experience suffering and trauma. Notwithstanding press anonymity, they may still be identified by their local communities.
Lastly on anonymity, subsection (4) would do nothing to help deal with the problems which subsections (1) and (2) seek to address—namely, the problems surrounding the low conviction rates for rape. Often the naming of the accused can be used to provide the public with information which they can pass on to the police. This can be vital in obtaining the necessary evidence against an accused.
860
Attractive though this amendment may superficially seem, for the reasons given I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for his reply. As I made clear, the purpose of the amendment is to raise the issues, not to seek a decision on them this evening. There are arguments on both sides. Some of the reservations felt by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General are shared by some of my noble friends, who are not unanimous on the subject. I shall not go through them again at this point, but there are important arguments in the other direction. I hope that the review which the Government are undertaking will take those arguments into account. Serious problems are involved. I believe that some, if not all, of the provisions proposed would help to ameliorate those problems.
Perhaps I may make two points in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. First, he suggested that we had overlooked subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. We certainly did not overlook it since the amendment specifically proposes that it should be repealed. Views on whether reasonable grounds should be had regard to as a defence may have changed since 1976.
Secondly, leave to bring out a defendant's sexual history under the existing law, which we do not seek to change, is required only as regards the complainant's sexual history with other persons. The amendment does not bring the defendant's personal history into account if all he raises is his sexual history with the complainant. The amendment applies only where sexual history with other men is involved and where the defendant's defence is, "Because the complainant consented to sex with X, Y and Z, I therefore reasonably believe that she consented to sex with me." That brings the complainant's character into issue and in that case the level playing field of allowing the defendant's character to be brought in is entirely justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schools Funding
6.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"Tuesday's Budget has rightly been well received. It confirmed New Labour's reputation for economic

861
competence. It was a Budget for enterprise, a Budget for work, a Budget for families and for education.
"The Chancellor pledged an extra £250 million for schools and skills in the coming financial year. Let me remind the House that this increase is part of the £2.5 billion boost for education and skills which we have already earmarked in the 10 months since we were elected last May.
"We inherited a situation where between 1993 and 1996 the party opposite had cut £110 in real terms from every secondary pupil in the country and £44 from every primary pupil. Already we have made a substantial start to repair the damage of years of Tory neglect by providing an extra £110 for every pupil in the coming financial year. We have increased the Standards Fund to over £500 million for 1998–99, which includes an extra £59 million to improve literacy standards. Today I want to detail the big difference which this week's Budget increase will mean to our schools and their pupils, outlining four further major steps we shall be taking.
"First, I can made this pledge today. We shall bring to an end the scandal whereby children in 600 of our schools, most of them primary, still have to go outside in order to use the toilet. Tens of thousands of children have to go outside to use facilities which often date back to the Victorian age. That is simply unacceptable in the last years of the 20th century. We are inviting the authorities affected to apply for a share of the extra £35 million which we are earmarking so that they can provide the decent facilities that every modern school should have. By next year we shall have ended the scandal of outside toilets forever. It will take our schools from the Victorian age into the age of the new millennium.
"Secondly, I am concerned at the number of schools which have inefficient boilers and heating systems which often break down. They waste energy and leave thousands of children spending their winter days in cold and draughty classrooms. We shall provide an extra £15 million which will allow up to 500 schools to replace or improve their inefficient heating systems. That will make classrooms more comfortable and learning-friendly places, save a great deal of money which is now being wasted and bring environmental benefits, including reduced carbon dioxide emissions. As many as 100,000 children will have, at long last, the kind of working conditions which they should be able to take for granted in a civilised society.
"Thirdly, we have already announced the first £22 million to provide the extra teachers to ensure that we make an immediate start on our class-size pledge, which will mean that by 2001 every five, six and seven year-old is in a class of 30 or under. That first tranche will mean that 100,000 infants will benefit from September this year.
"When we announced that funding, redirected from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, we made clear that there would be extra money to build extra classrooms where they were needed. Today, I
862
can announce that there will be an extra £40 million from the Budget which will be targeted specifically on providing those extra facilities during 1998–99. This extra funding will help us to deliver our core pledge on class sizes. Doing so will help us to meet our demanding literacy and numeracy targets.
"These three capital spending measures will be in addition to the £250 million from the new deal for schools to be allocated in 1998–99 and additional to the £800 million which LEAs and schools are spending in the normal way on repairs and maintenance this year.
"And there is a fourth piece of good news on schools from the Budget. I can further confirm that we shall be expanding rapidly our education action zones programme. We shall fund a five-fold increase to establish 25 zones by January 1999. We have already had considerable interest from imaginative partnerships between schools, LEAs and business at a local level.
"The zones offer extra flexibilities in order to help schools in challenging circumstances to meet demanding targets and to make significant improvements in standards and in expectations. By making a substantial expansion in the coming year, I am confident that we shall be able to extend the programme yet further in the lifetime of this Parliament.
"Taken together, this is a coherent programme which will help the process of transforming schools for the future. It means: no more children having to go outside to use the toilet; improvements in the heating of schools; substantial further progress to meeting our class size pledge; and a big boost to our flagship programme of education action zones.
"In the years ahead, we will meet our manifesto commitment to increase the proportion of national income spent on education. We are making a substantial start in the year ahead. By doing so, we are transforming the life chances of millions of children. We are modernising the fabric of our schools. And we are making real progress in raising standards for all our children. A New Labour Budget. A Budget for a modern Britain in a new century. A Budget to turn ambition into achievement".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was persuaded earlier today to take this Statement later than usual. I was not particularly happy to do so, but nevertheless I agreed. I believe that the noble Baroness, at the time the Statement was due, was in the Division Lobby, and that is understandable.
I stayed in the Chamber throughout the whole of the last amendment on the grounds that discussion on any amendment can end at any time; that votes are not always pressed; and, indeed, it looked for one moment as though the amendment was not going to be pressed. The noble Baroness was not present in the Chamber throughout any of that time, and, in the event, it would have been possible for somebody on the Government

863
Benches to have either suggested waiting one or two minutes for the noble Baroness to return to the Chamber, or for some cursory—even if only very cursory—discussions to have taken place with me indicating that we were pressing on with the Bill. I have now had to postpone an important engagement in order to deal with this Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. She knows that I have already apologised on behalf of the Government for the delay; I have not apologised on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who has done nothing wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knows that a Division is called because there are those who shout "Not-Content". It was those on the Opposition Benches who shouted "Not-Content", including the noble Baroness. It was their responsibility to put in Tellers. They failed to do so. As a result, there was understandable confusion and my noble friend Lady Blackstone was entirely within her rights to be in the Division Lobby. She considered the matter to be important. It was also right for the Deputy Speaker when the vote was negatived, to carry on with the business. I do not believe that any further apology is called for from anybody on this side of the House and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel, on reflection, that she has been fairly treated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the course of making my statement I said that I understood and understand that the noble Baroness could not have been here; she was in the Division Lobby. I am saying that, because she was in the Division Lobby and her colleagues knew that, it was possible for us to have waited no more than one minute for the noble Baroness to return.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a decision of the Chair.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have been in that position before and, on behalf of the Government, I have asked for an adjournment for one or two minutes. That is always possible from the Chair. The Chair has no instructions if they are not given.
However, no apology is forthcoming and it is no more than I expected. But perhaps I can say also that, to add insult to injury, I learnt the details of this Statement this morning from journalists. It is not unusual for me to do so because that is happening on a regular basis. The details of the Statement were made widely available to journalists. In fact, the first details of the Statement came very early this morning on Radio 4.
There is considerable confusion. I hope that the noble Baroness will address some specific questions to clear up that confusion resulting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement, taken together with the Statement today. I should like to quote from the Budget speech when the Chancellor said,
"Over £100 million extra will he allocated in the coming year to tackle the skills gap in Britain".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/98; col. 1103.]
864
The Chancellor then said at col. 1112,
"We are determined to improve education all round, so I am allocating for the coming year to education an additional £250 million".
The Statement today refers to an extra £250 million, which is part of the money already pledged last year. The Statement makes that clear—£35 million extra to improve toilet facilities; £15 million extra to improve heating systems; £40 million extra for the class size pledge. It goes on to state that those three pledges were in addition to the £250 million already pledged.
On 2nd July last year, (at cols. 315 and 316)—at the time of this Government's first Budget—£1 billion was earmarked for education from reserves; £1.3 billion was to be made available over the course of the whole Parliament. That was to be allocated in the following way: £83 million for this year, 1997–98, and £250 million for each of the following four years. My specific question therefore is: what spending referred to in the Budget speech and in the Statement today is part of that £2.3 billion? What expenditure announced today is new money and what is the source of any new money?
Higher inflation during the current year has cost local authorities around £1.2 billion on the education budget. The changes to taxation dividends in the July 1997 Budget are also estimated to have cost local authorities up to £300 million. Does not the noble Baroness agree, therefore, that the additional moneys of £1 billion from reserves and £83 million allocated this year of the £1.3 billion, does not compensate the authorities for such a loss? If the noble Baroness agrees, will she explain what capacity and from what source local authorities will meet such pressures caused specifically by measures set out by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer?
While referring to the measures set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, perhaps I can ask what the cost implications are as a result of changes to the national insurance contributions paid by the employer for schools and local education authorities which employ staff earning above £23,000 per year. The noble Baroness will know—indeed, it was widely welcomed—that £1,000 was allocated to each school throughout the country in this financial year to meet the cost of extra books. What was the source of that money? Was it top-sliced from local authorities' total budgets?
With all the financial changes since the July Budget, what is the percentage increase in real terms and the increase in cash terms that has been made available to local education authorities in 1997–98 and 1998–99? That is one question about which the noble Baroness will probably need notice but the rest of my questions are pertinent to the Statement today.
As a result of announcing an additional £40 million, can the noble Baroness now confirm that the money released from the assisted places scheme was, as was widely predicted, not sufficient to fund the class size pledge? While on the subject of measures in the Chancellor's speech, perhaps I can refer the noble Baroness to education action zones. Let me say right away that I welcome more innovation in education. I welcome more private sector involvement, though, as

865
the noble Baroness may understand, I shall have more to say about the detail of that policy when the Bill comes before the House.
My understanding is that five of the action zones are to be up and running by September, which is a mere 22 weeks away. I understand also that a further 20, as a result of the Statement, are to be up and running by January 1999—just 38 weeks away. I say nothing about the complexity of such arrangements—to be discussed later on the Bill—with regard to proper consultation, the views of parents of children attending each school in the action zone and the detailed contracts which will have to be made, including very complex financial arrangements, with the private sector.
However, this policy has only recently been presented to Parliament. The Bill has not even completed its stages through another place. It has yet to be discussed and considered for approval in this place. There are no draft regulations in existence which support these proposals. The closing date for applications to become an education zone is tomorrow. Decisions as to which schools will become action zones will be approved by the end of April. Is it not astounding arrogance on the part of the Government to be pre-empting so blatantly both Houses of Parliament in this way? How can the noble Baroness—I hope she will tell the House—and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State justify the statement, and I quote:
"I can further confirm that we will be expanding rapidly our education action zones programme".
On whose authority?
Will the noble Baroness list the local authorities which continue to have schools with outside toilets? I agree with the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it is right to wish to see an end to all outside toilets. However, as a past county council leader I am conscious that there was a wide variation in the way in which local authorities managed their capital programmes. Often those with the greatest backlog of repairs were those which had not managed their financial programmes very well. Therefore, some of this expenditure could be seen to reward inefficiency. Is it the Government's intention, irrespective of the level of inefficiency and irrespective of the track record of an authority, that they shall be rewarded if they continue to have schools in their area with outside lavatories?
Welcome though it is when any government find additional funds to address problems such as better sanitation, improved heating systems and smaller classes, these proposals further erode local authorities' power to determine their own priorities in their own areas, and in many instances will reward the poorest financial management in local education authorities.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Personally, I was content to wait a few minutes longer to hear the Statement, although I share the concern which has been expressed here and in another place that its contents were so widely known early this morning.
I was not quite clear whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was or was not welcoming the contents of the Statement. I say quite clearly that I do welcome the contents of the Statement. It is scandalous that in this day of the information superhighway literally thousands of our children under 10 years of age still have to go outside to use the toilet. It may well be that after 18 years of Conservative government the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, felt a little constrained to give too warm a welcome to that. But I feel no such constraint.
I welcome the additional money for improved heating. As the leader of an LEA, I have some experience of such matters. I know that building maintenance, whether in schools or elsewhere, is always the easy cut to make each year. But I think we all know that the accumulative effect of so-called easy cuts each year becomes more and more serious. Local authority associations predicted a year or more ago that a sum in excess of £3 billion additional money would be necessary to bring school buildings up to an adequate state of repair. This is a small step in that direction; it is nevertheless a welcome step.
We welcome the move to provide the additional classrooms that will be necessary to reduce class sizes. We regret that it is limited only to infant classes, although that in itself is welcome. There is a recognition that the money from the assisted places scheme is not enough to meet this. I can only echo the statements made by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we told you so. It is nevertheless still welcome.
As has been said, we shall be debating education action zones in the not-too-distant future when the Bill comes to the House. I know that they have been welcomed by my colleagues in the other place.
I have some specific questions which I think are directly pertinent to the Statement and which I ask as the leader of a local authority that happens to be a local education authority. I know that these are questions which I shall be asked in the morning. The Statement gives the impression that this is real money being given to LEAs by a generous Government. I ask the Minister specifically: are we talking here about cash grants, or are we talking, as I suspect we are, about permission to borrow—credit approvals? Are we saying therefore that LEAs will have permission to borrow this money, with the consequent effects that that will have on revenue budgets through debt charges?
I understand that this is to be a bidding process. Although I am not surprised, I am disappointed by that because bidding inevitably means a lot of work, raised expectations and then, for many, some disappointment. I am little confused. The Secretary of State has made a clear commitment to end outside toilets by next year.

867
Does that mean that every LEA will be entitled to receive the money necessary to remove the outside toilets—presumably to provide inside toilets? Is there sufficient money? On average it costs about £58,000 per school. That does not seem to me sufficient in all cases.
Will it be a condition of the application that the LEA will be required to contribute towards such costs? Will there he an upper limit for each grant, or, as is more likely, for the permission to borrow that is going to come? As I said, one of the problems with bidding is that a lot of work goes into preparing the bids and no one is too sure what the outcome will be. Will the Government be publishing the criteria against which they will be judging those bids so that at least LEAs know what they are aiming for when submitting the bids?
I believe I am correct in saying—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the closing date for bids for this money or permission to borrow is 30th April, which is just six weeks away. If that is correct, can she tell us when the announcements will be made? I am sure she will recognise that that is particularly pertinent because much of this necessary work, especially if it is to be done before next winter, will have to be done during the school summer holidays, which begin in the middle of July. Can she assure us that announcements on successful bids will be made in enough time to enable LEAs to do all the work that is necessary to bring the contractors in to carry out this work during the school holidays?
Lastly on bidding, I have a concern which I have expressed before in your Lordships' House about those good local education authorities, regardless of political control, that have managed their capital programmes well, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said; that have made education a priority; that have long since removed outside toilets; and that have, it is to be hoped, despite all the difficulties, tackled questions of heating and so on. Are they once again to lose out because the money is being provided inevitably to meet need and some LEAs have for years failed to meet that need themselves? What are the Government going to do to ensure that good LEAs are not further penalised in this way?
Finally, the Statement is about schools' funding. I am certain that the Minister shares my concern and the concern of other noble Lords that there seems to have been nothing in the Budget for lifelong learning. When does she expect to make a Statement about additional funding for further education?
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was, I am very sorry to say, unable to welcome the Statement which provides substantial additional funds to ensure that our schools are brought into the last part of the 20th century and do provide hugely better conditions for both young people and teachers. That is important if we are to improve standards of education and the conditions in which people work. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who was able to welcome the Statement in that respect.
868
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to a great many different figures and quoted, if I may say so, rather selectively from the Chancellor's Statement yesterday. I think she has confused a number of different elements of the Government's new budget proposals. It might be best to write to her to ensure that she fully understands the wider context for today. What I have spoken about today is the new—and it is new—£90 million of expenditure on a package of important measures to improve the quality of our school buildings. That is the focus of today, plus a small sum of additional money to allow education action zones to be increased in number. I very much look forward to debating with her some of the issues that she has raised on education action zones and class sizes when the Bill comes into this House.
The Government, under the new deal for schools, were able to provide last year an additional £1.3 billion of capital for the UK as a whole and £1.085 billion for England in order to deal with the high priorities of repairing, renovating and replacing in many of our schools, where there is an appalling backlog of urgent repairs which need to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to a backlog of £3 billion. Of course, that depends on how one defines what needs to be done but the Government figure is £4 billion.
So far as recurrent spending is concerned, the Government were also able to provide an additional £835 million above the planned expenditure for 1998–99 in the announcements that were made in July of last year. I think that this additional money is greatly welcomed, not just by teachers, not just by local education authorities, but also by the hundreds of thousands of parents who have children in our schools.
The noble Baroness asked what the implications of the national insurance increases would be on local education authorities as employers. I cannot give her the precise figure and I am happy to write to her about that. They do have a very substantial improvement in the amount that they have for recurrent expenditure, as I have just indicated.
The noble Baroness also asked about the assisted places scheme and whether the abolition of that scheme provides sufficient additional resources to fund the class sizes pledged. What the Government have always said is that that would provide adequate funding for the recurrent needs of bringing class sizes down, but the Government never said that they would provide enough money for the capital side. The additional £40 million that we are able to make available today is making a start on the whole issue of trying to provide adequate classroom provision to ensure that no child aged five, six or seven is in a class with more than 30 children.
The noble Baroness asked whether it was right that we would be getting five education action zones off the ground by September with a further 20 in January. I can confirm that that is our intention and that the date for applications ends tomorrow. The noble Baroness suggested that the Government are pre-empting both Houses of Parliament. May I say that the Government have inherited a situation in which we believe that standards of provision in a variety of respects in our

869
primary and secondary schools are not good enough? We want to try to encourage exciting and interesting innovation. That is what education action zones will do. Of course, they will not be able to be established until after the legislation is through.
The noble Baroness also asked about which local education authorities are still running primary and secondary schools with outside lavatories. I obviously cannot give her a complete list. I am happy to write to her about that. There are some 600 schools—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If I may return to the action zones, the noble Baroness in the Statement has said that the Government will be introducing them and they will be expanding them. My question was not that I did not welcome them. In fact, I made quite a point of saying that I welcome innovation and welcome the involvement of the private sector. What I asked the noble Baroness for was authority for saying at this stage definitively that they will do something which has not yet been determined by another place and has not even started to be determined by this place.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is clear that it is the Government's intention to develop education action zones in the interests of the education of children and young people in this country. That is something that has been widely welcomed. I am very glad that the noble Baroness has welcomed the concept.
If I may come back to the subject of schools with outside lavatories, I shall write to the noble Baroness and give her a list of those authorities. I can say that for the most part they are shire counties and in particular the schools in question are likely to be in rural areas. But it is the intention of the Government to get rid of all outside lavatories.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also asked whether there was any intention to penalise those authorities that had handled their capital well. Of course not. We have no wish to penalise authorities in that way but we also do not want to see children penalised because they happen to live in authorities, mainly shire counties, which have not resolved this problem. There are all kinds of difficulties if small children are asked to use outside lavatories, including, these days, the particularly serious one of security. It is important that we put money into the system to deal with that as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also asked whether this would be real money for local education authorities, and I can say yes, it will be. They will be 100 per cent. grants. The Government believe that that is important. There will be a bidding process but it is important to allow LEAs to identify exactly what their needs are, and a bidding process is needed in order to do that so that the Government can sensibly allocate the funds that are needed.
The noble Lord also asked about the closing date. It is 30th April because we want to get on, but there will be enough time left to local education authorities to do
870
this work and to do it, for the most part, in the school holidays, although it may be necessary to do some of it in term time.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about lifelong learning. There is an additional £100 million in the Chancellor's announcement for our skills agenda and we will be saying more about that next week. I should also add that the Government have been able to provide an extra £100 million for further education before the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review and an extra £165 million, as I think he knows, for higher education, again before the completion of that review and above the targets that were originally set by our predecessors.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Back-Bench debate begins, can the Minister tell the House the source of that £90 million?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. It is not possible to state the specific source. It is from revenue collected by the Treasury.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the Statement which my noble friend has repeated, and particularly the Government's intention both to reduce class sizes and to improve the fabric of our schools. Nothing is more depressing and demoralizing for students, parents and teachers than to have to operate in schools with poor facilities. Outside toilets must be a strong indicator of such poor facilities.
Will my noble friend encourage schools to use some of the additional resources that they will be receiving to improve the quality of the supervision of children during playtime periods? I have become concerned about the lack of experienced and suitably qualified supervisors at playtimes and particularly at lunchtime. It is not at all surprising that bullying, which we see in so many of our schools, occurs at lunchtime. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give me some hope in that area.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government recognise that bullying can do enormous long-term damage to children. Some takes place during breaks or at lunchtimes; some occurs on the way to or from school and some in the classroom. It is important that there is adequate supervision of children during lunch breaks, especially for younger children. I shall take back my noble friend's point and see whether we can do further work to ensure that schools provide adequate supervision. I believe that most schools take this matter seriously and I very much hope that some of the additional recurrent funding that we have been able to provide will allow them to do so.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords. I welcome the Minister's Statement. Having had daughters who attended a school with outside toilets and having campaigned on that for a number of years and been horrified that members of the county council did not even know that there were outside toilets in their schools, may I say from the heart that what the noble Baroness has said pleases me no end?

871
However, perhaps I may press her further on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Tope. The Minister told us that the closing date for the bids will be 30th April. When will the announcement of the successful bids be made? We on these Benches are concerned that the work will need to he done in the summer holidays, and that that is a very tight timetable.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give a precise date for the announcement of the successful bids. I am not sure that it is yet known. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Baroness immediately and, if I am right and the date has not yet been finalised, I shall let her know as soon as it is.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
("Trial procedure for rape and indecent assault
TRIAL PROCEDURE FOR RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT
.—(1) A defendant charged with a rape offence or an offence of indecent assault shall not personally ask questions of a complainant in the course of a trial related to the charges.
(2) In this section—
"complainant" means a woman or man upon whom, in a charge for a rape offence or an offence of indecent assault, it is alleged that rape or indecent assault was committed, attempted or proposed; and
"a rape offence" means any of the following, namely rape, attempted rape, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring rape or attempted rape, incitement to rape and conspiracy to rape.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would introduce a prohibition on defendants in trials of rape and serious sexual offences personally cross-examining their alleged victim. As I have observed before, this is a sensitive and problematic issue which is of vital importance to those victims who suffer the trauma of rape and indecent assault.
I spoke to this amendment in Committee on 12th February and I am grateful to all who have subsequently written to me indicating their support, and particularly to those who act on behalf of the victims of rape, including those who counsel them at the Old Bailey. At that stage I withdrew my amendment and I had not intended to table it at Report. Therefore, I feel that I should explain to the House why I changed my mind and am moving it today.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, responded to my amendment on 12th February, he referred (Hansard, col. 1357) to the interdepartmental review of the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system, including a consideration of ways to prohibit unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining victims in rape and serious sexual offence trials. He said then that the group
872
would meet again in March and hoped that it would report soon after. Today, on the previous amendment, he told us that it has had its last meeting.
On the basis of what the noble and learned Lord said in Committee, I decided that it would be proper for me to seek the opportunity to debate the issue in depth outwith the context of this Bill and after the publication of the report to which the Minister referred. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for tabling a Motion for debate in the form of an Unstarred Question.
I decided to bring the amendment back on Report only when I read stories in the press 11 days ago of a statement made by the Home Secretary on that subject. I have not been able to find any reference to his statement on the Home Office website nor in its official press releases. The Home Office told a House of Lords Library researcher that the statement was made in an interview with The Times. The Home Secretary told The Times that men accused of rape are to be barred from cross-examining their alleged victims in court under new laws. He said that witnesses would also be protected from prurient questioning by banisters, a subject mentioned on the previous amendment which was tabled by noble Lords who, at the moment, are to my right, which seems an odd way of describing them.
I was puzzled that what seemed to be impossible one week when I suggested it—humble though I am—was suddenly possible the next week when the Home Secretary not only suggested it, but stated that it would happen. I welcome that part of his statement which refers to my amendment—I say that without reservation—but I should like the Minister to explain how the Government have changed their mind about their objections to my proposal. As they have obviously changed their mind, I ask them whether they will accept my amendment now. If the Minister is still worried that I do not provide an alternative method by which witness evidence is tested, I should, of course, be happy to return at Third Reading with an amendment suitably worded to achieve that objective.
I shall not abuse Report procedure by attempting to repeat at length the arguments that I put in Committee to justify my amendment, but I invite the Minister to answer a point that I made in Committee which he did not seem to address then; nor has he answered it since. I argued that the principle of having the right personally to cross-examine the alleged victim had already been breached in English law and that, as far as I was aware, there was not any evidence that we had thereby breached the European Convention on Human Rights. I referred the Minister to Section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which provides that a defendant shall not cross-examine in person any child witness who is the alleged victim of certain offences, which include rape and indecent assault. Does the Minister agree that it is possible and acceptable, in principle at least, to extend the Section 34A provision to adult victims of rape and indecent assault?
The Home Secretary's proposals are far more radical and wide-ranging than mine. Of course, I expect that he carefully considered the evidence and advice available to him before announcing such important proposals

873
publicly. Therefore, I invite the Minister to consider whether it is possible to accept my more modest amendment today. If it is not possible, I invite the Minister to explain why the alleged victims of such crimes must, it seems, wait another year before the Government take the course which they have already decided to adopt. I am sure that the Government would not wish to delay any longer than absolutely necessary any measure that would introduce such provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I indicated in my speech on the previous amendment, my party now supports the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It does not necessarily have the unqualified support of all my noble friends but it has my support and I encourage the Government to accept it. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that a restriction of this kind on the rights of a defendant in person does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. There have been a number of cases over the past two or three years in which the rights of a defendant in person have been abused.
It is in any event absolutely clear that anyone who is charged with an offence as serious as rape is either deeply misguided or malicious if he decides to defend himself. It is essential that legal aid should be provided. I take it that that is implicit in the amendment and that legal aid will be provided to any defendant who is denied the right to defend himself, except in the very exceptional case where the defendant is sufficiently rich to be able to afford to pay his own legal expenses. In those circumstances, we believe that this amendment is justified. There are other matters that can be added to it. There is a possibility that if a defendant absolutely refuses to instruct counsel to appear for him the judge may he able to appoint an amicus curiae to examine the complainant and put the questions that can properly be put to her. The principle underlying this amendment is one that I fully support. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the principle if not the precise wording.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can assist me in regard to Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision gives to everyone who is charged with a criminal offence the right to examine, or have examined, witnesses against him. I can find nothing in the convention that in any way prohibits a person from acting on his own behalf. There is nothing to oblige him to accept lawyers to act for him. Can the noble Lord inform the House of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that supports what is proposed in the amendment, which would otherwise breach Article 6(3)(d)?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which states specifically that the defendant does not necessarily have the right to appear in person provided that he is able to instruct a lawyer, or is provided with the finance to do
874
so. The case relates to a decision of a German court. I do not come armed with the name of that case, but I shall be happy to write to the noble and learned Lord and provide him with that information.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was not present when this matter was debated at Committee stage, so I apologise if the argument that I am about to advance has already been made. Although the status quo is on occasion unsatisfactory and unfair to the victim, one wonders whether this amendment tilts the balance a little too far the other way. I note that some of the press shares that view. A man who is convicted of rape is certain to spend a long time in prison even if the rape is non-violent or involves a last-minute change of mind on the part of the victim. Therefore, it is extremely important to ensure that the conviction is 100 per cent. safe. Surely some compromise can be found to permit the trial judge to intervene much more rapidly and decisively when the cross-examination by the defendant becomes aggressive and offensive.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment very ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. In recent years the country has been disturbed by the spectacle of defendants in rape cases conducting their own defence and subjecting the victims to prolonged cross-examination, probably often for reasons of sexual gratification. I understand very well the strong feeling among practitioners in the law so admirably expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner about the right of a defendant to conduct the cross-examination of the alleged victim. However, it is the duty of the presiding judge to ensure that matters do not get out of hand. Perhaps that is what has gone wrong in the past. Nevertheless, I too have understood from the media that something is to be done about it, possibly in another criminal justice Bill next year. But if even one victim suffers in this way in the intervening period it is surely one too many. I beg the noble Lord the Minister to look at the matter again with his customary compassion and respond favourably to this amendment.
Lord Lane: My Lords, there is a dilemma here, is there not? On the one hand it is intolerable that defendants should be allowed to cross-examine rape victims interminably over hours and sometimes days. Recent examples have been paraded before us. On the other hand, if it is by any means possible, a defendant should always be allowed to represent himself and conduct his own case and should not be forced, if he can be, to accept legal representation.
Is there a way out of this dilemma? I suggest that there is. It appears to have been overlooked by judges and others that it is the judge at trial who is in charge of the case. It is his task to see that justice is done and that the proceedings are conducted in fairness to both sides. Plainly, cross-examination of the kind that we have read about is neither just nor fair. Accordingly, it is the judge's right and duty to see that such cross-examination and behaviour stops, and he can do

875
it. If necessary, he can invite the jury to retire while he explains to the defendant the proper limits of cross-examination in terms of time, relevance and brevity of questions and number of questions. Then or later he can, if necessary in the absence of the jury, tell the defendant that if he goes on he will be stopped; or he may be given a period of time during which cross-examination can take place and beyond that time further cross-examination will not be permitted.
I believe that that is the way out and it is not necessary to have any statutory intervention to solve the dilemma. Provided the judge acts justly and fairly in any particular case, as one expects he would, without doubt his actions would, if necessary, be upheld by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). It is perhaps a great pity that the occasion has not arisen for that court to pronounce upon this matter. No doubt very shortly it will do so, but in the interim I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I endorse what the noble and learned Lord said a moment ago. I intervene just to prevent any criticism of the trial judge. In the first of the two cases about which I know, which attracted considerable publicity, the judge was, and is, an experienced, competent and caring lady with a considerable reputation for the way in which she conducts her court. When that unique, as it was for her, situation arose, she was faced with a dilemma: did she intervene with the defendant to the point where the jury thought that she was entering into the arena, and therefore would take a view hostile to the judge, and more in favour of the defendant, thereby raising the possibility of miscarriage of justice, or, could she be sure that a robust intervention at an early stage would have carried with it the support of the Court of Appeal? As the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chief Justice said, it is a situation which has never come before the Court of Appeal.
In Committee and today your Lordships have heard from senior members of the judiciary that that latter fear need not have concerned the judge; that she would have had the full backing of the Court of Appeal had she taken the robust view that I am sure she would have wanted to take in that case. I say nothing, one way or another, about the merits of the amendment, but I am concerned that her reputation is maintained, as it most certainly should be.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this is an important amendment, because a few cases attract a large amount of publicity, and cause a great deal of distress to the victims of rape involved in those cases, and also have a tendency to deter other complainants of rape from reporting the matter to the police.
As has been explained in an interesting article in the Journal of Criminal Law for February 1998, there can be a direct conflict—sometimes acute—between, on the one hand, the need to protect the dignity of the victim, and, on the other hand, the fact-finding process in which
876
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in which the defendant has the right to test the evidence against him.
The amendment would not be necessary if judges were confident that there was power firmly to curtail cross-examination. Like my noble friend, I know the two judges in the two most recent notorious cases, and was frankly surprised that neither of them, whom I know to be firm but fair, felt able to curtail the cross-examination which attracted such publicity in the press. It is for that reason that I suspect that there is insufficient guidance on their ability to curtail cross-examination from the Court of Appeal at the moment.
Of course the matter does not stop there, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, it must be looked at now in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Committee, reference was made to the case of De Oliveira. which, as I understand it, was concerned with a judge stopping a defendant's personal cross-examination in a case involving a child. That of course is not on all fours with a case involving adult rape. Nevertheless, it is important that any development in that area of the law so far as concerns us is compliant with the convention, not merely from the point of view of the defendant but from the point of view of the victim, because, in the article to which I have just referred, mention is made of a victim of such cross-examination called Julia Mason, who waived her anonymity after her harrowing six-days' cross-examination by her attacker, to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Unfortunately I do not know, and have had no opportunity to discover, what has happened to that case. Clearly there is, as has been pointed out, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, a dilemma which is now heightened by the need to comply with the European convention. This is a matter which requires a great deal of thought which needs to be undertaken urgently.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend the former Chief Justice said. I do not believe that what he said—except that it was said more eloquently—differs from what I said in Committee. This situation is a novel one. To deal with novel situations, we usually have to have new techniques.
I can well understand any judge realising that if he has to intervene frequently in front of a jury, he runs the risk of the jury thinking that he is biased against the defendant. I do not know how the two judges referred to handled the cases. It may well be that they did not take advantage of a judge's discretion to ask the jury to retire and then to handle the matter in the retirement.
There is no difficulty in discovering—one should know it before the case starts—what is the nature of the defence, and what are the likely issues. With the jury outside, a sensible conversation can take place with the defendant with the judge saying, "What is it that represents your defence? Tell me what you are seeking to establish." That having been said, back comes the jury, and the cross-examination then begins. If the

877
cross-examination becomes an abuse of the right to cross-examine, then the jury is sent out yet again, and the matter is dealt with on the basis, "You must not cross-examine in that way". As my noble and learned friend Lord Lane said, a time limit can be placed upon the cross-examination.
There is no danger of the judge being rebuked, or the trial aborting in any way, so long as the judge has acted fairly. He can act both firmly and fairly. I instanced on the previous occasion that the self-same problem has arisen in civil cases where there has been a suggestion that the judge was not entitled to give limited time for cross-examination or limited time for argument. There is not the slightest doubt that in civil matters the judge is entitled to run the case as he thinks appropriate, so long as he acts fairly. That is why one should wait to see what emerges from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
What I suspect is happening—it accounts for the silence—is that that Court of Appeal, very understandably, likes to illustrate what are the correct principles, by having a case or cases brought before it so that it can then link its wisdom to the particular case or cases. While that is being waited for, it would be premature to seek to put forward an amendment as narrow as this. For those reasons, I continue to resist the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment, as we are all aware, was provoked originally by the awful cases where rape victims were cross-examined interminably in person by unrepresented defendants. The Government, and the whole House, have repeatedly made clear their determination to ensure that vulnerable witnesses, including rape victims and victims of serious sexual assault, should not have to endure such an experience.
As the House is aware—I mentioned it on the previous occasion and again earlier today—in order to take forward our manifesto commitment to provide greater protection to victims of rape and other serious sexual offences, we established in June last year an interdepartmental review of the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system. That group has been specifically asked to consider ways to prevent unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining victims in rape and serious sexual offence trials. The group met on a number of occasions and had its final meeting on 13th March 1998. The result of its work will be reported to Ministers soon.
The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness provides for a mandatory prohibition on defendants in rape and indecent assault trials personally cross-examining the victim. It makes no provision for arrangements to enable the victim's evidence to be tested. As your Lordships will appreciate, in rape trials in particular it is the victim's evidence which is normally crucial and in the interests of justice it is important that any solution addresses that matter.
878
Clearly, as many noble Lords said, it is important to balance the needs of the victim and his or her right not to be subjected to this type of treatment with the right of the defendant to a fair trial. The working group has been examining that issue in the broader context of the other measures being considered to provide greater protection to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
Obviously, we must take account of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, during our previous debate on the subject. As regards the state of the jurisprudence, the De Oliveira case is about children where the balance might be regarded as being struck differently. There is also a case called Croissant v. Germany, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when replying to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is not on all fours, but it gives some indication that preventing an unrepresented defendant from cross-examining would be allowed. At this stage, I am not in a position to answer the noble Baroness's question as to whether we say that it would definitely be allowed under the European Convention on Human Rights because further advice will be required. However, there are indications—I go no further than that—that it would be allowed.
Various noble Lords, in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lane and Lord Ackner, pointed out that the matter can be dealt with simply by judges being more robust in their handling of trials by ensuring that there is not oppressive cross-examination by an unrepresented, or any, defendant. I do not believe that one can be so confident that that would be the position, particularly having regard to the fact that the incident reported in the press a few weeks ago was not isolated. I make it clear that this Government remain committed to measures which, consistent with the interests of justice, protect victims of rape or serious sexual offences from direct cross-examination by the defendant.
I am not aware that my right honourable friend in another place has said anything inconsistent with that approach; namely, that that is the aim of the Government and a working party is considering ways in which it might be achieved. My right honourable friend has gone no further than that and I note that the noble Baroness did not refer to any direct quote to the contrary. There is no inconsistency between the position I made clear in Committee and the position I have made clear again today. The matter is under active and urgent consideration and in the light of those assurances I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight. Issues have been raised which we can more suitably explore when we have an opportunity to debate them both on an Unstarred Question and in the criminal justice Bill. The Home Secretary stated unequivocally to The Times that in that Bill the Government would introduce measures of the nature I outlined. The statements which he made to The Times, as opposed to a Statement to this House,

879
related to policy and legislation to be introduced. I look forward to those matters being brought to the House for debate.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courteous reply and for taking us a little further in relation to the European Court of Human Rights. I appreciate his comments and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1998
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have placed copies of a draft decommissioning scheme in the Library and the Printed Paper Office and, I understand, copies have been circulated to various of your Lordships who take a special interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I hope that this will illustrate the practical side of decommissioning and assist your Lordships in discussing the draft order.
I shall first make a few introductory remarks to place what is a rather technical order in context. This Government believe that resolution of the decommissioning issue in a manner satisfactory to all sides is a key part of the process of negotiations.
We wish to see, as part of the ongoing efforts and to build confidence on all sites, the decommissioning of some paramilitary arms as progress is made in political talks. There is no doubt that the ultimate resolution of this issues will need to be addressed in framing the political settlement to which we are now moving ever closer. Of course, this is a matter which is being discussed elsewhere. But decommissioning, and the draft order we are discussing today, is an integral part of the process of negotiations.
That is why successive governments, both here and in the Irish Republic, have co-operated closely over the past two years to put in place arrangements to enable voluntary decommissioning to take place. We have always recognised that decommissioning on the lines envisaged is essentially a voluntary activity. We cannot force people voluntarily to decommission.
The repulsive sectarian attacks we have witnessed recently; the murder of two young men in Poyntzpass on 3rd March and the subsequent murder of one of the suspects for that crime; the no warning mortar attack on Armagh; and most recently another no warning bomb
880
attacks on a youth club in Lame only renew our determination to find a settlement. Decommissioning must form part of this settlement.
I pay tribute to the vigilance of the security forces in preventing death and destruction at Armagh and for their work in seeking out those responsible for perpetrating these crimes. There will be no let up in this area. I should also commend the efforts of the Garda Siochana in recent weeks who have had numerous successes in preventing attacks and uncovering terrorist weapons.
The draft amnesty period order fixes the maximum duration of any amnesty period identified in a decommissioning scheme. During an amnesty period, a person who decommissions arms in accordance with a scheme benefits from an amnesty in respect of the offences set out in the schedule to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
I emphasise that the order does nothing more than set the maximum duration of the statutory amnesty. It is the non-statutory scheme (which spells out the details of how arms are to be decommissioned) which will set the actual dates of the amnesty. We will do so once a paramilitary group has indicated a willingness to disarm. Sadly, no group has yet done so.
The order is needed because the 1997 Act requires any amnesty period to end before 27th February 1998. Without this order we could not presently set up a decommissioning scheme because, though non-statutory, the scheme is required by the 1997 Act to set out the amnesty period.
The effect of the order before us is that any amnesty period identified in a decommissioning scheme must end before 27th February 1999. It is important that the Government be in a position to implement any scheme without delay. That is why we are bringing forward the order now rather than waiting until there is a proposal for actual decommissioning.
The draft scheme circulated to your Lordships shows how decommissioning could take place. It gives effect to proposals for decommissioning schemes made by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. This commission is chaired by General John de Chastelain and has Ambassador Donald Johnson and Brigadier Tauno Nieminen as members. I welcome this opportunity to record the Government's appreciation of their work. The effective and efficient manner with which they carried out their remit and the process of consultation engaged in by the commission has resulted in proposals for decommissioning schemes which were endorsed by the participants in the Talks Liaison Sub-Committee and the two Governments.
As was the case at other stages of this process, there has been close and ongoing consultation between the British and Irish Governments. I hope the draft scheme helps to show some of the practicalities behind the short order we are debating.
In conclusion, as stated earlier, decommissioning of the kind envisaged in the arrangements before us today is a voluntary exercise. It is not in the Government's gift to say when decommissioning will occur. As soon as there are indications that a paramilitary organisation

881
is prepared to commence decommissioning, we shall immediately give effect to an appropriate scheme. This order will enable us to do so without delay.
In the meantime the security forces will continue to search out illegal arms and bring before the courts those found in possession of them. We are determined to pursue every option open to us to rid our society of the large quantities of arms concealed in the community and whose presence poses such a threat to stability and public safety.
The two Governments have, with the invaluable help of the independent commission, played their part in ensuring that all the necessary practical arrangements to enable decommissioning are in place. This order is a vital part of those arrangements. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
7.53 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister has made clear, this is a short, simple order with a limited purpose but about a topic of the very first importance. The decommissioning of weapons is at the core of the peace process. The Secretary of State called it the base line of the peace process not long before she became the Secretary of State. The Minister said this evening that it played a key part in that process. We all agree with that.
Without it, the talks process and, if it is to become one, the peace process will be essentially unstable at best and probably ineffective altogether. It is quite right that the Government, building on the Act which the previous government put before Parliament, should put in place the decommissioning scheme and should pass this order to enable that to happen when the moment comes. I entirely support the tribute which the Minister paid to those who have worked hard to put the scheme into the form in which it now is under General John de Chastelain.
Of course, what is really required is the political will to put it into practice. That can come only from the paramilitaries on both sides. The original idea was that decommissioning should start before the talks began. That was the original proposal. Then we were told that decommissioning would take place during the talks: it would be progressive and would get going during the talks. The talks are in the final stages and we are now told that there has been no decommissioning. This evening, by this order, we are extending the deadline of the proposed amnesty.
The so-called "loyalist" paramilitaries claim to be reactive only. If the PIRA did not exist, they would not exist. I am sure that we all believe that it depends on the settlement that is reached whether that doctrine holds, but as regards decommissioning, the loyalist groups would certainly have even less excuse for having weapons if PIRA did not. The whole purpose is to have a scheme for the mutual decommissioning of all terrorist weapons.
882
Sinn Fein still pretends that it is separate from PIRA. If one goes along with that for the sake of argument, whether the shooting and the bombings stop depends on PIRA and not Sinn Fein because PIRA has the weapons. The real question in all our minds at the moment is whether PIRA wants peace. Decommissioning is the test of that. To break down the question into its constituent parts: do PIRA bosses want peace and if so, can they deliver it; would their followers follow their lead? Even some token decommissioning would help to answer those questions in the affirmative. As it is, so far we must assume that the answer is no. I wonder sometimes whether the PIRA bosses realise how important even token decommissioning would be, or would have been, at the beginning of the process. Handing in a weapon or two or a pound or two of Semtex would have changed the atmosphere of the talks for the better. It would not have made much practical difference, as we all know, because they are known to have sufficient stocks of weapons in any event. However, it would have improved the atmosphere, but they were not even prepared to make such a gesture.
As it is, far from handing them in, PIRA weapons have been used very recently, as the Minister reminded us, particularly in the recent mortar attack, it seemed, where the technical details of the attack seem consistent only with PIRA weapons having been used. At present we cannot tell whether that attack was the work of a break-away group or some terrorists still under command. But either way, it was a vivid demonstration of the importance of decommissioning.
Like the Minister, I pay tribute to the RUC and the Garda Siochana for the work that they have done in enforced decommissioning; that is, the discovery of arms. That is another very effective way to remove them from the scene.
We are told that the talks process is coming to an end. The Minister said that none of the groups has been prepared so far to commence decommissioning. Can the Minister tell us, because it is a crucial part of our consideration on how the peace process is going, whether the groups are anywhere near being ready to implement it? Have there been any indications within the talks process that decommissioning will be part of any settlement? If it is not, I do not believe that that settlement would be satisfactory to anybody. But at the same time, we have so far had no indication that that is the way that this particular aspect of the talks process is moving.
Obviously, I support the order and I hope that the decommissioning scheme which has been worked on so carefully is able to be put into effect.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, from these Benches, perhaps I may also express appreciation of the work of the international body—Senator Mitchell, Hari Holkeri and General de Chastelain—who have made a substantial contribution to political progress in the Province. It was their report in 1996 which initiated the approach to decommissioning and in August 1997, as a result of their work, the British and Irish Governments

883
were able to assign the necessary independent International Commission on Decommissioning. In September, General de Chastelain was appointed chairman and Ambassador Johnson and Brigadier Tauno Nieminen were appointed members. They have refined even further the ideas which had been previously expressed. We congratulate them on achieving a major step in the peace process by producing the draft decommissioning scheme. It is not only impartial but it is seen to be impartial. That is largely due to their hard work and integrity in approaching their task.
As noble Lords have said, the purpose of the order is to renew the amnesty period set out in Section 2(2)(b) of the Act. The effect of an amnesty will be the statutory suspension of the criminal law. That is a major step. Such a step must not be taken in the mere hope that the process of decommissioning will take place.
There should be no advance in the suspension of the criminal law until there is a positive move by one or other of the paramilitary organisations. The Act is a framework only as is the draft decommissioning scheme now put forward. The real test will be whether the paramilitary organisations will demonstrate their willingness to get rid of their weapons and dismantle their organisations. I have to say that it is not encouraging that so far we are told that not a single paramilitary organisation has come forward.
We must hope and pray that the ongoing talks succeed. It is possible that the two governments and the active participants may be only weeks away from an historic settlement. Indeed, it will be historic because it will express the will of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland to bind up the wounds of what is an unhappy and divided society. Essential to the healing of those wounds is the issue of trust. The paramilitary organisations can express their own consent to a settlement by an act of trust by the surrender of their arms. It is crucial to a successful settlement in Northern Ireland that trust be re-established in the democratic process. As the forum for the resolution of dissension, discord and differences, trust rather than the gun must rule. But will the paramilitary organisations take that step or do they delight not in the building of a united society but in the infliction of death and pain for its own sake? This is an opportunity for those organisations to demonstrate that they mean what they say. They have their ideals before them—whatever they may be and whatever form of society they see—but let it be a democratic society. They should avoid their constant connection with the pain, death and suffering which have been inflicted for so long on the people of Northern Ireland.
Although the draft decommissioning scheme is still in draft, I should like to make one or two comments upon it. The notion of a "contact person" as set out in paragraph 4 of the scheme, and as described in later paragraphs, is commendable. The military structures of most paramilitary groups lend themselves to one individual being directly responsible for the decommissioning. If that should happen, it would help to establish responsibility on that person and his accountability to the commission.
884
I hope that there will be scope for informal discussions between such a "contact person" and the commission before the machinery of the scheme is set in motion by the giving of formal notice under paragraph 7. The conditions in the scheme are necessarily expressed in rather general terms; for example, paragraph 9 says that the contact person,
"shall provide the Commission with such information as it may require".
The words are mandatory: the contact person "shall provide" information. But although the nature of the information to be provided is illustrated by some specific examples in the scheme, the final expression of those illustrations—namely, that the contact person "shall provide" any other "information" required by the commission—sounds to my mind somewhat heavy handed and may give rise to some suspicion. Informal discussions beforehand will allow clarification and will put an end to any fears which may arise about the information to be provided.
Confidentiality is referred to in paragraph 26 and is to be welcomed. We hope that the need for confidentiality will not hamper the release of good news. Above everything else, what Northern Ireland needs is good news. This legislation must not hinder publication of successes. If a single paramilitary organisation comes forward to start the process that will be a victory. It will not be a victory for one side or the other; it will be a victory for common sense, for agreement and for rational compromise over bigotry and extremism. This legislation must work and must be seen to work. The Government may he assured of wholehearted support from these Benches.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for the way that he presented the order this evening. We were sorry that, for understandable reasons, he was not able to be with us on Monday when the Statement on the prison murder was repeated in this House. However, it may console the noble Lord to know that he was very ably represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who now sits beside him. In fact, if I were in the noble Lord's position, I would start worrying about job security.
I take some responsibility for the idea of an international decommissioning body because I was leader of the Ulster Unionist Party when we submitted the idea and the proposal on how the process of disarmament and decommissioning should proceed. I suppose that I was personally influenced by my experiences in Europe at the end of the Second World War. The dangers in accepting surrenders were brought home to me most forcibly on that occasion, when my wing commander and I were ordered by the Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, to impose his conditions on 9,400 Luftwaffe officers and men at an air base at Flensburg near the Danish frontier. One young German pilot, who was obviously very hysterical, stepped out of the surrender queue, drew his pistol and shot directly at the wing commander and myself. Fortunately the shot went between us. The young man was, unfortunately, shot dead by his own commandant.

885
which came as something of a relief to us, given the fact that we were in something of a minority at that gathering.
However, there were problems in a wider sphere. German servicemen were most reluctant to part with their firearms, which they wished to retain for the purpose of defending themselves against the Russians, although the war had in fact ended a few days earlier. Then, dyed-in-the-wool Nazis had their own reasons for defying the conditions of surrender and decommissioning. We also had to cope with various resistance movements in several countries, many of which had, unfortunately, set aside their noble aspirations and were determined to stake out their claims for a position of authority in the post-war world.
The average British and American serviceman was not trained in the arts of diplomacy. So, eventually, a control commission was established. That commission succeeded because the Supreme Commander insisted, first, that disarmament must precede all else; and, secondly, that the disarmament commission be broadly based.
When Ken Maginnis and I put those proposals to the last government, we expected—and still expect—those principles established in 1945 to become the necessary precondition for a lasting peace. In 1945 the Allied governments recognised that peace could not be firmly established until all the warmongers were disarmed. Again, in 1945, decommissioning the mines as opposed to the weapons—for example, of SS divisions—would not really have done much to establish real peace in Europe—neither will it neutralise modern thugs and murderers and prevent them inflicting much suffering on all of us at the moment.
Similarly, real democratic structures cannot take root in the absence of disarmament. I believe that there has been general agreement among us on that point this evening. That was also recognised by Mr. John Hume, the leader of the SDLP (the main nationalist party), when he declared that elected representatives cannot sit down with men who have guns on the table, guns under the table and guns outside the door. Therefore decommissioning cannot be what is called loosely a confidence building measure if there is no co-operation nor reciprocity.
If and when decommissioning takes place, there must be progress reports at intervals. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that confidentiality is important. If there is a perception remaining that the operation is simply bogus, confidence in the ranks of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will be nil. If the general public are to have confidence in the scheme, there is everything to gain from the disclosure—as the noble Lord has said—of the amount of hardware and munitions surrendered. I say sincerely that in the next six weeks the Government will have to be clear and honest with the electorate. I should be grateful if the Minister can provide some guidance on this aspect of confidentiality.
I am sorry to have to say that there can be no justification for the current hype about there being an agreement within our grasp. That is the phrase that is tossed around rather unthinkingly. It simply is not true. It may sound good at Washington receptions but realities
886
are not being faced and that is the simple truth. Ten days ago it might have been possible to persuade people to the contrary, and (even in the absence of proof) that a miracle might have happened. That hope of an agreed lasting solution was demolished by Mr. Adams only last week when he announced that Sinn Fein/IRA regards the present talks and the referendum as a mere phase in an ongoing process which will deliver an all Ireland republic.
It was always the understanding of all of us who supported the talks from the beginning, and it was the clear understanding of all who bravely participated in those talks, that there was an aim to achieve—and the hope that this would be achieved—a lasting settlement. We are now told on the highest authority of Mr. Adams that that is not so. We are told that the talks and a referendum on the outcome are a first phase and simply the beginning of a longer and far more dangerous process. He will no doubt accept and pocket any concessions made during what he calls phase one and then drive on to his subsequent phases using the muscle power of the IRA and/or one of its many subcontractors.
Her Majesty's Government and Parliament may soon be forced by paramilitaries to understand the damaging effect of Mr. Adams's phased strategy, particularly—as noble Lords have said—with no decommissioning in sight and no decommissioning at the conclusion of the current talks in perhaps four to six weeks' time.
I hope that I can bring some cheer to noble Lords when I say sincerely that together our Government and all right thinking people and all of us in Parliament will be wise from this moment to do something to lower expectations and abandon what I have called the high wire act of negotiation, which has never succeeded in all the attempts made during the past 38 or so years, and seldom succeeds anywhere else whether in Israel or some other part of the world. Having, I hope, reduced the temperature by so doing, we can then begin the ongoing progress which will stop the unelected continuing to usurp the role of the elected.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I shall try to deal with the specific points that have been made. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his support for this measure and generally for the positive comments that he made. He asked whether there had been any indications that decommissioning was likely in the near future, or that some of the paramilitaries were about to embark on a decommissioning process. We very much hope that the paramilitary organisations and their counterparts in the talks process will see the benefits of decommissioning. Certainly the Government hope that some decommissioning will take place. However, I must repeat what I said earlier; namely, we cannot force anyone to decommission; we cannot insist. We must leave it to the paramilitary groups voluntarily to decommission their arms. In that way we shall know that those people have truly accepted the democratic path. Sadly, there is no indication that they are willing to do so at the present time.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the supportive comments that he made. He asked one or two specific questions based on what I think he called the

887
heavy handed requirement for information by the decommissioning body. The scheme requires that information will be given to the commission because there is an overriding need for the commission to ensure public safety. We cannot have a situation where paramilitaries are destroying their weapons in such a way that that process itself endangers public safety. There are also considerations of verification that decommissioning is actually taking place as opposed to a claim that it has happened.
We have to make the provision of information mandatory because the commission must be satisfied that the "contact person" genuinely wants to decommission. Otherwise there would be the possibility of abuse of the provisions of the 1997 Act, in particular the amnesty and exemption from forensic testing. Therefore the commission must he able to insist on certain information being provided. On the other hand the commission—the noble Lord paid tribute to its members—understands the realities of this all too well. I am confident that in this situation the commission will achieve the right balance between information that it needs and not being too heavy handed or bureaucratic in its approach. I assure the noble Lord that we have confidence in the way the commission will carry out its task and proceed without falling into the trap that he has indicated.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, indicated that he has experience of decommissioning and knows how it works based upon his responsibilities in the immediate post-war period. I welcome the positive contribution he made to this debate by giving us examples of the difficulties that may arise for the commission. He asked about confidentiality. It is important that information be protected if paramilitary groups are to have confidence that decommissioning will not result in their prosecution. This was one of the recommendations of the Mitchell Report, upon which we have based our approach to decommissioning. However, we must also ensure that verification is made clear and unambiguous. The noble Lord also referred to a comment made by Gerry Adams. A number of participants in the talks have made comments from time to time which have not been all that positive and have given other people doubts as to whether we shall achieve a successful outcome.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think the point that was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was that there needed to be some release of information as regards the scale of the surrender, decommissioning, or whatever we may call it. Otherwise, there will be no public confidence in the procedure and there will be no perception that it is working. That is the point that is being made.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says and I appreciate the importance of it. I think that is a point that the commission will have to take on board: it will have to make sure that as part of the process the participants in the talks and the general public are kept in the picture as to what is happening. I take the point that, if it is happening secretly and no one knows that decommissioning is taking place, there will he a lack of confidence in the process.
888
I was talking about comments made by some of the participants in the talks to which the noble Lord referred. Reference has been made to the way Gerry Adams views the process. Frankly that is not the way that we see it. We have as our ultimate aim peace, prosperity and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. That has to be our aim. It is the outcome that we seek in the talks.
I conclude by again thanking noble Lords for their helpful and positive comments, which the Government will bear in mind as we proceed with these matters. I am sure that the commission will also hear them in mind in regard to its responsibilities.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.45 p.m.]

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 29 [Local provision of youth justice services]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86, 94, 95 and 96. This series of technical amendments provides that for the purposes of Clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill "police authority" should have the same meaning as in Section 101(1) of the Police Act 1996. As presently drafted, the narrower definition in Section 3 of the 1996 Act is used, which excludes the police authorities for the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police (that is, the Home Secretary and the Common Council of the City of London respectively).
This is anomalous. The Government consider that the police authorities for London should be covered in the same way as police authorities outside London in respect of the new youth justice arrangements established under Clauses 29 to 33. These include the duty to co-operate with local authorities in the provision of youth justice services and youth offending teams and the requirement to be consulted by local authorities in the formulation of youth justice plans. A similar amendment was made to Clause 17 at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Youth offending teams]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 23, line 23, leave out ("established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 23, line 40, leave out ("with").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment on the previous day of Report stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 24, line 3, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State shall reimburse to the relevant police authority, probation service, health authority and local authority for the reasonable cost of providing persons to be members of a youth offending team, and of fulfilling the duties imposed upon youth offending teams by subsection (6) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe, as I think many noble Lords do, that this is an important Bill. Clauses 29 and 30 are particularly important. If they work properly, they will be of enormous benefit not only to the youth justice service but also to the young people involved. I tabled this amendment because I am concerned that the Government are in danger of falling into the same trap as the previous administration fell into in relation to the Children Act.
That Act was an innovative and important piece of legislation. It contained a number of new elements, and a number of new duties and responsibilities were laid upon local authorities. However, little or no provision was made for funding. What happened was that some local authorities did their best to ignore the obligations laid upon them; others simply robbed Peter to pay Paul. That is why, today, in many local authorities there is virtually no youth service. That is why playing fields have been sold off. There are few outdoor activities, and school visits and residentials scarcely exist in primary schools and are much rarer in secondary schools.
The Bill also imposes substantial new duties, not only on local authorities but on the Probation Service, the health services, the police and so forth. As I understand it, the obligations that a youth offending team will have to undertake include assessment and intervention; work in support of police remands and warnings; the supervision of community sentences; ensuring that there is an appropriate adult service; the provision of bail information; bail supervision and support; the placement of young people in open or secure accommodation; remand fostering and approved lodgings during the pre-trial period; court work and the preparation of reports; and involvement in through-care and undertaking post-release supervision following a custodial sentence. Other duties may also be imposed on youth offending teams by the Secretary of State.
As to funding, the government proposal appears to be that teams and associated youth justice services will be established and operated on the basis of the resources available in 1999–2000 to the local authority, social services and education departments, the Probation Service, the police and the health authority, and according to the pattern of responsibilities for youth justice work which is determined by the chief officer's group and set out in the youth justice plan. In other words, they are going to have to do that out of the money they have.
That seems unrealistic. Let us take the Probation Service, for example. The service has suffered funding cuts in real terms over the past two years, and another cut is envisaged in the forthcoming year. The Probation Service, on average across the country, uses only 10 per cent. of its resources on young people under the age of 18. Many of the duties under the provisions of this Bill will require the Probation Service to spend many more resources on persons under the age of 18. How will that be funded? Will it be by cutting back on the services to the 18 year-olds and older? I should be grateful for an indication from the Minister.
I declare an interest as chairman of the children's department at Toynbee Hall. Last week, the worker who runs the youth department—we have only two full-time workers—came to me and asked whether it would be appropriate for him to put his name down as a possible member of a youth offending team. I had to say yes, as he is a man who would do the job enormously well. But how are we going to manage to carry on our existing work if he is taken away from us for perhaps one or two days a week to operate in connection with a youth offending team?
Of course, if the measures in the Bill eventually succeed, there will be economies in other areas of youth justice which may enable local authorities, the police and the Probation Service to deploy fewer resources in other areas in order to fund the services envisaged in the Bill. But there is a timing difference. Those advantages will happen only when the provisions of this Bill have started to work. Therefore is the Treasury prepared to pump prime? The Treasury does not have a very good historical record on prevention. It is not keen to spend a penny today even if it will save a pound tomorrow. I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment as it stands, he might be prepared to say, "Yes, the Treasury is a party to this Bill. Yes, the Treasury has made the commitment that it will make this Bill work", and say that it will provide the pump-priming finance that is needed to make it work. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these two amendments bring us face to face with reality. The proposed youth justice system will work only if it is properly staffed and paid for. Nothing will be worse than if this scheme of useful intervention were to start out with an inadequate budget. The various authorities involved will all have to put in several members of staff. Those members of staff are already doing statutory work in the main, and the switch to this new, more extensive work has to mean that the existing tasks will be given

891
less priority. Not only will there be a requirement for more resources in the conventional sense of money; there will also be a need for new ideas. Training and development work will be needed if the new regime is to intervene effectively in the lives of those committed to it by the youth courts. I have to hope that there are lots of ideas held latently by those who will staff the youth offending teams.
I agree with the noble Lord who introduced the amendment that since the 1960s we have seen the rise and subsequent demise of the youth service. There now seems to be little hope for outdoor education, certainly in the statutory sector. The only hope now seems to be lottery funding. I must record that that has occurred in Clackmannanshire satisfactorily. However, that is an affront to the principle of additionality. The need for financial and intellectual resources to be put in place prior to the start leads me to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise merely to say that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has made a very good case. I trust that the Government will be able to explain what extra resources will be available, whence those extra resources will come, and how much the Government think it will be necessary to provide to make sure that the Probation Service is appropriately funded for the new duties that are to be imposed upon it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish briefly to add my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I do so as someone who has served on a local authority and on a hospital trust, and I am currently a member of a probation committee. I support the noble Lord's points in relation to the Probation Service. The cuts in the base budget that the service has suffered amount in some cases to 20 per cent. of its total annual expenditure. That means that it is already having to take money away from one area of work to keep another going. It also means that new initiatives, such as special care for drug offenders and so on, are increasingly difficult to maintain. I therefore hope that the Government will he able to say how they propose, in a situation of actual falls in base budgets, to ensure that the work that is so valuable coming out of this Bill can he carried out.
9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Perhaps I can illustrate the kinds of things that happen at present by referring to two Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions which I have recently received, both signed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
The first concerned advisory services to asylum seekers. Under the previous government there was something called "spend to save", whereby money was paid out in order to gain future savings. This provided something, like £1/2 million a year to one specialist advisory body helping asylum seekers to present their cases, either at first instance or at appeal. This is to be cut back—virtually eliminated, I believe—in the coming
892
financial year, although in this case the backlog of unheard and undecided asylum applications remains very large.
The second Answer concerned the savings expected to come from the prevention of crime generally, whether youth crime, adult crime or any other kind of crime. I do not have the Answer with me but I shall try to give the gist of it from memory. It was that in this case there was no system for estimating future savings and, once they had been achieved, for reallocating them between different government departments and between central government, local government and other statutory bodies.
Those examples both indicate an unsatisfactory situation which I hope the Government will be able to address, particularly in the context of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, propose the creation of central funding arrangements for youth offending teams, with the Secretary of State reimbursing to the relevant local agencies the costs of providing members of the teams.
The Government understand the concern which has been expressed about the availability of resources for youth offending teams. We do not consider, however, that central funding arrangements are appropriate for these teams.
The Government intend that youth offending teams should bring together existing staff and services on a more effective interagency basis, building on current interagency arrangements in many areas. We believe that youth offending teams should be established and operated on the basis of the resources available to the local authority, the probation service, the police and the health authority and according to the pattern of responsibility for youth justice work which is determined locally by those agencies and set out in the youth justice plan formulated under Clause 31. This will preserve local ownership and accountability and encourage partnership between the relevant agencies. The Government consider that such a locally-based approach is more practicable than one which would require central government to consider the assessment made of local need and the resources required to meet it.
The Government acknowledge, of course, that where additional work is to be undertaken there is a case for additional resources, and the requirement for these must be properly evaluated before the new provisions are brought into force. Chapter 10 of the White Paper No More Excuses set out the Government's view of the resource implications of the youth justice measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. There was an element of spending to save in relation to that.
Most of the youth justice services which will have to be provided locally should already be in place and, in some areas, interagency working is already being implemented within existing resources. Our proposals will ensure more effective interagency planning and provision of services, bringing together all those who can make a contribution to tackling youth offending.

893
We are, however, assessing the resource implications of the new services which will be required—for example, to deliver the final warning scheme and the new court orders, the reparation, action plan, child safety and parenting orders. We shall be piloting these new measures, some of which will build on, and in some cases replace, existing disposals and provision. We shall also be piloting the youth offending teams. The pilots will enable the costs and savings associated with the provision of youth justice services and youth offending teams to be assessed in advance of nationwide implementation. The outcome of the pilots will then help inform decisions over the timing of full implementation of these measures.
I hope that, in the light of this reassurance, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not press the amendments which stand in his name.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I shall not press the amendment, not because the noble and learned Lord has convinced me but because I believe it would be a waste of your Lordships' time at this hour.
The noble and learned Lord said, "No", that these things have to be funded out of the existing resources of the various organisations, the local authorities, the probation service, the police, and so on. I believe that the Government are living in an unreal world. I refer again to Tower Hamlets, about which I know a little. The interagency working is being cut back because the organisations, including the police, are very strapped for money. The police youth service has been virtually wiped out in Tower Hamlets in the past five years.
The only comfort I can glean is that the noble and learned Lord said that there will be pilot schemes. I believe the Government will come in for a nasty shock as to the additional resources needed, at least on a pump-priming basis. It may be that in five years' time the benefits of the Act will feed through and the need for funding will reduce, but in the initial period there will be a need for funding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Youth justice plans]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 32 [The Youth Justice Board]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 24, line 45, at end insert ("and
(iv) the steps that might he taken to prevent offending by children and young persons;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 90, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 93. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn explained in responding to an amendment at Committee stage on 12th February moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government believe that the welfare of children and young people is directly concerned with preventing offending by them.
These amendments build on the crime prevention foundations already in the Bill by extending the remit of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales under Clause 32 to enable it to take a view on the steps that might be taken to prevent youth offending and thereby promote the welfare of the children and young people concerned. They also reflect the role which the youth offending teams established under Clause 30 will be able to play in work to prevent youth offending.
The main business of youth offending teams will be work with known offenders. However, Clause 31(3) already enables youth offending teams to undertake work to prevent youth offending and for that to be included in the youth justice plan formulated by the local authority under Clause 31(1). That will allow local authorities which have a duty under paragraph 7(b) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to take steps to encourage children and young people not to commit offences, and the other local agencies flexibility as to the relative involvement in preventive work of the youth offending team and the agencies themselves, including the local authority social services department.
Given its function of monitoring the work of youth offending teams, the Government consider it appropriate that their possible role in preventing youth offending should be reflected in the functions of the youth justice board under Clause 32(5). The Government also consider that, to complement its role in monitoring the operation of the youth justice system under subsection (5)(a) and advising the Home Secretary on how the new principal aim of that system of preventing youth offending might most effectively be pursued under subsection (5)(b)(ii), the youth justice board should be able to offer advice on what might be done to prevent young people becoming involved in crime and entering the youth justice system in the first instance.
Amendment No. 90 therefore amends the board's advisory functions under Clause 32(5)(b) to include the provision of advice on the steps that might be taken to prevent offending by children and young people. Amendments Nos. 91 and 93 extend the board's function under subsection (5)(d) to obtain information from the relevant local agencies—local authorities, police authorities, probation committees and health authorities—to cover information to inform its advice under subsection (5)(b).
The youth justice board's exercise of those functions will be subject, under Clause 32(7), to directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State. That should ensure that the work of the board in relation to preventing youth offending complements the Government's overall approach to crime reduction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 25, line 3, after ("(a)") insert (", (b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert ("and
() themselves to commission research on the introduction into the youth justice system of childrens' panels to replicate for England and Wales the relevant provisions of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 has the purpose of bringing the principles of the children's panel system into the new youth justice system. I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the much-admired but never copied Scottish children's panel into a head-to-head debate with the proposed youth justice system.
The children's hearings are the product of the Kilbrandon Report and form Part 111 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. As a social work student in 1968 I recall a briefing on the Bill by the senior civil servant adviser for that part of the Bill.
I have attended both the juvenile court in England and children's hearings with social work clients and their families, often collecting them to ensure their attendance and so preventing an adjournment. The children's hearings can be convened within a day of an offence being committed. I believe that that is a "fast-track" procedure.
At the children's hearing the family, the three panel members, the reporter and the social worker sit at a table together and do not leave it until a decision is reached. There are no adjournments while the Bench sorts out its decision. At the beginning of the hearing the child and the parents are asked if they accept the grounds of referral. The reporter to the children's panel will have received a report that the child is either in need of statutory measures of care or that an offence has been committed. If the family accepts the grounds of referral, the hearing proceeds to deal with the child's future. If the family does not accept the grounds of referral, the hearing is adjourned and the family assents to the sheriff in chambers for an approved hearing.
The case in chambers is led by the reporter and, once the sheriff has determined that there is a case to answer, the family is sent back to the reconvened children's hearing. If the sheriff finds the case not proved, then that is an end of it. The same panel members will see the case through to the eventual discharge and any supervision requirement made. The proceedings are as informal as possible and, though obviously a formal event, are more likely to allow the family to participate than in a formal court setting. The single table, the equal chairs and the small room are conducive to achieving the philosophical aim of doing the best thing for the welfare of the child.
I recall appearing with families in the English juvenile court. The setting was that of any other court room. Though the magistrates were specially selected, they still sat "up there" on the bench. If we were lucky, we would be called forward with the family to stand below the bench and speak at reasonable proximity to the magistrates. Otherwise, the family had to discuss the issues across the open formal court. I accept that that
896
description came from my personal experience in the 1970s, but I wonder whether it has changed much since then.
The amendment would require the youth justice board to establish a judicial procedure similar to a children's hearing. This would lead to a less formal and more future oriented process in which the child and the family would have a greater and more meaningful part. The rapid response of the initial hearing, being within a very short space of time, has considerable merit. The treatment plans can be implemented very speedily except where the grounds of referral are not accepted. In my experience, the grounds of referral are usually accepted. This means that there is not a requirement to prepare for prosecution beyond the receipt of evidence. It is here that the fast track is achieved; that is, by not having to go through due process unless insisted upon. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment would give the youth justice board the function of commissioning research on the introduction into the youth justice system in England and Wales of the system of the children's panel which operates in Scotland. We are keen to look at and learn from the effectiveness of the Scottish children's hearings system. Research commissioned by the Scottish Office is expected to be completed later this year. This research includes a study into decision-making in the children's hearings system, and a three-year longitudinal study examining outcomes for a cohort of children referred to reporters, who have been described by the noble Earl in 1995.
The Scottish system has a number of positive features. In particular, that system appears to benefit from a clear separation of decisions about guilt from decisions on disposal. An equally important feature of the Scottish system, however, is that it operates entirely outside the criminal justice system. It also considers care and protection issues as well as cases which involve offending. It cannot therefore simply he replicated within the framework of the criminal youth court system in England and Wales.
The Government's plans for reforming the youth court are designed to ensure that its structure and procedures are clearly directed at changing offending behaviour. In particular, our longer term proposals for reform are designed to provide a new opportunity for those appearing before the younth court for the first time to be dealt with following conviction by a new youth panel. The panel would be responsible for agreeing with the young person a "contract" which would be enforced by the youth court. The contract would ensure that the young person made amends to the victim or the community at large and would tackle the causes of their offending behaviour.
We believe that the reforms we have proposed will help to shape a more effective youth justice system for England and Wales for the next century. Our approach combines the principles of restorative justice—of restoration, reintegration and responsibility—with more

897
traditional punitive measures, which must be available to the courts in order to protect the public. The result should be a more streamlined and effective system, with a clearer focus on preventing offending.
The terms of this amendment have caused us to reflect on the scope of the youth justice board's functions under subsection (5)(f), (g) and (h) of Clause 32. As currently drafted, these enable the board to identify and promote good practice in the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services; to make grants to local authorities and other bodies to develop, or commission research into, good practice in working with young offenders; and itself to commission such research.
We have concluded that these functions need to be broadened so that the youth justice board is able to identify and promote, and make grants and commission research in respect of, good practice both in the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services and in relation to work to prevent offending by children and young people. This would enable the board to commission research of the type proposed by the noble Earl.
The Government intend to bring forward amendments to this effect at Third Reading. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is not often that I receive an answer like that, or should I say so favourable an answer as that. I am particularly grateful for the favourable description of the children's panel system with its fast track, informality and participation which are considerable features of it. From 1968 until now is so many years that I hope we do not have to wait quite so long to decide whether or not we think that the youth justice system was working well.
The noble and learned Lord has said that he hopes to bring forward other amendments. I am grateful for that and willing, therefore, to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 93
Page 25, line 26, after ("(5)(a)") insert (", (b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 95 and 96:
Page 25, line 41, at end insert ("and this section").
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
(""police authority" has the meaning given by section 101(1) of the Police Act 1996:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these Amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 40 [Powers of magistrates' courts exercisable by single justice etc.]:
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, without being discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, perhaps I could be of assistance. There are a number of grouped amendments here and I can put it generally, if I may, but it is the Government's intention to meet the requirements or the requests of the movers of Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 101, 102, 105 and 104, not in entirety but generally. It may he helpful, therefore, if I simply indicate what the Government's view is. That may or may not satisfy the various movers; the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady David. I am advised that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, should move the amendment formally before I make any rejoinder to something he has not said.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 31. leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has been very kind to me in the past, and I am sure he intends to be so again. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the amendments to which I referred are in a general group. They relate to problems which a number of noble Lords had in relation to the powers under Clause 40. Amendments Nos. 100 to 104 and 97 restrict the powers in Clause 40 which could be made available to justices' clerks or, in the case of Amendment No. 97, to a single justice. There were concerns expressed in Committee by a number of noble Lords and I promised that we would consult further. I think we have delivered on that promise.
Last week I met a delegation, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, together with representatives of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society. As recently as Monday the Home Secretary had a useful meeting with the Lord Chief Justice, who had also expressed concern. The Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice with some proposals and I am able to say that the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that he is generally content—generally, I have to say, not perfectly.
We always intended that the powers in Clause 40 should be exercisable by a justice sitting alone, not a full court. The Lord Chief Justice sees no difficulty in that. We intended that the listed powers should be capable, if suitable rules were made, of being exercised by clerks but that it might be necessary—indeed it would be necessary—for the powers to be restricted

899
when given to clerks. The drafting of the clause, which has been explained earlier, made provisions for those restrictions.
Following very strong representations, and they were reasoned representations, we wondered whether there should be restrictions on the face of the Bill. We have come to the conclusion that it is possible to do that and furthermore that it is right to do that. I can tell your Lordships that we propose to move suitable amendments at Third Reading to make clear the extent of the powers which clerks would be capable of exercising subject to rules.
The most objectionable power as seen by your Lordships was that of remanding a defendant in custody. The power to remand on bail was also opposed by the Magistrates' Association. It was never the Government's intention that clerks should be empowered to determine disputed issues of bail or custody. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David would prevent clerks from remanding a defendant in custody at all, even where he had previously been so remanded by a court and was content for the remand to be extended. That would mean that clerks would be precluded from conducting pre-trial reviews in any custody cases, which would detract significantly from courts' ability to organise themselves efficiently. Our proposal, therefore, is to withhold from clerks the power to remand a defendant in custody, with the one exception, which we believe to be reasonable and well justified, that a clerk would be able to renew with the defendant's consent a remand in custody which has previously been made by a court. I believe that to be a reasonable outcome.
As for remands on bail, we would again propose that the power to vary conditions or to impose new ones should be exercisable by clerks only with the parties' consent. A clerk would be capable of renewing bail on the same conditions without consent. Clerks would also be given a new power to grant bail to a defendant who had answered to police bail in appearing at an early administrative hearing, since without this power clerks would be unable to conduct such hearings at all. Again, we believe that that is reasonable.
There has been a good deal of concern about pre-sentence reports. We see some force in the argument that to give an indication of seriousness would involve the clerk too closely in the sentencing process. We are therefore content to remove that part of the paragraph as far as clerks are concerned.
Amendment No. 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would go much further, removing the power to order a pre-sentence report altogether, not only from a clerk but from a single justice. We do not think that that is right. It would mean that many cases in which a guilty plea was made at a pre-trial hearing would have to be put before a full Bench merely to order a pre-sentence report when it was apparent that that was wanted.
Paragraph (m) of Clause 40(1), relating to prohibition of publication was a matter of concern to the Lord Chief Justice. It was specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when we had our discussion, which all
900
present found useful and fruitful. The noble Lord pointed out that it might involve a clerk in taking decisions which might be controversial and subject to criticism. We thought about that and we have concluded that the noble Lord is right. We think that that power should be excluded from clerks and reserved to a single justice.
In relation to the power in paragraph (o), about orders for joint or separate trials, the Government are happy to accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that we should insert a provision requiring the parties' consent to that decision being taken by a justices' clerk.
There remains one power—that in paragraph (n), about giving directions for the conduct of the trial—about which the Lord Chief Justice still has some reservations. We wondered whether this power could be limited by requiring consent. But this is a wide-ranging power, covering such issues as the timetable for the case and attendance of witnesses, and it is fundamental to the role of the clerk in the management of cases rather than their disposal. We think that to require the parties' consent would damage that provision because it gives the mischievous an opportunity to be unco-operative and to put a spoke in the wheel.
We are not persuaded of the case for Amendment No. 99, which needs the parties' consent to the exercise of the power to bring forward the date of a hearing to which the defendant has already been bailed by the police. The power can be exercised by a court. It is seldom needed. It is likely to be used even less in the future because of the Clause 37 requirement for defendants to be bailed to the next available court hearing. The parties' consent was not necessary when a date was originally set by the police and we do not see why it should be needed when a single justice or a clerk alters it.
We do not think that the drafting suggested in Amendment No. 98 is necessary. Some of the powers in Clause 40 relate to extending time limits and to the grant of bail. It might be helpful if I set out our thoughts because we intend to introduce a number of amendments at Third Reading. First, we should like to amend Clause 34 to make it clear that time limits may be extended where a court orders separate trials in the interests of justice. Secondly, we wish to introduce a new clause to strengthen the use of sureties in bail cases to complement the wider use of securities in Clause 45.
We hope to introduce an amendment to the bail provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is currently the subject of two actions in the European Court of Human Rights. At Third Reading we intend to table amendments to Clause 40 which take account of many of the points that have legitimately troubled your Lordships. We are looking again at the finer points of the clause for further improvement.
Amendment No. 105 in this group is in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We agree that not all court clerks would be suitable to exercise the power specified. Justices' clerks may be authorised under rules to exercise the powers of a single justice, and justices' clerks may in

901
turn delegate those powers at their discretion to other court clerks. We intended that before the piloting of Clause 40 the consultation procedure provided in subsection (3) should address, among other things, the question of who, apart from the clerk to the justices himself, should be authorised. I am not sure that this amendment is precisely what is needed. I apprehend that the noble Baroness put it forward on the basis that it might stimulate further thought. It has had that consequence. We are quite happy to consider whether there is scope for restricting the extent to which Clause 40 powers can be delegated by justices' clerks to other clerks, but we wish to retain local flexibility which is very important. On the basis of that indication I hope that the noble Baroness is reasonably content for this evening.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I hope that I can be both reasonable and content but perhaps not necessarily at the same time. I thank the Minister for his early indication about amendments to Clause 40 that the Government may table at Third Reading. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond briefly. I am aware that at Report, when the Minister has spoken at an early stage, those who have tabled amendments may comment before the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, determines whether or not he wishes to proceed with his amendment.
I should like to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the meeting held at my request last Thursday. It was a most helpful meeting for all those who attended. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, would have attended that meeting had he not had a previous long-standing engagement. Those who attended made non-party, non-partisan representations on the core matters of concern in regard to bail and the ordering of pre-sentence reports with an indication of the seriousness of the offence by a justice's clerk.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I shall read carefully in Hansard the implications of the proposals that he has made this evening, but at first sight it appears that most of my objections have been met. However, in this world one does not get everything for which one asks. It appears that the Government have listened to the principles underlying my objections. I note at this stage that the pre-sentence report will still be granted by a justice's clerk or a magistrate sitting alone, which is almost on a par with the procedure in the Crown Court where a report is ordered in virtually every case. The query in my mind is what implications that has for the Probation Service in preparing such reports, because it appears that consequently there will be a huge increase in its workload. I am sure that the Government will consult the service about the implications of the proposals. I shall consider whether there are any outstanding issues when I have read Hansard.
The Minister has referred to Amendment No. 105 in my name. I am relieved to hear that the Government are looking closely at what experience a justice's clerk
902
should possess before he carries out the powers to be delegated to him under Clause 40. I end simply by thanking the Minister for the remarks that he has made. When we come to Amendment No. 105 I shall not be moving it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the concessions made by the Minister, which have met just about all our requirements on this matter. They will have saved your Lordships from wading through a good deal of what I would describe as alphabet soup in the next few minutes, which we would otherwise have had to do.
I am especially grateful that the points that I raised on prohibition of disclosure—what happens in a magistrates' court—have now been reserved to a justice and cannot be made by a justices' clerk. At this stage I obviously cannot give any blanket undertaking that we shall not raise any objections to whatever amendments the Government may introduce on Third Reading, because we have not yet seen them, nor do we have detailed knowledge of the scope of what they would cover. However, broadly speaking, this issue can now be taken to have been settled.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart who has kept me informed about discussions with the Minister. A number of points made to the Minister has substantially been met. I shall study Hansard and wait to see what happens on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 105 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 32, line 18, leave out ("with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provisions supplementing section 42]:
[Amendment No.106A not moved.]
Clause 44 [Crown Prosecution Service: powers of non-legal staff]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 35, line 20, at end insert ("for non-imprisonable offences").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 107 to 110. These amendments are a simplified version of amendments moved in Committee to introduce certain safeguards on the face of the Bill to what is now Clause 44. The matter was debated on the fourth day of Committee on 24th February.
Clause 44 will enable non-legal staff in the CPS to decide whether or not to institute and whether or not to continue criminal proceedings, and will enable them to conduct criminal proceedings, other than trials, in magistrates' courts. Those functions are not always straightforward. They can involve difficult decisions with implications for the defendant, and for his or her liberty; implications for the victims of crime; and implications for the running of the courts.
The people who exercise those functions should have the requisite skill, training and experience. For those reasons an amendment to the proposed new Clause 44 was moved in Committee. It attracted support from several speakers. It also attracted reassurances from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General that there will be appropriate safeguards, and that lay staff so employed will have appropriate training, will be supervised and will be independent.
Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 now seek to place those assurances on the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 seek to limit the delegation of functions to non-imprisonable offences. If that is not acceptable to the Government, it is all the more important that Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 are on the face of the Bill. The amendments have the support of the Association of First Division Civil Servants, the Law Society and the Bar Council. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I not only understand, but to some extent I share the concern about the wide scope of Clause 44 which underlies these amendments. It is clearly true that the business which could in theory be given to professionally unqualified staff to deal with is very considerably wider than that which, in practice, it would ever be intended that they should take on. I am anxious, therefore, to do all that I can to clarify the position, both by a readiness to bring forward suitable amendments and by giving assurances as to practice.
The problem is that it is not at all easy to define what kind of cases lay staff ought to deal with. It is clear that they should not handle contested trials, and they are already excluded. It is also clear that they would in no circumstances be asked to deal with indictable-only cases, and it would be straightforward to reflect this by excluding such offences from the ambit of the clause. But beyond that, the category of offence is an unreliable criterion for exclusion. Restricting lay staff to dealing with non-imprisonable offences, for example, would not be appropriate because it would prevent them from dealing with some imprisonable offences—for example, simple shoplifting where the facts are not in question—which would be entirely suitable for them, while still allowing lay presenters to deal with non-imprisonable offences—for example, where a public figure was involved—which would not be suitable.
For these reasons, it is inevitable that the clause will leave the director with a wide discretion as to which of the cases not in the excluded categories could properly be dealt with by lay staff. It would be necessary for detailed guidance on the cases in which lay reviewers and lay presenters would be deployed to be produced by the CPS, and our intention is that this guidance should be made public.
It will certainly be necessary for the director to take steps to ensure that lay staff are fully trained in the exercise of these new responsibilities, and a training programme would be established which lay staff would be required to attend before they would be permitted to carry them out.
904
Amendment No. 109 deals with the question of supervision, which was raised by several noble Lords in Committee. There is no dispute that lay staff should indeed be subject to the supervision of professionally qualified Crown prosecutors. There is already a requirement that they should be so supervised. It is imposed by subsection (3) of the new Section 7A, where the reference to
"instructions given to him by the director".
(which is taken from the existing Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985) covers, by virtue of Section 1(7) of that Act, instructions given by a Crown prosecutor.
As a result of the debate in Committee and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I am conscious that there is a general desire to restrict the scope of this clause. I have already indicated that we are willing to remove indictable-only offences, and it may be possible—we are still considering this—to tighten the drafting in other ways. I hope that in the light of these assurances, and of what I have said about the publication of guidance, noble Lords will withdraw these amendments. We will produce amendments on Third Reading.
Lord Meston: My Lords, on that basis, I am happy not to press the matter. I am grateful for the further assurances which the noble and learned Lord has provided. I hope that he can indicate not later than Third Reading when the guidance, at least in draft form, can be expected. I am happy to wait until the Third Reading and until we have sight of the proposed government amendments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 to 111 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Periodic reviews]:
[Amendment No. 112 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 41, line 2, at end insert—
("() Where the order was made by a magistrates' court in the case of an offender under the age of 18 years in respect of an offence triable only on indictment in the case of an adult, the court's power under subsection (4)(b) above shall be a power to do one of the following, namely—

(a) to impose a fine not exceeding £5,000 for the offence in respect of which the order was made; or

(b) to deal with the offender for that offence in any way in which it could deal with him if it had just convicted him of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;

and the reference in paragraph (b) above to an offence punishable with imprisonment shall he construed without regard to any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment on the imprisonment of young offenders.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 165. These two amendments make provision for a scenario in which a magistrates' court

905
imposes a drug treatment and testing order on a 16 or 17 year-old offender in respect of an offence which would be triable only on indictment were he aged over 18.
Following those circumstances, if, after the offender had attained the age of 18, the court then proposed to vary the requirements of the drug treatment and testing order, either at a periodic review in the case of the first amendment or on the application of the supervising officer in the case of the second, and the offender then refused to consent to the variation proposed by the court, the court would be entitled to resentence him for the original offence as though he had just been convicted of it.
However, in the absence of these amendments the magistrates' court has no power to deal with him for the offence triable only on indictment. Therefore, these two amendments confer the necessary powers on the magistrates' court to resentence the offender in the scenario described.
The amount of the maximum fine, which is £5,000, is specified on the basis that it should be no less than that specified in respect of an offence which is triable either way in the case of an adult. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Supplementary provisions as to orders]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 41, line 27, leave out ("court has power (under that Schedule) to review the order") and insert ("order may be reviewed (under that Schedule)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114, 205 and 206. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 provide that a drug treatment and testing order made on appeal by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords should be treated as though it had been made by the Crown Court. They are made in order to clarify the requirements in Clause 51 of this Bill that reviews are heard and associated reports received by the court which made the order.
We should not want that requirement to mean that an order might have to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. That would mean imposing potentially costly travel expenses on the offender and would detract from the intention that the court should form part of a local triumvirate—the probation officer and the treatment provider comprising the other parts—with oversight of the order.
Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 will alter Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to reflect the changes to Clause 51 made by Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hate to be a bore and I intervene only to ask a question for clarification. The noble and learned Lord said that he was addressing Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, 205 and 206. I appreciate that the groupings are merely informal and are not binding but the groupings list refers to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 197 and 206. For the sake
906
of clarity, I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm that the groupings are wrong and he is right, which I am sure must be the case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am right and the groupings are wrong.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 114
Page 41, line 40, at end insert—
("() Where a drug treatment and testing order has been made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court, or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, for the purposes of sections 50 and 51 above it shall be deemed to have been made by the Crown Court.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion moved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
("Young offenders: detention
DETENTION OF GIRLS UNDER 18
. An offender who is convicted of any offence punishable with detention and who is a girl under the age of 18 shall he kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a separate institution such as local authority secure accommodation, or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults, unless, after assessment and in exceptional circumstances, it is held to be in the best interests of the offender to be held with adults for a temporary period.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who have attached their names to Amendment No. 125. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Tenby who wanted to put his name to this amendment. Indeed, I am grateful to all noble Lords who supported this amendment in Committee, and, as I said, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who I see is still present in the Chamber. At the same time, I should express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his invitation to meet him at the Home Office yesterday. We had an interesting discussion with officials present.
Your Lordships will notice that I have tabled two new clauses, the first contained in Amendment No. 114A and designed to clarify the aim of my original amendment, Amendment No. 125, to separate juveniles from adults as soon as possible and not wait for the introduction of the detention and training order. The second proposed new clause, contained in Amendment No. 128A, simply seeks to include Scotland.
The amendments would make it unlawful for girls aged under 18 to be held with adults in prison unless in exceptional circumstances. That would bring the UK into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 37(c)), to which the Government entered a reservation. It requires that juveniles and adults be held separately—that is, without the reservation.
The main point of the amendments is that girls aged 15, 16 and 17 who are still children under the Children Act should be held not in prisons but in local authority

907
secure accommodation units, unless exceptional circumstances apply. These units are designed for dealing with this complex age group and are staffed by people with particular commitment to, and considerable experience of, dealing with adolescents in trouble. This group seems to be getting more difficult and aggressive; research is needed on how to prevent this particular problem escalating. As the inquiry that I chaired for the Howard League found, these young girls could become "lost" inside the prisons. I have yet to meet a prison governor or a prison chaplain who wants this young age group in his establishment.
Many of these girls have dropped out from education. If they are to see a future and hold down good jobs they need education and not be locked up in a cell at 5 p.m. which often happens in prison. Secure units provide the national curriculum and the children in their care can take GCSEs, and even A-levels, if they are willing and able to do so. They also provide expert teaching for those with special needs, such as those who have difficulty with reading and writing. None of the prisons that we visited was able to provide the national curriculum.
In a secure unit, every child is assessed by a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist on admission. Individual and group therapy work is done with them and is directly related to each child's particular needs, whether it be counselling for sexual and physical abuse, which many of them have suffered; help in dealing with drug and alcohol misuse; or, work with their offending behaviour and anger management. The Prison Service is simply unable to provide anything comparable because it does not have the staff or the resources: indeed, prisons can be universities of crime and drug abuse for young people.
The Minister was concerned that units for girls would be small and that children with social problems would be mixing with children with criminal records. However, that is already done. Indeed, some of the children have worse records than those in prison, but the standard of supervision is high in the local authority secure units.
The Minister said that if we had a number of distinct local authority units we might well end up with a number of their secure accommodation units containing as few as five persons. In fact, it is growing practice now to divide local authority secure accommodation units into smaller units of around five or six people. The new secure unit in Wales operates this system and it is planned for Stamford House in London to do the same. Because there are small numbers, the individual needs for meaningful and constructive regimes for education, training and personal development can be achieved.
I heard yesterday that the Home Office is creating three or four juvenile units within existing prisons. I cannot accept that this is a suitable solution for the young girls. I hope that it will be helpful for the 18, 19 and 20 year-olds of whom there are considerable numbers. I hope your Lordships will agree with me for the following reasons. While such a measure would fulfil the strict obligation of Article 37 it would not meet the spirit of the convention as a whole. The culture and
908
atmosphere of the units would inevitably take on the characteristics of an adult prison. There would he the same damaging psychological effect and stigma for the children and their families of having been in an adult gaol. Staff with a special affinity for, and who have received training in dealing with, what we agree is an exceedingly complex group will not be available. An extremely high ratio of staff to girls would be necessary if the high levels of bullying and drug taking found in prisons were not to be repeated in the units—a level of staffing the Prison Service is unlikely to be able to provide.
The youngsters would be competing for resources with the main adult population. It is important to note that with only three or four units the girls would be even further away from their homes and families—a factor which has been identified as being important as regards rates of reoffending. I have the highest regard for the Minister. I hope he agrees that this vulnerable and at risk group of 15 to 17 year-olds needs helping to see the point of a useful, crime-free life. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having returned to the fray on this amendment this evening. Her commitment is legendary and greatly respected in all parts of the House. In view of the late hour I do not think it necessary to repeat all the detailed arguments which the noble Baroness put so clearly. I have a great sense of solidarity with the Minister and his colleagues in their immense responsibilities. However, I think there comes a time to call a spade a spade. I believe the Minister knows as well as the noble Baroness and the rest of us that the prison environment and neighbourhood is no place for these young girls. The challenge to government is to ensure that this is changed as rapidly as possible.
It is not a question of whether one builds a secure unit separated from the rest of the prison. The whole issue is related to the psychology and the ambience of the prison environment. What we are concerned about—I know the Minister is also concerned—is that these young prisoners should, above all, be rehabilitated. We touched on the point earlier. It is not just that we want to win a young person back to civilised behaviour in society, as I expressed it earlier. It is also a matter of simple economics. If we do not rehabilitate young prisoners, the future cost to society will be high indeed. As is so often the case with public expenditure, we look at the immediate costs in isolation from the long-term costs of not being prepared to afford what is necessary in the immediate setting.
Once again I congratulate the noble Baroness on staying with her cause. I hope that the Government will address her anxieties, if not tonight, then on some future occasion. I am certain that what is happening at the moment is not acceptable. Improvised solutions may have all kinds of administrative rationale behind them but they are not meeting the need for rehabilitation of the prisoner. That is the biggest challenge of all. I therefore wish strongly to associate myself with the case that has been put.
10 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hooson, who put his name to Amendment No. 125, I simply say that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has made an extremely powerful case for her amendment today, as she did at Committee stage. I would not wish to add anything to what has been said by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They have far more experience of these matters than I do. From these Benches, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment No. 125. I wish to support the noble Baroness. No one who read the powerful report from the Howard League inquiry, which the noble Baroness chaired, could be in any doubt that the very last thing that emotionally damaged adolescent girls need is to be locked up in a prison environment with older, more sophisticated, emotionally damaged women.
The Minister has, I think, the sympathies of us all because he has inherited a situation, and one which is worsening. The present numbers of 60 to 80 per year represent a three fold increase since 1992 as more girls are sent to prison. We all recognise his difficulties in making provision for small numbers of this kind which will involve a different regime and specially trained officers. But the present position surely cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
The Government have said on many occasions, both prior to the general election and subsequently, that all legislation would be scrutinised to ensure that it treated men and women fairly. This seems to me to be one area in which a real start could be made. These teenagers, few in number though they are, may not be the most deserving youngsters in our community but they are every hit as much—perhaps even more—in need of special help and guidance as their male counterparts; and our present penal system is currently treating them less well for the single reason that they are female.
I hope that the Minister will give us hope that something is to be done in the very near future.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, Amendment No. 128A refers to Scotland. I wish to speak about the special circumstances which pertain there.
Amendment No. 128A is aimed at separating off young women under the age of 18 from adults, or at least from those over 18 in Scotland. The aim is laudable. The intention that girls under 18 should not be in prison but maintained in secure accommodation is clearly central to the approach embodied in the children's hearing system.
Where this may not hold water is in the ability of the secure accommodation unit to contain the very unruly behaviour of a few of the girls. That may be a matter of staff training or of inadequate facilities. The Scottish women's prison at Cornton Vale typically houses about 180 prisoners of all ages. The current average population of young offenders aged between 16 and 21 is no more than 12 to 15. This small group can include those remanded on serious charges; those on unruly
910
certificates; those "revolving door" clients who are chronically disturbed; and one or two young women serving very long sentences.
The policy over the past few years has been to run the YOI and the prison on a mixed basis for practical reasons. The advantage outweighs the acknowledged disadvantage. The mixing of this small group of young offenders with adults has a stabilising effect, reducing volatile behaviour among the younger women. Many of the young offenders are older than their years in terms of raw life experience, characterised by the expression, "Seventeen and 18, going on 40".
They are vulnerable young offenders, but they are most vulnerable to being bullied by their own age group. I can assure the House that there never has been any use of Cornton Vale prison for girls under 16. I realise that I am in a difficult position here as I believe that the amendments have merit, but the circumstances seem to make them unworkable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, everyone has spoken with great feeling, and with great generosity in recognising the situation that we have inherited. I believe all noble Lords who have spoken feel strongly about the matter; and so do I. I say, without any equivocation, that I have great sympathy with the overall aim of these amendments.
We have specified in Clause 28 of the Bill that,
"It shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons".
That was done as an aspect of deliberate policy. We want to make the system quicker, and fundamentally we must have earlier interventions where those can work.
The new detention and training order is focused on this group. Half the length of the order will be served in custody and half under community supervision. It will be possible for good or bad progress to be reflected in the release date from custody. It is vital that there should be consistent, continuous through-care from the point of sentence to the point of completion of the period of community supervision.
Under Clause 63(7) of the Bill, youngsters subject to the new detention and training order can be placed in: a secure training centre; a young offender institution; a youth treatment centre; local authority secure accommodation; or,
"such other accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty as the Secretary of State may direct".
Those are alternatives that we have chosen specifically to deal with the point that arose earlier; namely, although young people may be of the same age, their requirements are different, and those requirements are not always related simply to chronological age because their backgrounds are different and the remedies wanted may also differ.
These amendments would go wider than the proposed detention and training order. The proposal would encompass Section 53 children—those sentenced by virtue of the 1933 Act for very serious offences—and those sentenced to detention in a young offenders

911
institution and under the secure training order, although that applies only to those aged 12 to 14. As the noble Earl pointed out, it would also apply to Scotland.
A good deal has been achieved by the Prison Service since the Howard League report. I was particularly grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was able to join us in the Home Office yesterday. I think I can say as objectively as possible that the response of officials was universally open-minded. They acknowledged the difficulties and were eager to see what could be done within a realistic time-scale.
Since the Howard League report was published, all young offenders—that is, those under 21—are held in designated young offender accommodation. We are looking to the further separation of young offender and adult accommodation. On 10th March, according to the latest figures I have, there were 83 sentenced girls under 18; of those, over half were held in separate young offender blocks, or wings in open prisons, or in mother and baby units. We have agreed plans for a further two physically separate units in establishments which currently hold a further 25 juvenile girls. Of the 17 Section 53 girls held on 31 January this year—that is, those between 15 and 17 years of age and held for really serious offences, 13 were in local authority secure accommodation, including every one of the 15 year-olds. There were two 16, and two 17 year-olds in Prison Service accommodation. It is not a perfect situation; however, I believe we have begun to make progress.
There is a working group, about which the noble Baroness was informed, and about which she knew anyway, on age mixing in the female estate. We are considering the options, including whether or not juvenile girls should be held with juvenile boys in some circumstances, because there are problems in others; whether they should be held in totally separate units in the female prison estate; and what can be done about local authority secure units, to which the noble Baroness significantly directed her remarks.
There are difficulties with all of those options. One has to face the fact that among the 90 girls some are very difficult to manage. They can be a risk to the younger and more vulnerable individuals who are sometimes held in local authority units. We want to have the most flexible range of remedies for these girls on an individual basis rather than set out in legislation that they should be held in one place or another.
The accommodation of some of these girls in local authority secure units may not meet their needs as effectively as accommodation in secure training centres or, in some cases, the kind of unit that the Prison Service is seeking to provide. I say again that not all local authority secure units provide as good a level of care as is desirable.
It is very difficult to see offending behaviour programmes necessarily having the same priority in an establishment which is not exclusively devoted to dealing with offenders. We must bear in mind that many of the local authority units are small, providing 16 to 18 places. They take a wide age range, from 10 upwards. I understand and deeply sympathise with the proposition
912
that is put about the vulnerability of these young girls. However, we must not forget the vulnerability of the younger children in local authority secure units of age 10 upwards. There is often a significant difference between a 10 year-old and the young girls to whom the noble Baroness referred. It is very difficult in units that small, with an age range that wide, to provide suitable accommodation in such a small establishment.
The age range is narrower within the Prison Service, from 15 to 17. What are we doing for juveniles in prison? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a perfectly reasonable and typically generous request. We are looking to a careful assessment of each individual's health, social, educational and vocational needs; programmes to tackle individual needs in education, training for work and offending behaviour; and regular and formal reviews of each individual's plans. I believe that experience shows that, when an individual gets into the system, the system often becomes more important than the child. I believe that the structural internal discipline of regular formal reviews is very important. We want the co-operation of the agencies and, where possible, the support and involvement of families.
The Children Act does not apply in prisons. However, we wish to reflect its principles in the operation of regimes for young offenders. An additional £3 million has been put forward to enhance regimes in six establishments, including two juvenile establishments and two women's prisons. That money is to develop the kind of regime to which I referred earlier.
I understand and share the concern about inappropriate mixing of vulnerable female prisoners with other female prisoners who can bully them, oppress them and lead them further astray. We have made a start. We have not been able to deliver everything. As I believe that an imposed discipline is good for us as well as for those who minister to children. I am happy to undertake to report back to your Lordships on the further progress we have achieved in improving facilities for girls when we introduce the new detention and training order in the summer of 1999.
I have not offered a perfect answer to these difficult problems. The truth is: I have no perfect answer. All I can say is that, whether it is Ministers in the Home Office—not least the Secretary of State—or whether it is the officials, to whom I pay grateful tribute, we are determined to do what we can to address this problem which, though numerically small, is a blot on our community. The noble Earl's figures are correct. In Scotland there are 20 young female offenders, only five of whom (according to my last figures) are under 18; most of them are held in Cornton Vale, which is an all-female institution. If I understood him correctly, the noble Earl said that some of the regime there seems to be fruitful and working well. I am happy for that reassurance.
I repeat that I do not have a perfect answer. All I can offer is a commitment to do the utmost that we can and to reiterate my offer to return to your Lordships with a progress report in what may seem a long time away to a young person of 15 to 17, but which seems a realistic timescale to me in which to be able to return with a

913
full report. I am conscious that what I have said will be recorded; having been recorded, it will be read and will rightly be put to me once more when I have my opportunity to report.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Mon: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is really committed to this subject. I thank also the Minister for his full answer, which will be read carefully and digested.
I am concerned that the Minister did not mention education in those units. I feel that the 15 and 16 year-olds particularly need a full school day's work. Next Wednesday the Cross-Bench Peers have a debate on the problems of the prisons. I know that some noble Lords will be visiting prisons before then and will see the situation for themselves. It was interesting to hear about Scotland. I am a full-blown Scot and did not want to leave Scotland out; but I know that the system is different and I therefore thank the noble Earl for looking into the situation in Scotland.
I should like to take this matter away because it is important. It can mean a difference to a young person's life. We have one more stage of the Bill to come, at which time I will have the right to bring back the amendment if I need to. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Reprimands and warnings]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 42, line 21, at end insert ("or
(c) where the offender has previously been warned, the constable considers that to continue a rehabilitation programme arranged under section 54(2)(b) below would he more likely to prevent the commission by the offender of further offences than prosecuting him for the offence and the constable considers the offence to be not so serious as to require a charge to be brought;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord McNally, who is unwell, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford who should have departed from Euston station around 15 minutes ago, it falls to me as third string to move this amendment.
By no means for the first time, but possibly for the last time during the debate on this Bill, I wish to complain of the rigidity with which the Government have approached many of the aspects of the Bill, in particular the aspects of cautioning and sentencing.
The Bill as it stands allows a warning to be given only if the offender has not previously been warned or, where the offender has previously been warned, the offence was committed more than two years after the date of the previous warning and the constable considers the offence to be not so serious as to require a charge to be brought. I entirely understand and sympathise with the Government's desire to curb the practice of giving repeat cautions which, as the Government made clear, do nothing but create an attitude in the young offender that he does not have to worry about justice. That is wrong, and it is right that repeated cautions should not
914
be given in normal circumstances. I would have hoped that this matter could be dealt with by guidance from the Government to police forces rather than by a rigid statutory restriction on the power to give a warning.
What the amendment provides for is very far from being a general power to give a second warning. It is a tightly limited amendment which merely authorises a second warning to be given within the two-year period where the constable considers that the continuation of a rehabilitation programme would be more likely to prevent the commission by the offender of further offences than prosecuting him for the offence. This seems to be a very reasonable amendment and it is certainly one which in no way will give rise to the abuse of constantly repeated cautions without prosecutions.
In those circumstances, and taking into account the fact that the amendment is supported by the National Association of Probation Officers, it is my hope that even now the Government will be prepared to consider this limited extension of the power to grant a second warning and give a certain degree of increased flexibility to the way in which offences by young people are dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Clauses 53 and 54 are, as the noble Lord rightly said, designed to replace the existing cautioning arrangements, which have been abused and perverted. I do not think it is fair to say that the Government have approached the Bill with rigidity. On 11 distinct aspects we have varied our original views after carefully giving consideration to what has been put to us. I do not think that the experience of Clause 40 points to rigidity.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was not complaining about the Government's rigidity regarding criticisms of the Bill but about the Government's rigidity in the way they have imposed restrictions on the powers of the courts and constables.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this amendment deals with constables and constables alone. Perhaps I can show that rigidity is not a necessary consequence of our suggested regime.
The noble Lord is suggesting additional grounds for issuing a second warning. First, a police officer must consider that the continuation of the previous rehabilitation programme would be more effective; and secondly, the new offence must be one that clearly does not merit prosecution. We debated this in Committee and I have listened again this evening. Certainly, as a matter of practice, the question as to whether rehabilitation would be more effective than prosecution will be extremely difficult for a constable to judge. I think it would be virtually impossible for a police officer to deal with it personally. It seems to me that he would have to consult the youth offending team in question. Then we would be back to our old, well known friends, delay and uncertainty. The young person would be left in a kind of limbo, wondering what is going on, and the whole point of this regime—a quick, clear and known response to offending behaviour—would be lost. One would also have variation in practice between one

915
police force and another and the kind of inconsistency that undermined the effectiveness of the current cautioning arrangements.
We believe that, if a young person commits a further offence, the proper course of action is for the police officer in the appropriate case to charge that young person. Then it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to take a decision as to whether prosecution is the right way forward. The Crown Prosecution Service, as I mentioned earlier, can take into account the issue of public interest, including the detail of the young person's offending history. Therefore, that is the flexibility which the CPS introduces into this story. It is not rigidity, because the Crown Prosecution Service has a discretion which it is capable of exercising.
We believe therefore that it is for the CPS to take the decision about discontinuance or not, to take the decision in line with the code for Crown prosecutors in full knowledge of all the facts of the case and bearing in mind the injunction set upon the CPS that it must take into account the public interest in a child case. We believe that that is what we ought to be doing. I am quite satisfied, not in a spirit of "We thought of it therefore we cannot change" but in the genuine feeling that the cautioning practice has gone so sadly astray that it has done infinite harm to many young people. We believe that the appropriate component of flexibility is provided for by the CPS discretion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not he so rigid as not to realise the attractions and virtue of the argument I have put forward.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. While I recognise that there is an element of flexibility through the possibility that the CPS will decide to take no action on the prosecution, in the kind of circumstances that are envisaged by this amendment it would be much better for the appropriate and necessary decision to be taken by the police officer who is much closer to the offence and to the offender than the CPS. Certainly, so far as delay is concerned, it seems to me that it is likely, even if there is a necessity to consult the youth offending team, that it would also be quicker if dealt with by the police than by the CPS. However, this is not a matter on which I feel it would be appropriate to press the Government further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 42, line 27, after ("station") insert ("and, where the offender is under the age of 17,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 116, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 118. In Committee your Lordships agreed a government amendment which sought to bring the provisions of the Bill in respect of the role of appropriate adults into line with those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. But the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in commenting on the amendment, now subsection (6) of Clause 53, was concerned about drafting. He made it plain that that concern was not
916
related to the purpose of the amendment but to the form of it. He asked me to think again and to consult parliamentary counsel to see whether we might improve clarity. I have done that. I think the noble Lord was right. These amendments are to meet the noble Lord's concern. Amendment No. 118 removes subsection (6) of Clause 53. Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 give effect to the same policy objective by putting the references directly into subsection (5) of Clause 53. I hope that your Lordships think that that is an improvement and I am sure that the noble Lord, bearing in mind his paternity, will bless his offspring. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise merely to say that I thank the noble Lord and offer my blessing to these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
Page 42, line 29, after ("and") insert where he is under that age,").
Page 42, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Effect of reprimands and warnings]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 43, line 37, leave out from ("warning,") to ("make") in line 38 and insert ("the court by or before which he is so convicted—
(a) shall not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 198 are grouped. I shall speak to them together, if I may. The three amendments—the last is a consequential amendment to Schedule 7—are to strengthen the existing provisions of subsection (4) of Clause 54. Subsection (4) provides that a conditional discharge may only be used in exceptional circumstances where a person is being sentenced for an offence committed within two years of receiving a warning. Our aim is that young people appearing before the court in these circumstances should receive a sentence which is both proportionate and directed at preventing further offending behaviour. In some cases, a conditional discharge will be sufficient to meet these objectives, but in very many cases it will not. The amendments would require a court, when issuing a conditional discharge on the grounds of "exceptional circumstances", to state its reasons. We believe that that provides the discipline so that "exceptional circumstances" are not interpreted too widely or used inappropriately.
There is such a provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in relation to the use of custodial sentences. These amendments reflect a suggestion made by the Magistrates' Association and an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which was, in the event, not moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 43, line 42, at end insert ("and
(b) where it does so, shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and why it is.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Detention and training orders]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 49, line 45, after ("offender")") insert ("aged 12 or over").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clauses 60 to 65 introduce a new detention and training order for 10 to 17 year-olds. Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 124 seek to restrict detention and training orders to those aged 12 and over. Offenders aged 10 and 11 can currently be sentenced to long-term detention under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act. They can be sentenced to a supervision order with a residence requirement which requires the local authority to place the young person in local authority accommodation for specified periods of up to six months. Offenders aged 10 and 11 can also be taken into care through civil care proceedings if they are out of control and, if necessary, be held in local authority secure units. That range of powers is adequate to ensure that juveniles can be detained wherever this is genuinely necessary.
Past experience shows that removing young people from family and community life is likely to magnify their difficulties. Not only is the normal maturing process interrupted, but reintegration back into normal life presents great difficulties and can lead to long-term problems. All forms of institutional care or custody for young offenders have high reconviction rates; 89 per cent. of juveniles leaving Prison Service custody are reconvicted within two years.
In Committee we rehearsed at great length many of the examples relating to, and the evidence about, the consequences to young people of being placed away from home in residential care and the very high reconviction rates that occur in almost every instance. When these amendments were debated in Committee, on 3rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"It is not yet apparent that there is a need to introduce this order for 10 and 11 year-olds".—[Official Report, 3/3/98: col. 1104.]
Therefore, one must question why that power is written into the Act at all. It seems astonishing that the Government propose to include a power in the Bill for which, in the Minister's words,
"It is not yet apparent that there is a need".
The detention of children aged 10 and 11 is such a serious matter that Parliament surely needs evidence that wider powers to lock up that age group are genuinely necessary before empowering the Home Secretary to introduce such powers by delegated legislation.
I should like also to address Amendment No. 124, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. Amendment No. 124 would prohibit the placing of
918
children under 15 in Prison Service custody under the detention and training order. The current minimum age for being sentenced to Prison Service custody is 15. However, as it stands, Clause 63(7) apparently enables a child of any age given a detention and training order to be placed in a Prison Service young offender institution. This could mean a child as young as 12, or, if the lower age range for the order is reduced from 12 to 10 by order under Clause 61(2)(6), a child as young as 10 years old.
When this amendment was debated in Committee on 3rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"In this order we want to offer flexibility in the arrangements for dealing with young offenders. We want to be able to place individual young offenders in accommodation according to their individual needs and maturity".—[Official Report, 3/3/98: col. 1113.]
It is entirely reasonable that the Government should want to retain flexibility to place older but less sophisticated youngsters in local authority accommodation rather than Prison Service custody. However, it is extraordinary that the Government should want to retain discretion to place those aged 14 or even younger in Prison Service custody. Sending young children to Prison Service custody is not just a recipe for criminal contamination but also, all too often, for intimidation, self-harm and suicide attempts. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord McNally, I rise to speak to the amendment. In view of the lateness of the hour, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand if I do no more than say that, for the reasons she gave, we too support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise to support in particular the first amendment in the group to which the noble Baroness has spoken, Amendment No. 121. My chief concern is that the Government seek a power at a time when, as the noble Lord. Lord Williams, said at Committee stage, it is not yet apparent that there is a need to introduce this order for 10 to 12 year-olds. As the noble Baroness made clear, this is a matter of extreme seriousness. We believe it is right that a power of this sort should be sought when the need for that power has been demonstrated and not beforehand. To do it by seeking an order-making power and then to introduce it at a later point is not the right way to go about it. If the Government believe that there is a need for such a power in due course they will have an adequate opportunity to secure it in a criminal justice Bill, or whatever, in the next Session. They can then seek that power and justify it to the House. I believe it is wrong to give that power to the Government, even if it is by means of order-making power subject to Parliament's approval—obviously, Parliament would not have the chance to amend it—in advance of the need being demonstrated. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will pursue her amendment and press it on this occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we believe that courts should have the power, where there is a

919
clear need, to impose custodial sentences upon 12 to 17 year-olds. The detention and training order is to replace detention in a young offender institution and the secure training order. The noble Baroness spoke of the high reconviction rate. I entirely agree. But the detention and training order regime has not been available so far with the split that I described earlier. I shall not weary your Lordships further with that.
I repeat what I said before. I said it deliberately. It is not yet apparent that there is a need to introduce the order for 10 and 11 year-olds. I hope that the need does not arise. We are considering a power that the Secretary of State may take if the evidence demonstrates it. I assure noble Lords that we propose to monitor the courts' use of the detention and training order for those over 12 to see what happens in practice and how the regime makes a difference. It is an entirely different concept. We also intend to monitor the underlying rate of offending by 10 and 11 year-olds. It is only at that stage that the Secretary of State may come to the conclusion that he wishes to extend the age range.
I turn to Amendment No.124. Some of the ground has been covered earlier in the debate relating to young female offenders. This amendment is deliberately designed to restrict options for placing young offenders subject to detention and training orders in different types of secure accommodation according to their age. We are looking for the options, the flexibility: young offender institution secure training centre, local authority secure accommodation, youth treatment centre or other accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty, as specified by the Home Secretary.
If Amendment No. 124 were carried, it would hamper flexibility. A robust, vigorous, mature, sophisticated 14 year-old, a few weeks away from being 15, but subject to a full two-year detention and training order, could be placed in a secure training centre until his release, possibly after his 16th birthday, where his presence could be disruptive to the welfare and well-being of other trainees, but he could not be in a young offender institution which might be better suited to his needs, his maturity, and any specific problems he might pose.
Such an example shows that there is no benefit in arbitrarily limiting discretion. I understand the concerns about inappropriate mixing. We believe that the amendment, curiously, would reduce the flexibility which is required to put young prisoners in the most appropriate accommodation, according to their needs, according to what is best for their possible rehabilitation, and of course taking account of the risk they pose to themselves and to others. We do not believe that the amendment would be helpful to that cause. I hope that my noble friend will not seek to press the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, despite the challenge thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, I am deeply disappointed that my noble friend did not produce a more sympathetic or constructive response to the amendments. I do not believe that it is necessary for 11 and 12 year-olds. One could legislate for all sorts of things which might be possible in the future. One could imagine all sorts of strange things that one
920
might introduce, on the possibility that they might be necessary at some future time. That does not seem an adequate reason for introducing them into Acts of Parliament. However, as it is, at the moment, we hope, a remote contingent possibility that we are going to lock up 10 and 11 year-olds in that way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: No.
10.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 21.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goodhart, L.

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

Mackay of Drumadoon, L [Teller.]

Dholakia, L.

Elton, L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Ely, Bp.

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Monson, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Duties and powers of court]:
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 63 [The period of detention and training]:
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 68 [The Sentencing Advisory Panel]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 56, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 7 and insert ("remuneration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment making plain that the panel may be paid a fee. That is much simpler and in line with other such bodies. The previous formulation would have been unnecessarily complicated and might even have required a Division at this time of night. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
RACIAL AGGRAVATION: DUTY OF PROSECUTION
(" .—(1) In relation to a prosecution for any offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to bring to the attention of the court any information or material which contains evidence that the offence was racially aggravated.
(2) Section 22 above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of sections 23 to 25 and 69 above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Second Reading, I mentioned that in 1994 I had placed before your Lordships' House two amendments to a Criminal Justice Bill. One provided aggravated penalties for crimes where racial motivation was displayed; and secondly, a corollary to that, that there should be a duty on the prosecution to inform the court of any racial element in the crime.
I am grateful to the Government for putting in this Bill a comprehensive package of measures to deal with racially aggravated crime. It covers almost every eventuality. I have looked very carefully at Clause 69 and again, that places before us the ways to deal with the other clauses and puts a duty on the prosecution.
However, there is no duty on the prosecution to place before the court all the racial elements in any crime that is being dealt with. A chain breaks at its weakest link. A considerable amount of plea bargaining takes place. I shall not mention the names of noble and learned Lords who have accepted that fact and agreed that it does take place. But I am sure that noble and learned Lords on the Benches opposite know perfectly well that plea bargaining takes place. One of the elements of plea bargaining is to present a slightly more anodyne picture of the crime than may have been the case had the defendant not agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
It is my greatest fear that all this superstructure, which has been built up and which gives expectations to ethnic minorities in this country, will not deliver if, somehow or the other, the actual elements of racially motivated behaviour are fudged before the courts. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment to place on the face of the Bill quite clearly a duty on the prosecution, whether or not there is plea bargaining or a plea to a lesser charge, to ensure that all racial elements in a crime are clearly placed before the courts before sentencing takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right when she says that, in the whole process of looking at racially motivated offences, this is indeed a very weak spot. All we are seeking to do is to place a duty on the prosecution to ensure that offences which are racially aggravated are properly presented as such to the courts. That is only right because the courts, judges and magistrates now have what are commonly called, "sentencing guidelines", which take into account racially aggravated offences. However, they can only take such elements into account if they are brought to their attention.
922
We should perhaps look at the record of the Crown Prosecution Service. I was a member of the Home Office working party some years ago which went across the country to find out precisely what was happening. Repeated complaints were made stating that, whereas the police were able to identify racial aggravation factors, the CPS failed to bring those factors into the open courts. As a result, minorities who read newspapers often find that cases which they know contain elements of racial motivation are not fully examined in the courts. In turn, the magistrates and the judges are powerless to deal with the situation.
About six months ago the CPS improved its record, after a considerable amount of training. But, even now, racial motivation is not brought out in at least 20 per cent. of cases. I find it difficult to accept that situation. Unless we place such a duty on the prosecution—and that is all that the noble Baroness is asking—we shall not get to the root of the problem. I believe that it is right and proper that the CPS will, in turn, have to question the police if they fail to point out the racially aggravated factors when the files are submitted.
Once we place this particular duty upon the prosecution, I believe that the whole process will work as we expect it to work. To their credit, the Government have highlighted racially aggravated offences; indeed, they accepted my amendment on racially aggravated damages on Tuesday. I believe that this little amendment will complete the jigsaw and that that, in turn, will build the confidence of the minorities whose expectations are that people who commit such offences ought to be dealt with severely by the courts.
11 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his intervention. I know that the noble Baroness has considerable knowledge in this area. I recall that the question of a duty on the prosecution to bring to the attention of the court all evidence relating to the racial element of the offence was one which the noble Baroness raised on Second Reading. I was not present at the time but I am also informed that she raised the same point during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in 1994.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say, as she did in 1994, that there should be a stipulation placed on the courts to regard evidence of racial motivation and hostility as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence. That is exactly what Clause 69 is intended to do. The noble Baroness has also said in the past that Parliament should send a strong message that racially aggravated crime is unacceptable. I hope that she would agree that the new offences do just that.
With regard to the specific points raised by this amendment, the Government recognise the importance of these matters being brought to the court's attention. Both the police and the CPS record racial incidents.

923
The definition of "racial incident" was drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers to include any incident where it appears to a police officer that a complaint involves a racial element, or where there is an allegation of racial motivation made by any person. It is therefore a wide-ranging definition. Once the papers have been passed by the police to the CPS, the CPS will also look at the evidence to consider whether the facts amount to a racial incident and flag them up as such if the police have not.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that some years ago the Crown Prosecution Service may not have been as effective as it should have been in relation to identifying racial incidents. The noble Lord will know that quite recently the Crown Prosecution Service issued a report specifying its racial monitoring and providing figures of the number of cases with a racial element. The figures in that report identified more cases with a racial element than those identified by the police. I am sure that one could not say that the CPS monitoring is perfect but it is much improved. I think it is right to say that it is now sensitised to racial elements in crime.
The Government do not believe that the amendment is either necessary or appropriate to create the statutory duty that both speakers have asked for. First, as the noble Baroness will know, there is already a duty on the prosecution to inform the court of all relevant circumstances relating to the offence, including aggravating features. That duty applies as much to racial aggravation as to any other feature.
Secondly, the Government believe that the creation of the new offences will strengthen existing safeguards and ensure that a higher priority is given to the identification of the racial element of the crime both in relation to the gathering and the presentation of the evidence. The prosecution will now have to consider the racial element of the crime not only as an aggravating factor but also to decide whether the evidence suggests that there is a reasonable possibility of securing a conviction under the new racially aggravated offences.
We believe that the racial element will now have a higher priority in the minds of the police and prosecutors because it forms part of the offence itself. The noble Baroness referred specifically to the practice of what she described as plea bargaining. Whatever one describes it as, it is perfectly plain that on many occasions prosecution and defence will discuss the terms on which pleas to lesser offences will be accepted. In relation to that sort of process which is perfectly proper, the prosecution—prosecuting counsel and the CPS together—have a discretion to decide what is appropriate in the public interest. I should have thought it would be wrong to single out racial aggravation as being the one area where there was not an element of discretion in that regard. In some cases it will be perfectly appropriate not to proceed with a particular charge.
We are currently considering how best to evaluate these provisions after they are implemented. This is an area which the post-introduction study could usefully
924
analyse; namely, the extent to which the prosecution brought to the attention of the court racial elements. I hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness that we have come a considerable way since the debate in which she participated so effectively in 1994, and that she will be sufficiently reassured about the Government's commitment in this Bill and elsewhere to tackling racial crime that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I received an interesting answer from the Minister. I hope that all noble Lords listened as carefully as I did. The noble and learned Lord told us that it is perfectly proper to plea bargain, to get a defendant to plead to a lesser charge. It is simpler, more straightforward, more convenient; the defendant receives a sentence, and there is no trial.
There are two ways of looking at the issue. One response is that plea bargaining occurs, and it is a good thing that more defendants do not get away. Someone from the CPS to whom I spoke not so long ago asked me candidly whether I would prefer someone to get away with a crime than to be tried in court for the charge best fitted to the circumstances. I said that I would rather someone got away with it having been tried by the courts on the charge best fitted rather than to be sentenced on a charge which did not fit the offence.
I fear greatly—more than I did 10 minutes ago—that many more plea bargainings will take place as the prosecution and defence agree between themselves what should and should not be placed before the court. Far fewer cases of racially aggravated crimes will come before the courts than should if the Minister's statement is to be accepted. Clearly, it would be in the best interest of a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge on the basis that the racial aggravation part of the offence is not placed before the court, as the Minister said that it is perfectly proper for the prosecution and defence to agree what should be placed before the court if there is a guilty plea. I am certain that we shall not make the progress that the Bill purports to make unless the whole iceberg, and not just the tip of it, is exposed to public knowledge.
I shall not divide the House; it is not the time to do so. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. But we live to fight another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128A not moved.]
Clause 71 [Extended sentences for sex and violent offenders]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 58, line 27, at end insert—
("() indecent assault;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 130. Before addressing the amendments I should like to bring to your Lordships'

925
attention that we propose to bring forward at Third Reading some technical amendments to the operation of Clauses 71 and 72.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 are technical amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 129 is to include indecent assault in the definition of a sexual offence for the purpose of imposing an extended sentence. The reason for the amendment is to achieve consistency between the sexual offences set out in Schedule 1(2) to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and a definition in this clause of a sexual offence in respect of which an extended sentence may be imposed.
The purpose of Amendment No. 130 is to omit the provision which would have extended the power to make supervised release orders in the case of children detained following conviction on indictment. The amendment removes a redundant provision. Children detained under Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 are subject to mandatory licence on their release. Licence always takes precedence over any supervised release order.
Subsection (2)(b) of Clause 71 would extend the court's powers to impose a supervised release order to include children detained under Section 208. In practice, that would never have effect because the licence would always apply. The provision is therefore unnecessary. The reason for tabling this amendment is to remove a redundant provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 59, leave out lines 45 and 46.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords. before calling Amendment No. 131, I must tell your Lordships that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 131A.
Clause 80 [Offences racially aggravated]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 69, line 14, leave out from ("apply") to ("offence") in line 17 and insert ("when a judge imposing sentence on an accused in respect of an offence is satisfied that the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to remove part of what is now Clause 80 of the Bill, previously Clause 79, dealing with the procedure that is to apply for sentencing accused persons in Scotland when they have been convicted of offences which, in terms of the definition set out in subsection (2) of Clause 80, can be described as racially aggravated. It reflects certain reservations that I expressed at Second Reading—reservations that were fortified by a letter which the Lord Justice General of Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland in October last year.
Following the Committee stage I wrote to the Lord Advocate about the matter and explained my concern, which can be put shortly. At the present time, as the
926
Lord Justice General said in his letter, he is satisfied, as indeed I am that if a sentencing judge, having heard the evidence in a trial or having heard the prosecutor narrating the circumstances of an offence falling upon a plea of guilty, is satisfied that the offence was one in which racial motivation was what lay behind it, he would take that into account as an aggravating factor. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Rodger, said in his letter that he was equally certain that the Appeal Court would support that view in the event that the trial judge's sentence was appealed against.
My concern was that by setting out the statutory procedure in the Bill, far from ensuring that racial motivation was an aggravating factor which led to higher sentence in more cases, the contrary might in fact prove to be the case. My concern was based on two matters: first, the need to libel such an aggravation in the indictment or complaint; and secondly, uncertainty, at least so far as the face of the Bill is concerned, as to the basis upon which the sentencing judge was to be satisfied that the offence had indeed been racially aggravated.
It is of interest to contrast the terms of Clause 80 with those of Clause 69, dealing with the position in England, where there is no need to set out in any charge or any document served on the defendant before the trial the detail that requires to be libelled by virtue of the provisions of Clause 80.
In seeking to meet those concerns, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has tabled two other amendments, Amendments Nos. 131A and 139A. Perhaps I may deal with the second of those first.
The need to have evidence from only one witness—in other words, to dispense with the need for corroboration—to some extent meets the second of my concerns. But the first remains. I can envisage situations where, through no fault of the prosecutor, it is not set out on the complaint or the indictment that an assault, breach of the peace or malicious mischief whatever it may be, was racially motivated. Those facts may not be apparent from the terms of the police report placed before the prosecutor. Yet, when the case proceeds to trial, it may be abundantly clear to everyone in court that there was indeed such motivation.
In that event, even if the judge were entirely satisfied that the offence had been racially motivated he would not be entitled to take that into account in sentencing. One would envisage defence counsel drawing that matter to the attention of the sheriff or the judge in public and, far from meeting the concerns of victims who are members of ethnic minorities having quite the contrary effect. When one looks at the practicalities of the matter, I am concerned that this is a very retrograde step.
One can envisage situations in sheriff and jury or High Court trials when the aggravation is libelled but, for whatever reason, the jury deletes that aggravation from the charge when a conviction is returned and yet the judge, who has listened to the case, is entirely

927
satisfied, as indeed are members of the public and the victim. The judge would be bound by the provisions of this clause to disregard the matter, contrary to the position, as I understand it, in England.
I shall be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what are the views of the courts in Scotland as to the amendments which he has brought forward. He has sought to meet the concerns expressed in my letter to him, but, as it is the judges who will have to operate the sentence, I believe it would be valuable for your Lordships to be informed of that. It is against the background that this may lead to practical difficulties that I move Amendment No. 131.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall speak to Amendment No. 131, moved by the noble and Learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and to government Amendments Nos. 131A and 139A, which are grouped together. The noble and learned Lord has already referred to government Amendment No. 131A. I must apologise to your Lordships for the lack of notice given of the government amendments, but I wrote on 16th March to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about the Government's intentions, and a copy of the letter was placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for the interest he has shown in this provision and his assistance in identifying important issues which arise. The amendments which I shall move today follow from the correspondence we exchanged and which is in the Library of your Lordships' House.
All these amendments seek to clarify the standard of proof to be applied to racial aggravation in order that a judge be required when sentencing an offender to treat it as an aggravating factor.
At Committee, I undertook, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to table an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 131A and to make a statement to clarify the proposals contained in the Bill.
It is the Government's intention that the prosecution will be required to libel in an indictment or specify in a complaint that there was racial aggravation. That is clear from the terms of Clause 80.
Perhaps I may deal with the matter which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, in his speech this evening. With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, he suggests that it may be no fault on the part of the prosecutor that the aggravation was not libelled. In investigating offences, particularly offences involving ethnic minorities, I have much more confidence that the police authorities in Scotland and procurators fiscal will be alert to raise those issues at the stage of investigation. I would be astonished if a procurator fiscal failed to include such
928
an aggravation in a charge. I do not anticipate, therefore, that situations will arise where the aggravation was not libelled.
Furthermore, in relation to a jury deleting the aggravation, that is the same as any other aggravation. The jury has heard the evidence and it will be for the jury in a jury case, or for a judge sitting alone in a summary case, to decide whether the aggravation has been made out. If the sheriff sitting alone or the jury decide that the aggravation has not been made out, the proper thing for them to do is to delete the aggravation, just as they would delete any other aggravation.
In that situation, it would be inconceivable that the judge, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. should take it upon himself to impose a sentence which did not reflect the verdict of the jury; and took it upon himself to conclude that he or she should impose a greater sentence because he or she thought there was racial aggravation, notwithstanding the views of the jury who had heard the evidence and whose responsibility it is to determine the factual basis on which the judge should sentence.
It is clear from the amendment that I tabled that the charge and the complaint in the indictment would require to be established to the normal criminal standard of proof; namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. But in the amendment I also made clear that the aggravation would not require corroborated evidence. That is entirely fair and appropriate and consistent with our rules of evidence in other crimes in relation to aggravations.
The Government had always intended that the racial aggravation should not require corroboration. Arguably, that is the effect of the clause as it stands, but in view of the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, we think it preferable to put the matter beyond doubt by means of Amendment No. 139A. However, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, would remove (or specify) that the offence was racially aggravated. It would also leave the decision on sufficiency of evidence to the judge, notwithstanding the views of the jury, with which I dealt a few moments ago.
Racial aggravation is a serious matter which, if proved, would lead to an increased sentence. An accused person should be given proper notice of such an element when preparing for trial. Whatever the practice in other jurisdictions, it is the practice in Scotland to give accused persons fair and full notice of the charge or charges which they face, including aggravations. It would be no different in the case of racially aggravated offences.
As I indicated, the police and the Crown should be able to identify the aggravation at the stage of investigation to enable charges to be properly framed. I also believe it is appropriate and necessary that the prosecution be required to prove the aggravation before the aggravation can be taken into account at the stage of sentence.

929
The noble and learned Lord raised the hypothetical case where evidence of racial aggravation might arise during the course of a trial that had not been set out in the charges. It is our belief that where the racial element is sufficiently serious to justify being reflected in the sentence, it would have been evident at the time of the investigation and should properly be taken into account when preparing the charges and should in fact be featured in them to enable the court to impose the higher sentence.
We believe that this provision strikes the right balance between the need to take firm action to combat racial offences and the need to ensure fairness to the accused. In those circumstances, I would ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I should indicate that, in view of the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to press the amendment. However, I think it appropriate to respond briefly to one or two of the points that the Lord Advocate has made.
First, it was suggested that in some way the comments I made involved a criticism of, or a lack of faith in, the ability of the police or the procurator fiscal service to investigate crimes properly. I made no such suggestion explicitly and I hope that no such suggestion was implicit in anything I said. However, I take the same view as the Lord Justice—General took in his letter that such a motive may emerge during the course of evidence. In my experience as both a prosecutor and as a defence solicitor and counsel, I have had occasions when it was abundantly obvious to all the lawyers in the room that a piece of evidence which had emerged, whether from a Crown witness or a defence witness, had come as a surprise to all concerned. It is that which I had in mind in making the suggestion that I did.
So far as the need to label and prove such aggravations and how it would be inappropriate for a judge to take account of such aggravations in questions of sentence, I cannot get away from a point that has been made on more than one occasion in our debates on the Bill that none of this would be relevant were the offence to be one which was religiously motivated as opposed to one which was racially motivated. Therefore, I remain concerned that this will lead to practical difficulties.
I note that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not respond to my invitation to inform your Lordships as to what the court thinks of these proposals, thinks of this clause and thinks of these amendments in view of what was said by the senior judge, the Lord Justice—General, in his letter.
However, having regard to the lateness of the hour, it would not be appropriate to press the amendment to a Division. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 131A:
930
Page 69, line 17, leave out ("to the satisfaction of any court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 139 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 69, line 26, at end insert—
("and evidence from a single source shall he sufficient evidence to establish, for the purposes of this subsection that an offence is racially aggravated.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, 1 have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 81 [Remands and committals of children and young persons]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 141 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 142 or 143.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 142.
Page 69, line 35, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government are grateful to the human rights organisation, Liberty, for drawing the Government's attention to this potential anomaly relating to the legal representation of juveniles awaiting remand to secure accommodation. Clause 81 makes provision for the implementation of court—ordered secure remands. Clause 82 makes alternative arrangements for 15 and 16 year—old boys. In the latter case the current relevant legislation is Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 as modified by the transitory arrangements in Section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Subsection (4A) of Section 23 as modified by those provisions provides that a court shall not remand a 15 or 16 year—old boy to prison who is not legally represented unless he has applied for legal aid and the application was refused upon the grounds he had sufficient means, or having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply. The legal representation restriction is carried forward in Clause 82.
Clause 81, however, is based upon Section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by Section 60 of the 1991 Act, without the modifications in Section 62. That version does not contain a legal representation restriction comparable to subsection (4A). The result is that 15 and 16 year—old boys would need to be legally represented before they can be remanded by a court direct to secure accommodation while 12 to 14 year—olds and 15 and 16 year—old girls would not.
These four amendments correct this anomaly so that all juveniles facing the prospect of a court—ordered secure remand will need to be legally represented. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 69, line 36, after ("accommodation),") insert ("for the words "Subject to subsection (5) below," there shall he substituted the words "Subject to subsections (5) and (5A) below,".
() In subsection (5) of that section").
Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
("() After that subsection there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) A court shall not impose a security requirement in respect of a child or young person who is not legally represented in the court unless—

(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or

(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply." ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Remands and committals: alternative provision for 15 or 16 year old boys]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("to (5A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Power to release short—term prisoners on licence]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 71. line 30, after ("prisoner") insert ("aged 18 or over").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 146, 1 speak also to Amendment Nos. 147, 149, 150, 152 and 211. These amendments relate to those released from prison under home detention curfew on an electronic monitoring basis. Amendments Nos. 146, 149 and 150 restrict release under curfew to those aged 18 or over but with a power to amend that restriction. As regards Amendment No. 147, prisoners who are in custody as a result of breach of an electronically monitored curfew order will not be eligible for release on home detention curfew. Amendment No.152 establishes a means for offenders recalled to prison to be given the reasons for their recall and provides that they can make representations against the decision. Amendment No. 211 provides the phasing in of home detention curfew.
I undertook to respond to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which would have made 10 to 15 year—olds ineligible for home detention curfew. We recognised at the time the special considerations applying to them. That is why we are trialling court ordered monitoring orders for 10 to 15 year—olds separately from those for offenders aged 16 and over. We do not want to rule out the possibility that juveniles may at a future date be assisted by being considered
932
for release under home detention curfew. Therefore, we intend to restrict the scheme when it starts to those aged 18 and over, as proposed in Amendment No. 146.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 provide, subject to affirmative resolution, that that restriction can be repealed. We shall not take such a step before the trials of the curfew orders on 10 to 15 year—olds have been fully evaluated.
Clause 83 has a list of categories of offenders who will not be eligible for release. I made the point in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, a copy of which is in the Library, that those who fail to comply with a court ordered electronically monitored curfew order and as a result receive a custodial sentence should not benefit from release. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 147. 1 believe that I have explained Amendment No. 152 sufficiently.
Amendment No. 211 deals with providing a tapered introduction of the home detention curfew, so that there is not an unmanageably large number of releases on the first day of the scheme. With those explanations, I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry at this hour to rise in response to the Minister's introduction of this group of amendments. I welcome the fact that by tabling these amendments the noble Lord has done what he undertook to do, which is to provide for pilot schemes to see whether tagging will work for under—16s. In the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved in Committee, and which I supported, we pointed out the problems which might arise with the tagging of juveniles under 16. What concerns me is the fact that if the pilot schemes do not work, it appears to be the Government's intention to rule out altogether the possibility of the release on licence of the juveniles who are undergoing such sentences. Therefore, I must express more of a reservation than a welcome to the Minister's amendments, although this is not something on which I would seek to divide the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 71, line 38, at end insert—
("() the sentence was imposed under paragraph 3(1)(d) or 4(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to this Act in a case where the prisoner had failed to comply with a requirement of a curfew order;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 72, line 16, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall publish guidance as to the criteria which will qualify a prisoner for early release under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish guidance as to the criteria which would qualify a prisoner for early release under the provisions of Clause 83.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee and I shall not abuse Report stage proceedings or the patience of noble Lords at this hour by repeating all those arguments at length. However, the nub of the issue is that three months ago, at Second Reading when I raised this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to my noble friend Lord Henley, stating:
"I hope that we shall be in a position to show draft guidance on eligibility to the House by the time these provisions are considered in Committee".
In Committee, on 3rd March, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, responded to my amendment and he reaffirmed that it is the Government's intention to publish the criteria as part of the more detailed guidance that the Prison Service will use to assess suitability for home detention curfew. He said that the Government were currently preparing guidance and hoped to issue it shortly.
I believe that it is important that we have sight of the guidance before Third Reading. I think I am being extremely patient in waiting from Second Reading to Committee and now to Report stage in trying to learn what the Government mean by "shortly". I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us tonight—it is almost morning!—what stage that preparation of the guidance has now reached. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been patient. Time has passed. Work is still going on with the Prison and Probation Services to make sure that we get the guidance absolutely right. I am sorry that we have not yet been able to make the guidance available. I cannot say anything more attractively positive than that, but as soon as I have any clearer indication I shall write at once to the noble Baroness and ensure that a copy of that letter is placed in the Library.
The assessment will be on the basis of the potential threat to the public, the probability of reoffending or of failure to comply with conditions of curfew. We are in a new area and we have to be patient while officials work on these matters. I recognise that the position is not entirely satisfactory, but truthfully I am not able to give a more positive response.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his frank reply. I am sure that my patience can be extended a little further. I may well return to this matter at Third Reading in the hope that by then the Minister has been able to conclude his deliberations. I understand that the regulations break new ground and that many different considerations must he taken into account. I cannot say that I am grateful for the extent of the noble Lord's answer but certainly I appreciate his courtesy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 72, line 25. at end insert—
934
("() repeal the words "aged 18 or over" in subsection (1) above;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 72. line 29, at end insert ("repeal or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Curfew condition to be included in licence]:
[Amendment No.151 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 73. line 39. at end insert—
("(1A) A person whose licence under section 34A(3) above is revoked under this section—

(a) may make representations in writing with respect to the revocation:

(b) on his return to prison, shall he informed of the reasons for the revocation and of his right to make representations.

(1B) The Secretary of State, after considering any representations made under subsection (1A)(b) above or any other matters, may cancel a revocation under this section.
(1C) Where the revocation of a person's licence is cancelled under subsection (1B) above, the person shall be treated for the purposes of sections 34A(2)(e) and 37(1B) above as if he had not been recalled to prison under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 153:
Before Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
VIDEO RECORDINGS DESIGNATION
(" .—(1) In subsection (1)(a) of section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act") at the end, there shall he inserted the words "and having special regard to the likelihood of video works, in respect of which such certificates have been issued inciting their viewers to anti—social behaviour, crime or disorder".
(2) At the end of section 4 of the 1984 Act there shall he inserted the following new subsection—
"(9) The Secretary of State shall not make any designation under this section unless he is satisfied that adequate arrangements will he made for an appeal in prescribed circumstances against a determination on the grounds that a video work submitted for the issue of a classification is likely to incite its viewers to anti—social behaviour crime or disorder.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, more than 50 noble Lords from all parts of the House have generously supported this amendment, but in view of the lateness of the hour I believe that it would be inappropriate to move it. I hope to re-introduce the amendment at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 91. insert the following new clause—
DEPUTY AUTHORISING OFFICER UNDER PART III OF POLICE. ACT 1997
(".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 94 of the Police Act 1997 (authorisations given in absence of authorising officer). for the words "(f) or (g)" there shall he substituted the words "(f). (g) or
(2) In subsection (4) of that section the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect and after that paragraph there shall he inserted the words "and
(d) in the case of an authorising officer within paragraph (h) of section 93(5),means the customs officer designated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to act in his absence for the purposes of this paragraph."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the proposed new clause is to cure a minor but inconvenient defect in Part III of the Police Act 1997. By virtue of this part, police and customs officers may be authorised to enter and interfere with property for the purposes of the prevention or detection of serious crime without fear of claims of civil trespass or criminal damage. Part III is due to come into force early this summer.
The Act provides for a designated officer within each police force or other agency to authorise such operations. In HM Customs and Excise the proposal is to designate the chief investigation officer as the authorising officer. The Act also provides for the various agencies specified in the Act, but not customs, to have designated deputies to the authorising officers to act in their absence. Finally, the Act provides for urgent authorisations lasting 72 hours only to be made in writing by other senior police or customs officers.
The Act in its current form, however, enables the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to designate only one customs officer, the chief investigation officer, as the authorising officer and there is no provision to delegate a deputy to act as the authorising officer in his absence. As the Act currently stands, therefore, the chief investigation officer would be required personally to authorise all such operations or renew in writing within 72 hours every urgent authorisation given in writing by assistant chief investigation officers. This would clearly he impracticable given the other commitments of the chief investigation officer as the head of the Customs National Investigation Service. It is therefore necessary that this clause is introduced to rectify the position by enabling the deputy chief investigation officer to act as the authorising officer in the absence of the chief investigation officer. This clause will mirror the police arrangements under the Act.
With due apologies for appearing in this orchestra as the glockenspiel that plays two notes and then has 1,000 bars of tacet before coming back again. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause—
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
(" .—(1) Any person who, apart from this subsection would not have power to disclose information—

(a) to a relevant authority; or

(b) to a person acting on behalf of such an authority,

shall have power to do so in any case where the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purposes of any provision of this Act.
(2) In subsection (1) above "relevant authority" means—

(a) the chief officer of police for a police area in England and Wales:

the chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

936

(c) a police authority within the meaning given by section 101(1) of the Police Act 1996;

(d) a local authority, that is to say—

(i) in relation to England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;

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

(iii) in relation to Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;

(e) a probation committee in England and Wales;

(f) a health authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 160. Amendment No. 155 relates to the sharing of information. I gave an assurance to my noble friend Lady Hilton in Committee about concerns which related to disclosure or use of personal information where necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Bill. The purpose of the new clause is to provide power where there is none to allow for the disclosure by any person of information to relevant authorities or persons acting on their behalf, which is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Bill.
The authority to share information is essential to the partnership approach to crime and disorder which the Bill requires. Much sharing already occurs between agencies under existing statutory and common law powers; for instance, between police, probation service and others. We are concerned that there should be no gaps.
I shall make three short points. First, the amendment gives a power to disclose. It goes no further than that. Secondly, the disclosure is limited to that to and between the relevant statutory authorities—local authorities, police, probation service and health authorities, and those acting on their behalf. It is limited to what is necessary or expedient for the Bill, and goes no further.
Thirdly, the clause covers only those occasions where the power to disclose does not already exist. It does not therefore override existing powers or interfere with existing conventions or protocols. It merely means that a body or an individual may be certain of the power to disclose information. Amendment No. 160 contains a consequential amendment to ensure that this provision applies also to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [General interpretation]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 78, leave out line 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 156 to 221. I point out for your Lordships' assistance that Amendments Nos. 168, 177 and 191 have been withdrawn and replaced by Amendments Nos. 168A, 177A and 191A.
I could if pressed, indeed tempted, explain all the amendments in some detail, if only to get our own back. I shall not do that. The purposes of the amendments are dealt with fully, I hope in the letters of 11th and 12th March which I sent to the noble Lord. Lord Henley,

937
and copies of which I placed in the Library. They are technical amendments, and that is why, if it is convenient to your Lordships, at this time, in these circumstances, I shall deal with the amendments in that way.
I have already spoken to other amendments in the group. As I say, I am at your Lordships' disposal, but I do not believe that a further illumination or elucidation will be enormously helpful, bearing in mind, I hope, that the ground has been fully laid, as I indicated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 157 to 162:
Page 78, line 31, at end insert—
("(1A) In this Act—
"the 1993 Act" means the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and
"the 1995 Act" means the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.").
Page 79, line 12, after ("section,") insert ("section 91 above").
Page 79, line 26, leave out ("and 91") and insert (", 91 and 94(1A)").
Page 79, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) section (Disclosure of information);").
Page 79, line 33, after ("(3),") insert ("23, 23A,").
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE 2A TO THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982
SECTION 54(2C)
"SCHEDULE 2A
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY SEIZED UNDER SECTION
54(2A) OE THIS ACT
Application
1. This schedule applies to property seized under section 54(2A) of this Act.
Retention
2.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, property to which this Schedule applies may be retained for a period of twenty—eight days beginning with the day on which it was seized.
(2) Where proceedings for an offence are instituted within the period specified in sub-paragraph (1) above against any person, the property may he retained for a period beginning on the day on which it was seized and ending on the day when—

(a) the prosecutor certifies that the property is not, or is no longer, required as a production in criminal proceedings or for any purpose relating to such proceedings;

(b) the accused in such proceedings—

(i) is sentenced or otherwise dealt with for the offence; or

(ii) is acquitted of the offence: or

(c) the proceedings are expressly abandoned by the prosecutor or are deserted simpliciter.

Arrangements for custody of property
3.—(1) Subject to the proviso to section 17(3)(b) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (duty to comply with instructions received from prosecutor), the chief constable shall, in accordance with the
938
provisions of this Schedule, make such arrangements as he considers appropriate for the care, custody, return or disposal of property to which this Schedule applies.
(2) Any reference in this Schedule to property being in the possession of, delivered by or disposed of by, the chief constable includes a reference to its being in the possession of, delivered by or disposed of by, another person under arrangements made under sub-paragraph (1) above.
Disposal
4. Where the period of retention permitted by paragraph 2 above expires and the chief constable has reason to believe that the person from whom the property was seized is not the owner or the person having right to possession of it, he shall take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the owner or of the person with that right and to notify him of the procedures determined under paragraph 5(1) below.
5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) below, the owner or any person having right to possession of any property to which this Schedule applies and which, at the expiry of the period of retention permitted by paragraph 2 above, is in the possession of the chief constable may at any time prior to its disposal under paragraph 6 below claim that property in accordance with such procedure as the chief constable may determine.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) below, where the chief constable considers that the person making a claim in accordance with the procedure determined under sub-paragraph (1) above is the owner of the property or has a right to possession of it, he shall deliver the property to the claimant.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, the chief constable may impose such conditions connected with the delivery to the claimant of property under sub-paragraph (2) above as he thinks fit and without prejudice to that generality, such conditions may relate to the payment of such reasonable charges (including any reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the property by or on behalf of him) as he may determine.
(4) No condition relating to the payment of any charge shall be imposed by the chief constable on the owner or person having right of possession of the property where he is satisfied that that person did not know, and had no reason to suspect that the property to which this Schedule applies was likely to he used in a manner which gave rise to its seizure.
(5) This paragraph does not apply where the period of retention expires in such manner as is mentioned in paragraph 2(2)(b)(i) above and the court by which he was convicted has made a suspended forfeiture order or a restraint order in respect of the property to which this Schedule applies.
(6) This paragraph shall cease to apply where at any time—

(a) the property to which this Schedule applies—

(i) is seized under any other power available to a constable; or

(ii) passes into the possession of the prosecutor; or

(b) proceedings for an offence are instituted, where the property to which this Schedule applies is required as a production.

6.—(1) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the chief constable may—

(a) sell property to which this Schedule applies; or

(b) if in his opinion it would be impracticable to sell such property, he may dispose of it.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) at any time after the expiry of the relevant period where, within that period—

(i) no claim has been made under paragraph 5 above; or

(ii) any such a claim which has been made has been rejected by the chief constable: and

939

(b) where a claim has been made under paragraph 5 above and not determined within the relevant period, at any time after the rejection of that claim by the chief constable.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) above, the "relevant period" means a period of six months beginning with the day on which the period of retention permitted by paragraph 2 above expired.
(4) Sections 71, 72 and 77(1) of this Act shall apply to a disposal under this paragraph as they apply to a disposal under section 68 of this Act.
Appeals
7.—(1) A claimant under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 above may appeal to the sheriff against any decision of the chief constable made under that paragraph as respects the claim.
(2) The previous owner of any property disposed of for value under paragraph 6 above may appeal to the sheriff against any decision of the chief constable made under section 72 of this Act as applied by sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph.
(3) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 76 of this Act shall apply to an appeal under this paragraph as they apply to an appeal under that section.
Interpretation
8. In this Schedule—
"chief constable" means the chief constable for the police area in which the property to which this Schedule applies was seized, and includes a constable acting under the direction of the chief constable for the purposes of this Schedule;
"restraint order" shall be construed in accordance with section 28(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995;
"suspended forfeiture order" shall be construed in accordance with section 21(2) of that Act." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Procedure where persons are sent for trial under section 42]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:
Page 83, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert ("shall, on or before the relevant date—

(a) be served on that person; and

(b) be given to the Crown Court sitting at the place specified in the notice under subsection (5) of that section.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the relevant date" means the date prescribed by the regulations.").
Page 86, line 4, at end insert—
("Power of justice to take depositions etc.
.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where a justice of the peace for any commission area is satisfied that—

(a) any person in England and Wales ("the witness") is likely to be able to make on behalf of the prosecutor a written statement containing material evidence, or produce on behalf of the prosecutor a document or other exhibit likely to be material evidence, for the purposes of proceedings for an offence for which a person has been sent for trial under section 42 of this Act by a magistrates' court for that area; and

(b) the witness will not voluntarily make the statement or produce the document or other exhibit.

(2) In such a case the justice shall issue a summons directed to the witness requiring him to attend before a justice at the time and place appointed in the summons, and to have his evidence taken as a deposition or to produce the document or other exhibit.
(3) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, and also that it is probable that a summons under sub-paragraph (2) above would
940
not procure the result required by it, the justice may instead of issuing a summons issue a warrant to arrest the witness and to bring him before a justice at the time and place specified in the warrant.
(4) A summons may also be issued under sub-paragraph (2) above if the justice is satisfied that the witness is outside the British Islands, but no warrant may be issued under sub-paragraph (3) above unless the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that the witness is in England and Wales.
(5) If—

(a) the witness fails to attend before a justice in answer to a summons under this paragraph;

(b) the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that the witness is likely to be able to make a statement or produce a document or other exhibit as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above;

(c) it is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served with the summons and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses; and

(d) it appears to the justice that there is no just excuse for the failure,

the justice may issue a warrant to arrest the witness and to bring him before a justice at the time and place specified in the warrant.
(6) Where—

(a) a summons is issued under sub-paragraph (2) above or a warrant is issued under sub-paragraph (3) or (5) above; and

(b) the summons or warrant is issued with a view to securing that the witness has his evidence taken as a deposition,

the time appointed in the summons or specified in the warrant shall be such as to enable the evidence to be taken as a deposition before the relevant date.
(7) If any person attending or brought before a justice in pursuance of this paragraph refuses without just excuse to have his evidence taken as a deposition, or to produce the document or other exhibit, the justice may do one or both of the following—

(a) commit him to custody until the expiration of such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the summons or warrant or until he sooner has his evidence taken as a deposition or produces the document or other exhibit;

(b) impose on him a fine not exceeding £2,500.

(8) A fine imposed under sub-paragraph (7) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.
(9) If in pursuance of this paragraph a person has his evidence taken as a deposition, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the deposition to the prosecutor and the Crown Court.
(10) If in pursuance of this paragraph a person produces an exhibit which is a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the document to the prosecutor and the Crown Court.
(11) If in pursuance of this paragraph a person produces an exhibit which is not a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the prosecutor and the Crown Court of that fact and of the nature of the exhibit.
(12) In this paragraph—
"prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the 1980 Act;
"the relevant date" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(2) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enforcement etc. of drug treatment and testing orders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 92, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Paragraph 6A above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 3 above, but as if for the words "paragraph 3(1)(d) above" there were substituted the words "paragraph 14A(5)(b) below".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enforcement etc. of reparation and action plan orders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 95, line 42, after ("from") insert ("subsection (4B) of section 18 and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Pre-consolidation amendments: powers of criminal courts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 167 to 196:
Page 99, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
"(6) In relation to any other child or young person, references in this section to his parent shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987." ").
Page 99, leave out line 25 and insert—
("(3) Subsection (3) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(4) For subsection (5) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(5) Where under subsection (1) above a magistrates' court commits a person to he dealt with by the Crown Court in respect of an offence, the Crown Court may after inquiring into the circumstances of the case deal with him in any way in which the magistrates' court could deal with him if it had just convicted him of the offence.
(5A) Subsection (5) above does not apply where under subsection (1) above a magistrates' court commits a person to be dealt with by the Crown Court in respect of a suspended sentence, but in such a case the powers under section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (power of court to deal with suspended sentence) shall be exercisable by the Crown Court.
(5B) Without prejudice to subsections (5) and (5A) above, where under subsection (1) above or any enactment to which this section applies a magistrates' court commits a person to be dealt with by the Crown Court, any duty or power which, apart from this subsection, would fall to be discharged or exercised by the magistrates' court shall not be discharged or exercised by that court but shall instead be discharged or may instead be exercised by the Crown Court.
(5C) Where under subsection (1) above a magistrates' court commits a person to be dealt with by the Crown Court in respect of an offence triable only on indictment in the case of an adult (being an offence which was tried summarily because of the offender's being under 18 years of age), the Crown Court's powers under subsection (5) above in respect of the offender after he attains the age of 18 years shall be as follows—

(a) it may impose a fine not exceeding £5,000; or

(b) it may deal with the offender in respect of the offence in any way in which the magistrates' court could deal with him if it had just convicted him of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(5D) For the purposes of this section the age of an offender shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence."
(5) Subsection (13) of that section shall cease to have effect.").
Page 99, line 27, leave out ("section 7(8)") and insert ("subsection (8) of section 7").
Page 99, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) After that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—
"(9) The reference in subsection (8) above to a person's parent shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (and not in accordance with section 70(1A) of this Act)." ").
Page 99, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) for the words "his detention in pursuance of a hospital order under Part III" there shall be substituted the words "the making of a hospital order or guardianship order within the meaning";").
Page 99, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) treatment by or under the direction of a chartered psychologist specified in the order;";").
Page 100, line 5, at end insert ("and "chartered psychologist" means a person for the time being listed in the British Psychological Society's Register of Chartered Psychologists." ").
Page 100, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
"(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 54 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall have effect with respect to proof for the purposes of subsection (1) above of a supervised person's mental condition as they have effect with respect to proof of an offender's mental condition for the purposes of section 37(2)(a) of that Act." ").
Page 100, line 8, leave out from ("In") to third ("of') and insert ("subsection (1)(a) of section 16A of the 1969 Act (application of sections 17 to 19").
Page 100, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) In subsection (2)(b) of that section—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after the word "from" there shall be inserted the words "subsection (4A) of section 18 and"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for the words "subsection (6)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (4B) of section 18 and subsection (6) of section 19".").

Page 100, line 41, at end insert—
(".—(1) In subsection (9) of section 1B of the 1973 Act (commission of further offence by person conditionally discharged), for the words from "those which" to the end there shall be substituted the words "powers to do one of the following—

(a) to impose a fine not exceeding £5,000 for the offence in respect of which the order was made; or

(b) to deal with the offender for that offence in any way in which a magistrates' court could deal with him if it had just convicted him of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(2) Subsection (10) of that section (which is superseded by provision inserted by this Schedule in section 57 of the 1973 Act) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 100, line 43, after ("discharge),") insert—
("(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "the following provisions" there shall be substituted the words "section 1B"; and
(b)")
Page 100, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 2(1) of the 1973 Act (probation orders), the words from "For the purposes" to "available evidence" (which are superseded by provision inserted by this Schedule in section 57 of the 1973 Act) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 101, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 23 and insert—
(".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 14 of the 1973 Act (community service orders in respect of convicted persons), after the word "imprisonment", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "(not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 2(2), 3(2) or 4(2) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997)".
(2) In that subsection, after the words "young offenders" there shall he inserted the words "; and for the purposes of this subsection a sentence falls to be imposed under section 2(2), 3(2) or 4(2) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 if it is required by that provision and the court is not of the opinion there mentioned".
(3) In subsection (7) of that section,").
Page 102, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (6) of that section—

(a) the words "about committal by a magistrates' court to the Crown Court" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after the words "dealt with him" there shall be inserted the words "or could deal with him".").

Page 102, line 20, at end insert—
(". In section 46 of the 1973 Act (reports of probation officers), after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to an offender's parent shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987; and

(b) "guardian" has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933." ").

Page 102, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) After subsection (6) of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
"(7) For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court, his age shall be deemed to he that which it appears to the court to he after considering any available evidence." ").
Page 103, line 19, at end insert—
(" .—(1) In subsection (2) of section 38 of the 1980 Act (committal for sentence on summary trial of offence triable either way), the words ", in accordance with section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967," shall cease to have effect.
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Where the court commits a person under subsection (2) above, section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which enables a magistrates' court, where it commits a person under this section in respect of an offence, also to commit him to the Crown Court to be dealt with in respect of certain other offences) shall apply accordingly."
.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 38A of the 1980 Act (committal for sentence on indication of guilty plea to offence triable either way), the words ", in accordance with section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967," shall cease to have effect.
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, for the words "the court might have dealt with him" there shall be substituted the words "the magistrates' court could deal with him if it had just convicted him of the offence".
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) Where the court commits a person under subsection (2) above, section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which enables a magistrates' court, where it commits a person under this section in respect of an offence, also to commit him to the Crown Court to be dealt with in respect of certain other offences) shall apply accordingly." ").
Page 103, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 44 and insert—
(".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 17 of the 1982 Act (attendance centre orders), for the words "Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below," there shall be substituted the words "Where a person
944
under 21 years of age is convicted by or before a court of an offence punishable with imprisonment (not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 2(2), 3(2) or 4(2) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997), or".
(2) In that subsection, for paragraph (a) there shall he substituted the following paragraph—
"(a) would have power, but for section 1 above, to commit a person under 21 years of age to prison in default of payment of any sum of money or for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to he done or left undone, or".
(3) In that subsection, in paragraph (b), for the words "any such person" there shall be substituted the words "a person under 21 years of age" and after that paragraph").
Page 103, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) the reference to an offence punishable with imprisonment shall be construed without regard to any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment on the imprisonment of young offenders; and

(b) a sentence falls to be imposed under section 2(2), 3(2) or 4(2) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 if it is required by that provision and the court is not of the opinion there mentioned." ").

Page 104, line 10, at end insert—
(" .—(1) In section 18 of the 1982 Act (discharge and variation of attendance centre orders), for subsection (4A) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4A) Any power conferred by this section—

(a) on a magistrates' court to discharge an attendance centre order made by such a court, or

(b) on the Crown Court to discharge an attendance centre order made by the Crown Court,

includes power to deal with the offender, for the offence in respect of which the order was made, in any manner in which he could have been dealt with for that offence by the court which made the order if the order had not been made.
(4B) A person sentenced by a magistrates' court under subsection (4A) above for an offence may appeal to the Crown Court against the sentence."
(2) Subsection (7) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(3) In that section, after subsection (9) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(10) Where an offender has been ordered to attend at an attendance centre in default of the payment of a sum of money or for such a failure or abstention as is mentioned in section 17(1)(a) above, subsection (4A) above shall have effect in relation to the order as if the words ", for the offence in respect of which the order was made," and "for that offence" were omitted.
(11) Where an attendance centre order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of this section it shall be deemed—

(a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;

(b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

and subsection (4A) above shall have effect in relation to an attendance centre order made on appeal as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted."
.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 19 of the 1982 Act (breaches of attendance centre orders or attendance centre rules), for the words "has been made" there shall be substituted the words "is in force".
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, after the word "failed" there shall be inserted the words "without reasonable excuse".
(3) After subsection (7) of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
"(8) Where an offender has been ordered to attend at an attendance centre in default of the payment of a sum of money or for such a failure or abstention as is mentioned in section 17(1)(a) above, subsections (3) and (5) above shall have effect in relation to the order as if the words ", for the offence in respect of which the order was made," and "for that offence" were omitted.
(9) Where an attendance centre order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of this section it shall be deemed—

(a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;

(b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

and, in relation to an attendance centre order made on appeal, subsection (3)(a) above shall have effect as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted and subsection (5) above shall have effect as if the words "if it had not made the order" were omitted." ").
Page 104, line 48, at end insert—
(". In each of subsections (3)(b) and (4)(a) of section 57 of the 1991 Act (responsibility of parent of guardian for financial penalties), for the words "section 35(4)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "section 35(4)".").
Page 105, line 3, after ("section,") insert—
("(a) "guardian" has the same meaning as in the 1933 Act; and
(b)")
Page 106, line 19, leave out from ("offence"") to end of line 20.
Page 106, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) After paragraph 6 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"6A.—(1) Where a relevant order was made by a magistrates' court in the case of an offender under 18 years of age in respect of an offence triable only on indictment in the case of an adult, any powers exercisable under paragraph 3(1)(d) above by that or any other court in respect of the offender after he has attained the age of 18 years shall be powers to do one of the following—

(a) to impose a fine not exceeding £5,000 for the offence in respect of which the order was made; or

(b) to deal with the offender for that offence in any way in which a magistrates' court could deal with him if it had just convicted him of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) above any reference to an offence punishable with imprisonment shall be construed without regard to any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment on the imprisonment of young offenders."
( ) In paragraph 7(5) of that Schedule, after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "for an offence".").
Page 107, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("Where") in line 32 and insert ("paragraphs—
"11A. Paragraph 6A above shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 7 and 8 above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 3 above, but as if in paragraph 6A(1) for the words "powers exercisable under paragraph 3(1)(d) above" there were substituted the words "powers to deal with the offender which are exercisable under paragraph 7(2)(a)(ii) or 8(2)(b) below".
11B.").
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
(" .—(1) In subsection (2)(a) of section 35 of the 1997 Act (community sentences for fine defaulters), for the words "and (11)" there shall be substituted the words ", (10) and (11)".
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect.
946
(3) In that subsection, the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect and after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following paragraphs—
"(f) the reference in paragraph 7(1)(b) of that Schedule to the offence in respect of which the order was made shall be construed as a reference to the default in respect of which the order was made;
(g) the power conferred by paragraph 7(2)(a)(ii) of that Schedule to deal with an offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made shall be construed as a power to deal with the person in respect of whom the order was made for his default in paying the sum in question; and
(h) paragraph 8(2)(b) of that Schedule shall not apply."
(4) In subsection (7) of that section, for the words "section 12(5)" there shall be substituted the words "section 12(6)".
(5) In subsection (8) of that section, the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect and after paragraph (b) there shall be added the following paragraphs—
"(c) the reference in paragraph 7(1)(b) of that Schedule to the offence in respect of which the order was made shall be construed as a reference to the default in respect of which the order was made;
(d) the power conferred by paragraph 7(2)(a)(ii) of that Schedule to deal with an offender for the offence in respect of which the order was made shall be construed as a power to deal with the person in respect of whom the order was made for his default in paying the sum in question; and
(e) paragraph 8(2)(b) of that Schedule shall not apply."
(6) In subsection (10) of that section, for the words "subsection (2)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2)(a) or (b)".
.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 37 of the 1997 Act (community sentences for persistent petty offenders)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "(4) and (6)" there shall be substituted the words "(4), (5A) and (6)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "(5) and (6)" there shall be substituted the words "(5), (5A) and (6)".

(2) For subsections (4) and (5) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) In this section "community service order" has the same meaning as in the 1973 Act and—

(a) section 14(2) of that Act; and

(b) so far as applicable, the other provisions of that Act relating to community service orders and the provisions of Part I of the 1991 Act so relating,

shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (3)(a) above as they have effect in relation to a community service order made under the 1973 Act in respect of an offender.
(5) In this section "curfew order" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1991 Act and—

(a) section 12(6) of that Act; and

(b) so far as applicable, the other provisions of that Part relating to curfew orders,

shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (3)(b) above as they have effect in relation to a curfew order made under that Act in respect of an offender.
(5A) A court shall not make an order under subsection (3)(a) or (b) above in respect of a person who is under 16."").
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
(". In section 50 of the 1997 Act (disclosure of pre-sentence reports), after subsection (6) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(7) In this section "guardian" has the same meaning as in the 1933 Act."").
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
(". In section 54 of the 1997 Act (general interpretation), after subsection (3) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(4) For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court, his age shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence." ").
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
(". In section 55(2) of the 1997 Act (interpretation of minor and consequential amendments), for the words "in any case where" (in both places where they occur) there shall be substituted the word "and"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 210.
Page 109, line 44, at end insert—
("Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)
. In subsection (3) of section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against sentence in other cases dealt with at Crown Court), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(cc) where the court makes such an order with regard to him as is mentioned in section 40(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991." ").
Page 110, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert—
(" "(1A) Subsection (1)(b) above has effect subject to section 54(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (effect of reprimands and warnings)." ").
Page 111, leave out lines 18 to 28 and insert—
("19. After subsection (8) of section 14 of the 1973 Act (community service orders) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) In the case of an offender under the age of 18 years—

(a) references in subsections (2), (5)(c) or (6) above to a probation officer include references to a member of a youth offending team; and

(b) the reference in subsection (4) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the area for the time being specified in the order includes a reference to a member of a youth offending team established by the local authority within whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside." ").

Page 111, line 30, at end insert—
(". In subsection (1) of section 46 of the 1973 Act (reports of probation officers), after the words "probation officer" there shall be inserted the words "or a member of a youth offending team".").
Page 111, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Interpretation
7. In the case of an offender under the age of 18 years, references in this Schedule to a probation officer include references to a member of a youth offending team."").
Page 112, line 7, at end insert—
("23A. In subsection (2) of section 7 of that Act (limitations on rehabilitation under Act etc.), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) in any proceedings on an application for a sex offender order under section 2 or, as the case may be, 19 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or in any appeal against the making of such an order;".").
Page 119, line 2, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
Page 119, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of any enactment conferring rights of appeal in criminal cases, any such order as is mentioned in subsection (2) above made with regard to any person shall be treated as a sentence passed on him for the offence for which the sentence referred to in subsection (1) above was passed."").
Page 120, line 40, leave out ("In sub-paragraph (1)(d) of paragraph 3") and insert ("After sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1").
Page 120, line 41, after ("orders),") insert ("there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(5) Where a drug treatment and testing order has been made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court, or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule it shall be deemed to have been made by the Crown Court."
( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(d) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule").
Page 121, line 15, leave out ("Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993") and insert ("1993 Act").
Page 121, line 24, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1993").
Page 121, line 30, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1993").
Page 123, line 17, leave out ("("the 1998 Act")"). On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 128, line 30, at end insert—
("Power to release short-term prisoners on licence
.—(1) Section 83 of this Act does not apply in relation to a prisoner who, immediately before the commencement of that section, has served one or more days more than the requisite period for the term of his sentence.
(2) In this paragraph "the requisite period" has the same meaning as in section 34A of the 1991 Act (which is inserted by section 83 of this Act).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 212 to 221:
Page 130, line 14, column 3, leave out ("34(1)(c)") and insert ("34, in subsection (1), paragraph (a) and, in paragraph (c)").
Page 130, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert—

("Section 1B(10).")

Page 130. line 27, column 3, at end insert—

("and the words from "For the purposes" to "available evidence"")

Page 130, line 34, column 3, leave out second ("and").
Page 130, line 35, column 3, at end insert—

(", and, in subsection (6), the words "about committal by a magistrates' court to the Crown Court"")

Page 130, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("In sections 38(2) and 38A(2), the words ", in accordance with section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967,".")

Page 131, line 3, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 18(7).")

Page 132, line 24, column 3, leave out ("section 35(19(a),") and insert—

("section 35, in subsection (5), paragraph (c) and the

949

word "and" at the end of paragraph (d), and in subsection (8), in paragraph (a),")

Page 132, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("and the word "and" at the end of that paragraph")

Page 133, line 54, at end insert—

("1997 c.50.

Police Act 1997.

In section 94(4), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (c).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before midnight.

  Iraq: Relief Measures
  Iraq: Relief Measures
  Law Commission Reports: Implementation
  Law Commission Reports: Implementation
  Forestry Commission Land
  Forestry Commission Land
  BSE Infectivity in Dorsal Root Ganglia
  BSE Infectivity in Dorsal Root Ganglia
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  NATO Enlargement: Cost
  NATO Enlargement: Cost
  Iraq: "Sabahiyah" Incident
  Iraq: "Sabahiyah" Incident
  Asylum Applicants: Exceptional Leave
  Asylum Applicants: Exceptional Leave
  Immigration Advisory Service: Grant
  Immigration Advisory Service: Grant
  Victims of Nazi Persecution: Files on Release of Assets
  Victims of Nazi Persecution: Files on Release of Assets
  Vehicle Excise Duty Exemptions
  Vehicle Excise Duty Exemptions
  Local Authority Housing Transfers
  Local Authority Housing Transfers
  Northern Ireland Computerised Cattle Traceability System: Demonstration
  Northern Ireland Computerised Cattle Traceability System: Demonstration
  "Spouse": Interpretation
  "Spouse": Interpretation